Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect what my friend on the other side of the aisle has to say, but, again, I respectfully disagree. Once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. That would have but one effect: to preserve the freedom to run riot that Washington bureaucrats have enjoyed for decades as they have racked up roughly $2 trillion in regulatory burdens on the American people. The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms workplace safety rules issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health Administration to reduce traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease. I would urge my colleagues to read the bill and listen more closely. The bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will produce better rules, smarter rules, less costly rules. That will free up resources for desperately needed job creation, meaning more workers will have more safe workplaces in which to earn a living. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, one last time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. One last time, that attempt should be rejected. We need a strong judiciary, not a supine one, to stand up to agency overreach and abuse and protect the liberty and property of the America from the long hands of Washington's restless bureaucrats. The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms rules issued under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Chemical safety is important to all of us. Congress worked hard on chemical safety legislation. But it is smarter regulations, supported by sounder science, at less cost that will best produce chemical safety under that act. That is precisely the kind of regulation that will happen once the 21st century rulemaking reforms in the Regulatory Accountability Act become law. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, this bill's bold reforms deliver the heart of the regulatory reform this Nation desperately needs; and I cannot overstate how desperately we need it because, after 8 years of the Obama administration's blowout administrative state, what do we have? We have an economy that for 8 straight years has failed to produce enough good, new, full-time jobs to sustain growth and restore dignity to the unemployed. We have 92 million Americans outside the workforce, a level not seen since the Carter years. We have nearly $2 trillion of American wealth commandeered each year to be spent as Washington bureaucrats demand, through runaway regulation--$2 trillion. This is more money than the GDP of all but eight countries in the world. We do not need a regulatory state that is that size; we need a regulatory system that is cut down to size. And lest we ever forget, we need a regulatory system that never again allows a runaway executive branch to do what the Obama administration did: use a pen and a phone to undertake an end run around Congress and force on the American people job-crushing policies that their elected representatives in Congress never supported. This motion to recommit turns a blind eye to all of that. It says to the runaway administrative state: Keep on running as fast as you can; we don't care. It says to the American people: Sit down and be quiet. Washington bureaucrats are your betters, and you need to just keep doing what they tell you to do. Well, the hardworking taxpayers have spoken and yanked the boots of unelected bureaucrats off the throats of hardworking Americans. Enough is enough. Support this bill. Reject this motion to recommit. Show the American people that they come first, not bureaucrats in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the REINS Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for taking charge of this bill in the 115th Congress and Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte for quickly bringing it to the floor. This week and next, the primary focus of debate here in the House is the stranglehold of regulation on the economy and its intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans. These onerous burdens are well-known to Members of Congress on both sides. Over the past several years, I have spent countless hours traveling across the nearly 6,600 square miles of my district. I have met with my constituents in their homes, in their workplaces and social halls. They have pleaded with me for release from the regulations that limit their ability to prosper, innovate, and grow. Unlike the nameless, faceless, ever-growing bureaucracy here in Washington, we have listened to the people's concerns. We have made regulatory reform a priority and the focal point for jump-starting our economy. By placing final approval of major regulations in the hands of Congress, the REINS Act is an important launch point in our efforts to dismantle the administrative state and make government more accountable to the American people. Our Founders vested in Congress--and Congress alone--the power to write the laws. Unfortunately, over our history, we have delegated much of that power away. The Founders could not have imagined our current scenario where the complaints of many fall on the deaf ears of an unelected few in Washington. Thinking over the past 8 years, the REINS Act could have prevented numerous regulations that the American people knew were threats to their very way of life. Perhaps a trillion dollars in costs could have been avoided. I cannot even imagine how many jobs might have been saved or created if we avoided the regulatory barrage brought on by the Obama administration. For example, we could have prevented the waters of the United States regulation that impacts the farmers near my home in rural Pennsylvania. The FCC's net neutrality rule might have been overturned, a classic rulemaking bait and switch where the FCC ignored the mountains of public comment to achieve its own political ends. An unaccountable sum of environmental regulations might have been avoided before destroying large swaths of our industry and imposing huge costs on taxpayers. Our prime takeaway from these instances and others is that the runaway regulators issued wide-ranging and economy-destroying regulations with complete disregard for the hardworking American citizens whose livelihoods were at stake. Today we take an important step to reassert the voice of the American people in our government. The REINS Act reestablishes the Congress as the final judge of whether or not any particular regulation actually does what the Congress meant it to do. Returning this responsibility to the branch of government most attentive and accountable to the people adheres to the principles of our Nation's founding. It is an effort that all elected to Congress should support. I urge my colleagues to support the REINS Act.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment renders congressional findings on climate change and requires that agencies report to Congress on greenhouse gas impacts associated with a rule. It also requires agencies to report on a rule's effect on low-income and rural communities. Further, the amendment expands the definition of major rule to include rules that allow increases of carbon emissions by more than 25,000 metric tons per year or that might increase the risk of certain diseases in rural or low-income communities. I oppose this amendment. The REINS Act is not designed to address one or two subjects of regulation with heightened scrutiny but not others. It is to restore accountability to the people's elected representatives in Congress for the largest regulatory decisions, whatever subject is involved. Further, and consistent with that, the addition of congressional findings in one policy area--climate change--but no other, has no place in the REINS Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule reducing the incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory diseases in children. But do not be fooled. This amendment is not about reducing these maladies. It is about transferring the power to decide how best to do so from elected representatives to unaccountable bureaucrats. For example, government could substantially reduce teenage mortality by barring teenage drivers off the road. Of course, there would be a substantial cost to that policy, and there are surely less burdensome ways to achieve the same reductions in mortality. The right decision requires a delicate balancing of interest. Agencies can provide valuable expertise, but, when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people. That is the intuition behind the REINS Act and the fundamental point that is lost on those who oppose it. Reducing the incidence of mortality and serious disease is a goal that all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected representatives decide how best to achieve that policy so that our Republic remains a government by the people as the Constitution designed. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule pertaining to health or public safety. Health and public safety regulations done properly serve important goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals; but Federal health and public safety regulations constitute an immense part of total Federal regulation and have been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job- and wage-destroying regulations. To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower cumulative regulatory costs and increase the accountability of our regulatory system and the Congress to the people, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reforms regulations that would reduce the amount of lead in public drinking water. But, like other amendments, this amendment is not so much about achieving a particular health or safety result. It is about taking the decision on how best to do that away from elected Representatives and handing it down to unaccountable bureaucrats. Agencies can provide valuable expertise, but when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected officials who are accountable to the people. This is the intuition behind the REINS Act, and the fundamental point is lost on its opponents. Preventing dangerous levels of lead in our drinking water is a goal all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected Representatives decide how best to achieve that policy so that our Republic remains a government by the people, as the Constitution designed. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate what our position is, it is about time that we in D.C.--in Congress--take our responsibility back from unelected bureaucrats and make these decisions. We have seen, over the past 8 years, what overburdensome regulation has done to this country as far as crushing jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reforms regulations intended to protect young children and infants from harm. Child safety is a goal all Members share, but to shield bureaucrats who write child safety regulations from accountability to Congress is no way to guarantee a child's safety. The only thing that would guarantee is less careful decisionmaking and more insulation of faceless bureaucrats from the public. The Constitution entrusts to Congress the authority to protect children--and all citizens--from harmful products flowing in interstate commerce. The public should be able to trust Congress--and we should trust ourselves--to make sure that Washington bureaucrats make the right decisions to protect child safety when we delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the REINS Act doesn't prevent the bureaucracy, the agencies, from making recommendations and suggestions to Congress. It simply says Congress will have the last word and not a handful of bureaucrats, and many of them don't even have experience in these areas. I urge my colleagues to not support this amendment but to support the REINS Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.