Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 527.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Good morning, Mr. Conyers. It is good to see you. Six long years into the Obama administration, and notwithstanding some fleeting, recent signs, jobs have yet to recover from the recession. Wages also have not recovered, and the rate of new business startups has not recovered as well. Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historical levels. Real wages have fallen. Dependency on government assistance has increased. Our economy is failing to give enough hardworking Americans the confidence they need to start new small businesses and create new jobs. At the root of our problem are, more than anything else, the endless drain to Washington of hard-earned income that working people and small businesses need to turn things around in their homes and communities and Washington's endless placement of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth. That regulatory burden hits small businesses especially hard. Small businesses generate 63 percent of net new private sector jobs and employ nearly half of America's private sector workers; yet they have to pay significantly more to comply with Federal regulations than do larger employers. Poll after poll has demonstrated that the level of Federal regulations coming from Washington is at the top of the list of obstacles faced by America's small businesses, our top job creators. This is not fair, and it is exactly the wrong burden to place on small businesses as this Nation struggles to produce a true jobs and wages recovery. Congress can and should act to free small businesses of the burdens and waste associated with excessive Federal regulations so that more jobs will be available to Americans trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. That is why prompt passage of the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is so important. This legislation will, for the first time in nearly 20 years, overhaul the laws that govern how Federal regulators should consider--and minimize--the adverse impacts of new regulations on small businesses. Primarily, the bill reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It only requires agencies to do what current law tries to achieve and what common sense dictates should be done. However, current law is beset by loopholes, and those loopholes must be closed. That is what the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, at long last, does. For example, the bill mandates that all agencies, not just the current few, work with small business review panels early in the rulemaking process for major rules, before agencies become entrenched in their proposed paths, to help small businesses better and more effectively point out to agencies what is the best path. The bill also requires agencies to assess not just the direct effects of new regulation on small businesses but also indirect effects, which often can be substantial. The bill also, for the first time, authorizes the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to be the one consistent authority on regulatory flexibility requirements the law imposes on all agencies. This will, at long last, curb the agencies' tendencies to interpret the law to suit their own individual whims and will force agencies to focus on the common needs of small business. The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen? Small businesses will have a real chance to be heard before agencies, effectively, make up their minds. Agencies will have better information upon which to tailor their regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on small businesses. Agencies will have fewer opportunities to escape requirements to hear those businesses and gather that better information, and small businesses will be freer than they have been in decades to devote their resources to what they do best--create the new jobs, products, and services that can drive the economy forward to true and lasting recovery. The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act recognizes that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators. It represents a critical means to convert the recognition into reality. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, February 3, 2015. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. Sincerely, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 Summary: H.R. 527 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to expand the number of rules covered by the RFA and to require agencies to perform additional analysis of regulations that affect small businesses. The legislation also would provide new authorities to the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Office of Advocacy to intervene and provide support for agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 527 would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the implementation of the legislation. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 527 would cost $55 million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 527 would not affect revenues. H.R. 527 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. If any federal agencies increase their mandatory fees to offset the costs of implementing the additional analysis required by the bill, H.R. 527 would increase the cost of an existing mandate on private entities to pay those fees. CBO expects that if such mandatory fees are increased as a result of the bill, the additional cost of the mandate in any one year would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation). Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 527 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 370 (commerce and housing credit), 800 (general government), and all budget functions that include funding for agencies that issue regulations affecting small businesses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

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

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

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hear constantly when we are on the floor with bills, which sometimes are bipartisan and sometimes are not, that the President says he is going to veto them. I hope that is not the case, because when it comes to saying that the President is going to veto and his actually doing it, they are two different things. I hope the President works with us on this. Again, we extend our hand across the aisle here and to the other side of the Capitol to simply say to the regulators that this bill does not want to regulate the regulators. It wants the regulators to use common sense and to get input from the American people--the middle class--and from the people who create jobs, the small businesses, to see what they have to say. I worked in a factory before I went to college and law school, and I worked my way up to mid-level management. When we did things, I brought in everyone--the people who even worked the machinery. We talked about things, and we resolved many, many things, but we got input from everyone. As far as letters from people who support the bill, I have a list of 159 names and businesses. This is dated February 3, 2015, from A to Z-- from the Adhesive and Sealant Council to woodworking machinery associations. All of these 159 small businesses support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have been doing some research over these couple of days. This administration alone has implemented over 75,000 pages of new regulations. I just read some figures earlier on this morning that, if we get rid of this ridiculous regulation--and I am not saying all regulation; we do need oversight regulation--almost $1 trillion a year will be added to the economy and almost 1 million people will be added to work on a yearly basis. This is just excellent stuff. I want to give you an example from my district, Pennsylvania's 10th District. I live in a little village called Cogan Station outside of Williamsport, which is the home of Little League World Series Baseball. I live in the middle of five farms, and I have been there for 15 years. Pursuant to the Navigable Waters Act, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have said that, if it rains and if a puddle forms on the farm-- in an attempt for this administration to get more control over our lives--because of the Navigable Waters Act, the EPA and the Army Corps have control now over that farm and can shut it down. Now, I have been there for 15 years in the middle of these five farms, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through. So this is just an example of how ridiculous this legislation can get. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I have the distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend, to speak on behalf of us.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand the responsibility of having oversight over any business, but let me give you a couple of examples, again, from my district where a small community bank, who is the primary lender of small businesses, instead of hiring more tellers to expand the business and provide better service for their small business clients, had to hire three people just to review and keep up with regulatory reform that applies to large national and international banks who are lending hundreds of millions of dollars. That is not the case with smalltown banks. They are lending money to the young man and woman who got a job, saved some money, want to buy a car, and have to go to the bank and say: Can you lend me $10,000? The paperwork that the bank has to go through to do that is costing jobs and costing our economy. I just got a call yesterday from one of my constituents. The Amish in my district were putting a roof on a small barn they had. OSHA stopped by and shut it down and fined the Amish because they didn't have helmets on. They only had their straw hats. So he put them out of work for a couple of weeks. They had to pay a fine, and then they have to go buy helmets to put a small roof on a small barn. I have a constituent from my district who has a little grocery store, and he just had a shipment of bread delivered. It just so happened that an inspector was there, and the bread was brought in through the dock door and set next to, inside the dock door. He was fined because the bread, which is wrapped and on racks, was sitting too close to the dock door. These are the types of regulation to which we are referring that crush jobs and are killing this economy. One of the inspectors was asked: Why are you doing this? The inspector simply said, and according to my constituent, arrogantly said: Because I can. That is no way for an employee of the United States Government to be talking to someone who helps pay his wages. So with that, Mr. Chair, this is a good piece of legislation. This is common sense, and this is very simple. Let's make the regulators do more with less. There are no agencies or departments in the Federal Government that can tell me that they are running as efficiently as they possibly can. My good friend, the ranking member, said it is going to cost a great deal to have this rule, this legislation, implemented and the departments and agencies follow the rule. No. You know what the departments and agencies have to do? They have to do just exactly what small business operators throughout this country do: do more with less, and put in a good, hard day's work. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Madam Chair, I just simply want to say that I support this legislation. I tell my children on a weekly basis--they can recite it verbatim--that if it were not for our veterans, if it were not for our military personnel and our servicemembers that are working now, my children wouldn't have what they have today. So I want to reinforce that.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, one of the key failings of existing law is that it allows different agencies to interpret differently the terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This allows agencies to find loopholes at their pleasure and evade the requirements of the law. The bill remedies this defect by granting the Small Business Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to write regulations to govern all agencies' compliance with the RFA and SBREFA. The bill also grants the Office of Chief Counsel authority to intervene--the key word there, ``intervene''--in agency adjudications and offer comments in agency notice-and-comment proceedings. These reforms will, at last, assure consistent compliance with the RFA and the SBREFA across the entire Federal Government. The amendment would defeat the purpose and restore to the agencies their ability to find loopholes to suit their whims. America's small business creators deserve better than that. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I share and welcome the gentleman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill. At the heart of the bill are reforms to make sure agencies better identify the potential jobs impact of new rules; that includes not only identifying and minimizing the adverse jobs impact, but maximizing positive job benefits. It is right there in subsection 2(c) on page 3 of the bill. If the gentleman wants to maximize job creation, the way to do it is to make sure the provisions designed to maximize job benefits apply to all rules, including those that OMB believes will result in net job creation. Why stop at just helping to create a net increase in jobs, which could mean as little as just one net job? Why not make sure agencies always work with small businesses under the bill's provisions to help create the most new jobs possible and prevent the destruction of the most jobs possible? Isn't that what makes sense as the Nation tries to recover from the jobs depression? Further, why create a carve-out from the bill that gives the executive branch an incentive to manipulate its jobs impact analyses to avoid the requirements of the bill rather than comply with them? I would also like to bring to the Chair's attention, this administration highly overinflates--or underinflates, whatever side you are looking at--the unemployment rate. In the unemployment rate, they are not taking into account the almost 1 million people that are not looking for work, and that is normally taken into consideration. They are also taking into account as a person being employed as this example: a person who mows his neighbor's lawn for 20 bucks because he doesn't have a job. That is considered, according to this administration, a job. Multiple reports clearly prove that the cost of Federal regulation to the U.S. economy, manufacturing, and small business, and Ten Thousand Commandments, these are reports from just last year, and they give the accurate account of the unemployment rate. My good colleague on the other side of the aisle refers to a report from 2010. We should be referring to the latest reports as I hold them in my hand. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to carve out an exception to the bill for Food and Drug Administration rules related to consumer safety. I am all for consumer safety. All of us support the protection of consumer safety, but it is my fervent hope that all of us also support small business jobs and want to protect them. That, of course, was the point of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the first place, to continue to allow agencies like the FDA to protect consumers but, at the same time, to start accounting for and avoiding-- where possible--adverse impacts on small businesses. If agencies had faithfully done what they were supposed to do under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we wouldn't be here today, but they haven't; instead, they have routinely tried to evade that law. That has to stop. Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic recovery. To help small businesses to create jobs, we need to reduce-- not increase--the regulatory burden on small businesses. The FDA is a major regulatory agency, and it is not exempt from the RFA as it currently stands. Now is not the time to start walking back the RFA's requirements. This amendment simply is not consistent with the spirit of small business--the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act--or the needs of today's small business job creators. If the gentlelady's concern is to make sure that the law allows the FDA to issue new emergency rules to protect consumer safety, then let me assure her, there is no need to worry. Subsection 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA already allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment for good cause. Since the RFA only applies in notice and comment rulemakings, a fact the bill does not change, nothing will hinder the FDA from issuing emergency rules if the bill is enacted. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our leader.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This motion to recommit presents the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to turn the page. Six long years into the Obama administration, our constituents feel trapped in a job depression. This bill offers one of the best chances we have to really start to turn things around for our constituents. The bill contains clear, commonsense reforms that will take Washington's regulatory boot off the neck of small businesses in all of our districts so they can create the new jobs our constituents need. The bill contains numerous Democrat-sponsored amendments, making it a truly bipartisan product. The bill, with bipartisan support, has already passed the House three times in the past two Congresses only to die an obstructionist death at the hands of the former Senate majority leader, who, by the way, the voters threw out of the majority last November. We now have a chance to pass the bill again at the very start of this Congress and to send it over to a Senate that will actually consider it. We should all seize this opportunity. But what would this motion to recommit do? It would, once again, inflict on the American people the ways of obstruction. It would block the bill from passage. It would prevent the bill from promptly reaching the Senate and helping to create new jobs for our constituents. Let's all make this a vote to end the obstruction. With this vote, help this Congress turn the page the voters sent us here to turn. Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blackburn amendment today. The amendment prevents funding from going towards the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. Make no mistake about it, this program has become a magnet for drawing children from Central America, further putting thousands of children's lives at risk as they embark on a very dangerous journey, which does not only include unsafe conditions, but they are also vulnerable to abuse along the way. This program must be shut down. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not telling the American people that Homeland Security is fully funded. As a matter of fact, it has funded more than $1 billion than the President asked for and more than $400 million from last year. If Homeland Security gets shut down, it is because the President vetoes the budget because he cannot get his way on amnesty for illegal aliens.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, right now, we have the worst of both worlds: more regulation and less scrutiny. In looking at a recent 7-year period, the Government Accountability Office found that 35 percent of major rules were issued without the opportunity for public comment. The GAO also found a lack of responsiveness. In the case of one ObamaCare regulation--one--4,627 comments were received, but no responses were issued. Regulatory costs disproportionately hit small manufacturers, which incur regulatory costs of $34,671 per year, per employee--more than three times that of the average American economy. Our energy boom is a perfect example of failed regulatory policy. Oil and natural gas resources do not know Federal versus State boundaries, but it takes 10 times as long for the Federal Government to issue a permit as it does the States. As a result, oil and gas production is going up sharply on State lands and down on Federal lands. Finally, ObamaCare is an epicenter of red tape. In its first 4 years, ObamaCare's effects on small business amounted to $1.9 billion in regulatory costs and in 11.3 million hours of compliance. This amounts to a regulatory tax of 3 to 5 percent. Again, this is the cost of just one law's regulations.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, every member of this body and our constituents know that, as we speak, the Department of Homeland Security is in the midst of an unprecedented overreach to change this Nation's immigration laws through regulation and guidance, bypassing Congress and the will of the American people. How can we support excluding that very effort from the requirements of this good bill? What is more, the amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security--a Department in need of good government reform--from all of the good government rulemaking and guidance reforms in the bill. We should not do that. The bill does not threaten needed regulation in DHS' jurisdiction, but simply assures that DHS will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less-costly regulation and guidance when necessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 185, the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act. Simply put, this legislation requires Federal regulatory agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative that meets the statutory objectives. In the 113th Congress, members of the Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law heard over and over again how these regulatory costs have been key factors that hold back our economic recovery and stand in the way of job creation. Our regulatory reform agenda for the 114th Congress begins today with the passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It is a good place to start. After all, it has been almost 70 years since enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act. Unfortunately, the act has never been modernized nor even amended in any material way. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, it is my honor to support Chairman Goodlatte, and I urge Members to support H.R. 185, a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support in both the 112th and 113th Congress, so the bill can finally be given serious consideration in the new House, the U.S. Senate, and reach the President's desk. If the President is serious about job creating, helping small businesses, and growing our economy, he will work with us and sign the Regulatory Accountability Act and other important regulatory reform measures into law. Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we deliver real and permanent regulatory solutions to create jobs. Doing that starts with passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act. I want to leave the American people with one thought. It is an example how the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is doing what this bill tries to prevent. I live in the middle of five farms. I have been there for almost two decades. Just recently, the EPA has attempted to get more control over farmland by saying that if there is a rainstorm and there is a puddle, or a farmer even spills milk, through the Navigable Waters Act, EPA has control over that land. As I said, I have been living in the middle of five farms for a couple of decades, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through those farmlands.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the amendments that go with it. Now let's get to the facts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle conveniently leave these facts out. First of all, this has nothing to do with shutting down Homeland Security. Second of all, the total budget for Homeland Security is $39.7 billion. That is $1.3 billion over the President's request. That is $400 million over last year. Our amendments prevent the President from using any moneys--no matter from where--on amnesty. There is no reason to shut down Homeland Security. If Homeland Security is shut down, it is due to the Democrats and President Barack Obama because he has more money for Homeland Security than he asked for. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 240 and the amendments. President Obama released amnesty plans in November that include changes to border security, status of persons currently living in the United States unlawfully, and future legal immigration policy changes-- all of which are directly under the purview of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. In addition this President's executive order included several other changes that directly result in amnesty. To be clear, democracy in this country was built on the foundation of a three branch federal government. Our founding fathers saw the importance of checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming all-powerful and exceeding its constitutional authority. Furthermore, our Constitution specifically grants all lawmaking authority to Congress, and instead gives the executive branch the role of executing the laws passed. The President's overreach in granting amnesty has left Congress with no choice but to exercise the power of the purse today to restore the Federal Government to one of balance, within the confines of the Constitution. Last week I introduced the Defund Amnesty Act to ensure this type of change, and I applaud the leadership for bringing legislation to the floor to boldly put an end to the President's executive order on amnesty.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Section 4: ``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.''

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will consider joint Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committee legislation, H.R. 5728, the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, to ensure that all of our constituents continue to have access to network channels on America's two satellite carriers. Title II of the legislation extends the expiring section 119 copyright license for another 5 years, as this committee has done on previous occasions, most recently in 2010. This license ensures that when our constituents do not have access to a full complement of local network television stations, they can have access through satellite television carriers to distant network television stations. This helps ensure that consumers in rural areas, like mine in Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, have the same access to news and entertainment options that consumers in urban areas enjoy. Without enactment of this legislation, many of our constituents would potentially lose access to certain networks altogether on December 31, when the current license expires. I would like to point out that although numerous stakeholders interested in video issues have contacted the committee on a variety of issues, they all agree that this license should not expire at the end of this year. Other issues of interest in this area will be the subject of further discussion as my committee continues its ongoing review of our Nation's copyright laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan, pro- consumer legislation.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 is a practical bill that would lower costs for energy, create over 1 million long-term jobs, improve our energy security, and substantially reduce redtape. This is exactly the type of bipartisan legislation Congress should be passing to revitalize our economy and create jobs. According to an April 2014 report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the average wait time for an environmental impact study in 2012 was running 4.6 years. This is the highest average since 1997 and includes projects with wait times of 10 to 20 years. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation's recent Ease of Doing Business index embarrassingly ranked the U.S. 34th in the world in the category of ``dealing with construction permits.'' This is no longer a political game. This is costing the United States real dollars and good-paying jobs. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies are filing numerous claims to deny and delay companies from receiving permits for as long as 10 to 15 years just to break ground. At a time when our economy is lagging and job creation is moving at a very slow pace, this is an outrage. The RAPID Act would set hard deadlines for agencies to approve or deny permits. The RAPID Act would also crack down on prolonged lawsuits, creating a window of 180 days for any claim challenging a permit decision. This bill would also substantially streamline the process by empowering lead agencies to manage environmental reviews efficiently from start to finish to avoid waste and duplication of efforts among the bureaucratic agencies. Mr. Speaker, simply because the leader of the Democratic Senate, Harry Reid, will not allow over 260 bills to go to the floor doesn't mean that we should refrain from continuing to do our job here. My constituents back home deserve this legislation and America needs this legislation, and we will continue to fight on a daily basis to make sure that we improve the economy and create jobs.