[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 188 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 7, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) to amend 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
     major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or 
     effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into 
     law:

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express strong opposition to 
legislation this chamber passed yesterday, H.R. 10, the Regulations 
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011.
  The REINS Act requires that both chambers of Congress pass a 
resolution approving every regulation with an economic impact of $100 
million or more. If Congress fails to pass such a resolution, that 
regulation would not take effect, and the law would go unimplemented.
  I oppose this legislation, which would hurt the health, safety, and 
well-being of my constituents and Hawaii's communities. We cannot let 
our constituents and communities down when it comes to these vital 
responsibilities.
  For example, this bill would stop the rules that are being written 
now to implement the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--
which will rein in reckless behavior in financial markets. Important 
rules to implement the health care law--which is already lowering drug 
costs for seniors--would also be stopped. And rules relating to the 
recent food safety legislation and protecting clean air and water would 
be stopped.
  These rules--and the laws they are implementing--were and are opposed 
by various powerful corporate special interests. Those special 
interests know they don't have the votes to repeal these laws--and they 
know the American people don't want them repealed.
  So instead, corporate special interests and their allies claim that 
the costs of these types of rules are too big to be worth it.
  They're wrong.
  Even the Bush Administration recognized that the benefits of rules 
like these outweigh their costs. In fact, in 2008, the Office of 
Management and Budget--which must sign off on all major rules developed 
by federal agencies--estimated that costs to the economy for major 
rules it approved were between $46 billion and $54 billion. These costs 
were far outweighed by the benefits of those same regulations, which 
they estimated to be between $122 billion and $656 billion. Imagine if 
the rules that are being written to implement Wall Street Reform had 
been on the books in 2005, before the financial crisis came to a head?
  I believe our country could have reined in rampant, out of control 
behavior of Wall Street, and such regulations could have saved our 
economy trillions of dollars in lost economic growth and hard-earned 
retirement and college savings. Millions of people who have lost jobs 
could still be working. And this body could be focused on matters like 
improving U.S. education, economic competitiveness, and reducing our 
deficit.
  Not only would this bill halt our regulatory system in its tracks, 
but it is also unnecessary. The Congressional Review Act already gives 
Congress the ability to review and disapprove of regulations if they 
are contrary to Congressional intent. This system ensures that the laws 
enacted by Congress are implemented appropriately, while preventing the 
law and its implementation from being hijacked by special interests on 
a whim--and creating disruptive uncertainty for our economy and legal 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, people in Hawaii are tired of these politically 
motivated bills. They want the federal government to get to work 
helping to create jobs, protecting health and safety, and to do so 
responsibly.
  The REINS Act also fails miserably on that front. This legislation 
would require federal agencies to conduct the rigorous analysis 
required to develop a rule--a process that can take several years--only 
to have that rule stopped by Congress. This is a waste of federal 
resources and irresponsible at a time when Congress needs to focus on 
creating jobs and reducing our deficit.
  These are just some of the concerns I have with the REINS Act, and 
some of the reasons that I voted against this unnecessary and ill 
conceived legislation.

                          ____________________