Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures regulations that attempt to improve employment, retention, and earnings, particularly for those with significant barriers to employment. The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives agencies to manipulate their analysis of a major regulation's jobs and wages impacts. Far too often, agencies will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement. In addition, regulations alleged to create new job prospects often do so by destroying real, existing jobs and creating new, hoped-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules have shut down existing power plants all over the country, throwing myriads of workers out of work. EPA and OMB attempt to justify that with claims that more new green jobs have been created as a result. In the end, this is just another way in which government picks the jobs winners and the jobs losers, and there is no guarantee that all of the new green jobs will ever actually exist. The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose between new jobs and old jobs. Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It chooses the way the Framers intended in which accountability for laws with major economic impact rests with Congress. It rejects the way Washington has operated for too long in which there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. 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, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in nuclear safety. We want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made. That is precisely why I oppose the amendment. By its terms, the amendment shields from the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them. All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards, whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS Act. That way agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety would know that Congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. It is a solution that everyone should support because it makes Congress more accountable and ensures agencies will write better rules. All Americans will be safer for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, once again, this administration has proven how thousands of regulations have crushed jobs for the middle class people in this country. The REINS Act does designate and allows and wants agencies to make decisions as far as what they think the law should be and send it to Congress. We do have the time. We have the resources and the knowledge. That is why we have full committees. That is why we have subcommittees and we have experts come in and testify. Yet, we still need to get back--that the 535 Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, make the final decision and not a handful of unelected bureaucrats. 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, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reform regulations that concern natural gas or hazardous materials pipeline safety or the prevention of pipeline spills and their adverse impacts. We all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harm from pipeline spills, but there is no assurance that the amendment would guarantee the achievement of those goals. On the contrary, the amendment would shield from congressional accountability procedures, regulations, that actually threaten to decrease safety. They also would shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new, ideologically driven regulations intended to impede America's access to new sources of cheap, clean, and plentiful natural gas. The legislative body is the legislative body. We are trying to have oversight over the bureaucracy. The House and the Senate is not a bureaucracy. It is a legislative body, according to the Constitution that represents the people of the United States. Therefore, the House and the Senate and the President should have the last say in whether something becomes law or not. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, what better group, such as the Committee on Energy and Commerce or other committees here, the full committees, the subcommittees, would be looking out and should be looking out for the public safety and the welfare than the 535 Members of Congress? 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 carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures any workplace safety rules issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health Administration to reduce traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease. But please 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, being House Members and Senators, to unaccountable bureaucrats. Arriving at the right decision requires a delicate balancing of interests. 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 its opponents. Preventing workplace injury is a goal all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected Representatives make the final call about major decisions so that our Republic remains a government by the people as the Constitution's Framers designed. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, first of all, I fully support Congressman King's amendment. It improves the viability of the REINS Act and makes sure that the responsibility of legislation is in the hands of we legislators. Let me just ask this simple question. My good friend on the other side says that we should let the agencies and departments regulate and make rules. Let me ask this: How has it been going in the last 20 years in this country? We are $20 trillion in debt, and 20 million people are out of work or underemployed. Are we going to continue to let bureaucrats make these decisions that crush jobs? No, I don't think so. It is our responsibility in the House and it is our responsibility in the Senate. We can hear from those individuals, as I have repeatedly said here, in those agencies. We need to make the final decision because just look at the track record over the last 20, 30 years of unelected bureaucrats making these rules, laws, and regulations.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Midnight Rules Relief Act. Recently, impossible opportunities exist for this body to reassert its authority and work on behalf of the American people. The Midnight Rules Relief Act would provide Congress with an important tool to begin the process of dismantling the onerous regulatory burdens imposed over the past 8 years. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, I have dedicated considerable time over the past 2 years to closely monitoring the growth of the administrative state. The estimated regulatory costs across all years of the Obama administration are staggering. However, the regulatory onslaught in its final year alone--disastrous--shows the damage already done and the greater impact that will fall on our economy. In 2016, 401 regulations were finalized. The total compliance cost for this period exceeds $164 billion and amounts to nearly 121 million paperwork hours. That is 401 regulations and $164 billion. This is only during the final year of the Obama administration. It is no wonder that the American people sought a new, more promising direction for our country. Finally, the Congress has an opportunity to act to protect the American people and repeal many of these crushing regulations. For us in Congress, we cannot forget what these numbers represent. For my constituents and for Americans across the country, the billions in dollars of costs imposed on the economy represent jobs lost, routine bills that cannot be paid, and the American Dream slipping from their grasp. The true story of this regulatory onslaught is told by workers at shuttered stores, factories, and power plants across the country. Their concerns and fears are ours. As this current administration exits, we must remain vigilant to last-ditch efforts at crippling our economy. On top of those in recent months, a number of new regulations may still be finalized in a hurried, nontransparent fashion. The American people are concerned that our current regulatory process ignores the balancing of costs and benefits and the regulatory impact on their lives. From what we have seen over the past 8 years, it is clear that they should be. Starting this week, Congress has an opportunity to reassert its constitutional authority and act for all Americans. The Midnight Rules Relief Act is a well-advised measure that gives Congress the ability to quickly examine and eliminate the mass of regulations promulgated in recent months. This has been done by both Republican and Democrat administrations. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MARINO

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the full committee chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, for supporting the REVIEW Act as an original cosponsor and for moving it through the Judiciary Committee. I am also grateful for the many other Members who have cosponsored this bill. The REVIEW Act rests upon a very simple premise: that regulations with annual costs exceeding $1 billion annually should receive full judicial review before they go into effect. The regulations we are concerned about are so massive that their compliance costs are felt nationwide. These regulations touch every corner of our economy. They drive up the cost to put food on the table and clothes on our backs, and, in the worst of situations, they take away the very jobs Americans have earned. Due to these immense costs, it is not only prudent, but appropriate that aggrieved parties have their day in court. These costs demand that executive agencies must justify their reasoning and legal underpinnings of their rulemaking. Requiring American taxpayers and businesses to comply before the judicial process runs its course reeks of injustice. Historically, these high-impact rules with costs over $1 billion annually have been few and far between. Since 2006, there have been just 26 in total. However, in recent years, their number has grown exponentially alongside the growth and reach of the regulatory state. There have been an average of three over the past 8 years and six in 2014 alone. Although some may insist that the straightforward reforms in this bill overreach, recent events indicate otherwise. Last summer, in the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. EPA, we saw firsthand the irreparable harm that can occur when expansive, costly, and poorly crafted regulations are not given time for review. In this case, the Court found that the EPA had promulgated its Utility MACT power plant rule through a faulty process and on legally infirm grounds because it chose not to consider costs when promulgating the rule. The costs of the rule were estimated by the EPA itself--by the EPA who created the rule--at $9.6 billion per year. In return, the EPA's best estimate of potential benefits were in the range of a mere $4 million to $6 million--with an M--annually. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion for the Court: ``One would not say that it is even rational, never mind `appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.'' Unfortunately for workers, homeowners, and taxpayers across the country, when the Utility MACT rule was promulgated in early 2012 and after litigation began, neither the EPA nor Court stayed it, pending judicial review. It remained in effect as litigation took 3 years to work itself to a final decision in the Supreme Court in 2015. When review finally got to the Court, the effects were nearly irreversible. Action on the REVIEW Act is a reasonable step on our part to continue proper and reasonable regulatory reforms.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, action on the REVIEW Act is a reasonable step on our part to continue proper and responsible regulatory reform. In the end, this is a bill that encourages smaller, sensible rulemaking. When the costs are borne on the back of our constituents, this is a cause that we all certainly can get behind. Mr. Chairman, it is not only important because of the jobs that are lost, because of the businesses, the manufacturing companies that are going out of business because of these rules by the EPA and other agencies, but it is Congress' responsibility to litigate and Congress' responsibility to set budgets and control the purse strings.

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

Mr. MARINO. Once again, the REVIEW Act applies to all new billion- dollar rules. The bill's relief is urgently needed. Failures to require stays of billion-dollar rules during litigation wastes billions of dollars in unnecessary compliance costs and resources that are needlessly paid. Those costs are essential to job creation, productive investment, and economic recovery. These costs should not have to be incurred during ultimate successful litigation challenging new billion- dollar rules. If education rules like those the amendment would carve out are needed, the relevant agencies can avoid the bill's application by coming up with effective regulations that cost less than $1 billion a year. That is a goal to be pursued, not blocked, especially when it is the presence in higher education that is actually driving up much of the cost concerning the upward spiral in the cost of higher education. If, in an unusual case, a needed solution truly must cost a billion dollars a year or more, then, once again, the decision to adopt that solution is a decision Congress should make, not an agency. With all due respect, my friend and I have worked on legislation together. I have a list here of the billion-dollar rules and there is nothing--not one name on here--that has anything to do with the Department of Education. Furthermore, I would love to work on a piece of legislation reducing the cost of post-high school education with my colleague. I didn't start college until after I was 30. My wife and I put me through college and law school. We borrowed money through grants and anything we could do. I know the cost of education was expensive back then, and I am stymied at what it is now, but this is not the mechanism to do that. This legislation that Republicans brought to the floor--my legislation--deals with overseeing the government and the regulation that is crushing jobs in this country. Congress has the responsibility, as I repeat, to make the laws and to control the purse strings. So I offer again to my good friend an opportunity to work with her on lowering the cost of education in this country, but I think it should be in a separate piece of legislation and not this. I ask my colleagues to not support the amendment and I ask them to support the overall legislation that we brought to the floor. Mr. Chairman, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, billion-dollar rules are among the worst offenses of the pen-and-phone Obama administration. This administration is using overreaching billion-dollar rules to insert EPA's water permitting agents into every American's backyard. It is using overreaching billion-dollar rules to shut down this country's cheap generation of electricity. It is using overreaching billion-dollar rules to impose unachievable ozone standards that will strangle economic opportunities in counties all over this Nation. Above all, wherever it can, it is using overreaching billion-dollar rules to execute end runs around Congress and achieve legislative ends it knows it cannot achieve in Congress. The Obama administration says, on spurious grounds, it will veto this bill. This motion to recommit tries to obstruct this bill by means of procedural obstruction. The House has already passed antiterrorism measures. Why do my colleagues across the aisle want to block this good bill? The legislation that we have passed is H.R. 4401, the Amplifying Local Efforts to Root Out Terror Act; H.R. 4820, the Combating Terrorist Recruitment Act; and H.R. 4407, the Counterterrorism Advisory Board Act. These were all almost unanimously passed. I sit on the Committee on Homeland Security. We have been passing good legislation, and we continue to pass good legislation. This administration and its allies on the other side of the aisle would rather let Congress duck accountability to the voters for billion-dollar decisions. It would rather give billion-dollar phones and pens to unaccountable bureaucrats up and down Pennsylvania Avenue so they can do things the voters cannot stop. The American people are telling us every day, ``Enough.'' I am telling President Obama and my colleagues, ``Enough.'' Stand up for accountability. Stand up for the small-business owners and workers who are being crushed by Washington's bureaucratic billion- dollar bullies who are against this motion and please vote for this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time and his leadership throughout the committee's investigation and as we have moved this important piece of legislation to the floor. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act focuses on accountability and governance. As we have heard here, this bill is the product of a nearly 2-year-long House Judiciary Committee investigation into the Department of Justice's settlement practices. During that time, the Department of Justice has funneled nearly $1 billion of this settlement money to third-party groups that benefit this administration. But under Federal law--under Federal law--all money obtained through Department of Justice settlements must be deposited directly to the Treasury. Our concerns are not with the services provided by the groups receiving the money. They provide worthy services to individuals in need across the country. Nor are our concerns along party lines. Good governance and accountability apply to Republican and Democratic administrations alike. This piece of legislation focuses on concerted and repeated actions that have subverted the will of Congress, disrespected our separation of powers, and failed to assist the individuals directly harmed by the behavior warranting the settlements. The Judiciary Committee's investigation has revealed that entities with access to high-ranking Department of Justice officials received the funds. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act will end this practice without limiting the Department of Justice's ability to reach settlements that directly provide restitution to those harmed. It does not block the ability to provide restitution for victims. Instead, it ensures that money belonging to the U.S. Treasury and, therefore, to the American people is not siphoned off for the pet projects of political appointees. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support good governance, accountability, and the powers granted to Congress and vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Nothing in this bill interferes with antitrust settlement. Nothing. The bill goes to Congress' constitutional power. That is why every Member of Congress should oppose this motion to recommit. I say this because it targets legislation designed exclusively to strengthen Congress. Serious people on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of Congress' spending power. A major theme of the Speaker's A Better Way Initiative is that the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in executive overreach. Liberal legal scholar Abner Mikva agrees: To ensure that Congress would act as the first branch of government, the constitutional Framers gave the legislature virtually exclusive power to control the Nation's purse strings. They knew that the power of the purse was the most far-reaching and effectual of all governmental powers. This motion stems from a misunderstanding of the governing principle of this bill, which is simply this: DOJ's authority to settle cases requires the ability to obtain redress for actual victims--actual victims. However, once direct victims have been compensated, deciding what to do with additional funds extracted from defendants becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress, not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors. The Framers assigned this job to Congress. It is in everyone's interest to preserve the careful balance of our Framers' wisely struck constitutional issues. If you believe in checks and balances, oppose the motion and support this bill. If you believe that effective congressional oversight of the executive branch is important, oppose this motion and support this bill. If you believe that Congress' ability to rein in executive overreach will be important in future administrations, oppose this motion and support this bill. I urge my colleagues to defend Congress' institutional interest by opposing this motion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4985) to amend the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act to protect classified information in Federal court challenges.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on this measure.