[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 114 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 1, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 367) 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, with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Regulations in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.
  This misguided legislation would overturn the long-established 
process for the promulgation of major federal policy rules and tie the 
health, environment, and economy of our nation to the ability of 
Congress to act. Considering we are working through the 113th 
Congress--which is on pace to be the least productive Congress in 
history--this is a terrible idea.
  Federal agencies issue rules to implement laws that are passed by 
Congress and signed by the President. Federal agencies cannot issue 
rules on policies Congress has not authorized them to act on, and the 
very laws the Congress passes explain in detail the authority of the 
agency to issue rules and often mandate the very rule the agency must 
issue. The purpose of this process is to allow the policy experts at 
those agencies to conduct the research, seek the public input, and 
craft the most efficient and effective way to issue the rules to 
implement the legislation that Congress has passed. This bill would 
insert partisan politics into this deliberative and complex process, 
undermining the ability of these agencies to protect the public's 
health and safety.
  Besides ignoring the fact that the agencies are simply issuing rules 
to implement the statutes that the Congress has enacted, supporters of 
this legislation forget that there already exists a mechanism through 
which Congress can review and reject rules issued by executive 
agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Congress can help 
reject a rule if it passes a joint resolution disapproving any rule 
within 60 days of receiving the rule (the President must also sign the 
resolution). Additionally, Congress has considerable authority over 
federal rulemaking through the appropriations process, where it can 
restrict the use of funds to implement certain rules. Finally, the 
Congress can continue to pass legislation to reform the rulemaking 
process, such as when it enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  This legislation would cause any major rule issued by a federal 
agency to be automatically rejected unless Congress acts in approval 
within 70 days. The legislation does not guarantee that there will be 
an up-or-down vote in that time period; therefore, it leaves these 
important rules vulnerable to partisan obstruction and inaction. 
Congressional Republicans exemplify the danger of this approach through 
their repeated rejection of all compromise and obstruction of efforts 
to move our country and our economy forward. Giving one chamber of 
Congress de-facto veto-power over Executive Branch agencies would put 
at risk our environment, inject uncertainty into the economy for our 
businesses, and endanger the health and well-being of the American 
people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

                          ____________________