Paul Mitchell

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear to me, even as a freshman: we need to correct the record here. My colleague from the minority suggests that somehow, magically, the GAO just determined they were the police officer, they cried foul, they stopped them. Let's be clear about this. First, the GAO intervened because they were asked to do so by Chairman Inhofe. They investigated after the chairman asked them to look into it because of the concerns; not in advance, not because they found it independently, but because it was such a significant and egregious action that the chairman of the committee said: We need to look at this. And they did so. Second, it was after the fact. What they found was that it was so extraordinarily egregious, they actually cited them for inappropriately spending taxpayer money. Now, let's talk about what they did. We talk about chilling communication. Knowingly, why would you put out something on a social media site such as Thunderclap sourcing messages, not identifying yourself, if for any other purpose but to create propaganda? Why would you do that? H.R. 1004 simply requires--and I will repeat them, because the minority seems to have a problem understanding this--the agency identified itself in its communication on a proposal: hello, this is the EPA. We are talking about this problem. They make clear they are accepting public comments for and against: What do you think about it; what are the problems; will this work? Imagine that concept. They require that agencies provide feedback on the comments that is genuine and sincere and not have already written the final bill--as my colleagues says, the perfunctory process. That is what it requires. I have a difficult time understanding how that chills input from the public. And to be absolutely blunt with you, if it chills a few bureaucrats from deciding what they think is best rather than what this body believes is best, or, frankly, what the courts believe is best, then we have achieved our objective here today. So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I will make my statement brief. As you know, I believe in a little bit of brevity around here. Let me suggest that we have talked at length on the content of the bill and the intent of the bill. Let me suggest that my colleague may have used the wrong example or analogy because we all know, where there is one mosquito, there is more. Where there is one, there is more. At this point in time, this bill says we are going to take care of his mosquitoes. With all due respect, I ask my colleagues to support the bill, as I believe it puts the transparency required in rulemaking that will require agencies to disclose they are asking for comments and who is making the comment. It is one more step in getting the government accountable to the people rather than accountable to itself. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding. Last night, President Trump stood feet from here and spoke about the need and his commitment to regulatory reform. I would like to echo those comments. One of the chief reasons the voters sent most of us here is because they know that Federal regulation is killing our economy and placing a heavy burden on families. I am proud to deliver on a promise I made during the campaign, and to have done so in the first 100 days. The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act codifies the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, known as OIRA. OIRA serves as the regulatory gatekeeper, a safety valve, providing a process and review to hold back the floodgates of unnecessary burdensome and duplicative regulations. OIRA is a bipartisan office within the executive branch that was originally created during the Reagan administration and further outlined by President Clinton in an executive order. President Clinton put it well when he said: ``The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable.'' I agree with President Clinton's words in 1993. This is about making sure government solves problems, rather than creates them. And create them, it has. In recent years, the regulatory state has grown to impressive levels. Between 2006 and 2015, agencies published over 36,000 final rules, of which 555 were considered economically significant. That is, they anticipated an economic effect of $100 million or more. Many of these regulations have been imposed without thorough cost- benefit analysis, placing huge burdens on families and businesses. What is worse, Americans have had little, if any, influence on regulations that impact their lives as unelected bureaucrats regularly have exceeded their authority while imposing regulations that negatively impact them. It is our responsibility as the people's representatives to protect them from this ever-expanding regulatory state. This bill is simple and plain. The bill locks into place existing transparency requirements like the unified agenda and the annual regulatory plan. The bill also requires OIRA to tell us more about what they are currently doing. After OIRA conducts a review of significant regulations, H.R. 1009 requires OIRA to give us a readout. Imagine that, we want them to tell us what they are doing. How did the agency do? Is the regulation well drafted? Did the agency meet the requirements of the law? That is a novel approach. Did the agency pick the best way to regulate? OIRA is already required to conduct this review under Executive Order 12886. The bill asks OIRA to tell us the results. I am surprised and disappointed that even on this bill we have seen significant opposition. My minority counterparts have made complaints based on strained legal arguments, but they haven't offered an amendment to fix the alleged problem. Why? Because they don't like the basic concepts of the bill. These are not partisan concepts. We have heard their concerns in committee. We obviously disagree at this point. And as the chairman said, this is passed by committee without amendment. We look forward to support, and I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, this amendment makes technical changes to H.R. 1009 to ensure consistency in dates and terms, require OIRA to review significant guidance, and prohibit authorization of additional funds. It allows OIRA 4 weeks to review the Unified Agenda submissions, requires a mutual agreement to extend the regulatory review beyond 90 days, and requires a written explanation of each 30 days of the extension. That is critical. They must explain to us, to the people, any extension. It clarifies the timing of the post-review disclosure to occur as soon as the agency makes the proposed final rule public, clarifies that disclosure of interagency communication is limited to exchanges with senior-level OIRA staff, requires a written explanation for any exempt regulations, and expands OIRA to review the guidance document per a Bush-era executive order. This amendment primarily makes technical changes to the bill that were developed in consultation with OIRA staff. We took their concerns and suggestions into account, and we incorporated most of those in this amendment. For example, this amendment clarifies the review extension process that has been the subject of some conversation here. Our minority counterparts have claimed that OIRA has 90 days, plus a 30-day extension to review under current executive order. That is clearly not true under the executive order or in practice. Under the Obama administration, OIRA review, at times, exceeded 2 years without explanation. This limitless extension is permissible under the governing executive order, which allows an automatic 30-day extension at the request of OIRA and a limitless extension at the request of the agency. We have heard that when OIRA needs that additional time, they simply call up an agency and ask for an extension. So this bill requires transparency in the review process, puts limits on that, and requires the disclosure of that. OIRA has suggested the term is a mutual agreement between the agencies so that, in fact, we could put limits on the review and extension process. Another important addition to this amendment is that we are extending OIRA's review to guidance documents. This is not a new practice. In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which extended OIRA's review to guidance documents. While President Obama rescinded that executive order, OIRA Administrator Shelanski affirmed to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the past Congress that OIRA should continue the practice of reviewing significant guidance documents. These guidance documents will only rise to the level of OIRA review if they meet the significant standard. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, one brief comment, which is we are perfectly comfortable with the cost of $20 million, given the billions of dollars that the regulatory system currently costs businesses and taxpayers. We think it is a small investment to, in fact, have regulations make sense, not duplicate, not be overburdensome; and we suggest that it is a small cost given the overall cost to running the Federal Government to actually get regulation dialed back to some controllable level. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit by my colleague.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the robust process by which we considered this bill. The bill came to the floor through regular order in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We had a full markup which allowed for Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments and insight. We had healthy debate on a number of amendments, and we just voted on some of them. This bill codifies existing policy with changes only to include independent agencies and improve government transparency. I oppose the motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion and vote ``yes'' on final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 58. I am pleased to join Congressman Guthrie as a cosponsor. As a parent, I know the critical difference teachers can make in a student's life. That is why many young people choose the path of education as their career and their mission. This rule creates an arbitrary tie between teacher preparation programs and student test scores. What is worse, this rule unfairly discriminates against teachers who commit to teaching STEM subjects or different languages--critical subjects already facing a teacher shortage and occupations desperately seeking skilled employees. In Michigan--my home State--teacher training program enrollment declined 38 percent between 2008 and 2013. The number of people who actually pursue teaching after going through a prep curriculum declined by 26 percent. We face a teacher shortage in Michigan and nationwide. I frequently hear from the people I serve, teachers and parents in my district, that they are disheartened and frustrated by the Federal Government's overreach and arrogance that turns educating young people into a test score. Mr. Speaker, let's return authority where it belongs with teachers and, more importantly, parents.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 57. I am pleased to join Congressman Todd Rokita as an original cosponsor. As a parent, I know that success looks different for each child. I frequently hear from parents, teachers, and school boards in my district that with more local flexibility, they can better meet the needs of local students. This is why the Every Student Succeeds Act replaced the one-size-fits-all approach to K-12 education, and gave power back to states and school districts. Unfortunately, the previous administration used executive authority to impose an inflexible accountability system and take away the local voices; voices that are critical in determining how schools should be held accountable. Local schools, teachers, and parents, not Washington bureaucrats, know best what success looks like. Mr. Speaker, let's return authority where it belongs--with teachers, schools, and school districts. Success and accountability should be about meeting students' needs, not Washington's mandates. I urge my colleagues to support passage of House Joint Resolution 57.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37. I am proud to join Chairwoman Foxx and Chairmen Chaffetz and Chabot as an original cosponsor. H.J. Res. 37 would void the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, commonly known as the blacklisting rule. The blacklisting rule is an additional layer of Federal bureaucracy that crushes the ability of small and midsize companies to compete for Federal contracts and adversely impacts timing and efficient procurement while massively increasing costs. The blacklisting rule requires Federal contractors to report violations, including alleged violations of 14 Federal labor laws and equivalent State laws, over the previous 3 years. Contractors have to collect that information from all of their subcontractors, and they are liable for that information, placing a huge administrative burden on those contractors. Also, not only when they bid for the contract, but every 6 months, they must renew that information. Federal contract officers--by the way, there are over 37,000 of them, an amazing number--would then be required to consult with newly created labor compliance advisers. Yes, it creates more bureaucrats. The final rule, itself, estimates costs for contractors and subcontractors of more than $458 million in the first year--a half a billion dollars--and more than $413 million in the second year. Amazing costs. This compliance cost is catastrophic for small and midsize businesses. Those who deny workers basic protections are already protected by the suspension and debarment process. The blacklisting rule is simply another bureaucratic hoop. In 2015, nearly 1,000 suspensions and 2,000 debarments were undertaken. Put simply, the suspension and debarment system has worked to protect workers and government. Moreover, the rule requires contractors and subcontractors to report on alleged labor law violations and violations that have not been fully adjudicated. A business could be deemed ineligible for a Federal contract, or blacklisted, because the contractor reported alleged labor law violations while still exercising their legal right to pursue adjudication. That is antithetical to our Constitution. H.J. Res. 37 will remove a regulation that raises serious due process concerns, duplicates existing enforcement mechanisms, increases the cost of Federal contracting, and expands the Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, which I proudly cosponsored. Four years ago, my wife and I adopted a young child from an orphanage. People say it changed his life. It changed ours. This year, the theme of the March for Life is ``The Power of One,'' meaning that every single person can change the course of history if given the chance to live. Every year, 1 million unborn babies are stripped of the right to life, which our Declaration of Independence calls unalienable. Moreover, those opposed to abortion have been forced to violate their consciences through taxpayer-funded abortions. This legislation will reinforce a culture of life by making current prohibitions against taxpayer-funded abortions permanent. Madam Speaker, I stand in the spirit of ``The Power of One'' to give voice to the voiceless, rights back to the unborn, and I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the resolution to give relief to the millions of Americans who are struggling to access health care due to the destructive impact of the Affordable Care Act. Americans were promised that, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, costs for health insurance would decrease and patients could keep their plans and their doctors if they liked them. Americans have now seen the truth: massive increases in premiums, constantly rising deductibles and copays, and fewer plans with fewer providers. Just because an individual or a family has insurance does not mean they can access and afford health care. Health insurance means little if they cannot find a participating doctor or afford the deductible. In Michigan, premiums have risen over 17 percent this year, and deductibles are up an average of $492. There is a plan. I will hand carry it over for you to read it. I suggest we not instill fear but, rather, we move forward with a better way to provide health insurance. Broken promises have led us to a broken healthcare system. We promise to fix it and, beginning today, we are going to do just that.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the people of Michigan's 10th Congressional District. I am honored to represent them and humbled by their trust in electing me to the 115th Congress. The weight of this office is not lost on me. As Majority Leader McCarthy said: If you walk on the floor of this House and you don't get goosebumps, it's time to go home. Standing here at this podium, I have goosebumps. People often ask me why I ran for Congress. Put simply, I ran with the goal of helping people achieve their American Dream. For too many, the idea of the American Dream is just that: an idea, a fantasy, a fairytale. I believe in the American Dream because I have lived it. I was born in South Boston to a working class family. Opportunity took my family to Michigan when I was 11. My dad got a good job building trucks on the line at General Motors, and my mom worked at the Salvation Army. My parents worked hard to provide for me and my six younger siblings. I learned the value of hard work at a young age watching my parents. I was the first of my extended family to go to college and worked full-time to pay for my education; and then I dedicated my career to workforce training, helping people build the skills necessary to get good jobs to begin their careers to support their families. There is something about the pride that comes when someone gets a job. Their whole world changes when they see what they are able to achieve and what their work does for their families. Over the last several years, failed policies and an unstable economy have put the American Dream out of reach for many. Though overall unemployment rates are down, long-term unemployment is high; labor force participation rates have dropped dramatically, and wage growth is anemic. Instead of getting ahead, many Americans are just getting by. In the November elections, Americans screamed for relief. My message to the people of Michigan's 10th District is that your voices have been heard. We are already working here in the House on measures to roll back regulations to support families, businesses, and the economy, and to breathe life back into the American Dream. In order to make it possible for more people to achieve their American Dream, we must give them the freedom and the tools to succeed. This begins by stemming the extreme regulatory overreach, fixing our healthcare system, and strengthening our workforce while restoring our critical infrastructure. As we have learned in the last 8 years, we cannot regulate our way towards a stronger economy. The opposite is true: government overreach cripples our economy. From my years of running a business, I have firsthand knowledge of how excessive regulations make it harder to succeed. Time and resources that could be better spent on growing a business and creating jobs are spent navigating a never-ending and confusing maze of Federal regulations. Many of those regulations have been imposed without a cost-benefit analysis, placing costly burdens on families and businesses while providing little benefit. Regulators have exceeded their authority by placing undue burdens on those struggling to make the economy work. The House has already acted by passing the REINS Act and the Midnight Rules Relief Act. Each of these measures would put accountability where it rightly belongs: with the people's elected Representatives in Congress, not with unelected bureaucrats. We are also reforming health care in American to prevent further harm to families and businesses. Patients and doctors should be in charge of their health care, not the government. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, patient choice and access to care has declined while costs are ever increasing. Despite all of the promises, many people who had plans or doctors they liked could not keep them. Insurance carriers are forced to severely narrow their networks to combat cost. Our healthcare reform is a better way to increase accessibility and patient choice, in addition to reducing cost. We will do that by allowing purchase of coverage across State lines, authorizing businesses and individuals to band together to increase purchasing power and negotiate prices, allowing health savings accounts, and expanding risk pools. Our plan focuses on putting power where it belongs: with the people, with the patients. Government overreach does not stop with our health care. I know that surprises you. The one-size-fits-all approach to education legislation in recent years has failed America's students. It is time to put parents and individuals in control of their education and give them options that will best suit their needs. I am eager to advance solutions that will help students learn and be better equipped for future jobs, to create flexibility for working families and prepare the workforce for a modern economy. In addition to a strong workforce, our modern economy requires a robust infrastructure. It is essential that we protect and strengthen America's infrastructure to keep Americans safe and create jobs, and I plan to work with this House to do just that. There is much work to be done, but I stand ready to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to revise the American Dream. It is more than an idea. It should be more than a wish. I have lived it, and I want every young person in America to have the ability to pursue their American Dream.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that, in my first week as a Representative of Michigan's 10th Congressional District, we have passed two important pieces of legislation to stem the avalanche of Federal regulations. The top concern I hear from employers of all sizes across my district is that regulation from Washington is making it harder for them to do business. I spent my career in business, so I have firsthand knowledge of the damage caused by excessive Federal regulations. The Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act will provide much-needed regulatory relief to families and businesses alike. Both pieces of legislation will make unelected bureaucrats accountable to Congress. The American Dream is achievable, and, as the son of a General Motors line worker, my life is proof of it. But that dream is only possible when we give Americans the freedom they need to be successful and unleash their capabilities in our economy.