Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. We have seen this bill before. It was a bad idea then, it is a…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.
We have seen this bill before. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now.
Proponents of this bill, as we have just heard, may argue that regulations are burdensome and costly--and sometimes they are--but, in fact, the benefits of agency regulations far outweigh the costs.
The most recent draft report of the Trump administration's own Office of Management and Budget on the benefits and costs of regulations found that the estimated annual benefits of rules between 2006 and 2016, which covers nearly all of the regulations during the previous administration, were between $219 billion and $695 billion. Those are the benefits, the value of benefits.
By contrast, it said that the cost of those same rules were estimated at between somewhere around $59 billion and $88 billion. The benefits far outweigh the cost to the American public.
This bill will impose numerous requirements that will slow down the regulatory process and give regulated industry an unfair advantage over public health organizations, doctors, scientists, and ordinary Americans when new rules are made.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was important in helping to strike a balance between the need for Federal regulations and the burden those regulations placed on State and local governments. I know that. I was the head
of a very large local government. Congress should endeavor to strike, however, a similar balance with mandates on the private sector, without putting our fingers on the scale for the very industries that need regulations, as this bill does.
Under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with impacted entities in the private sector on a proposed rule before the rule is even made available to the public, giving a very unfair advantage to the industries to be regulated. Agencies should consult with industry on proposed rules, of course. Regulated corporations, however, should never been given an explicit and unfair preference over other stakeholders, particularly the American families and consumers these rules are designed to protect.
Drug manufacturers, for example, should not get to influence an opioid safety regulation before public health experts. The energy industry should not get to weigh in on a regulation before those citizens whose air and water quality would be affected are heard from.
This bill would also significantly expand in almost a sweeping way judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
UMRA currently prohibits a court from delaying or invalidating a rule based on an agency's compliance with UMRA. This bill would eliminate that restriction.
This bill would also allow judges to second-guess agency experts by evaluating the adequacy of agency analyses, including cost-benefit estimates, giving broad new power to the judiciary to get into the rulemaking process and, in some cases, perhaps, to substitute themselves for regulatory agencies. This is something I don't believe we want to see.
The bill would also require an agency to conduct a retrospective cost-benefit analysis of any existing rule if requested by the chairman or ranking member of the committee. This provision would require agencies to conduct analyses on potentially thousands of rules, diverting unnecessary time and attention away from fulfilling their missions. That is designed, basically, to preclude new rulemaking from happening at all.
H.R. 50 would also repeal the exemption that is currently in UMRA for independent agencies. As a result, the independence of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission could be compromised because the Office of Management and Budget would now have a role in shaping rules those agencies issue.
The bottom line is that regulation can make our air cleaner to breathe, our water safer to drink--by the way, we are reminded of that right now here in Washington, D.C., where we have a water boil advisory--the products we use safer, and provide protections that are critical for a healthy economy. H.R. 50 would impose new roadblocks that would make it harder to provide those protections for the public we serve.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, before I recognize Mr. Cummings, the distinguished ranking member of our committee, I do want to say, it is the same old thing: Oh, this is just commonsense. Of course we favor sensible regulation that protects our air and water.
Really. The same crowd that says that is witnessing the dismantlement of regulations and, frankly, the defenestration of the regulatory agencies charged with that mission, like the EPA. The late, lamented Administrator of the EPA has set about on a wrecking ball mission at EPA, and I don't hear my Republican friends speaking up, decrying that, and defending those regulations to protect the public.
This is a pig in a poke. My colleagues should not support it.
Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friend from Texas is right. This will certainly provide a lot more clarity for private enterprise. I am not sure it is the kind of clarity we want, because they are going to get their nose into the business of rulemaking to serve their interests.
There are rules that could not have been enacted if H.R. 50 had been law. For example, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 crew members and set off the worst oil spill in American history, the Department of the Interior finalized a rule in 2016 to tighten controls in blowout preventers and calling for rig operators to have third parties certify that the safety devices worked under extreme conditions. That rule would have been precluded because of the provisions of this bill.
The sanitary transportation of human and animal food, this rule establishes requirements for parties engaged in the transportation of food, including food for animals, to use sanitary transportation practices. That would have been precluded.
The corporate average fuel economy standards to regulate miles-per- gallon number of light-duty vehicles such as sedans, minivans, and any vehicle that weighs less than 10,000 pounds would have been precluded.
The long-term care facilities arbitration agreements ban nursing homes and assisted living facilities from forcing patients and their families into private arbitration to resolve disputes. We protected the interests of consumers and their families at a time of need. That rule would have been precluded, too.
So that may be the reason why the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, 150 organizations, have come together to oppose this bill. It is not in the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pride to recognize my dear friend.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pleasure to recognize my distinguished colleague.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina. I appreciate her fervor, and I know she is sincere in her convictions with respect to this legislation and to the underlying issues.
As someone who came from local government, coming here to Congress, running one of the biggest local governments in the United States, I certainly am sympathetic to the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and I supported many of those provisions.
This goes too far. This isn't just an UMRA improvement. This is gutting, wholesale, the regulatory process that provides enormous benefits, and we know that from the OMB itself in terms of the benefits versus the cost of rulemaking to protect the public.
Where we can make improvements, great, but gutting it, giving the regulated industries an inside opportunity to shape or block those regulations before the public ever even sees them, expanding, in a great way, the role of the judiciary to second-guess and subvert the role of rulemaking agencies in the executive branch, I think, does raise constitutional issues, as Mr. Cummings said, that sooner or later will have to be addressed.
So I think this is a very flawed piece of legislation, despite the good intentions of my friend from North Carolina. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on something that is simple, neat, but wrong, as H.L. Mencken once said.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for her thoughtful amendment.
This amendment would significantly improve an already bad bill by exempting the independent agencies, who should not be brought under the penumbra of this bill at all. It will absolutely cut their independence and make them subject to the rulemaking and the supervision of the OMB in a way that Congress never intended. That is why they are independent agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this thoughtful amendment, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her leadership on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a thoughtful addition. Certainly, more transparency is a good thing.
But, as Mr. Raskin suggests, it doesn't change the underlying fact that this is a flawed bill. It doesn't change the fact that it guts independent agencies. It doesn't change the fact that it broadly expands the role of the judiciary in an executive branch rulemaking process. It doesn't change the fact that it basically gives unilateral authority to the chairman and ranking member here in Congress to block rules, period. And it doesn't change the fact that it gives the private sector an unprecedented role in rulemaking a priority in a way that is absolutely against consumer interests.
I know my friend from Maryland understands that, so I thank him for his thoughtful amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, clear amendment to the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This amendment seeks to establish a performance-based sunset mechanism stipulating that, in the event that the annual rate of real GDP growth remains below 5 percent over the first four quarters occurring after the date of enactment, then the statutory changes made by H.R. 50 are repealed because the bill will have proved to have been ineffective.
If the promise of deregulation and gutting the protection of the American people is greater economic growth, then let's test that theory.
This amendment sets up a real-world measurement and a sunset mechanism that supporters and opponents can support. It features the flexibility to ensure an appropriate response to the impact of H.R. 50 on America's economic
growth over the year following enactment.
If the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, by lessening the independence of independent regulatory agencies and by strengthening the influence of the private sector to be regulated in the Federal rulemaking process, does, in fact, spur economic growth, we should hold the policy accountable. During the Obama administration--a time when President Obama's critics believed that overregulation was inhibiting the economy from growing and stunting recovery after the Great Recession, quarterly growth contradicted them. Quarterly growth of real GDP was at least 5 percent once and over 4 percent 11 times.
In fact, in 2014, when Congress last considered, but did not enact, this bill and the supposed hobnail boot of government was on the neck of our economy, GDP actually grew at an annual rate of 4.6 percent and 5.2 percent in the second and third quarters, respectively, of that year.
The provisions of H.R. 50 would make it harder for Federal agencies to safeguard air and water quality, the safety of food and consumer products, and the health and welfare of all Americans, all in the name of spurring economic growth. Therefore, it follows, if it fails to spur that promised economic growth and achieve an average annual growth of 5 percent over the year following the enactment of the law, then the statutory changes made by this bill should be repealed because they failed. Anything less would be a bad deal for the American public.
Finally, I would note that, according to the preliminary estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment would not increase direct spending or reduce revenues, and I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.