CONYERS Floor Statement In Opposition To The So-Called "Regulatory Accountability Act 2017

OPENING STATEMENT

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the “Regulatory Accountability Act.”

           

Under the guise of improving the regulatory process, H.R. 5 will, in truth, undermine that process and jeopardize the ability of government agencies to safeguard public health and safety, the environment, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections. 

The ways in which this legislation accomplishes this result are almost too numerous to list here, but I will mention a few. 

For example, title I of the bill would impose more than 70 new analytical requirements that will add years to the rulemaking process. 

Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate the ability of regulated entities -- such as well-funded corporate interests -- to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose. 

And, it would function as a “super mandate,” overriding critical laws that Congress specifically intended to prohibit agencies from considering costs when American lives are at stake. 

Additionally, the bill creates numerous procedural hurdles in the rulemaking process, further endangering American lives through years of delay and increasing the likelihood of regulatory capture. 

For example, H.R. 5 dramatically expands the use of formal rulemaking, a time- and resource-intensive process, requiring formal trial-like hearings for certain rules.

Formal rulemaking has long been roundly rejected for good cause as being excessively costly and ill-suited for complex policy issues. 

The Administrative Section of the American Bar Association noted that “these provisions run directly contrary to a virtual consensus in the administrative law community that the Administrative Procedure Act formal rulemaking procedure is obsolete.” 

I am also concerned that H.R. 5 would impose an arbitrary one-size-fits-all 6-month delay on virtually every new rule.

Specifically, title V of the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming effective until the information required by the bill has been available online for 6 months, with only limited exception. 

Clearly, H.R. 5 fails to take into account a vast array of time-sensitive rules ranging from the mundane -- such as the frequent U.S. Coast Guard bridge closings regulations -- to those that protect public health and safety, such as forthcoming updates to the Lead and Copper Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce lead in public drinking water.

Finally, title II of H.R. 5 would eliminate judicial deference to agencies and require federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis.

The unfortunate result of this requirement is that the bill would empower a generalist court to override the determinations of agency experts, regardless of the judge’s technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter.

By eliminating any deference to agencies, H.R. 5 would force agencies to adopt even moredetailed factual records and explanations, which would further delay the finalization of critical life-saving regulatory protections.

The Supreme Court has recognized that federal courts simply lack the subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench.

It is ironic that those who have long decried “judicial activism” now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking.

These are just a few of the many serious concerns presented by H.R. 5 and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.

CLOSING REMARKS

I oppose H.R. 5 because it is based on the faulty premise that environmental and public safety protections kill jobs, result in economically stifling costs, and promote uncertainty.

This bill would not create a single job.  During the series of hearings and markups held on this anti-regulatory legislation in previous congresses, not one shred of evidence emerged indicating that this bill would create jobs.

To the contrary, the Majority’s own witness, Christopher DeMuth, appearing on behalf of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, debunked this argument, stating that focusing on jobs “can lead to confusion in regulatory debates” and that the employment effects of regulatory protections “are indeterminate.”

In sharp contrast to the misguided approach of H.R. 5, regulatory protections that ensure the safety of American-made products unquestionably foster job creation and protect the competitiveness of our businesses in the global marketplace. 

This explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this dangerous legislation, including:

·                     Americans for Financial Reform

·                     The American Lung Association

·                     Consumers Union

·                     The Humane Society of the United States

·                     The League of Conservation Voters

·                     Public Citizen

·                     The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

·                     Earthjustice

·                     The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

·                     The American Public Health Association

·                     The Environmental Defense Action Fund

·                     The Center for American Progress, and

·                     The Trust for America’s Health.

The American people deserve better than H.R. 5. 

We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity.

           

We need sensible regulations that protect American families from economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.

We need workplace safety protections that ensure hardworking Americans who go to work each day without having to risk their lives as a result of hazardous work environments.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5 does nothing to advance any of these critical goals. 

I must therefore oppose H.R. 5 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement In Opposition To REINS Act

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) submitted the following statement for the Congressional Record in opposition to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 (REINS Act):

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 26, the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017,” otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take effect.

Simply put, H.R. 26 would impose unworkable deadlines for the enactment of a major rule under procedures that could charitably be referred to as convoluted.

Under this bill, the House may only consider a resolution for a major rule on the second and fourth Thursday of each month.  Keep in mind that typically 80 major rules are promulgated annually.  Yet, there may be as little as just 15 days available to consider such measures based on the Majority’s legislative calendar for the current year. 

Furthermore, Congress may only consider such resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This process would constructively end rulemaking as we know it.

           

Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle say we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation -- is because they claim regulations stifle economic growth.

           

For example, they point to the outgoing Administration and say that regulations promulgated during its tenure have hurt our Nation’s economy.

           

What they fail to tell the American people is that it was the Republican George Bush Administration’s economic policies that caused the Great Recession.

           

Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our Nation’s economy.

           

It led to millions of home foreclosures and devastated neighborhoods across America.  In fact, it nearly caused a global economic meltdown. 

           

Nevertheless, as a consequence of strong regulatory policies implemented by President Obama through such measures as the Dodd-Frank Act, our Nation has recovered to a point where the unemployment has been cut nearly in half to less than 5%.

           

Yet, the REINS Act would reverse these gains by empowering Congress to control and override the rulemaking process, even in the absence of any substantive expertise.

More than 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and administrative law have warned in connection with substantively identical legislation considered in the last Congress, that without this expertise, any congressional disapproval is more likely to reflect the political power of special interests.

           

Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of article I of the Constitution.

           

As a leading expert on administrative law states:  “The reality is that the act is intended to enable a single House of Congress to control the implementation of the laws through the rulemaking process. Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of separation of powers, under which the Constitution entrusts the writing of the laws to the legislative branch and the implementation of the laws to the executive branch.''

           

The REINS Act will further encourage corporate giants to hold our country hostage through a deregulatory, profits-first agenda and facilitate a political influence process rivaling the destructive industrial monopolies from the past century.

           

In sum, H.R. 26, like the “Midnight Rules Relief Act” we considered yesterday on the House floor, is yet another blatant gift to big business to weaken the critical regulatory protections that ensure the safety of the air we breathe, the cars we drive, the toys we give our children, and the food we eat. 

               

Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived bill and I reserve the balance of my time.

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Chair, we need real solutions for real problems. 

           

In stark contrast, however, the REINS Act attempts to address a non-existent problem with a very dangerous solution. 

           

We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity.

           

We need sensible regulations that protect American families from economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.

           

We need workplace safety regulations that ensure hardworking Americans who go to work each day are protected from hazardous work environments.

           

We need strong regulations that protect the safety of the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. 

           

Unfortunately, H.R. 26 does nothing to advance those critical goals. 

This explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this legislation, including:

·         Americans for Financial Reform

·         The American Lung Association

·         Consumers Union

·         The Humane Society of the United States

·         The League of Conservation Voters

·         Public Citizen

·         The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

·         Earthjustice

·         The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

·         The American Public Health Association

·         The Environmental Defense Action Fund

·         The Center for American Progress, and

The Trust for America’s Health.

I therefor urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 26 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS House Floor Statement In Opposition To H.R. 21, The So-Called “Midnight Rules Relief Act"

LEGISLATION WOULD EMPOWER CONGRESS TO ROLL BACK MORE THAN 6 MONTHS OF CRITICAL PROTECTIONS

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 21, the so-called Rules Relief Act of 2017.”

This sweeping measure would empower Congress to undo virtually every regulation submitted to Congress since mid-June of last year through the end of 2016.

The bill accomplishes this end by authorizing Congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution thereby depriving Members to consider the merits of each individual regulation.

H.R. 21 presents numerous concerns.

To begin with, this bill would provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block critical, life-saving regulations.

Long before regulations are submitted to Congress, agencies often take many years to ensure that these rules are carefully vetted through a deliberative process based on extensive analysis, public notice, and comment. 

As one recognized administrative law expert has observed, much of modern rulemaking involves a “very detailed analysis of legal, factual, and policy issues, many of them highly technical. This work is better suited to the subject matter specialists in the respective agencies.”

Yet, H.R. 21 would effectively force Congress to rely on industry input when presented with an up-or-down vote on a long list of complicated and often highly technical rules.

David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council warns that this would result in special interests descending on “Congress with even greater fervor than is currently the case.”

I am also concerned that H.R. 21 is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that rules finalized during the final year of a President’s term are somehow rushed or improperly vetted.

The nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States, for example, conducted an extensive study in 2012. 

It concluded that “a dispassionate look at midnight rules issued by past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the November election.”

The Conference also reported that many of these rules involved purely routine matters initiated before the Presidential transition period or as the result of deadlines outside the agency’s control, such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines.

Indeed, so-called midnight rules often take longer to promulgate than other rules.

For example, Public Citizen reports that rules adopted during a presidential transition period were typically proposed 3.6 years prior to their adoption, while other rules adopted in non-transition periods took nearly 2.8 years to complete.

The Center for Progressive Reform likewise concludes that concerns about midnight rulemaking are overstated, stating that “there simply is no reason to believe that a rule released at the end of an administration is worse than those that are released at any other point.”

Perhaps this is because Congress already has the tools to vacate an unreasonable rule under current law—the Congressional Review Act.

Lastly, as with the many other anti-regulatory bills we considered in the last congress, this legislation completely ignores the benefits of regulation and is premised on the unsubstantiated belief that regulations undermine employment or economic growth.

This also explains why H.R. 21 is opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

           

As the Obama Administration stated in connection with its veto threat of an identical version of this bill considered last November, the legislation “would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.”

If we care about clean water and air, if we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rejecting this legislation and I reserve the balance of my time. 

CLOSING FLOOR STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 21, THE SO-CALLED “MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT”

With so many other pressing issues for the Congress to act on, it is a disservice to the American people that we, as one of our first legislative actions in the 115^th Congress, take up H.R. 21, a bill that has far-ranging consequences in the absence of anydeliberative process.

Even though just yesterday more than 50 new Members of the House were sworn in and even though there was not a single legislative hearing on this bill in the last Congress, the Majority has chosen to rush this bill literally on the second day of this new Congress.

And, as further insult to all Members, this bill is being considered under a closed rule, depriving our colleagues of any opportunity to offer amendments.

But, most importantly, this bill jeopardizes public health and safety because it will further empower special interests that prioritize profits over lives to derail regulations they just do not like. 

So, in closing, I must oppose H.R. 21, a bill that is utterly unnecessary, unwarranted, and ill-conceived.

I yield back balance of my time.  

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

With One Last Effort to Dismantle Health, Safety, & Environmental Protections, House Republicans Jet for August Vacation

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 232 to 183 to pass H.R. 367, the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.” After passage of the legislation, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

“Without question, the ‘REINS Act’ will have dangerous consequences for all Americans, chiefly by creating an unworkable approval process for regulations that will make it nearly impossible for new safeguards go into effect. With everything from health and safety protections for working families to rules ensuring clean air and water, this legislation would undermine these essential regulations,” said Conyers.

“This incredibly flawed legislation would require Congress, under impossible deadlines, to consider and pass exceedingly complex and technical regulatory safeguards before they could take effect. As a result, the bill would significantly delay critical rulemaking at best, or bring it to a complete halt at worst. This means that proposed regulatory safeguards pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, the Vaccines for Children Program, the Federal student loan programs, and the Veteran’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program – amongst many other vital programs – would all be jeopardized.

“In just the last few months, we have seen the Supreme Court gut the heart of the Voting Rights Act, we have learned of the National Security Agency’s blanket surveillance of the American public, and we have a level of unemployment that remains stubbornly high. Yet, rather than work in a bipartisan fashion to address these issues of overwhelming concern to the American people, House Republicans have opted to pursue an ideologically driven assault against regulations that safeguard our health, safety, and environment. As we head back to our districts for the month of August, I hope that my Republican colleagues use this time to reconsider their agenda, and put the needs of the American people first.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Regulations Do Not Kill Jobs But Save Lives

For Immediate Release
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011
Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Regulations Do Not Kill Jobs But Save Lives Today Marks the Beginning of Conservative’s Assault on Regulatory Protections    (WASHINGTON) –  Today, the House of Representatives began consideration of a series of bills aimed at disrupting the regulatory process that is responsible for protecting the health and safety of millions of Americans.  H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act, H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R. 10, the REINS Act all will undermine a host of regulatory protections.  These protections range from food, product and workplace safety standards to financial fraud prevention rules.  “At the end of this month, the payroll tax cut signed into law by President Obama will expire, potentially resulting in GDP growth decline and the loss of 400,000 jobs,” said Conyers.  “Without action, middle class Americans will see their taxes go up by $1000 next year. “So what is the House doing today to address this problem?  Nothing.  And what is the House doing tomorrow to make sure we don’t lose more jobs? Nothing.  “Instead, starting today and continuing into next week we will focus on so-called regulatory reform consisting of three different bills.  These bills are all aimed at making the regulatory process more costly, less efficient, and will ultimately undermine vital public health, safety, and financial fraud protections.  And despite proponents’ assertions, none of these bills will create jobs or help improve the economy. “If anything, there is an undisputable correlation between the lack of regulation in recent years and our Nation’s current economic distress and resulting employment troubles.  In particular, the recent Great Recession and ongoing home foreclosure crisis are products of the failure to adequately regulate the financial services and housing industries. “As to the impact of regulations on job creation,  not a single shred of evidence was presented over the course of five Judiciary Committee hearings on regulatory process that these bills will create even a single job. “To the contrary, regulations that promote public health and ensure the safety of American-made products unquestionably lead to job creation as the quality of our Nation’s products is one of their strongest selling points.  We are all familiar with the product safety problems within the past few years that scandalized China.  Products with hazardous health defects, ranging from baby formula to children’s toys, made it to market in China with disastrous consequences for families who unwittingly purchased them.    “Regulations that ensure the quality of U.S. goods and protect the consumer’s health strengthen, not hinder, American competitiveness in the global marketplace. “The House should be spending the last few weeks of this session considering bills that will create jobs and help the American middle class.  Instead we are considering a series of bills that will ultimately undermine public safety at home and hurt American competitiveness abroad.   The American people deserve better.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

MY VIEW, Robert G. Dyck: Where has deregulation gotten us?

By Robert G. Dyck

Robert G. Dyck

The documentary film "Inside Job" (Sony Pictures Classics, 2010), shown in Birmingham recently, provides a devastating analysis of high risk-taking and corruption in the financial services industry. It contains very telling interviews with banking executives, government officials and highly placed business and economics professors.

Despite revelations like "Inside Job," most leading business and economics educators continue to defend the underlying economic and administrative theory that supports the nearly absolute deregulation of the financial services industry, despite cataclysmic economic failures that began in 2008 and continue on a global scale today. These failures demonstrate the underlying economic theory is bankrupt.

During the 1960s and '70s, Milton Friedman and his Chicago School popularized and politicized the notion that government interference in the market is an undesirable distortion of the free market, defined as the place where individual self-interested decisions sum to desirable economic outcomes. As a result of Friedman's mistaken theoretical perspective, the U.S. and many other countries now have adopted economic policies that render them incapable of providing full employment, basic human services and a decent income for the 99 percent.

Most people seem to have forgotten that the purpose of any economy is to provide goods and services which people need and can afford, not to make money for the few as fast as possible. Accordingly, we have lost the talent, entrepreneurship and collaborative spirit necessary to make a goods and services economy work successfully. These capacities have gone to the financial sector and the corporatocracy (the unhealthy linkage of corporate interests and government), whose interest is simply the quick buck.

It also has become apparent the financial services sector is incapable of regulating itself to avoid unreasonable risks that threaten the well-being of whole societies. Making money fast requires huge risks, and if the risks don't pan out, society as a whole becomes the loser: public-sector bailouts, distortion of the goods and services economy, and the loss of full employment, decent jobs and a living wage.

"Inside Job" offers no remedies except to restore regulatory control on the financial services industry. As necessary as that is, it does not fully address the root problem of economic reality at this time, which is the "rationality" of self-interest, as claimed by prevailing economic equilibrium theory, is not sufficient for good societal outcomes. Good outcomes include full employment, decent incomes and basic services.

For fully functional democratic societies, we must have economies based on mutual interest and collaboration.

An important practical step in this direction has been proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. His bill, HR 870, the Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act, would recreate something like the Works Progress Administration, financed with a nominal tax on high-risk financial transactions. It would generate revenue, create significant employment opportunities and increase demand for consumer goods. But it would not increase our national debt.

We should strongly encourage its enactment.

Misplaced obsessions with national debt and low taxes for the wealthy dominate the current debate on the economy. If Congress cannot muster bipartisan support to enact HR 870, state and local governments should link with Warren Buffet and the top 1 percent who have already volunteered to provide significant additional revenues. Their funds would then be invested in infrastructure, health care and housing for the other 99 percent, on a local and regional rather than a national basis.

Robert G. Dyck is emeritus professor of public and international affairs at Virginia Tech University. He now lives in Birmingham and is one of the authors of "The New Science of Sustainability: Building a Foundation for Great Change" (2008). Email: bobdyck@vt.edu.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Eliminating Regulations That Protect the Health and Safety of Americans Is Not Job Creation

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

As you are preparing to gather around the Thanksgiving table, the Republican majority in Congress is rushing to push through legislation that will undermine the continued health and safety of the loved ones seated next to you. Over the next two weeks they will bring three bills to the House floor that will halt regulation as we know it, making it more difficult to protect public health and safety. Nobody likes red tape and everyone can agree that there are areas where our regulations could be streamlined. However, these bills go much further and will make it virtually impossible to enact new regulations or fine-tune existing ones. Indeed, under these bills it would even be harder to get rid of burdensome regulation.

Consider H.R. 3010, the "Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011," the latest salvo in conservatives' war against safeguards provided by regulations. If enacted, H.R. 3010 would effectively halt agency rulemaking, which threatens the government's ability to protect the American people from a wide range of health and safety harms. H.R. 3010 will result in "paralysis by analysis" by imposing numerous unnecessary analytical requirements on agencies before they even start the rulemaking process. This bill will arrest the rulemaking process and slow down the implementation of critical regulations that ensure our air and water is clean, and our consumer products are safe.

But that is not the only bill being crammed into the remaining few days of the congressional session. H.R. 10, The "REINS Act," would adversely impact how necessary and beneficial rules are promulgated by imposing a mandate requiring all new major regulations to be affirmatively approved by both Houses of Congress and signed by the president within 70 days before they can take effect. By requiring congressional approval and by giving Congress too little time to act, the REINS Act will effectively prevent major rules, including those related to public safety, from ever being implemented.

Rounding out the trio of public safety killing legislation is H.R. 527, the "Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011." Under current law, rulemaking agencies must make an analysis for every new rule that would have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, such as small businesses. Among other things, this bill repeals the authority of an agency to waive or delay this analysis in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance impracticable.

So if there is an epidemic of E. coli or listeria infection caused by some item in our nation's food distribution network, or if there is an imminent environmental disaster that could be addressed systemically through regulation, this bill says "Don't worry. Don't rush."

My conservative colleagues argue that this legislation is necessary because too much regulation is responsible for our nation's current economic difficulties. They must be suffering from some collective form of amnesia. It was not too much regulation of Wall Street that led to the near collapse of the worldwide marketplace. It was not too much regulation that caused the BP oil spill. And, it was not too much regulation that allowed mortgage brokers, servicers, bankers and others to engage in predatory lending and falsify foreclosure documents in court proceedings.

Regulation has had no discernable impact on our economy compared with the devastating impact that the lack of demand has had. As a July Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found, "The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies." Even the business community recognizes that the biggest problem it faces is lack of demand. The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of its members likewise shows that business owners believe that poor sales -- not regulation -- are the biggest problem.

The focus of this debate, rather, should be on the fact that regulations are really about job creation. Historically, American-made goods have been sought the world over because of their high quality and safety standards. But the United States will lose this competitive advantage if we continue toward lowering our regulatory standards.

The solution to the recession is fairly straightforward. We must increase demand for American goods, create jobs and resolve the home foreclosure crisis. If we continue this regulatory race to the bottom, American manufacturers will be less competitive, demand will further weaken, and fewer -- not more -- jobs will be created. These bills provide yet another opportunity for big business to recklessly cut corners on public health and safety in the name of increasing big profits without creating a single new job.

The safety standards for American goods are so high, and our products are so consistently safe that it is no surprise we often take for granted the regulations that ensure their quality. So as you sit down to a nice meal consisting of food put through a thorough inspection process with loved ones who traveled safely on planes, trains and automobiles subject to rigorous safety standards, remember: Regulations don't kill jobs, they save lives. And that there are plans underway in Washington to undermine the regulatory process that guarantees the health and safety of millions of Americans. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Republican REINS Act Witnesses Came Only to Promote Pro-Industry Interests Without Any Knowledge of Pending Legislation

Conyers:  Republican REINS Act Witnesses Came Only to Promote Pro-Industry Interests Without Any Knowledge of Pending Legislation

(Washington)—House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement on his take of yesterday’s hearing on “Raising the Agencies’ Grades – Protecting the Economy, Assuring Regulatory Quality and Improving Assessments of Regulatory Need.”

“The Republicans’ witnesses could not disguise the fact that their call for hamstringing federal agencies stemmed from a blatant conflict of interest,” said Conyers.  “These witnesses were both from the Mercatus Center, an anti-regulatory think tank founded and funded by Charles and David Koch, who own the second largest privately held company in the Nation and have a long history of conflicts with the Environmental Protection Agency over their company’s violations of environmental regulations.  Other donors to Mercatus include companies with long records of pushing for deregulation, such as BP Amoco, Exxon Mobil Corporation, General Motors, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Pfizer, and State Farm Insurance Company.”

“These witnesses had the temerity to ask Congress to change the regulatory system based solely on their own subjective views of the quality of federal agency rulemaking, views no doubt shaped by their corporate benefactors.  But they only further undermined their own credibility when they revealed their ignorance about H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act and other regulatory bills pending before Congress.”

“House Republicans should stop wasting time trying to base public policy on corporate propaganda and instead focus on creating jobs, stymieing home foreclosures, and ensuring through effective regulation the safety of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the products we buy, and the places we work.”

###

REINS Is Literally "Job-Killing"

REINS Is Literally "Job-Killing"

Oh, this is hilarious.

Here you have a group of individuals who believe regulation is "job killing".  Well, when you are dealing with elected persons who lack administrative sophistication, you must assume their advice comes from their advocates... oops, I mean lobbyists, the same individuals who would significantly benefit from less regulatory mandates.

See, it goes like this, even though all three branches of government have their input into any administrative regulation that comes down, it is actually "job killing" because most of the local governments would not be in operation if they had to be compliant, let alone have to be compliant wtih civil rights policies.  This rings with even more truth when you understand that these "economically significant" new rules that may come down are dealing with privatization, out-sourced by state governments.

If one possessed basic understanding of the legislative process, one would know there currently exists multiple forms of input from the people regarding the formation and adoption of regulations beyond the sole elected official.


There is the Federal Registry which allows for public content.  The elected official who is concerned with having a voice should assist and engage his/her constituents in the opportunities to submit historical comments into federal record.

Then, there is always the role of the elected official to, again, assist and engage his/her constituents on how to contact the administrators of each agency to voice concerns and to provide critical input in the development of any policies.

Alas, it seems here the elected official would prefer to bog down the legislative process in minutia of applying a fifth layer of approval for policies which would virtually shut down governmental functions.  Grandstanding at its finest.

Now, let's examine the counterfactual of a "so-called" removal of regulatory policies.  Let's take EPA for example.

You remove regulation of EPA, people become sick and die.  Sick people tend to cause a soaring costs to overall health care.  Sick people can not work nor be productive to society which means that they will not be able to afford individual private insurance and seek the single payer programs.  The moral hazard kicks in to increase the cost of private insurance placing more individuals at risk of loosing their medical coverage.

As the insurance companies financially benefit with an increase in profits by cherry picking who will be insured, there will be a need to further reduce its work force with fewer clients.
Dead people do not work nor pay taxes.

Now, that is what I call "job-killing", literally.

Beverly Tran
An Original Source

Michigan Senate Resolution To Memorialize Congress For Moritoria On Regulation With REINS Act 2011