CONYERS & JOHNSON: Republicans' Anti-Regulatory Agenda Is Not Only A "Better Way" For Big Business, Not Working Americans

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Washington, D.C. – Earlier today, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Burdens introduced the anti-regulatory portion of their so-called “Better Way” agenda.  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA) today released the following statements in response to this report:

“Congress needs to focus on finding real solutions to real problems facing the Nation, such as gun violence, the erosion of voting rights, and growing economic inequality. But once again, House Republican leaders reveal they have no new ideas to help create jobs and improve the lives of ordinary hardworking Americans.  Instead they rebrand old, discredited anti-regulatory proposals designed to benefit big business,” said Congressman Conyers.  “Economic studies have shown that regulations help our economy, not burden it.  More importantly, regulations ensure better working conditions, a cleaner environment, and safer and more innovative products.

Congressman Conyers continued, “Americans want the benefits that regulation provides.  House Republican leadership should stop attacking federal regulatory agencies and admit that their decades-old, anti-regulatory agenda simply prioritizes corporate profits over people.”

“This report is more evidence that Republicans would rather govern by tired and unfounded rhetoric than through sound policy,” said Congressman Johnson. “Few, if any, of these anti-government reforms are new ideas. We have held more than 30 hearings on many of these dangerous proposals; each are designed to unduly constrain agencies from protecting the public interest by keeping our water, food, and air safe. At this point, the record is etched in stone: regulatory reform is a handout to the donor class designed to insulate reckless corporations from public accountability in any form.”

On the House Judiciary Committee alone, House Republicans have held 33 anti-regulation hearings since the start of the 112th Congress, but not a single hearing this Congress on:

o   Gun violence;

o   Voting rights;

o   The impact of overwhelming student loan debt on families and the economy;

o   The mortgage foreclosure crisis, which still is hampering the economic recovery of millions of American families;

o   or how we can better help struggling American families regain their financial stability.

Fact Sheet...Gop’s Anti-regulatory Agenda is Only a “Better Way” for Big Business, Not Working Americans

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, LOFGREN: HOUSE GOP’S SO-CALLED “BETTER WAY” HAS NO NEW IDEAS, DOES LITTLE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

Washington, D.C. – Earlier today, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Task Force on National Security introduced its national security portion of the so-called “Better Way” agenda – a rebranding of old partisan proposals.  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) released the following joint statement after the release of this report:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“It was our hope that this initiative might yield new, constructive ideas in the fight to keep our country safe. Sadly, this report lacks substantive detail, and appears to be largely a reworking of broad policy pronouncements that have been circulating the Hill for years.  It is not enough to simply list our Nation’s challenges and blame them on immigrants, refugees, and President Obama.”

Notably, the report announced today calls for various changes to our immigration laws—despite the Republican-controlled Congress’s refusal to join House Democrats to pass comprehensive immigration reform.   The report also fails to address several clear national security concerns, including climate change and various global health crises. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Blumenauer, Conyers Lead Letter Urging EPA to Protect Pollinators & Further Examine Impacts of Pesticides on Pollinators

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Washington, DC – Representatives Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) and John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) led 38 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in sending a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns regarding the agency’s assessment of the impacts of the widely used insecticide, imidacloprid, on pollinators. Imidacloprid is a type of neonicotinoid, a class of pesticides that has been linked to declining pollinator populations.

In January, EPA released its Preliminary Pollinator Assessment to Support the Registration Review of Imidacloprid, which found that imidacloprid does pose a risk to honey bees. This assessment, however, failed to address many important issues necessary to reversing pollinator losses. In their letter, the lawmakers call on EPA to further examine the impacts of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids by evaluating: their impacts on native bee species; the risks of other stressors on honey bees in conjunction with exposure to pesticides; and the effects when multiple pesticides are used together.

“Since beekeepers began reporting massive bee die-offs more than a decade ago, the health of our nation’s honey bees and other pollinators has been a continuing source of concern,” the lawmakers wrote. “In order to meet the goals of reversing pollinator losses and restoring healthy populations laid out in this strategy, EPA must strengthen and improve the scope of its risk assessment of neonicotinoids.”

Continued decline in bee populations will have serious implications to American food production and the economy. Approximately one in three bites of food benefits from bee pollination. Pollinators provide $24 billion a year to the economy, $15 billion of which is contributed by honey bees. Many crops, including almonds, cranberries, and apples, rely almost entirely on bees and other pollinators.

Representatives Blumenauer and Conyers have long championed efforts to protect our pollinators. Last year, they reintroduced Saving America’s Pollinators Act, legislation that requires EPA to take swift action to prevent mass bee die-offs and protect the health of honey bees and other critical pollinators by suspending the use of neonicotinoids. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Administrator of the EPA, to monitor the health of native bee populations and to identify and publicly report the likely causes of bee kills.

CONYERS, Blumenauer Lead Letter Urging EPA to Protect Pollinators & Further Examine Impacts of Pesticid...

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Congress Should Heed Pope Francis' Call to Answer the 'Cry of the Earth and the Cry of the Poor'

By John Conyers

Dena of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

This  summer, Pope Francis released one of the most important and eloquent works of our time: Laudato Si. A meditation on modern culture and our responsibilities to our creator and one another, it directly confronts the sin and injustice of continued environmental degradation and inaction on climate change.

Wednesday, Pope Francis delivered that urgent message directly to the American people. Speaking at the White House, he applauded President Obama for his work to repair our "common home" and he encouraged us to consider the world we leave our children and which we create for others.

A man of peace and a man of the poor, Pope Francis speaks out of obligation because to him our situation compels it. He recognizes that our planet "groans in travail" at the "sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life." He reminds us that our climate, "a common good, belonging to all and meant for all" is imperiled by greenhouse gases. He sees our failure to consider the environmental threats to our most vulnerable brothers and sisters as pointing "to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded."

The pope uses reason matched to principle to point out a simple truth -- climate change is happening and it will hit the weakest the hardest because they lack the resources to prepare.

Examples of this inequity are abound. Drought in California makes produce more expensive, but it leads to famine in sub-Saharan Africa. Storm surges and flooding will destroy the coastal homes of the wealthy, but will kill those without transportation as it did in New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward. Wealthy countries with political and capital reserves remain stable during tough times, but resource shocks can drive developing nations to war and destruction. Extreme heatwaves are tolerable with air-conditioning, but are deadly without it. These challenges can drive migration that presents its own dangers.

As leader of a church with 1.25 billion members and two thousand years of institutional history, Pope Francis cannot remain silent -- many of those at greatest risk are part of his flock. But he is also worried about those whose disrespect for creation and preference for comfort over sacrifice drives climate change skepticism. He must make them hear too the "cry from the earth and cry from the poor."

That means calling upon the freest and strongest country in the world to account for its timid skepticism. Pope Francis' sternest reminder falls upon wealthy countries, like the United States, where our public moral and religious dialogue all too frequently ignores the inconvenient truth that our comfort and prosperity threatens lives at home and elsewhere.

Congress could do worse than to rise to Pope Francis' challenge and stand up for the most vulnerable in the face of fierce opposition by powerful interests. Because while we may not always see eye to eye with the Pope on matters of theology or public policy, America was founded, as President Ronald Reagan said, "a shining city upon a hill". If we truly believe that destiny -- in American exceptionalism itself -- then we have a duty to sacrifice and act exceptionally. As America's greatest theologian, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

I am glad that Pope Francis has asked us directly to measure where we stand in these challenging times. His is a needed reminder and an act of good conscience. As he becomes the first Pontiff in history to address the United States Congress, I appreciate his wise counsel on the issues that our nation and the world must confront and I join millions of Americans in welcoming him to our nation.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Floor Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. in Opposition to H.R. 348, the “Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015"

            “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 348, the ‘Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015’ or so-called RAPID Act.  

            “H.R. 348 has many flaws.  Most critically, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis that currently is required under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. 

            “By giving the proponents of construction projects greater control over the environmental approval process, this bill is the equivalent of giving Wall Street the authority to write its own regulations for financial responsibility.

           

“The bill accomplishes this result in several respects.

            “To begin with, H.R. 348 – under the guise of streamlining the approval process – forecloses potentially critical input from federal, state, and local agencies as well as from members of the public to comment on environmentally-sensitive construction projects that are federally-funded or that require federal approval.

            “The bill also imposes hard and fast deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances.

            “Moreover, if an agency fails to meet these unrealistic deadlines, the bill simply declares that a project must be deemed approved, regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly assessed risks.

           

“As a result, H.R. 348 could allow projects that put public health and safety at risk to be approved before the safety review is completed.   

            “This failing of the bill, along with many others, explains why the Administration and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, along with more than 40 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this legislation.

            “These organizations include Public Citizen, the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.

            “Likewise, the Administration issued a strong veto threat.  Stating that the bill will “increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines,” the Administration warns that if H.R. 348 became law, it “would lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth.”        

           

“Another concern that I have with this bill – like other measures that we have considered – is that it is a flawed solution in search of an imaginary problem.  And, that is not just my opinion. 

            “The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, for instance, states that highway construction project delays based on environmental requirements stem not from the National Environmental Policy Act, but from ‘laws other than NEPA.’ 

            “In fact, CRS found that the primary source of approval delays for these projects ‘are more often tied to local/state and project-specific factors, primarily local/state agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.’ 

            “Undoubtedly, the so-called RAPID Act will make the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety.

            “My final major concern with this bill is that – rather than streamlining the environmental review process – it will sow utter confusion. 

            “H.R. 348 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for construction projects, which will cause confusion, delay, and litigation.

            “As I noted at the outset, the changes to the  National Environmental Policy Act’s review process as contemplated by H.R. 348 apply only to certain construction projects.

            “The National Environmental Policy Act, on the other hand, applies to a broad panoply of federal actions, including fishing, hunting, and grazing permits, land management plans, Base Realignment and Closure activities, and treaties. 

           

“As a result of the bill, there could potentially be two different environmental review processes for the same project.  For instance, the bill’s requirements would apply to the construction of a nuclear reactor, but not to its decommissioning or to the transportation and storage of its spent fuel.

            “Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation.

            “But, more importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections.   

           

            “As with all the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of federal agencies to do the work that Congress requires them to do.  I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill and reserve the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

FLOOR STATEMENT: HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER JOHN CONYERS, JR. ON H.R. 185

WASHINGTON – Today, during debate on the House Floor of H.R. 185, the “Regulatory Accountability Act,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. urged his colleagues to vote against the measure.  Rep. Conyers delivered the following remarks, as prepared for delivery:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 185, the so-called “Regulatory Accountability Act.” 

“Under the guise of attempting to improve the regulatory process, H.R. 185 will, in truth, undermine that process.  It invites increased industry intervention and imposes more than 60 new analytical requirements that could add years to the regulatory process. 

“As a result, H.R. 185 would seriously hamper the ability of government agencies to safeguard public health and safety, as well as environmental protections, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections.

“My greatest concern is that H.R. 185 will undermine the public health, safety, and well-being of Americans. 

“The ways in which it does this are almost too numerous to list here, so I will just mention a few.

“First, H.R. 185 would override critical laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake - including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 

“This means that agency officials will now be required to balance the costs of an air pollution standard with the costs of the anticipated deaths and illnesses that will result in the absence of such regulations.

“At a hearing on an earlier version of this bill in the 112^th Congress, our witness testified that if this measure were in effect in the 1970's, the government “almost certainly would not have required the removal of most lead from gasoline until perhaps decades later.”

“This explains why numerous respected academics, consumer organizations, public interest groups, and environmental organizations strongly oppose this dangerous legislation. 

“For example, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards – consisting of more than 70 national public interest, labor, consumer, and environmental organizations –  says the bill will“grind to a halt the rulemaking process at the core of implementing the nation’s public health, workplace safety, and environmental standards.” 

“The Natural Resources Defense Council adds that the practical impact of H.R. 185 ‘would be to make it difficult if not impossible to put in place any new safeguards for the public, no matter what the issue.’

“And, the Consumer Federation of America states that  H.R. 185 ‘would handcuff all federal agencies in their efforts to protect consumers’  and it ‘would override important bipartisan laws that have been in effect for years, as well as more recently enacted laws to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe food and unsafe consumer products.’

“Further, the AFL-CIO warns that the bill’s procedural and analytical requirements add years to the regulatory process, delaying the development of major workplace safety rules and will ‘cost workers their lives.’

“And, as more than 80 highly respected administrative law academics and practitioners observe, the bill’s many ill-defined new procedural and analytical requirements will engender ‘20 or 30 years of litigation before its requirements are clearly understood.’   

“My second concern is that this legislation would give well-funded business interests the opportunity to exert even greater influence over the rulemaking process and agencies. 

“We already know that the ability of corporate and business interests to influence agency rulemaking far exceeds that by groups representing the public.

“But rather than leveling the playing field, H.R. 185 will further tip the balance in favor of business interests by giving them multiple opportunities to intervene in the rulemaking process, including through less deferential judicial review.

“Finally, H.R. 185 is based on the faulty premise that regulations result in economically stifling costs, kill jobs, and promote uncertainty.

“While supporters of H.R. 185 will undoubtedly cite a study claiming the cost of regulations exceed $1.8 trillion, the Congressional Research Service, Center for Progressive Reform, and the Economic Policy Institute found that a prior iteration of this study was based on incomplete and irrelevant data.

           

“In fact, the Majority’s own witness at a hearing on nearly identical legislation clearly debunked this argument. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, testified that the employment effects of regulation ‘are indeterminate.’

“The other central argument put forth by proponents of this legislation – that regulatory uncertainty hurts businesses – has similarly been debunked.

“Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observes:

‘[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out.  In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.’

“Not surprisingly, the Administration issued a strong veto threat stating that the bill ‘would impose unprecedented and unnecessary procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities.’

“Rather than heeding these serious concerns, the supporters of H.R. 185 simply want to push forward without any hearings, markups, or deliberative process in this Congress with a bill that has absolutely no political viability.

“I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©