[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 115 (Monday, July 14, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6426-H6428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3564) to amend title 5, United 
States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative 
Conference of the United States through fiscal year 2011, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       On page 2, lines 9 through 11, strike ``$1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, $3,300,000 for fiscal year 2009, $3,400,000 
     for fiscal year 2010, and $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2011'' 
     and insert ``$3,200,000 for fiscal year 2009, $3,200,000 for 
     fiscal year 2010, and $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2011''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) each 
will control 20 minutes
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal regulation process is one of the most 
important ways by which our Nation implements public policy. Each year, 
agencies issue thousands of regulations to promote safety in our lives, 
from the food we eat, to the cars we drive, to the air we breathe.
  Although regulations play a critical role in protecting so many 
aspects of our daily lives, there is no independent, nonpartisan entity 
that Congress can rely upon to help us ensure that these regulations 
are working as intended.
  The Administrative Conference of the United States was just such an 
entity, a public-private think tank that provided invaluable guidance 
to Congress about how to improve the administrative and regulatory 
process.
  First authorized by President John F. Kennedy, the Conference made 
numerous recommendations over the course of its 27-year existence, many 
of which were enacted into law. The conference was last funded into in 
1995. H.R. 3564, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007, would 
reauthorize it for 3 years.
  Some might ask why we are reauthorizing an entity that has been out 
of existence for so long. Let me mention three important reasons. 
First, the Conference can save taxpayer dollars, in fact, millions of 
dollars. When it was in existence, it helped agencies implement many 
cost-saving procedures and make numerous recommendations to eliminate 
excessive litigation costs and long delays.
  Just one agency alone, the Social Security Administration, estimated 
that the Conference's recommendation to change that agency's appeal 
process yielded approximately $85 million in savings. Indeed, Justice 
Stephen Breyer testified before the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law about the ``huge'' savings to the public resulting 
from the Conference's recommendations. Justice Antonin Scalia likewise 
agreed that it was an enormous bargain.
  Second, the Administrative Conference promoted innovation among 
agencies. For example, it convinced 24 agencies to use alternative 
dispute resolution for issues concerning the private sector. The 
Conference also spearheaded implementation of the Negotiated Rulemaking 
Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 
Act, governing consumer product warranties.
  The Conference played a major role in encouraging agencies to 
promulgate smarter regulations. It did this by working to improve the 
public's understanding and participation in the rulemaking process, 
promoting judicial review of agency regulations, and reducing 
regulatory burdens on the private sector.
  Third, and perhaps most importantly, Congress needs the conference. 
Experience with the Congressional Review Act proves that there are 
limitations in Congress' ability to provide aggressive oversight of the 
regulatory process.
  Congressional recognition of the Conference's significant 
contributions to the regulatory process is probably best evidenced by 
the fact that legislation assigning responsibilities to it continues to 
be introduced in nearly every Congress, including the current one.
  The Congressional Research Service advises that reactivation of the 
Conference now would come at ``an opportune time,'' especially in light 
of efforts by the White House to augment its involvement in the 
regulatory process.
  There are few entities that have enjoyed more bipartisan support than 
the Administrative Conference, and understandably so. It is all about 
promoting good government.
  I commend my colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law, Chris Cannon of Utah, for his 
leadership in continuing to pursue reauthorization of the conference.
  Last October, the House passed this bill on suspension by voice vote 
without amendment. The Senate late last month finally acted and passed 
the bill with a small amendment which essentially reauthorizes the 
Conference at a level of funding in the amount of $3.2 million.
  I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment so we can send 
this bill to the President.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend from California for his work on this bill, and 
thank the chairman of the committee and also the ranking members of the 
subcommittee and committee.
  I am delighted to see us conclude today our consideration of H.R. 
3564 which would reauthorize the Administrative Conference of the 
United States. The bill we consider today was amended slightly by the 
Senate which required this action by us today. But I strongly urge the 
House to concur in the Senate's amendment today. I also urge the 
Appropriations Committee and the House to appropriate funds promptly to 
ACUS. We need this exemplary agency once again to become a living, 
breathing entity and reality.
  So why is that? As the distinguished Member from Utah (Mr. Cannon) 
remarked when we originally voted out the bill, and quoting from prior 
adage,

[[Page H6427]]

``The government that governs best, governs least. And when the 
government does govern, it should govern at its best.'' He is exactly 
right. That is the role of ACUS, to ensure that when the government 
acts, it acts at its best.
  The small appropriations that we historically invested in ACUS 
yielded us major overall savings in time and in money. ACUS 
consistently pinpointed ways for the government to reduce the cost it 
incurs and that it imposes. As we confront the specter of exploding 
Social Security and Medicare entitlement costs hijacking the Federal 
budget, we need ACUS all the more. We must do everything we can to 
avoid waste in our spending and to lighten the government burden on our 
economy. By reauthorizing and refunding ACUS, we can take important 
steps in that effort. I again thank the gentleman from California for 
his work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers my 
colleague from Texas has remaining.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and I thank 
the Speaker as well as the work of Mr. Cannon of Utah. I urge passage 
of the bill.
  As we have seen most recently in the actions and inactions by the FDA 
dealing with the salmonella incidents, or whether it is the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission and some of the issues involving manufactured 
products from other countries, the regulatory process is 
extraordinarily important in protecting the American people. Congress 
is doing its best to oversee these agencies, but we can use the 
assistance of this important conference, and I join my colleague in 
urging passage of this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 3564, Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007. The administrative 
conference was first created inside the Department of Justice by 
President Kennedy. Later, it was moved out of the Department of Justice 
by President Johnson. The mission was a private partnership to discuss 
administrative law and regulatory system and how to make it better. 
Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Scalia served on the Conference 
before becoming Justices and both have testified in the past for its 
re-authorization. This bill reauthorizes the Administrative Conference. 
I support this bill and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.
  The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an 
independent agency and advisory committee created in 1968, studied U.S. 
administrative processes with an eye to recommending improvements to 
Congress and agencies. From 1968 to 1995, the ACUS issued approximately 
200 recommendations, most of which have been at least partially 
implemented. Congressional funding for ACUS was terminated in 1995.
  ACUS's recommendations were published periodically in the Code of 
Federal Regulations prior to 1995. Little known ``outside the 
Beltway,'' ACUS was a unique entity. Comprised of between 75 and 101 
individuals drawn from agencies, academia, and the private sector, the 
Conference was classified as both an independent agency and a federal 
advisory committee. Organizationally, it consisted of a Chair, a 
Council, and an Assembly. The Chair, appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term, was responsible for the 
day-to-day activities and supervision of the 18 permanent staff. The 
Council, which functioned like a board of directors, consisted of ten 
members appointed by the President for three-year terms, five of whom 
were always current senior federal officials. The Assembly was made up 
of the Chair, the Council, and the other members of the Conference, a 
majority of whom had to come from government service. All of the 
members (other than the Chair) served without compensation.
  The primary, although not exclusive, function of the Conference was 
to study administrative processes with an eye to recommending 
improvements to Congress and the agencies. It performed this function 
by commissioning studies by law professors expert in the administrative 
process that then were reviewed by one of six standing committees: 
adjudication, administration, governmental processes, judicial review, 
regulation, and rulemaking. The recommendations developed by committees 
of the Conference would be considered for adoption by the Assembly in 
plenary sessions, which were typically held twice a year.
  The improvements occasioned by the Conferences recommendations are 
legion. Inasmuch as the Conference never had the power to impose its 
recommendations on unwilling subjects, the fact that so many of its 
recommendations bore fruit is a testimony to their intrinsic sense. 
Some, like the Conference's recommendation in 1968, its first year of 
operation, to eliminate a jurisdictional amount in suits under the APA, 
were followed by Congress in passing new legislation. Another example 
is its recommendation to provide administrative penalty authority to 
agencies to increase the effectiveness of agency enforcement activities 
at lower cost, first proposed by the Conference in 1972 and since 
adopted by Congress in over 200 statutes. A third is its 1980 
recommended solution to unseemly races to the courthouse in rulemaking 
appeals, adopted by Congress in 1988.
  Other recommendations, like the Conference's early recommendation to 
eliminate the exemption from the APA's notice-and-comment requirements 
for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and 
contracts, were sufficiently influential to lead agencies to adopt the 
recommendations on their own. Its recommendation in 1988 on 
Presidential Transition Workers' Code of Ethical Conduct were used by 
President Bush as the basis for his transition standards of conduct, 
and the Clinton administration likewise followed what had become 
standard procedures. From 1968 to 1995, the Conference issued 
approximately 200 recommendations, most of which have been at least 
partially implemented.
  Probably the area in which the Conference had its greatest influence 
was in introducing and supporting the use of alternative dispute 
resolution techniques in agency practice. Its recommendation in 1982 
provided procedures by which agencies could negotiate proposed 
regulations, and it followed the recommendation with support and 
encouragement to agencies to experiment with this new technique. 
Ultimately, Congress adopted the Negotiated Rulemaking Act in 1990, 
virtually copying the procedures contained in the Conference's original 
recommendation. Similarly, in 1986 the Conference issued the first of 
some fifteen recommendations on using alternative means of dispute 
resolution in agency adjudications. In 1990 Congress again followed the 
Conference's lead and enacted the Administrative Dispute Resolution 
Act. Recognizing the Conference's leadership role in this area, that 
Act gave the Conference the principal role for coordinating and 
promoting ADR in the federal government.
  Another area in which the Conference had a major influence involved 
its study of Presidential review of agency rulemaking undertaken during 
the Reagan administration. This was a subject that had the potential to 
become highly partisan, but the Conference's reputation for neutrality 
and expertise enabled it to review the practice, generally validate its 
exercise, and makes certain recommendations to improve its openness and 
public acceptability. Because of the Conference's track record of 
useful and expert studies of the administrative process, all the 
regulatory reform bills considered by the Senate in the last session 
included provisions for the Conference to study the effects of the 
legislation.
  The Conference's contribution to administrative law and procedure was 
not limited just to studies. Drawing on its expertise, ACUS issued 
numerous publications designed to assist agencies in their 
administrative processes. For example, in 1972 the Conference published 
the first edition of its Manual for Administrative Law Judges (now in 
its 3d edition); in 1978 it published its Interpretive Guide to the 
Government in the Sunshine Act; in 1981 it issued Model Rules for 
Agency Implementation of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The latter 
two of these documents were responsive to Congress' requirement for 
agencies to consult with the Conference in implementing these statutes. 
In addition, the Conference has published sourcebooks on Federal 
Administrative Procedure, Negotiated Rulemaking, and Alternative 
Dispute Resolution, as well as the Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking.
  Finally, in recent years, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
Congress authorized the Conference to lend its expertise to newly 
emerging democracies in their creation of administrative law and 
procedures. As a result, the Conference sponsored seminars in the 
Ukraine, Hungary, the People's Republic of China, and South Africa.
  The ABA has long been a strong supporter of the Conference, and over 
the years the Conference and the Section on Administrative Law and 
Regulatory Practice have enjoyed a close and mutually supportive 
relationship. This bill reauthorizes the administrative conference.
  I support this Act and encourage my colleagues to support it also.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 3564.

[[Page H6428]]

  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________