CONYERS, CUMMINGS, CONNOLLY & CICILLINE Request Documents about President Trump’s Regulatory Task Forces’ Secret Meetings and Conflicts of Interest

Washington, D.C. (August 7, 2017)—Today, Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Gerry Connolly, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, and David Cicilline, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, sent a letter, below, to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Neomi Rao expressing grave concerns about the secrecy of the Regulatory Reform Task Forces and requesting information about the nature of their meetings.

“We write to express our alarm concerning the lack of transparency, accountability, and independence of the Regulatory Reform Task Forces,” the Members wrote. “We believe that the interests of the American public must be paramount when reviewing the worthiness of regulations. Therefore, these Task Forces must have an effective and transparent guard against conflicts of interest, especially those in which industry lobbyists seek to overturn environmental and health protections for financial gain. It appears that the current Task Forces are already failing on this front, and instead are actively hiding their members and their meetings from public view.”

The Democrats explained that press reports indicate these Task Forces appear to have operated in private without public input, and some agencies have refused to release basic information about their activity or maintain a record of their meetings as required by the Federal Records Act.

“Withholding the names and titles of Task Force participants may also violate the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” the Members wrote. “Simply put, it is unacceptable for federal agencies to operate in such a clandestine and unaccountable manner especially when the result could be the undoing of critical public health and safety protections.”

The Members also expressed concern that several employees stand to profit from their work on the Task Force. For example, the wife of one Task Force member at the Environmental Protection Agency is the top lobbyist for a large oil company.

“Rather than ‘drain the swamp,’ these conflicts threaten to influence the outcome of the review process against hardworking Americans and in favor of regulated industries and agency staff,” the Members wrote.

The Members requested documents and information, including a description of every Task Force created pursuant to the executive order, a list of the names and titles of every member of each Task Force, and communications related to non-governmental entities participating in Task Force meetings.

Congressional Letter To OMB On Executive Order On Regulatory Task Force 2017-08-7 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Statement for the Hearing on H.R. 2887, the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017

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

Before I begin my remarks, I’d like to take a moment to recognize Joseph Ehrenkrantz for his dedicated service to the House of Representatives.

Over the past two years, he has diligently served the House Judiciary Committee as a Professional Staff Member.

Joe began his career with the House Judiciary Committee Democrats shortly after graduation, and has worked tirelessly on issues of civil rights, state and local taxation, and voting rights ever since.

Joe has served the Members and staff of the Committee with great energy and enthusiasm, working to ensure the smooth functioning of Committee business by coordinating briefings, staffing hearings, and clerking markups.

We thank Joe for his many outstanding contributions to the House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives, and wish him well as he begins law school at Georgetown University this fall.

He will surely be missed.

Turning to today’s hearing, which focuses on H.R. 2887, the “No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017,” it appears that supporters of this legislation intend to address the apparent problem of states regulating beyond their borders.

Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court in Quill held that a state may require a business to remit a sales tax only if such business had a physical presence in the state where the goods or services are provided. 

In an effort to respond to this holding, various legislative responses have been introduced over the years, including two of which I strongly supported, namely, The Remote Transactions Parity Act and the Marketplace Fairness Act. 

Although one of these bipartisan measures overwhelmingly passed the Senate in 2013, our Committee has unfortunately failed to consider either of these bills. 

Instead, we are focusing today on H.R. 2887, a highly-flawed measure. 

Among its many flaws, this bill would eviscerate the 10^th Amendment and override the powers of all 50 states by expanding the physical presence standard to all taxes and all regulations.

H.R. 2887 represents an extreme rethinking of the constitutional role of states in our Nation and would strip essential consumer protection powers and taxing authority from all 50 states.

To quote the bipartisan National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, this legislation “is a direct threat to representative self-government.”

Simply put, H.R. 2887 would preempt tens of thousands of state laws and saddle these states with untenable budget constraints by reducing their ability to collect tax revenues.

Second, this bill appears to ignore the real problems that main street retailers face today.

Local retailers—that have to collect sales taxes—are desperately struggling to compete with the reduced prices and conveniences offered by remote Internet sellers, whose online prices are generally lower because many consumers do not pay any sales taxes and thereby can save upwards of 10% or more on the purchase price of these items.

Technological advancements have made it easier for consumers to take advantage of this disparity and the consequences of this loophole are becoming increasingly more apparent.

Since October, at least 10 major, nationwide brick and mortar retailers have filed for bankruptcy and more than 90,000 workers have been laid off. 

Retail sector growth is at its weakest since the Great Recession, and recent projections estimate that a quarter of all U.S. shopping malls will close in the next five years.

Without question, I am a strong supporter of competition, especially when it benefits consumers and encourages innovation. Nevertheless, competitors should compete on things other than sales tax policy.

We should ensure parity at the point of sale among retailers and level the playing field.

Finally, H.R. 2887, by codifying Quill, would effectively prevent states and local governments from accessing a substantial part of their tax base.

State governments rely on sales and use taxes for nearly one third of their total tax revenue. Yet, as more Americans purchase more of their goods on the internet, the states receive less in sales tax revenue.

We owe it to our local communities and local retailers, as well as state and local governments, to take up helpful legislation rather than considering such flawed measures as H.R. 2887.  Accordingly, I urge Committee Chairman Goodlatte and Subcommittee Chairman Marino to instead consider H.R. 2193, the “Remote Transaction Parity Act,” bipartisan legislation introduced by Representative Kristi Noem earlier this year.

In closing, I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Statement for the Markup of H.R. 469, the “Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017”

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

H.R. 469, the “Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017,” has a simple goal:  to discourage the use of settlement agreements and consent decrees.

Here are just a few reasons why this is problematic.

To begin with, this bill, by delaying regulatory protections, jeopardizes public health and safety.  This explains why the Administration issued a veto threat against a very similar version included in legislation considered last Congress. 

It also explains why a broad consortium of more than 150 organizations strenuously oppose this bill. 

These organizations include the National Resources Defense Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and EarthJustice, among other groups.

Simply put, this bill could be used to prevent critical, life-saving federal regulatory actions from being implemented.

For example, the bill gives opponents of regulation multiple opportunities to stifle agency regulatory actions by allowing essentially any third party who is affected by such actions to:

•                     intervene, subject to rebuttal;

•                     participate in settlement negotiations; and

•                     submit public comments about a proposed consent decree or settlement agreement that agencies would then be required to respond to.

In the case of consent decrees concerning a rulemaking, an agency would be forced to go through two public comment periods:  one for the consent decree and one for the rulemaking that results from the consent decree, doubling the agency’s effort.

Take, for example, a consent decree resolving a dispute under the Clean Air Act.  The bill would allow any private party whose rights are affected by such decree a right to intervene, which could conceivably include anyone who breathes air. 

Like nearly all of the anti-regulatory bills we have considered to date over the last three Congresses, H.R. 469 piles on unnecessary procedural requirements for agencies and courts.

Another concern is that this bill threatens to undermine a critical tool that Americans use to guarantee their Congressionally-mandated protections, including civil rights laws. 

By reducing costly and time-consuming litigation, consent decrees and settlement agreements benefit both plaintiffs and defendants. 

They ensure that federal protections are enforced, while giving state and local governments flexibility as to how they meet their federal obligations.

Consent decrees, in particular, have been instrumental in enforcing various civil rights statutes in a wide variety cases, ranging from those involving voting rights -- to reform of mental health institutions -- to law enforcement misconduct.  Indeed, they are at the heart of civil rights enforcement.

           

Because of H.R. 469’s a chilling effect on the use of consent decrees and settlement agreements, civil rights enforcement will be undermined. 

Given this concern, I intend to offer an amendment addressing at least this one shortcoming of the bill.

Finally, H.R. 469 will inevitably generate more litigation that will result in millions of dollars of additional transactional costs, all of which will be borne by the American taxpayer. 

For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the bill’s predecessor from the last Congress, concluded the measure would impose millions of dollars in additional costs, most of which would be “incurred because litigation involving consent decrees and settlement agreements would probably take longer under the bill and agencies would face additional administrative requirements.”

           

For all of these reasons, I must accordingly oppose H.R. 469 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Markup of H.R. 2851, the “Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017” by the Committee on the Judiciary

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

H.R. 2851, the “Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017,” is intended to address the problem of the illicit use of analog synthetic drugs. 

This bill involves important issues concerning public health and safety, and also fairness in our criminal justice system. 

While I appreciate the desire to protect our citizens from dangerous drugs, I must oppose this flawed bill. 

I recognize that analogs to some synthetic drugs are dangerous and are harming our citizens – particularly young people. 

Some of these modified, man-made substances are more potent, more dangerous, and oftentimes more deadly than the substances they are designed to mimic.

However, in addressing the dangers these drugs pose, I believe Congress must be careful in advancing any legislative response. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 2851, although well-intended, is ultimately unwise for several reasons.

To begin with, this measure would give the Attorney General almost unfettered authority over the regulation of these substances. 

While much of the conversation surrounding synthetic analogues focuses on the chemistry of the substances – from the process of manufacturing them to their effect on the human body – H.R. 2851 would eliminate vital scientific and medical evaluations normally undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration and do away with binding recommendations provided by the Department of Health and Human Services in scheduling drugs.

There are already statutory mechanisms in place to provide for the scheduling and regulation of new drugs that may be dangerous if misused.  Those mechanisms require an appropriate degree of collaboration among the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration in scheduling synthetic analogues.

This is because each of these agencies are equally important to the scheduling process.

And under this bill, not only would the Attorney General hold the sole authority to schedule these substances, but he or she would also have the power to shape sentencing policy – without the input of the U.S. Sentencing Commission that is currently studying the issue of synthetic drugs and penalties.

Secondly, we must be cautious in our response to synthetic drugs and heed the lessons we learned from the fear-driven legislation enacted in response to crack.  

For example, H.R. 2851 would establish lengthy, and sometimes mandatory minimum, penalties for certain offenses involving these analog drugs. 

While mandatory minimum sentences give the appearance that we are taking strong action to address a problem, they are patently unjust as a matter of sentencing policy and are unnecessary to the imposition of appropriate sentences.  

Indeed, extremely lengthy sentences are sometimes appropriately imposed by judges, but over-penalization through mandatory minimums is counterproductive and only contributes to our crisis of over-incarceration. 

Also, this bill has the potential to chill medical research into substances that may be beneficial, or into alternative treatments for drug addiction. 

We must be careful not to harm innovation and exploration into the development of new drugs that can actually help us. 

In closing, I want to note that the Committee has received a letter from more than 65 advocacy organizations opposing this bill – including the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums. 

Furthermore, we received a letter yesterday from a number of conservative groups opposing the bill.  The signatories included Freedom Works, the American Conservative Union Foundation, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

We must not ignore their concerns as we consider approaching this issue through legislation. 

Therefore, I must oppose this bill, and I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to do the same today. 

I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, BOOKER & CICILLINE Introduce Bill To Repeal Congressional Review Act

Republicans have abused law to roll back health, environmental, and consumer protections, while benefiting special interests

WASHINGTON – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member JohnConyers, Jr. (D-MI), U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a bill to repeal the Congressional Review Act, a measure Republicans have exploited this year to overturn public health, environmental, and consumer protections while advancing special interests.  

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

“From stripping the privacy rights of American consumers to repealing women’s healthcare protections, President Trump has recklessly used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to abolish fourteen critical protections for hardworking Americans without a single hearing or markup,” Cicilline said. “Rather than keep his promise to protect American workers, President Trump has repealed guarantees that federal contractors actually comply with the law—including workers’ wage, safety, and civil rights protections—before receiving new contracts, along with rules to provide economic security to retirees. There can be no mistake that this for-profit President has no interest in putting people ahead of corporate profits. I am introducing the SCRAP Act to repeal the CRA once and for all so that this never happens again and to provide agencies with fast-track authority to reinstate the rules that have been repealed through the CRA by President Trump.”

The CRA allows Congress to quickly overturn recently issued agency rules – many of which were years or decades in the making – by bypassing Congress’s regular lawmaking process. Once a rule is reversed by the CRA, an agency can never reissue a substantially similar rule unless specifically authorized to do so under a new law.

Since February, Republicans have used the CRA to roll back a wide range of public health, environmental, and consumer protections, benefiting special interests by making it easier for internet providers to collect users’ personal information, making it easier for businesses to hide workplace dangers from workers, and making it easier for states to discriminate against family planning providers, to name just a few examples.

“Abuse of the CRA has allowed Congressional Republicans to fast track the repeal of a host of protections that benefit everyday Americans with little notice or public debate,” Booker added. “President Trump and Republicans are misusing this legislative mechanism to reward special interests and big corporations at the expense of consumers, working families, and the environment."

“Congressional Republicans and President Trump have just provided us with all the evidence needed to conclude that the Congressional Review Act is nothing more than a crass corporate payback scheme,” Public Citizen President Robert Weissman said. “Republicans repealed 14 popular and important public protections, including measures to protect consumers, worker health, and the environment. They even repealed a rule to protect privacy on the Internet; it’s hard to imagine that any American not connected to the telecom industry favored that move – but Republicans responded to their political patrons nonetheless. If there was any doubt before, it’s now certain that the CRA must go. Public Citizen applauds Senators Booker and Udall and Rep. Cicilline for introducing legislation to repeal the CRA.”

In addition to repealing the CRA, the Sunset the CRA and Restore American Protections (SCRAP) Act would remove the prohibition on agencies reissuing a previously overturned rule and would give those agencies greater flexibility in reinstating such rules.

The CRA was designed to go after “midnight” rules issued in the final days of an administration, but as written, it authorizes rule reversals going as far back as six months or more into the previous administration. Since early February, House and Senate Republican leadership in Congress has used the CRA to reverse 14 agency rules, yet prior to this Congress, the CRA had been used only once in 20 years.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & CICILLINE: LATEST TRUMP TWO FOR ONE EXECUTIVE ORDER WOULD TIE THE NATION IN RED TAPE & HARM CONSUMERS

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and  Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Ranking Member David N. Cicilline (D-RI) released the following  statement after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate critical protections for consumers’ health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections:

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

“Our Federal regulations create jobs and ensure the safety of our food, water and air are not undermined.

“This two for one Executive Order is a historic step in the wrong direction. By requiring that all Federal agencies eliminate two protections prior to adopting virtually every new rule—no matter how important or pressing—the Executive Order will practically guarantee a shutdown of the Federal government through administrative red tape.

“This measure is no different than requiring that two criminals are released for every arrest or that two stop signs are destroyed for every new one built.

“Simply put, the bureaucratic gridlock mandated through this sweeping example of Executive fiat will do little to help small businesses compete, create economic opportunity for American workers, or grow the economy.

“Every citizen who counts on the Federal government to be accountable, transparent, and responsive should be concerned by this unprecedented measure.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & JOHNSON RELEASE STATEMENTS & JUDICIARY DEM FACT SHEET ON GOP ANTI-REGULATORY AGENDA & WISH LIST FOR BIG BUSINESS

Washington, DC – During the first weeks of the 115^th Congress, Republicans are choosing to prioritize a series of anti-regulation bills that would empower Republicans to strip critical protections away from Americans. H.R. 5, the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, would grind the rulemaking system to a halt while inviting regulatory capture through increased input from corporate interests, waste agency resources and taxpayer dollars, and do nothing to directly help small businesses. In doing so, H.R. 5 would seriously undermine critical protections across every regulated industry, including consumers’ health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections.

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:

  

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

“Instead of wasting time on bad solutions for non-existent problems, we should be working tirelessly across party lines to find solutions to crushing student loan debt, gun violence, unemployment and stagnant wages,” said Conyers. “Unfortunately, House Republicans refuse to work on a bipartisan basis to reduce barriers to employment, even in the context of their anti-regulatory legislation. These same Republicans also refuse to work with Democrats on commonsense amendments to their legislation that would ensure that protections that create jobs and ensure the safety of our food, water and air are not undermined.”

Conyers continued, “Instead of working to support corporate interests through the GOP anti-regulatory agenda, Congress must focus on finding real solutions to real problems facing the nation, such as middle-class economic opportunity, gun violence prevention, the erosion of voting rights, and growing economic inequality.” 

“Once again, House Republicans' only ideas for growing the economy and creating jobs is to endanger countless regulatory protections under the guise of a so-called ‘jobs bill.’ They choose to ignore the fact that 15.6 million private sector jobs were created under the robust regulatory environment under the Obama administration,” said Johnson. “According to a recent Bloomberg report, only 0.3 percent of jobs eliminated last year were due to government regulation, far less than those lost due to other factors such as outsourcing and automation.”

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 in the 114^th or 115^thCongress on:

• Gun violence;
• Voting rights;
• The impact of overwhelming student loan debt on families and the economy;
• The mortgage foreclosure crisis, which still is hampering the economic recovery of millions of American families; or
• How we can better help struggling American families regain their financial stability.

A full fact sheet on H.R. 5 and the GOP Big Business Agenda is below.

FACT SHEET: GOP’S ANTI-REGULATORY AGENDA IS ONLY A “BETTER WAY” FOR BIG BUSINESS, NOT WORKING AMERICANS by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

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.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers Jr. for the Markup of H.R. 5982, the “Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016”

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

H.R. 5982, the “Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016,” is a sweeping measure that would enable Congress to disapprove en masse potentially every rule submitted under the Congressional Review Act during the final 60 legislative days of a session.

Were this bill in effect, every regulation submitted to Congress since May 16, 2016 through the end of this year could be disapproved by a subsequent Congress in a joint resolution without allowing Members to consider the merits of individual regulations.

H.R. 5982 presents numerous concerns.

To begin with, H.R. 5982 would provide special interests with yet another opportunity block critical, life-saving regulations.

Prior to submitting rules to Congress, agencies typically take several years to ensure that rules are carefully vetted. Indeed, 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,” as administrative law expert Professor Ron Levin has previously testified.

Faced with this complexity, H.R. 5982 would result in Congress predictably relying on industry input when presented with an up-or-down vote on a long list of complicated, technical rules.

The prospect of industry influence is particularly concerning in light of the potentially unlimited regulatory challenges that the bill would establish.

As David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council has previously noted in opposition to another anti-regulatory bill, special interests would “descend on Congress with even greater fervor than is currently the case to pressure Members to take their side on individual regulations.”

I am also concerned that H.R. 5982 is based on a fundamentally flawed premise, namely, that rules finalized during the final year of a President’s term are somehow rushed or improperly vetted.

There is also little evidence such rules warrant heightened scrutiny.

In 2012, the nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States found 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,” while many of these rules involved routine matters or “finishing tasks that were initiated before the Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines outside the agency’s control (such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines).”

So, like other anti-regulatory measures that our Committee has considered this Congress, there is no problem that requires resolution. 

Indeed, so-called midnight rules may actually take longer to adopt 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 2.8 years to complete. The Center for Progressive Reform has likewise observed that concerns surrounding 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.

Lastly, as with other anti-regulatory bills proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this legislation completely ignores the benefits of regulation, which often exceed costs by many multiples, and is premised on the misguided belief that regulations undermine employment or economic growth.

Accordingly, I oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©