[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 114 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1213-E1214]
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. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    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.

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly oppose the REINS Act 
(H.R. 367). This reckless legislation would put American families at 
risk while doing nothing to create jobs.
  If enacted, H.R. 367 would delay and possibly block agency rulemaking 
in critical areas of public health and safety. This legislation would 
require that any ``major'' new rule be approved by Congress and the 
President within 70 legislative days. If Congress fails to act by the 
deadline, the proposed rule could not be reviewed again until the next 
Congress. My Republican colleagues do not deny this cumbersome process 
would prevent many new rules from taking effect. They argue preventing 
new rules is necessary to stimulate hiring and strengthen the economy.
  Bruce Bartlett, a former advisor to Republican Presidents Ronald 
Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said congressional Republicans' anti-
regulatory fervor has nothing to do with jobs. Bartlett recently wrote: 
``Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that 
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda 
supported by the business community year in and year out. In other 
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious 
effort to deal with high unemployment.'' Supporters of this legislation 
rely on a thoroughly debunked study that claims regulations cost 
Americans in excess of $1.75 trillion. Moreover, the independent, 
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited major flaws in 
the study's methodology, noting that the bill's authors admitted that 
it was ``not meant to be a decision-making tool for lawmakers or 
Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the `right' level of 
regulation'' and that they made ``no attempt to estimate the benefits'' 
of regulations.
  H.R. 367 will fail to create jobs and expose American families and 
small businesses to new and unnecessary risks. President Obama has 
threatened to veto the bill, arguing it would ``delay and in many cases 
thwart'' implementation of important rules and increase unnecessary 
confusion and uncertainty in the economy. The Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards warns that this legislation ``would make it virtually 
impossible for federal agencies to ensure that American families are 
protected from tainted food, unsafe drugs, predatory financial schemes, 
dirty air and water, and dangerous workplaces.''
  Abandoning Americans to an unregulated marketplace is not a solution 
for economic growth--it is a sure threat to public safety. In recent 
years, many Americans have died as a result of E. coli and salmonella 
outbreaks in our food supply. A failure to enforce federal workplace 
safety standards resulted in the tragic deaths of 29 miners in West 
Virginia. Finally, under-regulation allowed irresponsible bankers and 
mortgage lenders to destroy the education and retirement savings of 
millions of Americans. America is, in fact, facing a regulatory crisis. 
Not the crisis of ``over-regulation'' my Republican colleagues claim, 
but a series of crisis resulting from a failure to enforce and enact 
common-sense rules.
  Sensible regulation is necessary for an efficient, fair and 
innovative private market. But

[[Page E1214]]

we should not be surprised that industry will not always support--and 
rarely ask--to be regulated. History shows that industry groups 
initially opposed new requirements for seat belts and air bags, 
limitations on mercury pollution and even restrictions against child 
labor. In the short-term, narrow private interests often conflict with 
the broader public interest. Over time, well-designed and consistently-
enforced rules often prove to be less costly and more beneficial than 
originally expected.
  Democrats and Republicans should be working together to improve the 
federal regulatory structure. Our shared focus in Congress should be on 
reforming regulations to increase results and reduce costs. Partisan 
attempts to weaken common sense rules and protections will not make our 
economy--or our country--stronger.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 367 because it undermines public 
safety and distracts Congress from the urgent task of creating jobs.

                          ____________________