[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H67-H87]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME
ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1155.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1155.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1758
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1155) to provide for the establishment of a process for the
review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Collins of New York in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As we begin 2016, we face the same difficulty we have faced since the
beginning of the Obama administration. Because the administration and
the entrenched Washington regulatory bureaucracy insist on piling
burden upon burden on the backs of workers, Main Street families, and
small-business owners, America is still struggling to create enough new
jobs and economic growth to produce the prosperity we need.
{time} 1800
To turn this problem around, we must not only stem the tide of
unnecessarily costly new regulations; we must also get rid of the
deadwood in the accumulated, existing regulations that impose almost $2
trillion in annual costs on our economy.
How can America's job creators create enough new jobs while
Washington regulations divert so many of their resources in other
directions? The SCRUB Act addresses this problem head-on with new,
innovative ways to clear away the clutter of outdated and unnecessarily
burdensome regulations.
For years, there has been a bipartisan consensus that this is an
important task that must be performed. But, as with so many things, the
hard part has always been the details. Different approaches have been
tried by different Presidential administrations, and some solutions
have been offered by Congress. But, to date, no sufficiently meaningful
results have been produced.
In many ways, this is because past approaches never fully aligned the
incentives and tools of all the relevant actors--regulatory agencies,
regulated entities, the President, the Congress, and others--to
identify and cut the regulations that can and should be cut.
On their own, regulators have little incentive to shine a spotlight
on their errors or on regulations that are no longer needed. Regulated
entities, meanwhile, may fear retaliation by regulators if they suggest
ways to trim the regulators' authority. And the sheer volume of the
Code of Federal Regulations, which now contains roughly 175,000 pages
of regulations,
[[Page H68]]
presents a daunting task for any Congress or President to address.
The SCRUB Act represents a real step forward in our attempts to
eliminate obsolete and unnecessarily burdensome Federal regulations
without compromising needed regulatory objectives. By establishing an
expert commission with the resources and authority to assess
independently where and how regulations are outdated and unnecessarily
burdensome, it overcomes the disincentives for agencies and even
regulated entities to identify problem regulations.
In addition, by providing a legislative method to immediately repeal
the most problematic regulations, the SCRUB Act assures that we will
take care of the biggest problems quickly. Further, by instituting
regulatory CutGo measures for the remaining regulations the commission
identifies for repeal--when Congress approves the repeal--the bill
assures that the rest of the work of cutting regulations will finally
happen.
I urge my colleagues to support the SCRUB Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Members, my colleagues, I rise, I am sorry to say, in strong
opposition to H.R. 1155, the so-called SCRUB Act, because it threatens
to drown agencies in additional layers of red tape and makes it nearly
impossible to establish any new rule, no matter how pressing, or to
issue any guidance on existing rules.
Under this bill, an agency must treat every regulation the same,
regardless of the urgency of the situation or the subject matter of the
regulation. H.R. 1155 achieves this result in several respects.
First, the bill would establish a regulatory CutGo process, forcing
agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to
new threats to our health and safety. This draconian, one-size-fits-all
retrospective review process would obligate an agency to determine the
costs of a new regulation and eliminate an existing regulation in order
to pay for it.
Next, the SCRUB Act is a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
In principle, retrospective review of existing regulations is certainly
not a bad idea. It is hard to argue against the notion that agencies
should periodically assess whether the rules they promulgated are as
good as they can be or whether they are even necessary in light of
changed circumstances.
However, each agency already conducts oversight through retrospective
review of agency rules, narrowing the delegations of authority to
agencies, controlling agency appropriations, and conducting oversight
of agency activity.
And finally, we must acknowledge that the real intent of this
legislation is to hobble the ability of the agencies to regulate.
Proponents of this legislation rely on unsubstantiated rhetoric that
regulations inhibit economic development. Supporters of so-called
regulatory ``reform'' measures like the SCRUB Act claim that regulation
imposes such costs on businesses that it stifles economic growth and
job creation.
In support of this contention, they repeatedly cite a widely debunked
study by economists Mark and Nicole Crain that claims Federal
regulation imposes an annual cost of $1.75 trillion on business. The
Crain study, however, has been extensively criticized for exaggerating
the costs of Federal rulemaking on small businesses.
In recognition of these concerns, the Coalition for Sensible
Safeguards, an alliance of more than 150 consumer, labor, research,
faith, and other public interest groups, strongly oppose this
legislation. In addition, the White House has released a Statement of
Administration Policy that threatens to veto this legislation.
Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to join with me in
opposing H.R. 1155.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, 175,268. That is the number of
pages of Federal regulations on the books that are breaking down the
backs of small businesses, farmers, and families across our entire
country.
Some of the folks across the aisle may say that there aren't any
unnecessary regulations, there aren't regulations that cause an undue
burden on families, there may not be any that are outdated. Let me give
you a list of a couple that I came across just in the last couple of
years.
I spoke to some dairy farmers in my congressional district. Not too
long ago, according to the EPA, if they stored more than 1,320 gallons
of milk, they had to prepare the same kind of hazardous spill
requirement that these large oil companies do with oil spills.
Just a few years ago, we had the Department of Labor try to say
whether my nephews or anyone's kids or grandkids could perform common
chores on the family farm.
We also had the EPA trying to implement ambient air quality standards
that are so unrealistic that literally the Mark Twain National Forest
in southeast Missouri would be considered in some areas a nonattainment
zone. And I can tell you right now that I would rather breathe the
oxygen in southeast Missouri than in any of the big coastal cities on
the East or the West side.
We have also seen this administration act with the stroke of a pen to
try and implement rules that could not be passed by legislation in
Congress, such as cap-and-trade when the Democrats controlled the House
in 2010. Now the President is trying to implement those environmental
policies, which would ultimately double and triple the utility rates of
people on fixed incomes in southeast Missouri.
We had an issue where the National Park Service implemented a rule
saying that a local Baptist church in south-central Missouri could not
perform their water baptism service along the Current River, an act
that they had been doing for decades. This was a rule that came up.
Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, there are multiple rules--and I could
go on and on--that are unnecessary, outdated, and causing an undue
burden on businesses. This is the opportunity where citizens across the
country can come before this commission and request rules to be seen
and to be looked at that would actually make government smaller, more
efficient, and accountable.
I am asking this body to help support the SCRUB Act so we can reform
government regulation at the Federal level like we have done at the
State level when I was there.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1155, the SCRUB Act, a one-way ratchet
with the sole aim of prioritizing costs over benefits through the
reckless elimination of rules without consideration of their benefit.
This legislation would shift the costs of rules from corporations to
consumers, while posing substantial burdens and delays to agencies,
thereby undermining public health and safety.
Title II of H.R. 1155 prohibits agencies from issuing a single new
rule until the agency first offsets the cost of the new rule by
repealing an existing rule specified by the commission. These
regulatory CutGo provisions would apply to every new agency rule, no
matter how important or pressing, for every regulatory agency.
For instance, any expert regulatory agency seeking to promulgate a
new rule to safeguard vehicles from ignition switch failures, to
keeping our water clean from chemical contamination, or to protect our
hospitals in the event of an outbreak of an infectious disease would
first have to eliminate an existing rule, which would trigger a new
rulemaking process altogether to rescind that rule, causing years in
delays.
Furthermore, title II lacks any mechanism for agencies to issue
emergency rules that protect the public and environment from imminent
harm. These procedures are dangerous and would tie the hands of
agencies responding to public health crises requiring timely regulatory
responses.
Additionally, agencies are unable to simply rescind rules. Instead,
the APA requires that agencies follow the same notice and comment
procedures to eliminate a rule as would be required to issue the same
rule in the first place.
Thus, under the bill's requirements, prior to promulgating a new
rule, agencies would likely need to prepare two
[[Page H69]]
sets of proposals: one for a new rule and one for eliminating an
existing rule required by the commission through regulatory CutGo. This
process may take anywhere from a few months to several years,
especially when the underlying rule involves complex issues.
Lastly, the SCRUB Act is a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
Each branch of government already conducts effective oversight through
retrospective review of agency rules, narrowing the delegations of
authority to agencies controlling agency appropriations and conducting
oversight of agency activity.
Congress also has the specific authority under the Congressional
Review Act to disapprove any rule that an agency proposes.
{time} 1815
Rather than meaningfully streamlining the rulemaking process,
regulatory CutGo would ossify the regulatory system by causing years of
delay in the rulemaking process, creating additional layers and burdens
in the regulatory system.
In total, the SCRUB Act would essentially function as a choke hold on
Federal agency rulemaking; therefore, we should change the name of the
SCRUB Act to the ``Scrooge Act.'' It delays any new action by an agency
and drains agency resources and taxpayer dollars in a time of
widespread budget austerity.
Lastly, I would comment that imposing the same regulatory burden on a
dairy farmer as is imposed on an oil producer or an oil company sounds
to me like the oil companies have been having a great day with the
rules around here of late if they have got to do what we require a
dairy farmer to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, here in Washington, it is often difficult
to see the true breadth and effect of the nearly $2 trillion regulatory
burden imposed by Federal regulations, but in my Pennsylvania district,
you see these burdens in everyday life.
Across the spectrum of businesses, the struggle with regulatory
compliance is an ever-present drag on creating jobs, economic growth,
and innovation. I hear the same stories from small, family-owned
restaurants, to mechanics, shop owners, and even landscapers. Due to
decades of regulation from Washington, they are forced to focus as much
time or more on compliance instead of running their businesses. These
are real costs in dollars that are lost to needless and, in many cases,
outdated red tape.
The SCRUB Act will start the process of unraveling years of
convoluted, sometimes contradictory, regulations and eliminating the
costs that come with them. It is a bill that will modernize our Code of
Federal Regulations for the 21st Century by eliminating regulations
from the last one. Just as important, it is a bill that will lessen the
amount of money spent by our government in enforcing regulations that
are no longer needed.
I am proud to cosponsor this piece of legislation, and I urge all my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Harvard Business School's United States
Competitiveness Project has outlined eight actions it recommends that
Congress take to make America the most economically competitive place
in the world to do business, not just to increase corporate profits,
but to increase wages for working people across America.
Among those eight steps, which include immigration reform,
responsible Federal budgeting, tax reform, and investing in
infrastructure and research, is simplifying Federal regulation. The
idea is not to lower standards but to regulate more intelligently,
keeping in mind costs and benefits, and focusing on outcomes rather
than compliance methods.
I am in lockstep agreement with the Harvard Business School and with
House Republican leadership and with many of my Democratic colleagues
on the objective of simplifying and streamlining Federal regulation.
But what frustrates me today is that the House Republican leadership's
so-called SCRUB Act has no chance of passage, and they know it. Because
it requires costs to be arbitrarily cut, with no policy goal, and makes
it hard to do even good rulemaking in the future, it has virtually no
support among Democrats, including, most notably, the President of the
United States, who would have to sign the bill for it to become law.
If we want to be serious about regulatory reform, we should bring up
a bill that has bipartisan support, will pass this Chamber, and has a
chance at the President's approval as well.
The amendment that will be offered later by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Murphy), my colleague, that I cosponsored, is based on the
Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015. The bill is strongly bipartisan,
counting new Democrats, moderate Republicans, and even Freedom Caucus
members among its cosponsors.
It would empower, like the SCRUB Act, an independent, bipartisan
commission to sift through the regulatory accumulation of the past
decades to recommend changes and eliminations and to present those
recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
Now, we have heard the Republican leadership say that Congress, in
2016, will be about drawing contrasts. Apparently, that means that,
rather than seeking to work together in areas on which we agree, we
will have a series of these message bills, like the SCRUB Act, that are
more about making a political point than making policy. So we will talk
about the SCRUB Act instead of passing the Regulatory Improvement Act;
and therefore, we will not provide the economy and our workers the
regulatory relief that we all want to provide them and we agreed that
they need. And that, drawing contrasts to win elections instead of
working on solutions for our constituents in areas in which Republicans
and Democrats agree, is what people hate about Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan approach.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of H.R.
1155, the SCRUB Act, and would like to thank my colleague from Missouri
(Mr. Smith) for his leadership in this matter.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is aimed at decreasing the regulatory
burden facing our Nation's small businesses. Small businesses account
for 7 out of every 10 new jobs created in America today--7 out of 10.
Unfortunately, overly burdensome regulations particularly impact
small businesses. Oppressive Federal regulations are holding our small
businesses back from growing and creating more jobs, and we all know we
need more jobs created in this country.
As chairman of the Committee on Small Business in the House, I hear
from small-business folks every week from all over the country who are
struggling under the weight of excessive regulations.
In the West End of Cincinnati, for example, the Wegman Company is
finding it next to impossible to comply with ObamaCare and SBA loan
requirements. They say that reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens
would allow them to focus their energy and time and resources on
growing and expanding their business and creating the jobs that are
sorely needed in Cincinnati.
The SCRUB Act will create a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to
closely examine the mountain of costly existing Federal regulations and
target those that ought to be repealed. In particular, the commission
will prioritize reviews of major rules, some that are more than 15
years old and that impose disproportionately high costs on America's
small businesses.
H.R. 1155 will provide a commonsense way to identify and repeal
outdated regulations that unnecessarily and disproportionately burden
small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the SCRUB Act.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
[[Page H70]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I have certain sympathy to what my friend from
California talked about. There are areas of being able to move forward
to be able to fine-tune the regulatory system. The problem with the
approach that is taken here--it has no chance of being enacted into law
and includes sort of a mindless approach in a formula basis that has no
reality basis going forward.
We have used government regulation to be able to fine-tune
legislation. Can it be done better? I have no doubt.
One of the things I feel very strongly about, it is not a case of
having a mindless formula, having a group of unelected bureaucrats. I
find that my friends on the other side of the aisle had spasms of angst
and fury about unelected bureaucrats advising Congress dealing with the
Affordable Care Act to try and help maintain targets for Medicare
savings, but they have referred to unelected bureaucrats in this
regard.
One of the things that I think is important is that we not implement
a theory here that would engage us in more rulemaking, more expenses.
This would effectively dramatically increase the amount of time and
energy, reducing the flexibility to be able to move forward.
It would be much more productive if we were focusing on the principle
of performance-based regulation. Establish what it is that we are
trying to do; provide the actors and actresses in the private sector
and in government with achievable benchmarks to guide the behavior that
we are trying to achieve.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. A performance-based regulatory system would have less
overall regulation, give people a target to shoot for that wouldn't
have to be as contentious, and actually be able to get the job done.
This would be a much more productive approach rather than legislation
that isn't going to go anywhere and, frankly, shouldn't go anywhere.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the fourth branch of government is the bureaucrats. We
don't know who most of them are, but they are everywhere. And what they
do is, with a certain group of bureaucrats, they regulate. Congress has
allowed them to do that, by law, and they make all kinds of rules about
everything.
Usually they will take a law, and then they will regulate or form
rules about that law; and because of that, we have about 175,000 pages
of regulation. Come a long ways since the Ten Commandments--10 words,
basically. Now they have got 175,000 pages of regulations, rules by
Federal bureaucrats on American businesses and American individuals.
Do we really need 175,000 rules? Maybe a few thousand less would be
better.
The SCRUB Act tries to organize all of these rules because a lot of
them are important. A lot of them are good, and a lot of them are bad.
A lot of them are dumb, and a whole lot of them are very expensive to
Americans.
Now, let's just use one example. The Lacey Act was written in about
1900, and the Lacey Act says, if a crime is committed in another
country regarding importing into the U.S., it is a crime in the U.S. if
it is a crime in another country.
So Abner Schoenwetter was charged with a crime under the
interpretation of the Lacey Act because he had the audacity to import
into the United States the Caribbean spiny lobster from Honduras that
were too small, and he shipped them in paper boxes, cardboard boxes,
instead of plastic boxes.
Now, never mind that the Honduran Government did not enforce this
law. In fact, the Honduran Government said, in a brief to the U.S.
Government from the Attorney General of Honduras: Don't prosecute him.
We don't enforce this law.
But no, he is prosecuted under the interpretation of the Lacey Act
for bringing in those little bitty lobsters and bringing them in paper
rather than in plastic. So you know the result? He got 8 years in
prison for this.
Are you kidding me? I mean, I am a former judge. Do we really need to
be spending America's money and time on prosecuting people for using
paper instead of plastic? And that is what happened to him.
So the SCRUB Act will go through and try to regulate the regulators
and regulate the regulations.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the driver of the SCRUB Act is not the
dairy farmer, but it is the oil company and those as rich and powerful
as those are.
So, in summary, H.R. 1155 is yet another antiregulatory bill on the
big corporation wish list, saddling American taxpayers with a $30
million check for a bill that wouldn't create one job beyond the
membership of the commission itself.
This bill has serious flaws, and I would urge my colleagues to reject
it. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1155.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
During this debate, my friends from the other side of the aisle have
raised several false alarms about the alleged harms of this bill.
{time} 1830
The alarm bells that should be ringing for all Americans, however, is
the alarm bell about the damage the dead weight of Washington
regulation is piling on American jobs and wages.
All rhetoric aside, the question that needs to be asked is, at the
turn of this new year, where do American jobs and wages stand? The
Investor's Business Daily reports that we have just concluded 8 years
of zero real wage growth for American workers and families. That means
zero wage growth for the entire Obama administration--0.0.
What about jobs? Ninety-four million Americans above the age of 16
are out of the workforce--completely out of the workforce. Labor force
participation has fallen sharply for working-age Americans. And we
would have created about 6 million more jobs if the so-called Obama
recovery had just been as good and as strong as the average recovery
since World War II. The Obama recovery, instead, is the worst recovery
from recession in a postwar era. The near $2 trillion of annual
regulatory costs crushing our economy's ability to create new jobs and
higher wages is a critical part of this problem.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill to help deliver new jobs and better wages to America's workers and
families.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first start by thanking the leadership of
Jason Smith in bringing this bill before us.
I rise in support of H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015, also known
as the SCRUB Act, which we have been talking about.
The bill addresses an important issue facing American taxpayers:
ever-growing regulation. Each year the Federal agencies add regulation
after regulation piling up into an already complex and crowded
regulatory system. The Code of Federal Regulation now exceeds 175,000
pages, and every year the Federal Government promulgates thousands of
new regulations. It is hard to keep up with all the regulation time and
time again.
In just the fall of 2015, the semiannual Unified Regulatory Agenda
contained 2,000 more regulations, including 144 regulations expected to
cost over $100 million each. This ever-growing stack of regulations has
considerable impacts on the economy.
I want to be clear. This happens no matter what the administration
is--Democrat, Republican, Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter. It is a
natural tendency of the executive branch to want to do what Congress is
supposed to do, and there are just things that get implemented that
need to be scrubbed out of the system so we can get to some sanity and
some reasonableness, so that people can understand what their
government is expecting of them.
I think there is room and there is place for regulation, but it is a
limited
[[Page H71]]
one. It needs to be well understood, and it is reasonable to search,
cut, find, and get rid of these burdensome regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my dear friend, the distinguished ranking
member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
I must say, the previous speaker representing the majority on the
Judiciary Committee reminded me of the meaning of the word chutzpah. To
complain about job growth when your party hands a new, Democratic
President the deepest and worst recession since the Great Depression;
when you leave the country with 10.2 percent unemployment, and that
President and these Democrats in this Congress reversed all that.
Unemployment is less than half of that, 5 percent. We have had 64
consecutive months of positive--net positive--private-sector job
growth, the longest stretch in American history. And you want to say it
could have been better if we hadn't had so much regulation? What an
extraordinary narrative--and a false one and a dangerous one.
The name of this bill is the SCRUB Act. The best thing we can do with
this bill is to scrub it from the floor of the House of
Representatives. It is dangerous because it will lift protections on
public health and public safety.
You don't like regulation. Some regulation is burdensome, and
certainly we ought to have regular reviews to make sure we reduce or
eliminate those. We already do. Agencies are already required to do so
under the executive orders signed by this President.
In fact, those efforts are yielding results. The Administrative
Conference of the United States reports that agencies have identified
``tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and tens of millions of
hours of reduced paperwork and reporting requirements through
modification of existing regulations'' because of those reviews already
in place. The Department of Labor, for example, modified its chemical
hazard labeling requirement, reducing costs to industry by $2.5 billion
over the last 5 years.
I am particularly troubled by the bill's creation of a CutGo scheme
which seems deceptively appealing. That is a plan in which agencies
would be required to eliminate an existing regulation before they could
possibly promulgate a new one. That forces agencies into an arbitrary
and untenable position of having to choose between preserving existing
public health and safety protections or moving to protect against new
threats. The bill provides no safe harbor exceptions for any rules, no
matter how important, potentially jeopardizing the very public health
and safety mission of Federal agencies.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the real intent behind this bill and another
the House will consider tomorrow is not about improving regulatory
processes but to create delays ad infinitum to grind the regulatory
process to an absolute halt for the benefit of certain corporate
interests in America at the public's expense. In addition to not giving
the administration any credit for its herculean efforts to streamline
current regulations, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
conveniently fail to mention any of the health or safety benefits of
regulation. OMB estimates the annual net--net--benefit of major rules
issued during this administration is approximately $215 billion. But
that is an inconvenient fact. That is a difficult thing to talk about,
that there actually could be benefits to public health by cleaner air
and cleaner water.
Further, my colleagues have provided no evidence that regulation
somehow serves as the hobnail boot on the neck of the economy, as they
would have us believe. I mentioned it is quite the opposite in terms of
unemployment, in terms of job growth, and in terms of GDP growth.
Mr. Chairman, it is this legislation that is unnecessary and
burdensome and, I suggest, a threat to public health and safety. We
ought to scrub it from the calendar. Short of that, I certainly urge my
colleagues to oppose it, as I will.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, The Washington Times cited the Federal
Register. In 1 year alone, there were 81,611 pages of new regulations.
I think it is time that we go back and look at those.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) for
his passion on this topic.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, since 2008, the term of the current administration, for
the first time since records have been kept, we have a net reduction in
small businesses, according to the National Federation of Independent
Business.
I am going to say that again. We have, for the first time in recorded
history, a net reduction in small businesses in this country.
There is a study that was done in 2012 by the National Association of
Manufacturers. It says for small manufacturers--for small
manufacturers--the cost per employee of complying with regulations is
$35,000. There is another study that was done for the SBA that
determined that $15,000 per family--per household--is the cost of
complying with regulations in the United States. This is absolutely a
burden on our families. It is a burden on our economy.
Now, at the same time, the administration is out there talking about
the promotion of free trade agreements around the country. Explain to
me how we are going to be able to compete on a level playing field with
these other countries if we are tying the American workers' hands
behind their backs and throwing them out there on the field?
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what bill is being described here by some
of the previous speakers. This bill sets up a bipartisan commission.
You heard numerous examples of regulations that are outdated that might
have made a ton of sense in the 1940s and the 1950s. It is 2016. We
need to take a fresh look at this.
A study was done that determined that this bill could result in the
reduction or a cost savings of $48 billion annually by taking a fresh
look at regulations. Government is not going to save this country.
Government didn't make this country the greatest country in the world.
It was competition, it was innovation, and it was hard work by the
American workforce.
Take this regulatory burden off of our workforce, Mr. Chairman, and
let's put these people back to work.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The SCRUB Act
would establish a $30 million commission to duplicate work agencies are
already supposed to be doing. The bill would entrust this commission
with extraordinary powers that could be subject to abuse. This bill is
opposed by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more than
150 consumer, labor, and good government groups. In addition, the
administration announced last night that if this bill were presented to
the President, his advisers would recommend that he veto it.
President Obama has already issued two executive orders to eliminate
unnecessary regulations. On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued
Executive Order No. 13563, requiring each agency to implement plans for
reviewing its existing rules. It requires each agency to ``periodically
review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any
such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or
repealed.''
In addition, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13610 on May
10, 2012, requiring agencies to report twice a year to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs on the status of their retrospective
review efforts.
In November 2014, the Administrative Conference of the United States
issued a report highlighting the impact of these mandated reviews. The
report concluded: ``Implementing President Obama's executive orders on
retrospective review of regulations, agencies identified tens of
billions of dollars of cost savings and tens of millions of hours of
reduced paperwork and reporting requirements through modifications of
existing regulations.''
Congress also has the authority and the responsibility to conduct
oversight to review existing agency rules and to recommend or mandate
reforms. Yet this bill attempts to reduce bureaucracy by creating a new
commission
[[Page H72]]
that would cost taxpayers $30 million--let me say that again--$30
million to do what agencies and Congress are already doing.
One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is the broad authority
it would give to the commission. The commission would have virtually
unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. Specifically,
section 101(c) of this bill states: ``The Commission may issue
subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of any evidence relating to the duties of the Commission.
The attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence may be
required from any place within the United States at any designated
place of hearing within the United States.''
{time} 1845
Most agency inspectors general do not have such broad authority to
compel witness testimony, yet this unelected commission would have this
authority. The commission would have jurisdiction over every existing
regulation.
This means that it could compel an individual to testify on any
subject. A schoolteacher could be compelled to testify about education
rules or a senior citizen could be compelled to testify about Medicare
or Social Security rules.
Three prominent law professors with the Center for Progressive Reform
sent a letter opposing this bill last month. The letter said:
``H.R. 1155 would create a convoluted, complex, and potentially very
expensive new bureaucracy to review existing agency rules and make
recommendations for the repeal or weakening of those rules with little
meaningful oversight, transparency, or public accountability to ensure
that these recommendations do not subvert the public interest.''
This may be a well-intended bill, but it could have dangerous
consequences. I urge Members to oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration
Policy, dated January 5, 2016.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1155--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily
Burdensome Act of 2015
(Rep. Smith, R-MO, Jan. 5, 2016)
The Administration is committed to ensuring that
regulations are smart and effective, and tailored to further
statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient
manner. The retrospective review of regulations has been an
ongoing priority of this Administration. Starting in 2011,
the President institutionalized the retrospective review of
regulations in Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, requiring
agencies to report twice a year on the status of their
efforts. H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations
that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act, would make the process
of retrospective regulatory review less productive. Further,
the bill also would create needless regulatory and legal
uncertainty; increase costs for businesses and State, local
and tribal governments; and impede common-sense protections
for the American public. Accordingly, the Administration
strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1155 in its current
form.
Although outside input and perspective on what rules may be
ripe for potential reform or repeal is crucial, retrospective
review is most effective when led by the agencies. The bill's
creation of a stand-alone commission to review the entire
Code of Federal Regulations is likely to produce a haphazard
list of rules that, under the procedures in the bill, must be
repealed if approved by a joint resolution. There appears to
be no mechanism for making thoughtful and modest
modifications to rules to improve their implementation and
enforcement, which is often the best course of action for
making regulations work better. Moreover, the bill's ``cut-
go'' approach is problematic: it would interfere with the
ability of agencies to issue regulations that are essential
for the protection of public health, safety, and the
environment.
The Administration recognizes that the applicability of
``cut-go'' in H.R. 1155 is narrower than in other bills being
considered in the Congress. Nonetheless, it is essential that
agencies have the flexibility to promptly issue new, vital
rules. This ability should not be constrained by a
Commission's recommendation, or Congressional approval of a
list of repealable rules. While retrospective review is an
Administration priority and an essential tool to relieve
unnecessary regulatory burden, it is important that
retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily constrain an
agency's ability to provide a timely response to critical
public health or safety issues, or constrain its ability to
implement new statutory provisions.
For these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes H.R.
1155 in its current form. If the President were presented
with the current version of H.R. 1155, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Blum). I appreciate his passion on this issue.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act.
While the full title is a mouthful, I can assure you that the idea
behind this bill is simple and clear: removing obsolete and burdensome
regulations so our economy can grow.
This legislation creates a commission to identify outdated rules,
streamlines and updates our regulatory system, and enforces executive
agencies to repeal unnecessary regulations to offset the cost of new
ones.
As a career small business person, I know firsthand what it is like
to operate and grow a business under the burden of excessive
regulation. I have met a payroll every week for the last 20 years.
I would propose to you, Mr. Chairman, if more of my Democratic
colleagues had signed the fronts of paychecks, this Federal Government
would produce fewer regulations on businesses today.
According to a report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the
cost to the economy of regulations is a staggering $2 trillion a year.
And we wonder, Mr. Chairman, why manufacturers choose to move their
operations outside the United States.
Instead of hiring more workers, raising wages and benefits, and
investing in technology, many businesses are forced instead to divert
investments toward complying with evermore government regulations. This
has to change.
As I travel in my district, I am often asked how do we reignite the
economy. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is relatively simple. We have the
finest entrepreneurs and the finest small-business people in the entire
world here in the United States.
Simply get out of our way, get off of our backs with excessive
regulations, get out of our back pockets with excessive fees and taxes,
and we will grow our businesses, will hire more employees, and we will
create opportunities for our citizens to live their versions of the
American Dream.
I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) for putting this
proposal forward. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
measure so our businesses can be free from outdated regulations that no
longer make sense for America.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 1155. I think, if all of us are honest in
this House, every one of us, certainly myself included, I would be the
first to say I hear on a regular basis from the people of Georgia of
how they are literally being strangled economically because of the
overburdened Federal regulations that are upon them.
It is an issue that we must absolutely address. It is an issue that
we have dealt with time and again in the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee. Now we have an opportunity to do something about it.
That is why I support H.R. 1155.
The SCRUB Act, in essence, will establish a blue-ribbon commission to
identify outdated and unnecessary regulations that are placing a burden
on our businesses and individuals. This commission will be comprised of
experts from the private sector, academia, as well as government
agencies.
I hope we have heard what has already been said here today. There are
175,000 pages of regulations amounting to some $2 trillion a year of
burdens upon our economy, upon businesses, and upon individuals in this
country. It amounts to, as was stated previously, some $15,000 per
household if it were spread out.
How can we tolerate this any longer? We can't. That is the bottom
line. The commission that will be established
[[Page H73]]
here will help go through all of these 175,000 pages of regulations and
help end a culture of suffocation and regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have supported the SCRUB Act in the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the past, and I am
pleased to do so again today.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1155.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my counterpart aware
that I have one additional speaker and then I am prepared to close.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hultgren).
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
I rise today as an original cosponsor of the SCRUB Act that relieves
the burdensome impact of unnecessary Federal regulation on Americans.
This legislation establishes a systematic process to reduce
regulatory costs. It comes at a time when the President continues to
limit Americans' economic freedom by issuing new decrees from
Washington.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Obama
administration issued a staggering 82,036 pages of proposed rules just
in 2015, eclipsing its own 2010 record. In 2015, that equaled a total
of 3,408 rules and regulations.
The weight of Federal regulations is a millstone around the necks of
entrepreneurs and small businesses struggling to survive amid economic
uncertainty. The SCRUB Act provides a means to cut unnecessary
regulations and help the economy recover. It incorporates elements of
my own bill, the Regulatory Review and Sunset Act.
Like my bill, the SCRUB Act requires the review of existing
regulations to identify those in need of repeal. Under the review
process, it prioritizes those regulations with a major economic impact
and that impose a disproportionate economic burden on small businesses.
It requires recommendations on regulatory repeal to be presented to
Congress for approval. If Congress gives the okay, repeal must happen.
Republicans and Democrats alike support eliminating the costs of
unnecessary and obsolete regulations to help economic recovery. The
SCRUB Act provides a meaningful, bipartisan mechanism to achieve this
goal.
Again, I want to thank the chairman. I urge passage.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side of the aisle
talk about the costs of regulations. I think we always have to keep in
mind there is a reason for regulations.
Sadly, in many instances, there have been abuses where public health
safety is concerned. We have to make sure that we draw that balance. I
think President Obama has done a lot in that regard and has probably
done more than many of his predecessors.
It is important to remember that these regulations have enormous
benefits. In October, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
reported that the net benefits of major rules issued during the Obama
administration, from 2009 to 2014, is some $215 billion. Agencies have
also reduced the cost of regulations by streamlining existing rules.
In 2014, the Administrative Conference of the United States reported
that more than 90 percent of agency retrospective reviews resulted in
amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, the
Department of Labor modified the chemical hazard labeling requirements,
which saved manufacturers around $2.5 billion over 5 years.
We do not need to waste $30 million on a new commission to review
rules when agencies are already performing this function without
additional taxpayer funding.
I urge all Members to vote against this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I urge passage of this bill. I want to congratulate our colleague,
Congressman Jason Smith, for his good, diligent work on this. A lot of
Members have had a deep-seated interest in this. There has been, I
think, a good discussion about this.
In general, I think what we are proposing is very fair and it is very
balanced. We are asking for a bipartisan group of people to go back and
review things. I think it would be naive at best to think that things
that were added as regulations in the 1940s or the 1950s are
automatically--automatically--by default necessary today.
Sometimes you have to go back and look. And we are asking to do this
in a bipartisan way. That is not a heavy lift. It is not unreasonable.
It is very balanced in its approach. I think it is the right thing to
do.
Is there a proper role of regulation? Of course. It doesn't mean that
everything needs to be regulated. I worry about the men and women, the
young entrepreneurs, that are trying to get things done because they
run into hurdles they never knew were there. We handcuff people. There
are unintended consequences. The economy is different today than it was
in the 1930s or the 1940s.
It is reasonable to go back and try to scrub out some of these
regulations and do so in a bipartisan way, but, yet, there is
opposition to that. Nevertheless, I think we put together a good bill.
I urge Members to vote for it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1155
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015''
or as the ``SCRUB Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
Sec. 101. In general.
TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO
Sec. 201. Cut-go procedures.
Sec. 202. Applicability.
Sec. 203. OIRA certification of cost calculations.
TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES
Sec. 301. Plan for future review.
TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW
Sec. 401. Judicial review.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Effective date.
TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
SEC. 101. IN GENERAL.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission, to
be known as the ``Retrospective Regulatory Review
Commission'', that shall review rules and sets of rules in
accordance with specified criteria to determine if a rule or
set of rules should be repealed to eliminate or reduce the
costs of regulation to the economy. The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 5 years and 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act or 5 years after the date by
which all Commission members' terms have commenced, whichever
is later.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 members
who shall be appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. Each member shall be appointed not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Term.--The term of each member shall commence upon the
member's confirmation by the Senate and shall extend to the
date that is 5 years and 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act or that is 5 years after the date by which all
members have been confirmed by the Senate, whichever is
later.
(3) Appointment.--The members of the Commission shall be
appointed as follows:
(A) Chair.--The President shall appoint as the Chair of the
Commission an individual with expertise and experience in
rulemaking, such as past Administrators of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, past chairmen of the
Administrative Conference of the United States, and other
individuals with similar expertise and experience in
rulemaking affairs and the administration of regulatory
reviews.
(B) Candidate list of members.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the
Minority Leader of the Senate shall each present to the
President a list of candidates to be members of the
Commission. Such candidates shall be individuals learned in
rulemaking affairs and, preferably, administration of
regulatory reviews. The President shall appoint 2 members of
the Commission from each list provided under this
subparagraph, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (C).
[[Page H74]]
(C) Resubmission of candidate.--The President may request
from the presenter of the list under subparagraph (B) a new
list of one or more candidates if the President--
(i) determines that any candidate on the list presented
pursuant to subparagraph (B) does not meet the qualifications
specified in such subparagraph to be a member of the
Commission; and
(ii) certifies that determination to the congressional
officials specified in subparagraph (B).
(c) Powers and Authorities of the Commission.--
(1) Meetings.--The Commission may meet when, where, and as
often as the Commission determines appropriate, except that
the Commission shall hold public meetings not less than twice
each year. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to
the public.
(2) Hearings.--In addition to meetings held under paragraph
(1), the Commission may hold hearings to consider issues of
fact or law relevant to the Commission's work. Any hearing
held by the Commission shall be open to the public.
(3) Access to information.--The Commission may secure
directly from any agency information and documents necessary
to enable the Commission to carry out this Act. Upon request
of the Chair of the Commission, the head of that agency shall
furnish that information or document to the Commission as
soon as possible, but not later than two weeks after the date
on which the request was made.
(4) Subpoenas.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas
requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of any evidence relating to the duties of the
Commission. The attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence may be required from any place within the United
States at any designated place of hearing within the United
States.
(B) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to
obey a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A), the Commission
may apply to a United States district court for an order
requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give
testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter
under investigation. The application may be made within the
judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where
that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any
failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the
court as civil contempt.
(C) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission
shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued
by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
(D) Service of process.--All process of any court to which
application is made under subparagraph (B) may be served in
the judicial district in which the person required to be
served resides or may be found.
(d) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
(1) Pay.--
(A) Members.--Each member, other than the Chair of the
Commission, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which the member is engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(B) Chair.--The Chair shall be paid for each day referred
to in subparagraph (A) at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable
for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of
title 5, United States Code.
(2) Travel expenses.--Members shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(e) Director of Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall appoint a Director.
(2) Pay.--The Director shall be paid at the rate of basic
pay payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(f) Staff.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director,
with the approval of the Commission, may appoint, fix the pay
of, and terminate additional personnel.
(2) Limitations on appointment.--The Director may make such
appointments without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without
regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so
appointed may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of
basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(3) Agency assistance.--Following consultation with and
upon request of the Chair of the Commission, the head of any
agency may detail any of the personnel of that agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out the
duties of the Commission under this Act.
(4) GAO and oira assistance.--The Comptroller General of
the United States and the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide assistance,
including the detailing of employees, to the Commission in
accordance with an agreement entered into with the
Commission.
(5) Assistance from other parties.--Congress, the States,
municipalities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and local
governments may provide assistance, including the detailing
of employees, to the Commission in accordance with an
agreement entered into with the Commission.
(g) Other Authority.--
(1) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure by
contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or
intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Property.--The Commission may lease space and acquire
personal property to the extent funds are available.
(h) Duties of the Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a review of
the Code of Federal Regulations to identify rules and sets of
rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that
should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the
economy. The Commission shall give priority in the review to
rules or sets of rules that are major rules or include major
rules, have been in effect more than 15 years, impose
paperwork burdens that could be reduced substantially without
significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness, impose
disproportionately high costs on entities that qualify as
small entities within the meaning of section 601(6) of title
5, United States Code, or could be strengthened in their
effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs. The Commission
shall have as a goal of the Commission to achieve a reduction
of at least 15 percent in the cumulative costs of Federal
regulation with a minimal reduction in the overall
effectiveness of such regulation.
(2) Nature of review.--To identify which rules and sets of
rules should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to
the economy, the Commission shall apply the following
criteria:
(A) Whether the original purpose of the rule or set of
rules was achieved, and the rule or set of rules could be
repealed without significant recurrence of adverse effects or
conduct that the rule or set of rules was intended to prevent
or reduce.
(B) Whether the implementation, compliance, administration,
enforcement or other costs of the rule or set of rules to the
economy are not justified by the benefits to society within
the United States produced by the expenditure of those costs.
(C) Whether the rule or set of rules has been rendered
unnecessary or obsolete, taking into consideration the length
of time since the rule was made and the degree to which
technology, economic conditions, market practices, or other
relevant factors have changed in the subject area affected by
the rule or set of rules.
(D) Whether the rule or set of rules is ineffective at
achieving the purposes of the rule or set of rules.
(E) Whether the rule or set of rules overlaps, duplicates,
or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent
feasible, with State and local governmental rules.
(F) Whether the rule or set of rules has excessive
compliance costs or is otherwise excessively burdensome, as
compared to alternatives that--
(i) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or
manners of compliance;
(ii) establish economic incentives to encourage desired
behavior;
(iii) provide information upon which choices can be made by
the public;
(iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather than
agency actions that specify conduct or manners of compliance;
or
(v) could in other ways substantially lower costs without
significantly undermining effectiveness.
(G) Whether the rule or set of rules inhibits innovation in
or growth of the United States economy, such as by impeding
the introduction or use of safer or equally safe technology
that is newer or more efficient than technology required by
or permissible under the rule or set of rules.
(H) Whether or not the rule or set of rules harms
competition within the United States economy or the
international economic competitiveness of enterprises or
entities based in the United States.
(I) Such other criteria as the Commission devises to
identify rules and sets of rules that can be repealed to
eliminate or reduce unnecessarily burdensome costs to the
United States economy.
(3) Methodology for review.--The Commission shall establish
a methodology for conducting the review (including an overall
review and discrete reviews of portions of the Code of
Federal Regulations), identifying rules and sets of rules,
and classifying rules under this subsection and publish the
terms of the methodology in the Federal Register and on the
website of the Commission. The Commission may propose and
seek public comment on the methodology before the methodology
is established.
(4) Classification of rules and sets of rules.--
(A) In general.--After completion of any review of rules or
sets of rules under paragraph (2), the Commission shall
classify each rule or set of rules identified in the review
to qualify for recommended repeal as either a rule or set of
rules--
(i) on which immediate action to repeal is recommended; or
(ii) that should be eligible for repeal under regulatory
cut-go procedures under title II.
[[Page H75]]
(B) Decisions by majority.--Each decision by the Commission
to identify a rule or set of rules for classification under
this paragraph, and each decision whether to classify the
rule or set of rules under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
(A), shall be made by a simple majority vote of the
Commission. No such vote shall take place until after all
members of the Commission have been confirmed by the Senate.
(5) Initiation of review by other persons.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may also conduct a review
under paragraph (2) of, and, if appropriate, classify under
paragraph (4), any rule or set of rules that is submitted for
review to the Commission by--
(i) the President;
(ii) a Member of Congress;
(iii) any officer or employee of a Federal, State, local or
tribal government, or regional governmental body; or
(iv) any member of the public.
(B) Form of submission.--A submission to the Commission
under this paragraph shall--
(i) identify the specific rule or set of rules submitted
for review;
(ii) provide a statement of evidence to demonstrate that
the rule or set of rules qualifies to be identified for
repeal under the criteria listed in paragraph (2); and
(iii) such other information as the submitter believes may
be helpful to the Commission's review, including a statement
of the submitter's interest in the matter.
(C) Public availability.--The Commission shall make each
submission received under this paragraph available on the
website of the Commission as soon as possible, but not later
than 1 week after the date on which the submission was
received.
(i) Notices and Reports of the Commission.--
(1) Notices of and reports on activities.--The Commission
shall publish, in the Federal Register and on the website of
the Commission--
(A) notices in advance of all public meetings, hearings,
and classifications under subsection (h) informing the public
of the basis, purpose, and procedures for the meeting,
hearing, or classification; and
(B) reports after the conclusion of any public meeting,
hearing, or classification under subsection (h) summarizing
in detail the basis, purpose, and substance of the meeting,
hearing, or classification.
(2) Annual reports to congress.--Each year, beginning on
the date that is one year after the date on which all
Commission members have been confirmed by the Senate, the
Commission shall submit a report simultaneously to each House
of Congress detailing the activities of the Commission for
the previous year, and listing all rules and sets of rules
classified under subsection (h) during that year. For each
rule or set of rules so listed, the Commission shall--
(A) identify the agency that made the rule or set of rules;
(B) identify the annual cost of the rule or set of rules to
the United States economy and the basis upon which the
Commission identified that cost;
(C) identify whether the rule or set of rules was
classified under clause (i) or clause (ii) of subsection
(h)(4)(A);
(D) identify the criteria under subsection (h)(2) that
caused the classification of the rule or set of rules and the
basis upon which the Commission determined that those
criteria were met;
(E) for each rule or set of rules listed under the criteria
set forth in subparagraphs (B), (D), (F), (G), or (H) of
subsection (h)(2), or other criteria established by the
Commission under subparagraph (I) of such subsection under
which the Commission evaluated alternatives to the rule or
set of rules that could lead to lower regulatory costs,
identify alternatives to the rule or set of rules that the
Commission recommends the agency consider as replacements for
the rule or set of rules and the basis on which the
Commission rests the recommendations, and, in identifying
such alternatives, emphasize alternatives that will achieve
regulatory effectiveness at the lowest cost and with the
lowest adverse impacts on jobs;
(F) for each rule or set of rules listed under the criteria
set forth in subsection (h)(2)(E), the other Federal, State,
or local governmental rules that the Commission found the
rule or set of rules to overlap, duplicate, or conflict with,
and the basis for the findings of the Commission; and
(G) in the case of each set of rules so listed, analyze
whether Congress should also consider repeal of the statutory
authority implemented by the set of rules.
(3) Final report.--Not later than the date on which the
Commission members' appointments expire, the Commission shall
submit a final report simultaneously to each House of
Congress summarizing all activities and recommendations of
the Commission, including a list of all rules or sets of
rules the Commission classified under clause (i) of
subsection (h)(4)(A) for immediate action to repeal, a
separate list of all rules or sets of rules the Commission
classified under clause (ii) of subsection (h)(4)(A) for
repeal, and with regard to each rule or set of rules listed
on either list, the information described in subparagraphs
(A) through (F) of subsection (h)(2). This report may be
included in the final annual report of the Commission under
paragraph (2) and may include the Commission's recommendation
whether the Commission should be reauthorized by Congress.
(j) Repeal of Regulations; Congressional Consideration of
Commission Reports.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)--
(A) the head of each agency with authority to repeal a rule
or set of rules classified by the Commission under subsection
(h)(4)(A)(i) for immediate action to repeal and newly listed
as such in an annual or final report of the Commission under
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (i) shall repeal the rule
or set of rules as recommended by the Commission within 60
days after the enactment of a joint resolution under
paragraph (2) for approval of the recommendations of the
Commission in the report; and
(B) the head of each agency with authority to repeal a rule
or set of rules classified by the Commission under subsection
(h)(4)(A)(ii) for repeal and newly listed as such in an
annual or final report of the Commission under paragraph (2)
or (3) of subsection (i) shall repeal the rule or set of
rules as recommended by the Commission pursuant to section
201, following the enactment of a joint resolution under
paragraph (2) for approval of the recommendations of the
Commission in the report.
(2) Congressional approval.--
(A) In general.--No head of an agency described in
paragraph (1) shall be required by this Act to carry out a
repeal listed by the Commission in a report transmitted to
Congress under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (i) until a
joint resolution is enacted, in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph (B), approving such
recommendations of the Commission for repeal.
(B) Terms of the resolution.--For purposes of paragraph
(A), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint
resolution which is introduced after the date on which the
Commission transmits to the Congress under paragraph (2) or
(3) of subsection (i) the report containing the
recommendations to which the resolution pertains, and--
(i) which does not have a preamble;
(ii) the matter after the resolving clause of which is only
as follows: ``That Congress approves the recommendations for
repeal of the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission as
submitted by the Commission on ____'', the blank space being
filled in with the appropriate date; and
(iii) the title of which is as follows: ``Approving
recommendations for repeal of the Retrospective Regulatory
Review Commission.''.
(3) Reissuance of rules.--
(A) No substantially similar rule to be reissued.--A rule
that is repealed under paragraph (1) or section 201 may not
be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule
that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be
issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically
authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint
resolution approving the Commission's recommendation to
repeal the original rule.
(B) Agency to ensure avoidance of similar defects.--An
agency, in making any new rule to implement statutory
authority previously implemented by a rule repealed under
paragraph (1) or section 201, shall ensure that the new rule
does not result in the same adverse effects of the repealed
rule that caused the Commission to recommend to Congress the
latter's repeal and will not result in new adverse effects of
the kind described in the criteria specified in or under
subsection (h).
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to the Commission to carry out
this Act, not to exceed $30,000,000.
(2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until the earlier
of the date that such sums are expended or the date of the
termination of the Commission.
(l) Website.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish a public
website that--
(A) uses current information technology to make records
available on the website;
(B) provides information in a standard data format; and
(C) receives and publishes public comments.
(2) Publishing of information.--Any information required to
be made available on the website established pursuant to this
Act shall be published in a timely manner and shall be
accessible by the public on the website at no cost.
(3) Record of public meetings and hearings.--All records of
public meetings and hearings shall be published on the
website as soon as possible, but not later than 1 week after
the date on which such public meeting or hearing occurred.
(4) Public comments.--The Commission shall publish on the
website all public comments and submissions.
(5) Notices.--The Commission shall publish on the website
notices of all public meetings and hearings at least one week
before the date on which such public meeting or hearing
occurs.
(m) Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the Commission shall be subject to the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(2) Advisory committee management officer.--The Commission
shall not be subject to the control of any Advisory Committee
Management Officer designated under section 8(b)(1) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
[[Page H76]]
(3) Subcommittee.--Any subcommittee of the Commission shall
be treated as the Commission for purposes of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(4) Charter.--The enactment of the SCRUB Act of 2015 shall
be considered to meet the requirements of the Commission
under section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.).
TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO
SEC. 201. CUT-GO PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 101(j)(2)(A)
or section 202, an agency, when the agency makes a new rule,
shall repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency classified
by the Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii), such that
the annual costs of the new rule to the United States economy
is offset by such repeals, in an amount equal to or greater
than the cost of the new rule, based on the regulatory cost
reductions of repeal identified by the Commission.
(b) Alternative Procedure.--An agency may, alternatively,
repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency classified by
the Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) prior to the
time specified in subsection (a). If the agency so repeals
such a rule or set of rules and thereby reduces the annual,
inflation-adjusted cost of the rule or set of rules to the
United States economy, the agency may thereafter apply the
reduction in regulatory costs, based on the regulatory cost
reductions of repeal identified by the Commission, to meet,
in whole or in part, the regulatory cost reduction required
under subsection (a) of this section to be made at the time
the agency promulgates a new rule.
(c) Achievement of Full Net Cost Reductions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of paragraph
(2), an agency may offset the costs of a new rule or set of
rules by repealing a rule or set of rules listed by the
Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) that implement the
same statutory authority as the new rule or set of rules.
(2) Limitation.--When using the authority provided in
paragraph (1), the agency must achieve a net reduction in
costs imposed by the agency's body of rules (including the
new rule or set of rules) that is equal to or greater than
the cost of the new rule or set of rules to be promulgated,
including, whenever necessary, by repealing additional rules
of the agency listed by the Commission under section
101(h)(4)(A)(ii).
SEC. 202. APPLICABILITY.
An agency shall no longer be subject to the requirements of
sections 201 and 203 beginning on the date that there is no
rule or set of rules of the agency classified by the
Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) that has not been
repealed such that all regulatory cost reductions identified
by the Commission to be achievable through repeal have been
achieved.
SEC. 203. OIRA CERTIFICATION OF COST CALCULATIONS.
The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget
shall review and certify the accuracy of agency
determinations of the costs of new rules under section 201.
The certification shall be included in the administrative
record of the relevant rulemaking by the agency promulgating
the rule, and the Administrator shall transmit a copy of the
certification to Congress when it transmits the certification
to the agency.
TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES
SEC. 301. PLAN FOR FUTURE REVIEW.
When an agency makes a rule, the agency shall include in
the final issuance of such rule a plan for the review of such
rule by not later than 10 years after the date such rule is
made. Such a review, in the case of a major rule, shall be
substantially similar to the review by the Commission under
section 101(h). In the case of a rule other than a major
rule, the agency's plan for review shall include other
procedures and standards to enable the agency to determine
whether to repeal or amend the rule to eliminate unnecessary
regulatory costs to the economy. Whenever feasible, the
agency shall include a proposed plan for review of a proposed
rule in its notice of proposed rulemaking and shall receive
public comment on the plan.
TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Immediate Repeals.--Agency compliance with section
101(j) of this Act shall be subject to judicial review under
chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Cut-Go Procedures.--Agency compliance with title II of
this Act shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7
of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Plans for Future Review.--Agency compliance with
section 301 shall be subject to judicial review under chapter
7 of title 5, United States Code.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission established under
section 101.
(3) Major rule.--The term ``major rule'' means any rule
that the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs determines is likely to impose--
(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or more,
adjusted annually for inflation;
(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, local, or tribal
government agencies, or geographic regions;
(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.
(4) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Set of rules.--The term ``set of rules'' means a set of
rules that collectively implements a regulatory authority of
an agency.
SEC. 502. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in part B of House Report 114-388. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 114-388.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 10, line 13, insert after ``paperwork burdens'' the
following ``or unfunded mandates''.
Page 11, line 12, insert after ``enforcement'' the
following: ``, imposition of unfunded mandates,''.
Page 12, line 9, insert after `` excessive compliance
costs'' the following: ``, imposes unfunded mandates,''.
Page 25, insert after line 4 the following:
(n) Definition.--In this section, the term ``unfunded
mandate'' has the meaning given the term ``Federal mandate''
in section 421(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658(6)).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is relatively simple in that
it adds consideration of unfunded mandates to the Commission's review
of existing rules.
Each year, Washington imposes thousands of rules and regulations.
Rather than following the rules themselves and asking for funds for new
programs, regulators pass the cost along to others by requiring the
private sector, as well as State and local governments, to pay for new
Federal initiatives through compliance costs.
{time} 1900
These costly mandates make it harder for companies to hire and for
cash-strapped States, counties, and cities to keep streets safe and
parks clean.
My amendment asks the commission to consider in its review whether
unfunded mandates imposed in existing regulations are economically
defensible and the least burdensome policy option available.
Federal agencies often advance Federal Government initiatives without
using Federal taxpayer dollars by imposing regulations on local
governments or the private sector. This simple amendment ensures that
costs passed to State and local governments or to the private sector
are both necessary and minimal.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in the
underlying legislation. This amendment would simply add unfunded
mandates as another basis for the commission to prioritize the review
of certain rules. The underlying legislation contains no exceptions for
rules, no matter how important.
The commission the bill creates could recommend the repeal of rules
[[Page H77]]
such as the ones the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives finalized this week that strengthen background check
requirements for buying firearms. Such important public safety rules
could be jeopardized by this bill.
I oppose the underlying bill, and I oppose this amendment, which does
not improve the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for offering
this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will ensure that costly, unfunded
mandates are given full consideration by the commission established by
this underlying bill.
Over the past 10 years, unelected bureaucrats in Washington have
issued over 36,000 new regulations. Think about that. Over the past 10
years, unelected bureaucrats have issued over 36,000 new regulations.
That is a lot. Each of these shift the costs and burdens of this
administration's Big Government agenda onto the backs of everyday
working people, small businesses, and local governments.
These unfunded mandates cost jobs, hurt working Americans, and place
ankle weights on the U.S. economy. It is past time to slow down this
runaway train. I urge my colleagues to support the Foxx amendment and
the underlying bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague from Maryland,
let me say that unfunded mandates take many forms that may not be
included when regulatory costs are counted. That is why strong,
bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate passed the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act in 1995.
Similarly, my amendment ensures that costs passed from Federal
agencies to State and local governments and private businesses are
properly counted and considered. If mandates under review are
economically defensible and represent the best policy option available,
then the commission will not recommend they be repealed.
The issue of unfunded mandates is frequently overlooked in the
debates about reforming our regulatory system and carrying out Federal
policies. It is all too easy for Washington bureaucrats to write off
concerns expressed by a handful of local governments or of a small
subset of private businesses, but these decisions have real costs and
real effects on the individuals, families, and communities we each
represent.
While my amendment is a small change, it ensures that costs passed
down to businesses and to State and local governments are truly the
best means to achieve desired policy ends; so I thank my colleagues for
their consideration and ask for their support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schweikert
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 13, insert after line 12 the following:
(I) Whether or not the rule or set of rules limits or
prevents an agency from applying new or emerging technologies
to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government.
Page 13, line 13, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
Page 17, line 24, strike ``(G), or (H)'' and insert ``(G),
(H), or (I)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those occasions in which
we walk up to the mike, and we always say it is a simple amendment.
This one really is a simple amendment. Many of us here, particularly
myself, have a fixation on information and technology as a dramatically
more efficient, safe, and healthy way to regulate. So, if you are going
to have a commission looking at agencies, looking at the levels of
regulations, looking at the mechanics out there, can it also take a
look and make sure it has adopted the most technically appropriate and
efficient technology for that regulation?
A couple of years ago, when sitting on the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, a division of the EPA and these businesses came
in, and they brought in stacks of paper that they had to fill out and
fax in. Okay. It is absurd in today's world, but that is the way the
regs they were up against were written. If you are going to have a
commission looking at what is wrong out there, at what can be made more
efficient, and at what is inappropriately burdensome, let's also take a
look and ask: What can actually be made less burdensome through the use
of technology?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes
additional criteria for the commission's one-sided review of all
Federal regulations, authorizing it to identify rules for repeal that
may limit or prohibit agencies from adopting technology to improve
efficiency and effectiveness in order to lower regulatory costs.
Although this criteria, itself, may be unobjectionable on its face,
it does nothing to change the commission's cost-only, deregulatory, and
dangerous mandate under title I of H.R. 1155. Furthermore, rather than
allowing agencies to modify or improve existing rules to accommodate
for technological changes, this amendment would only create a basis for
eliminating rules.
For instance, this amendment would authorize the commission to
identify for elimination a rule protecting workers against
discrimination, regardless of the rule's benefits, if the costs
associated with the rule could be mitigated by adopting new
technologies to improve efficiency. In other words, no matter how
important and beneficial a rule prohibiting discrimination may be, it
could be eliminated if the commission determines that it somehow
encumbers agency efficiency. That is laughable.
As the administration notes in its Statement of Administration
Policy, which threatens to veto this bill should it reach the
President's desk, this bill lacks any ``mechanism for making thoughtful
and modest modifications to rules to improve their implementation and
enforcement,'' which is often the best course of action before we
scuttle a rule or as we try to make the regulation work. Accordingly, I
must oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I quickly inquire as to the time
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, let's try something that is, actually,
fairly novel around here because, in this particular case, this is just
a few words. Let's actually read it: ``Whether or not the rule or set
of rules limits or prevents an agency from applying new or emerging
technologies to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government.''
Oh, come on. How do you oppose that? I understand you may not like
the bill, itself, but as an amendment, if we are really trying to push
our government into this century of utilization of information and
technology, you would at least like this amendment.
Look, this is simple. This is actually something we should be weaving
in and out of what we do here in order to try to drive the use of
technology and information to make us more efficient and more
respectful of our taxpayers. As to the quality of information, how do
you even know that the way a regulation is being done is actually being
done in the most efficient, technologically sound, and rational way? I
believe the simple language here helps drive the commission to actually
reflect that.
[[Page H78]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Walberg
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 13, insert after line 12 the following:
(I) Whether the rule or set of rules harms wage growth,
including wage growth for minimum wage and part-time workers.
Page 13, line 13, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will
give us greater insight into the impact of Federal regulations on the
wages of American workers.
We already know from countless studies that the accumulation of
regulations increases the cost of goods, which reduces the buying power
of families and individuals to purchase the items they need and want.
An area that we need to study more, though, is what impact regulations
have on the wages of most Americans. Given the negative impacts of
regulations on prices, it is reasonable to conclude that regulations
could be a major contributing factor to flattening wages, especially--
and I say this clearly--for lower income individuals.
According to the U.S. Census, the median wage in the U.S. is the same
today as it was in 2007. That is 8 years of no income gain for families
and workers in Michigan and across the country. The University of
California's economists have also found that, since 2009, the average
income of the top 1 percent grew by 11.2 percent in real terms while
the bottom 99 percent saw their incomes decrease by 0.4 percent. During
that same time, there have been over $100 billion in new regulatory
costs, according to the Mercatus Center.
Many employers I speak to would rather hire more workers or give
their current staffs a raise. Instead, they are forced to spend limited
resources on making sense of the thousands of pages of new regulations
that are coming out of Washington. Employers are spending more on
compliance than ever before, leaving little left in their budgets to
increase the take-home pay of employees.
Some of my colleagues here in Congress believe that more bureaucratic
red tape and mandates from the Federal Government will actually
increase wages and reduce inequality. While these regulations may sound
good in theory--some of them--the hard truth is that, over time, they
limit economic growth and career advancement opportunities. Most
alarming is that these negative economic impacts affect lower wage
workers the very most--immobilizing them from finding work, from rising
in their careers, and from increasing their wages.
{time} 1915
Fortunately, the SCRUB Act is an innovative approach; and I commend
its sponsor, Representative Jason Smith, for his work.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, will enhance this important bill by
instructing the commission to review the impact of regulation on wages
as part of their retrospective review.
I encourage all my colleagues to support my amendment and the bill so
we can unleash individuals and industry from regulatory burdens and
create an environment where wages and economy can grow for everyone.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to point out some
serious concerns about the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan, which would direct the commission to examine the role that
regulations have on wage stagnation and income inequality by examining
the negative impact regulations have on wages.
It is my belief that this amendment is based on the false premise
that all regulations have some negative impact on workers and their
wages. It should be clear that this one-sentence amendment does not
encompass the full story about the critical impact that workplace
regulations can have on improving the health, safety, and income of
workers.
For example, the rules and regulations that have been offered and put
into effect by the Department of Labor under this administration have
improved worker safety, increased workplace opportunity, and increased
wages. The benefits are indisputable and far outweigh the costs. For
example, the home care workers rule would extend overtime and minimum
wage protection to 2 million home care workers. The proposed overtime
rule would extend overtime pay protections for more than 5 million
American workers who currently would be putting in dozens of overtime
hours for no extra pay at all.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the description of this
amendment shows an apparent concern for the problems that working
families face, and the gentleman from Michigan has talked very
extensively about it: wage stagnation and income inequality. If that is
what we are going to address, there are ways of addressing it.
For example, we could bring to the floor for a vote the Raise the
Wage Act, which would increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020
and would give over 30 million Americans a raise.
We could support the Department of Labor's proposed rule that
increases the overtime salary threshold, which would update the
overtime rule to ensure that 5 million more Americans would be eligible
to earn overtime for hours worked over 40 hours a week. Since the
1970s, worker output has increased by 74 percent, while the hourly
compensation of the typical worker has only increased 9 percent.
Workers simply aren't receiving a fair share of the wealth they create,
and the overtime rule would help address this disparity.
We could cosponsor the WAGE Act that would protect hardworking
Americans' fundamental right to join together and bargain for better
wages. To date, 67 House Democrats support the Workplace Action for a
Growing Economy, the WAGE Act, legislation that would strengthen
protections for workers who want to raise wages and improve workplace
conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these alternatives, but
to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns expressed by the
ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, my
friend from Virginia. I appreciate the fact he sits in on all of our
Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearings that I have the privilege
of chairing.
We have looked at regulatory changes that the gentleman speaks to.
He, as well as the rest of my colleagues on that subcommittee, have
heard very clear testimony that while they are based on wonderful
desires, we all want safe workplaces, we all want people making better
pay, having better benefits, living wages. Yet, all of those come with
costs, and, in fact, basically every one of those regulatory ideas
would cost jobs and job security. I have seen that very clearly with
several of those in the great State of Michigan as they have been
implemented.
Mr. Chairman, we should have commonsense, effective regulations that
truly punish bad actors, but regulations cannot come at the
overwhelming costs we are seeing now with anemic growth and stagnant
wages. Sadly, we don't know how much wages have truly been hit by these
regulations, which is why my amendment is needed.
I ask for support for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moolenaar). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 4 printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
[[Page H79]]
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 25, strike line 5, and all that follows
through page 27, line 13.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike title
II of H.R. 1155, which would require agencies to undertake a regulatory
CutGo process to repeal rules identified by the commission with little
to no consideration of the rules' benefits prior to issuing the new
rule.
These regulatory CutGo provisions would apply to every new agency
rule, no matter how important or pressing, for every regulatory agency.
Alarmingly, title II would also require agencies to undertake a notice
and comment process for all rules eliminated through CutGo because, as
I noted earlier, agencies are unable to simply rescind the rules. Thus,
this bill would substantially delay or even prevent new regulations
through this burdensome and time-consuming requirement.
As several of my colleagues' amendments demonstrate, the bill's
regulatory CutGo procedures are unsafe, dangerous, and would tie the
hands of agencies responding to public health crises requiring timely
regulatory responses. In fact, this bill lacks any mechanism for
consideration of public policy and safety, which would leave no option
for agencies to issue emergency rules to protect the public and
environment from imminent harm.
The bill's proponents claim that title I of H.R. 1155 would allow the
commission to consider whether the costs of the bill are not justified
by the benefit to society. As Professor Levin testified during the
subcommittee's consideration of a previous version of this bill, the
catchall language of subsection (h)(2)(I) would allow the commission to
recommend the repeal of ``any rule promulgated by any agency if it
deems the rule's requirements to be unnecessarily burdensome.'' In
short, the commission would be completely free to disregard any benefit
of the regulation by proceeding under this language or the bill's other
advisory language.
Furthermore, H.R. 1155 is silent on what methodology the commission
must follow, requiring only that it must have one, which leaves the
window wide open for absolutely no consideration of the benefits of
regulation.
While consideration of the cost of regulations is sometimes
important, there is overwhelming consensus that the benefits of
regulation vastly exceed the costs. In both the Republican and
Democratic administrations, the benefits of our regulatory system of
regulatory protections have made our country safer, stronger,
healthier, and cleaner.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has observed that
these benefits ``include, among other things, ensuring that workplaces,
air travel, foods, and drugs are safe; that the Nation's air, water,
and land are not polluted; and that the appropriate amount of taxes is
collected.''
The GAO reported in 2007 that while ``the costs of these regulations
are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the
benefits estimates are even higher.'' In 2012, the Office of Management
and Budget likewise concluded that even by conservative estimates, the
benefits of major regulations exceeded the costs on a 2-to-1 basis over
the past decade. Between fiscal years 1999 and 2009, the benefits of
regulations produced a net benefit of $73 billion, vastly exceeding the
regulations' costs.
This evidence overwhelmingly refutes the bald assertion that
regulatory costs are burdensome, eliminate jobs, or harm our economic
competitiveness.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, to oppose this
misguided bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Title II of the bill contains one of the bill's most important
innovations, a CutGo process for the repeal of regulations Congress
approves for repeal.
This process is modeled on the CutGo process pioneered in Congress
itself to control Federal spending. By allowing regulatory repeals to
occur on a CutGo basis, the bill both stabilizes total Federal
regulatory costs and avoids forcing all repeals to occur immediately.
This creates the opportunity for regulatory agencies applying their
expertise and working with the entities they regulate to administer a
smoother process of regulatory repeal with ample opportunities to
prioritize the order of repeals and cooperatively consider any needed
replacement regulations.
The CutGo process also avoids one of the major flaws of the
regulatory lookback process applied under executive order by the Obama
administration. Although the process has resulted in some cost
reductions under individual regulations, the net result of the process
has been an alarming increase in total costs imposed by all Federal
regulations. That is a giant step backwards, and it is a result the
SCRUB Act's CutGo provisions will emphatically prevent.
I would like to say for the record, a report by the National
Association of Manufacturers states that the total cost of Federal
regulation in 2012 was $2.028 trillion. The annual cost burden for an
average U.S. firm is $233,000, or 21 percent of the average payroll.
With that kind of number, no wonder we have the problems that we have.
Listen to this figure: A small manufacturer with fewer than 50
employees will pay an estimated close to $35,000 per employee per year
to comply with Federal regulations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I simply want to say that I concur with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania who has studied this and spent a considerable amount of
time with this.
We would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. This amendment removes
title II of the bill, which is one of the bill's truly most important
provisions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
{time} 1930
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cummings
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike title IV.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment, which is cosponsored by the Subcommittee on Government
Operations' Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, would strike title IV of
this bill.
Title IV provides for judicial review of agency compliance with
certain requirements of the bill, including regulatory CutGo
procedures.
The agency rulemaking process already provides interested parties
with ample opportunity for participation.
[[Page H80]]
When an industry or special interest does not like the result of the
rulemaking process, this bill gives them another bite at the apple.
Judicial review provides opponents of rules with the opportunity to
delay regulations by tying them up in court. No rules would be exempt.
Corporate and special interests with deep pockets could use judicial
review to delay critical regulations that would protect public health,
safety, and the environment.
Let me give you an example. In August of last year, the EPA finalized
its Clean Power Plan rules. According to EPA, by 2030, the plan will
cut carbon pollution from the power sector by nearly a third, yielding
substantial health benefits to Americans.
EPA estimates that, because of these regulations, Americans will
avoid 90,000 asthma attacks and save 3,600 lives.
These important rules were developed with industry and public input.
EPA states that it received 4.3 million public comments and held
hundreds of meetings with stakeholders. The final rules reflect this
vigorous process.
However, if the SCRUB Act were enacted, industry or special interests
could use the judicial review provisions to stall important rules like
the Clean Power Plan.
The judicial review provisions of this bill are yet another attempt
by the House Republicans to erect a roadblock for important public
health and safety protections.
This amendment removes this flawed provision from the underlying
bill.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The amendment strikes the bill's title providing for judicial review
of agency compliance with requirements for repeal of existing rules and
publication of plans for decennial review of newly promulgated rules.
These provisions must be retained, not stricken. They are critical to
ensure that recalcitrant agencies abide by Congress' approvals of rules
for repeal and actually do plan for effective, decennial cost-reduction
reviews for newly promulgated regulations.
We know that, without provision for judicial review, retrospective
review of agency regulations can lead to nothing but increases in the
overall cost of regulation.
Just look at the results of the Obama administration's retrospective
review under Executive Order 13563, which precluded judicial review.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I again concur with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
This amendment strikes the applicability of judicial review of agency
compliance with this legislation. That is why I am urging a ``no'' vote
on this amendment.
The legislation will begin a much-needed review of our Nation's
regulatory structure and hopefully identify many outdated regulations.
This amendment gets in the way of that. I think it would slow this
process down. It gets rid of something that, again, makes it an
alteration that I think has been well debated and well discussed.
I urge the passage of the overall bill, but I stand in opposition to
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cummings
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 28, line 22, insert before the period the following:
``, except that the term does not include an independent
establishment as defined in section 104 of such title''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment, cosponsored by Subcommittee on Government Operations'
Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, would exempt independent agencies from
the requirements of this bill.
Independent agencies serve an important role in protecting the
American people from a range of threats, including the collapse of our
financial markets and health and safety risks.
Agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission are designed to independently regulate the industries they
cover.
These agencies are not required to obtain approval for their rules
from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as other
executive branch agencies must do. The reason independent agencies are
treated differently is to protect them from political interference in
their rulemaking.
The SCRUB Act would jeopardize the independence of these agencies by
subjecting their rules to oversight by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
Section 203 of the SCRUB Act would require OIRA to review and certify
the cost estimate for every new rule promulgated by an independent
agency. This bill would also require independent agencies to comply
with the bill's regulatory CutGo requirements.
For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has a proposed
rule that would establish safety standards for infant high chairs. How
would the Commission choose which unsafe product to stop regulating in
order to protect the approximately 10,000 children injured each year by
unsafe high chairs?
The Commission recently wrote a rule creating the strongest crib
safety standards in the developed world. Would they have to repeal that
rule? Under our amendment, independent agencies would not have to make
this choice.
Bank regulators are already subject to the Economic Growth and
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, which requires them to
review all existing banking regulations and ``eliminate unnecessary
regulations.''
The bank regulators are already required by law to remove all
outdated, unnecessary, and overly burdensome regulations. They cannot
save up outdated regulations for the purpose of promulgating new rules
under the SCRUB Act, like other agencies.
This bill would handcuff our bank regulators and make financial
crises and the recessions that follow that much more likely.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to keep the
independent agencies truly independent.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are not proposing to hurt or kill babies, and we are
not proposing to put handcuffs on certain regulators in the financial
institutions.
What we are asking for is to simply have a bipartisan group of
people--bipartisan--look at regulations that may be outdated and scrub
them. I think that is a reasonable expectation. That is not asking too
much.
It doesn't mean that every regulation is going to go away. There are
some good regulations, but there are a lot of bad ones and there are a
lot that are outdated. Things come into this institution, whether they
come in through laws or they come from the executive branch. They never
go away. A lot of them are unnecessary.
[[Page H81]]
The bill creates a bipartisan, impartial commission to conduct a
comprehensive review of the Federal regulations system. The commission
will identify out-of-date and expensive regulations.
Independent agencies function very similarly, if not the same, as
executive agencies, and the regulations impose significant costs on the
economy. Unfortunately, independent agencies often impose major
regulations without reporting any quantitative information on benefits
and costs, which makes it even more important that those regulations be
reviewed.
Mr. Chairman, there is no need to distinguish independent and
executive agencies in requiring the Federal agencies to clean up out-
of-date and unnecessary regulations.
A regulation identified as unnecessary remains unnecessary regardless
of whether it came from an independent agency or an executive branch
agency. It doesn't matter. It should be reviewed or be eligible to be
reviewed. We think that is reasonable, and that is why we would urge a
``no'' vote on this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 29, line 21, insert after ``Code'' the following: ``,
except for a special rule''.
Page 29, insert after line 24 the following:
(6) Special rule.--The term ``special rule'' means a rule
made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment to H.R. 1155 would exempt rules and regulations made by
the Department of Veterans Affairs from the burdensome provisions of
this legislation.
The rules that are promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs
serve the nearly 21.9 million veterans who have served our country,
more than 9 million of whom are enrolled in the VA health system.
These are the rules that will improve the VA, and these improvements
are urgently needed to repair a system that is poorly equipped to
handle the increasing numbers of veterans returning from overseas.
These are the rules that will ensure that those who have served our
country have access to critical and quality health care.
However, in its current form, the SCRUB Act would delay or even block
the implementation of these rules. For example, it would delay rules
designed to provide care to the 2.6 million veterans who were
potentially exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.
To help these veterans, the VA issued a final interim rule in June of
2015 that would expand the class of veterans presumed to be eligible
for treatment. The new regulation would include those who worked with
C-123 aircraft known to have been sprayed with this herbicide during
the war.
But under the terms of this legislation, the VA would be required to
go through additional hurdles to meet the procedural requirements of
this legislation with absolutely no additional benefits. If this rule
comes with any cost to the economy, the VA must repeal a rule of equal
or greater cost. All of this means delays for our veterans who deserve
better.
In effect, the SCRUB Act asks the VA to choose between classes of
ailing veterans. It would delay treatment and create a zero-sum game in
which our veterans ultimately lose. This is completely wrong. It would
delay essential reforms to improve the system, address existing flaws,
and better serve our veterans.
{time} 1945
The problems that have plagued the system have been well-documented
both in congressional hearings and in the press.
Since the year 2000, at least 22 government reports have looked into
patient wait times at VA facilities. One of these reports found that
more than 57,000 of our veterans have waited longer than 90 days for
health care. The audit found that staff were instructed to misrepresent
data in 76 percent of VA facilities.
The VA is in need of immediate attention and reform, and we are doing
a disservice to our veterans by delaying these reforms and the rules
that are necessary to accomplish these reforms.
The SCRUB Act is based upon the faulty idea that it is more important
to cut regulations than it is to move forward to improve care for our
veterans.
While my amendment will not cure all that ails this legislation, it
will address one of the most glaring flaws and preserve the ability of
the VA to effectively serve our veterans by ensuring that these reforms
move forward without delay.
So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment indicates a fundamental
misunderstanding of the purpose and the function of the bill. The SCRUB
Act merely clears the underbrush of outdated and unnecessary
regulations.
There is no reason to exclude any specific agency from retrospective
review. A regulation identified as unnecessary remains unnecessary,
regardless of its subject matter or agency that originally issued it.
I am sure that there are regulations that were issued in the 1920s,
1930s, or 1940s--pick your decade--that were well-intended, but the
world has changed, and I think it is time that we actually go and
review this.
In the case of this amendment, it could disadvantage veterans who are
likely to bear the burden of unnecessary regulations. So with all the
laws and all the regulations, guess what. The Veterans Administration
isn't getting it done.
So let's clear the underbrush of regulations. Let's work in a
bipartisan way to fix the Veterans Administration. But it is not
unreasonable to ask for a bipartisan group of people to go in and look
at this and study this and make these types of recommendations. I think
that is reasonable, it is balanced, and it is not going to harm
veterans. In fact, I think it is actually going to help veterans. I
think it is going to help an administration and a bureaucracy that is
so bloated, once things get in, they never come out. That is what we
are trying to change, and that is why I think this amendment is
unnecessary and counterproductive, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just to respond briefly, we have heard a lot about clearing the
underbrush and about scrubbing the regulations. But the reality is, if
this legislation passes, there will be certain implications; and it
will, in fact, require the VA, who is in the midst of major reform, to
not move forward on its regulations that are intended to improve the
lives of our veterans until they find another regulation to repeal that
someone has determined is of equal cost.
So the reality is that it will delay implementation of these
improvements. We can describe it as clearing the underbrush and
scrubbing, but what it will mean for America's veterans in many
instances is that they
[[Page H82]]
will be denied the quality care that they deserve and that they have
earned in the defense of our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will carve out
the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency charged with honoring
the service of our veterans, and ensure that the improvements that are
underway and that we are all demanding will not be delayed because of
the SCRUB Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the SCRUB Act that is
going to slow it down. It is not an excuse for the administration to do
what they have been trying to do for the last 7 years and have
absolutely, totally failed to do.
How many times are we going to get constituents coming into our own
offices complaining about the VA? I guarantee that if you go across
this country and ask the people that work in your offices what are the
number one, two, and three complaints and problems that they have, I
guarantee you in the top three it is going to be veterans.
We are not taking care of the veterans that we need to take care of.
We are not going to be introducing a bill that is going to harm our
ability to fix that problem. But you are naive, at best, if anybody
thinks that all the regulations in place right now are just perfect,
because that is, in essence, what they are arguing: it is perfect. We
don't need to get rid of anything. We just need more, more, more
regulations.
Take a bipartisan group of people, let them look at it, study it, and
spend the time necessary in a bipartisan way. That is reasonable. That
is why we should vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. DelBene
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 29, line 21, insert after ``Code'' the following: ``,
except for a special rule''.
Page 29, insert after line 24 the following:
(6) Special rule.--The term ``special rule'' means a rule
made by an agency in response to an emergency.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. DelBene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Like the mountain of antiregulation bills we have considered in the
past, the SCRUB Act is in no way a serious effort to make targeted
improvements to the rulemaking process.
Touted by its supporters as a job creation measure, this
irresponsible bill takes a sledgehammer approach to reform.
Particularly egregious is this legislation's complete failure to
provide an exemption for emergency situations. My amendment would
correct this very serious mistake.
In March 2014, the Oso landslide, a horrific natural disaster that
took the lives of 43 people in my district, required every available
resource to be deployed without delays. And given the many crises the
country faced last year alone, from wildfires to terrorist threats, I
am alarmed that we are considering a bill today that would get in the
way of an agency trying to do its job at critical moments like these.
The idea that an agency responding to an emergency would be forced to
weigh what existing regulations to get rid of before they can take new
action, while lives are at risk, cannot be what this body intends.
Bills like this are not jobs packages. They are pandering to a few
select corporate special interests that put the lives and well-being of
every American at risk.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment and to ensure,
the next time our country faces an emergency, the citizens of this
country can rest assured knowing that the Federal agencies they expect
to provide services in times of crises will not have their hands tied
by this irresponsible legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for our
Members here. But to suggest that what we are doing is throwing a
sledgehammer and that it is pandering, come on. This is a serious
effort to suggest, in a bipartisan way, to go back and review things.
Now, in the case that was brought up earlier in this debate, there
may have been an emergency to deal with something in, say, the State of
Washington. And I hope that was dealt with very successfully. But 70
years from now, it is probably not applicable. And I guarantee you,
there are regulations and things that are happening by the tens of
thousands, by the way, on a regular basis that are no longer needed.
All we are asking for is an opportunity to put together a bipartisan
group to go review these. That is what Jason Smith has been passionate
about. That is what he is fighting for. That is what is reasonable.
That is why we are here today. But to suggest that it is because of
pandering or any other negative word, our heart is sincere in that we
actually do think that these regulations cause problems.
You have got to have bureaucrats who understand all these
regulations. It is not just the taxpayers--who we work for--but it is
also the bureaucrats who are supposed to try to sort all of this out
and have manual after manual after manual to bind people to the point
where they have a difficult time doing their very jobs that they are
supposed to be doing.
So should we review things that were put forward on an emergency
basis? Yes. I am not saying that has to be done 3 months afterwards.
But we are going to be able to have a long look back, and you shouldn't
exempt out veterans and, in this case, you shouldn't exempt out
somebody who is just trying to go back and look at something that may
originally become a very legitimate emergency. Why would we not look at
that?
It is just this attitude and this approach that says everything is
perfect. Essentially, what the Democrats are arguing is that all of the
regulations are perfect. No need for any changes. No reason to get rid
of anything.
What we are saying is, in a bipartisan way, let's go back, let's
review these, and let's come up with a way to cut out that underbrush.
Let's try to find the ones that are no longer needed and streamline
what we are trying to do in our government. It will be better for the
employees. It will be better for the taxpayers. It will be better for
America because we will actually understand what the rules and
regulations are.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz,
would agree with my amendment because this bill requires that before
agencies can issue a new rule, they get rid of an old one, and there is
no exception for emergencies. It seems like a very reasonable approach
to make sure that, again, in a time of crisis, agencies are able to
respond right away.
This is an important amendment. It is a very reasonable amendment. It
addresses a serious flaw in the bill. I ask again for my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind our colleagues that
the cutting doesn't apply until the commission reports back. So until
they have had a chance to go in and look and review, then there is an
opportunity to cut out this underbrush. And I think I have made my
point. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
[[Page H83]]
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) to offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 29, line 21, insert after ``Code'' the following: ``,
except for a special rule''.
Page 29, insert after line 24 the following:
(6) Special rule.--The term ``special rule'' means a rule
made by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and my
colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Sessions and
Ranking Member Slaughter for their leadership and for making the
Jackson Lee amendment in order.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain this amendment to H.R. 1155,
the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily
Burdensome Act of 2015, referred to as the SCRUB Act.
This amendment would exempt any rule issued by the Department of
Homeland Security from the onerous mandates of this legislation. If
enacted, the SCRUB Act would establish a retrospective regulatory
review commission to identify existing Federal regulations that can be
repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs to the U.S. economy.
This bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by establishing a new
regulatory review commission charged with identifying duplicative,
redundant, or so-called obsolete regulations to repeal. I am offering
this amendment because I am concerned about the procedural process by
which the SCRUB Act attempts to accomplish this worthy goal and the
real and potential dangers this legislation presents to our public
health and safety.
If passed without this amendment, this legislation could really
undermine and jeopardize public health and safety. In particular, this
bill undermines the ability of agencies to act in times of imminent
need to protect citizens.
The SCRUB Act would prohibit any regulatory agency from issuing any
new rule or informal statement, including nonlegislative and procedural
rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to public
health, until the agency first offsets the costs of the new rule or
guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the commission.
This regulatory CutGo process would force agencies to prioritize
between existing protections and responding to new threats to the
health and well-being of our people and the safety of our homeland.
Such a sweeping requirement would endanger the lives of Americans by
creating unnecessary delays in the Federal rulemaking process and
creating additional burdens and implementation problems that will only
divert critical agency resources and diminish agencies' ability to
protect and inform the public in times of imminent danger and need.
{time} 2000
For instance, if an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to
the public or environment, it would have to either rescind an existing
rule that is identified by the commission's arbitrary and cost-centric
process or choose not to act.
This amendment is a simple solution to that problem, and it will
protect the health and well-being of all Americans. It would ensure
that the Department of Homeland Security is not unnecessarily burdened
with regulatory mandates that would jeopardize its ability to carry out
its mission to prevent terrorism, enhance security, manage our borders,
administer immigration laws, secure cyberspace, and ensure disaster
resilience.
The Department of Homeland Security is the first line of defense in
protecting the Nation and leading recovery efforts from all hazards and
threats, which includes everything from weapons of mass destruction to
natural disasters.
You may recall the Nation's first documented case of Ebola last year
in Dallas, Texas. It was an unforeseen and singular event that required
DHS to develop new procedures and rules governing travel to the United
States by individuals who had recently visited countries suffering
through the Ebola outbreak.
The Department of Homeland Security was also recently tasked with
adjusting its efforts to secure the southern border when a wave of
unaccompanied minors entered the country without notice.
We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security
that we are now in and the increasing demand upon our government
agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe.
The overall mission of the Department of Homeland Security is too
critical and its function so essential that it would be irresponsible
to impede the agency in the performance of its duties, as this bill
would do.
Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of the
Department of Homeland Security to address growing threats and active
acts of terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security must remain
focused on the crucial mission of securing the homeland. This amendment
will help them achieve that goal.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment indicates a fundamental, I
think, misunderstanding of the purpose and the functionality of the
bill.
The SCRUB Act is intended to cut out unnecessary regulations. So the
first question you really have to ask yourself is, are there
unnecessary regulations?
I would remind Members that on May 26, 2011, the Homeland Security
Department, which really hadn't been in place for a very long, as it is
a new agency, started an initiative to cut out unnecessary regulations.
The President, three times, has asked to cut out unnecessary
regulations. So we are formalizing that process a little bit more so
that it is true for every department and agency, and we are doing so in
a bipartisan way.
So what are we afraid of? What are we afraid of?
We are trying to say things need to be reviewed, and they need to go
look. And if they are perfect--I doubt it. I really doubt it. But they
are going to have this opportunity, in a bipartisan way, to allow the
commission to go do its work, make recommendations, look at these
things that are just there by the tens of thousands.
The world has changed. It has dramatically changed. And we ought to
be reviewing this on a regular basis, and that is what the SCRUB Act
does.
That is why I think, again, creating another carve-out for somebody
is unnecessary and counterproductive and ill-advised. That is why I
would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, that may well be the purpose of this
bill, and I don't think anyone would disagree with reviewing
regulations and making recommendations. That may be the purpose of the
bill, but that is not what the bill does.
What the bill does--and we have to understand the implications, and I
will repeat it--it prohibits any regulatory agency from issuing any new
rule or informal statement, including nonlegislative and procedure
rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to the public,
until the agency first offsets the cost of the new rule or
[[Page H84]]
guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the commission.
So it is not that anyone is suggesting everything is perfect and a
review isn't necessary, but it is the procedure that the bill sets
forth which will become law that requires agencies to delay doing
anything until they find something to undo.
In the context of the requirements and the responsibilities of the
Department of Homeland Security, this has potentially life-threatening
implications. So it is not that anyone is suggesting everything is
perfect and a review isn't necessary.
But the bill does much more than that. It says to agencies like the
Department of Homeland Security, you may not act, even if it is
necessary to protect the public, until you repeal or rescind a
corresponding amount of regulation. That is a danger. It is what this
bill will do.
This amendment relieves that and provides an exemption so that, at
least on issues of defending the homeland, we do not delay
implementation of the rules.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion for
this issue. All we are asking for, in a bipartisan way--and I sound
like a broken record up here--is to review these regulations, go back
over an indefinite amount of time to look way back, back, and go look
at what these rules and regulations that have been put out there.
Remember, we are supposed to be implementing it by law. There are
times when regulations and rules--certainly in emergency situations, it
has to be dealt with. But they can go back and look at these. It is not
going to slow down our dealing with an emergency.
What we are going to do, and I think we are going to find, is that it
is actually going to clean up the process in the system.
It is like--I am trying to think of a good example of this--but they
keep throwing things into the garage, and there is so much clutter you
can't even get in the garage.
And I just think they are living on a different planet if we think
that all these regulations are perfect; nothing needs to be cleared
out; we don't want to take any time; we want just the administration to
do it; we don't want the other party to be involved.
Republicans are suggesting to do this in a bipartisan way. I think
that is reasonable. I think that is what the American people want.
But Democrats don't want us to do that. They don't want a bipartisan
group of people looking at rules and regulations in the executive
branch. I don't think that is fair. I don't think that is balanced.
What we are offering, I think, is an opportunity to do that. They are
allowed to go through, this commission goes through this process. The
department and agency can identify a list of things that need to be
cleaned out of that garage.
I think that is a reasonable way to go and why, again, nobody should
be excluded. I think it is a healthy part of the process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Pocan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 29, line 21, insert after ``Code'' the following: ``,
except for a special rule''.
Page 29, insert after line 24 the following:
(6) Special rule.--The term ``special rule'' means a rule
pertaining to consumer safety made by the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, including any rule made under the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of this amendment to protect food safety
standards for consumers.
In 2010, Congress updated our food safety protections for the 21st
century by passing the Food Safety and Modernization Act, greatly
expanding these consumer protections through the Food and Drug
Administration.
Today it is critical that we maintain this progress and protect the
implementation of this law from the obstructionist policies included in
the SCRUB Act. It is especially important that we allow the FDA to
carry out this effort unimpeded because our food safety standards are
facing attacks from many other directions.
A recent decision from the World Trade Organization repealed our
country-of-origin labeling standards on beef and pork, undermining
consumers' right to know where their groceries are coming from.
Meanwhile, the United States is considering entering the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, a massive multinational trade agreement that may
allow food into our grocery stores and restaurants that may not even
meet basic safety standards. The TPP weakens our ability to inspect
these dangerous foods before they end up on our dinner plates.
We know that seafood imported from countries like Vietnam and
Malaysia are often contaminated with dangerous antibiotics and
foodborne pathogens. Between 2002 and 2010, 44 percent of catfish and
related species from China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Cambodia
tested positive for antibiotics banned in the United States. Further,
in 2013, 100 percent of the Vietnamese catfish farms used antibiotics
not approved in the United States.
Meanwhile, large amounts of shrimp imported to the United States also
contain dangerous bacteria. Last year, harmful bacteria were found in
83 percent of the shrimp from Bangladesh, 74 percent of the shrimp from
India, and 58 percent of the shrimp from Vietnam.
For these reasons, the number of dirty seafood shipments from Vietnam
and Malaysia rejected by the FDA increased 224 percent in the first 2
months of 2015 alone. We must amend this legislation to preserve the
FDA's ability to protect our food.
It is not too much to ask that families are assured basic food safety
standards and protections are met. Please support this amendment, which
will allow the FDA to continue doing its job by protecting consumers
and making sure our food is safe to eat.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. The SCRUB Act is not going to take away the entire FDA.
Our food, and the people that work at the FDA, the food safety is an
important part of the function that they hold.
But I would appreciate anybody to have us understand--we actually,
through the staff, read this report from George Mason University. In
February of 2014 they wrote a really good report, ``The Consequences of
Regulatory Accumulation and a Proposed Solution.'' I just want to
highlight one of the examples of something that is still on the books.
The Food and Drug Administration has been creating rules since its
inception in 1906.
There is still a regulation on the FDA's books that governs the width
of strings in canned string beans. That is still on the books. You are
breaking the law if you go past this regulation.
This is the kind of stuff that should be out of there because, you
know what, there is some entrepreneur, there is some business that has
the liability now hanging over their head. In 1906, somehow, somebody
thought that was a good rule, but it is not anymore. It is unnecessary.
It is burdensome. It is still on the books.
Let's have a bipartisan group of people look at this and go find the
width of string beans and get rid of that regulation. What is wrong
with that? That
[[Page H85]]
is what the SCRUB Act does. That is what Jason Smith is talking about.
There are other examples. It was just, I believe, according to The
Wall Street Journal, the EPA had saccharine, was treated as a dangerous
chemical. But the FDA said it was safe for people to consume. And it
wasn't until just last month that the EPA said: All right, it is not a
dangerous, hazardous chemical. And the FDA prevailed. But there are
conflicts.
Again, a commission looking at this, with professionals, staff,
people who are looking at these types of things are going to go find
these regulations and try to go weed them out. It will streamline what
we are doing. It is good for the economy. It is good for the country.
It makes common sense, and we are trying to do so in a bipartisan way.
So the FDA, they do good work. But we are talking about a lot of
other regulations and rules that were put forth that are no longer
necessary and need to be eliminated.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I am not going to impugn
anyone's motives why it was introduced. My problems are with the
implementation of the law.
If you would like to, with my office, sign a letter to repeal the
1906 string bean width regulation, I am with you. We can do that, and
that is a commonsense way to get things done.
You mentioned things from the twenties and thirties and forties that
might be there. But let's put it another way. You are saying every time
a new regulation is necessary, you have to find an old regulation,
which is overly simplistic, ultimately impractical and, I think,
ultimately dangerous, especially when it comes to issues like food
safety and veterans and other areas. So it is the impracticality.
You are telling a consumer, if they have old things in their
refrigerator that are outdated, when you buy your new milk, you take
out your old milk, but you don't clean out your refrigerator. That is a
ridiculous notion.
{time} 2015
Only in Washington would we come up with a law as ridiculous as
saying that you take one for one rather than just cleaning out old
items. So I just have a problem with the bill itself. I am not
impugning anyone's motives for introducing it. I just think it is a
silly way of accomplishing what you want to accomplish.
I don't disagree with the gentleman, and I don't think many of us
disagree that there are regulations that should be gotten rid of. But
there is a way to do it that would make sense, that the public would
understand, and that wouldn't be just the brainchild of the Beltway
inside Washington which, unfortunately, is what the SCRUB Act is.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem.
The Federal bureaucracy continues to grow and expand to the point
where we have millions of people who wake up every day. A lot of them
are regulators. They can't justify their existence unless they regulate
something.
There is no incentive to get rid of those regulations. There is every
incentive to add regulations because that is what they get paid to do.
We want to just have a bipartisan group of people who can go and weed
out all of this unnecessary underbrush, as I keep calling it, to
streamline the system.
It should be done by every agency. It is going to take time to go
through it. I hope we are saying that we recognize that there is this
problem because we can keep coming up with examples and going through
and saying, ``Hey, we will pass''--do you know how expensive it is to
introduce and pass a piece of legislation and try to get it over to the
Senate?
We are trying to create a commission in a bipartisan way to have
people dive in and look at these regulations. That is what we are
asking for. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and a
``yes'' vote on the underlying bill introduced by Mr. Jason Smith.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 114-388.
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Improvement Act
of 2015''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``Commission'' means the Regulatory
Improvement Commission established under section 3;
(2) the term ``commission bill'' means a bill consisting of
the proposed legislative language of the Commission
recommended under section 4(h)(2)(C); and
(3) the term ``covered regulation'' means a regulation that
has been finalized not later than 10 years before the date on
which the Commission is established.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the legislative
branch a commission to be known as the ``Regulatory
Improvement Commission''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom--
(A) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, and shall
serve as the Chairperson of the Commission;
(B) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate;
(C) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the Senate;
(D) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives; and
(E) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives.
(2) Date.--The appointment of the members of the Commission
shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(3) Qualifications.--
(A) Chair.--The Chair of the Commission shall be an
individual with expertise and experience in rulemaking, such
as past Administrators of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, past chairmen of the Administrative
Conference of the United States, and other individuals with
similar expertise and experience in rulemaking affairs and
the administration of regulatory reviews.
(B) Members.--Members appointed to the Commission shall be
prominent citizens of the United States with national
recognition and a significant depth of experience and
responsibilities in matters relating to government service,
regulatory policy, economics, Federal agency management,
public administration, and law.
(4) Limitation.--Not more than 5 members appointed to the
Commission may be from the same political party.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairman.
(f) Open to the Public.--Each meeting of the Commission
shall be open to the public, unless a member objects.
(g) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
(h) Nonapplicability of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
shall not apply to the Commission.
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of the Commission is to evaluate
and provide recommendations for modification, consolidation,
or repeal of covered regulations with the aim of reducing
compliance costs, all while protecting public health and
safety, encouraging growth and innovation, and improving
competitiveness.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Commission shall--
(1) give priority in its analysis of covered regulations to
those that--
(A) impose disproportionately high costs on a small entity
(as defined in section 601 of title 5, United States Code);
(B) impose substantial paperwork burdens; or
[[Page H86]]
(C) could be strengthened in their effectiveness while
reducing regulatory costs;
(2) solicit and review comments from the public on the
covered regulations described this section; and
(3) develop a set of covered regulations to modify,
consolidate, or repeal to be submitted to Congress for an up-
or-down vote.
(c) Public Comments.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the initial meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall
initiate a process to solicit and collect written
recommendations from the general public, interested parties,
Federal agencies, and other relevant entities regarding which
covered regulations should be examined.
(2) Submission of public comments.--The Commission shall
ensure that the process initiated under paragraph (1) allows
for recommendations to be submitted to the Commission through
the website of the Commission or by mail.
(3) Length of public comment period.--The period for the
submission of recommendations under this subsection shall end
120 days after the date on which the process is initiated
under paragraph (1).
(4) Publication.--At the end of the period for the
submission of recommendations under this subsection, all
submitted recommendations shall be published in the Federal
Register and on the website of the Commission.
(d) Commission Outreach.--
(1) In general.--During the public comment period described
in subsection (c), the Commission shall conduct public
outreach and convene focus groups to better inform the
Commissioners of the public's interest and possible
contributions to the work of the Commission.
(2) Focus groups.--The focus groups required under
paragraph (1) shall include individuals affiliated with the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the
Administrative Conference of the United States, the offices
within Federal agencies responsible for small business
affairs and regulatory compliance, and, at the discretion of
the Commission, other relevant stakeholders from within or
outside the regulatory entities.
(e) Commission Review of Public Comments.--Not later than
45 days after the date on which the period for the submission
of recommendations ends under subsection (c), the Commission
shall convene to review submitted recommendations and to
identify covered regulations to modify, consolidate, or
eliminate.
(f) Examination of Regulations.--
(1) Process for examination.--In examining covered
regulations under this section, the Commission shall
determine the effectiveness of individual covered
regulations, by using multiple resources, including
quantitative metrics, testimony from industry and agency
experts, and research from the staff of the Commission.
(2) Deadline.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the Commission convenes under subsection (e), the
Commission shall complete a substantial examination of
covered regulations.
(g) Initial Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the Commission convenes under subsection (e), the
Commission shall publish, and make available to the public
for comment, a report, which shall include--
(A) the findings and conclusions of the Commission for the
improvement of covered regulations examined by the
Commission; and
(B) a list of recommendations for changes to the covered
regulations examined by the Commission, which may include
recommendations for modification, consolidation, or repeal of
such covered regulations.
(2) Requirement.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall be approved by not fewer than 5 members of the
Commission.
(3) Availability of report.--The Commission shall make the
report required under paragraph (1) available through the
website of the Commission and in printed form.
(4) Public comment period.--During the 90-day period
beginning on the date on which the report required under
paragraph (1) is published, the Commission shall--
(A) solicit comments from the public on such report, using
the same process established under subsection (c); and
(B) publish any comments received under subparagraph (A) in
the Federal Register and the website of the Commission.
(5) Consultation.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the report required under paragraph (1) is published,
the Commission shall complete a consultation with the
chairman and ranking member of the committees of jurisdiction
in the House of Representatives and Senate regarding the
contents of the report.
(B) Requirements.--The consultation required under
subparagraph (A) shall provide--
(i) the opportunity for the chair and ranking member of the
committees of jurisdiction to provide substantive feedback or
recommendations related to the regulatory changes contained
in the report required under paragraph (1); and
(ii) the opportunity for the chair and ranking member of
the committees of jurisdiction to provide recommendations for
alternative means of achieving a reduction in regulatory
costs while maintaining the same level of benefits to
society.
(h) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the 90-day period described in subsection (g)(4) ends,
the Commission shall--
(A) review any comments received under subsection (g)(4);
(B) incorporate any relevant comments received under
subsection (g)(4) into the report required under subsection
(g)(1); and
(C) submit the revised report to Congress.
(2) Contents.--The revised report required to be submitted
to Congress under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the findings and conclusions of the Commission for the
improvement of covered regulations examined by the
Commission;
(B) a list of recommendations for changes to the covered
regulations examined by the Commission, which may include
recommendations for modification, consolidation, or repeal of
such covered regulations; and
(C) recommended legislative language to implement the
recommendations in subparagraph (B).
(i) Notice to Regulatory Agencies.--
(1) Enactment of commission bill.--If the commission bill
is enacted into law before the first date on which Congress
adjourns sine die after such bill is introduced, the
President shall--
(A) not later than 7 days after the date on which the
commission bill is enacted into law--
(i) provide notice to the affected regulatory agencies; and
(ii) publish notice of enactment in the Federal Register
and online;
(B) require affected regulatory agencies to implement the
commission bill not later than 180 days after the date on
which the commission bill is enacted into law.
(2) Failure to enact commission bill.--If the commission
bill is not enacted into law before the first date on which
Congress adjourns sine die after such bill is introduced, the
President shall provide notice of such failure to enact the
commission bill in the Federal Register.
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission is authorized to secure
directly from any executive department, bureau, agency,
board, commission, office, independent establishment, or
instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics for the purpose of this Act. Each
department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office,
independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the
extent authorized by law, furnish such information,
suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the
Commission, upon request made by the chairman, the chairman
of any subcommittee created by the Commission, or any member
designated by a majority of the Commission.
(2) Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination.--
Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and
disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff
consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and
Executive orders.
(c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(e) Space for Use of Commission.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
General Services shall support on a reimbursable basis the
operations of the Commission, including the identification of
suitable space to house the Commission. If the Administrator
is not able to make such suitable space available within the
60-day period, the Commission shall lease space to the extent
that funds are available.
SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an
executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairman of the Commission may fix
the compensation of the
[[Page H87]]
executive director and other personnel without regard to
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to classification of positions
and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay
for the executive director and other personnel may not exceed
the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(3) Agency assistance.--Following consultation with and
upon the request of the Chairman of the Commission, the head
of any agency may detail an employee of the agency to the
Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be
without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(4) GAO and oira assistance.--The Comptroller General of
the United States and the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide assistance,
including the detailing of employees, to the Commission in
accordance with an agreement entered into with the
Commission.
(d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(e) Contracting Authority.--The Commission may acquire
administrative supplies and equipment for Commission use to
the extent funds are available.
(f) Administrative Support.--Upon the request of the
Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report under section 4.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to the Commission to carry out
this Act.
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
substitute amendment to provide a bipartisan approach to this
regulatory reform discussion.
As a CPA and a small-business owner myself, I have seen firsthand the
burden that unnecessary regulations can have on businesses,
particularly small businesses.
My substitute amendment would establish a regulatory improvement
commission consisting of experts appointed by the President and
congressional leaders of both parties to evaluate and provide
recommendations for the modification, consolidation, or repeal of
regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome.
The commission would have an aim toward reducing compliance costs,
encouraging growth and innovation, and improving competitiveness, all
while protecting public health and safety. After opportunities for
input and consultation from experts, industry stakeholders, and the
general public, the commission would submit a report to Congress
containing proposed legislation to implement its adjusted changes. If
Congress chooses to act and the President chooses to sign the report,
agencies would have 180 days to implement.
My amendment is based on the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015,
which I was proud to introduce with the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Mulvaney) along with 14 cosponsors, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Our bipartisan proposal rejects the partisan approach before us today
in favor of a true, bipartisan compromise that all Members should be
able to get behind.
My constituents sent me to Congress with the expectation that I would
be willing to work with anyone with a good idea. It shouldn't matter
what party you have behind your name.
Traveling up and down my district, I hear the same thing from all of
my constituents, whether they are Republican, Democrat, Tea Party
alike. They get that there can be a cost to protecting the environment.
But in my district on the Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches, they also
know that having clean water is probably worth it.
They also get that there can be a cost to protecting their workers
and workplace safety. But many of them have had the same workers for
many, many years, if not decades, and they know that the safety of
their employees is also probably worth it.
So what frustrates, I think, those constituents the most and those
business owners the most is the unnecessary red tape and the excessive
costs for the hoops that they have to jump through that don't make the
air any cleaner and don't make the projects any safer. They expect
Washington to work to fix that problem. That is why I have offered this
amendment today.
I know that some on the left are going to say that this goes too far
and some on the right think it doesn't go far enough. But I also know
that, in a divided government, the partisan bill before us will do
nothing to help relieve the regulatory burden on the small businesses
in my district and across this country.
Riddled with poison pills, the SCRUB Act is a messaging bill, trying
to send a message about one side allegedly not caring enough about jobs
and the other side doesn't care enough about clean water or public
safety.
But that is not the message that the small businesses care about and
the small businesses in my district want to hear. They want results.
They want solutions to this. Their message shouldn't be that Congress
doesn't care.
So while I hoped that we would be able to pick up where we left off
on this bill in the last Congress and find some areas where we can come
together to solve problems for the American people, I understand that
there are concerns with the amendment, and I do intend to withdraw it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say how
much I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's bipartisan work on this
issue.
I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue as well as
other issues of joint concern, like criminal justice reform and the
restoration of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working together and to working with
our friends on the other side of the aisle, getting back to getting
things done for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Babin) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moolenaar, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1155) to
provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and
sets of rules, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________