[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 2804 AND H.R. 899

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 12, 2014

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2804, the 
so-called ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent (ALERT) Act and 
H.R. 899, the so-called ``Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act.''
  This week, the House took up a series of rehashed bills--under the 
guise of the ``Stop Government Abuse Week''--that would limit the 
ability of federal agencies to enforce commonsense rules and 
regulations. While supporters of H.R. 2804 and H.R. 899 claim they are 
needed to curb overregulation, in reality, they would prevent federal 
agencies from doing their jobs and working to ensure there are 
safeguards in place to protect consumer health and safety.
  My Republican colleagues contend that the two bills before us are a 
response to the ``tsunami'' of regulations under the Obama 
Administration. However, this is simply not true. In fact, federal 
agencies under President Obama have issued significantly less rules 
during his first four years in office when compared to President Bush's 
first term. Moreover, the ALERT Act would actually create more red tape 
by imposing unnecessary new procedures on agencies and adding over 60 
new barriers in the federal rulemaking process.
  Much like the ALERT Act, H.R. 899 would also introduce uncertainty 
into agency decision-making and undermine the ability of agencies to 
provide critical public health and safety protections. It would also 
weaken our democracy by giving powerful special interests and private 
industry an unfair advantage in the rulemaking process. Specifically, 
it would require agencies to consult with private industry--but not 
most other stakeholders, such as public health or food safety experts--
before proposing rules.
  I was disappointed that amendments offered by Representative Cummings 
and Representative Connolly were not adopted. Rep. Cummings' amendment 
would have overturned a provision in the bill that directly compromises 
the autonomy of independent regulatory agencies--including the CFPB, 
SEC, and CPSC--by requiring that they report proposed rules to the OMB. 
Rep. Connolly's amendment would have simply evened the playing field 
and ensured that public interest organizations and other stakeholders 
are provided the same opportunity for consultation afforded to special 
interest groups and private industry under this bill.
  Over the last four years, President Obama has implemented significant 
reforms to the rulemaking process. In January 2010, the President 
signed an Executive Order that required agencies to determine if the 
benefits of proposed rules are justified considering their cost to 
society. He required an interagency review of overlapping rules and 
regulation between agencies that may prevent innovation in the private 
sector and instituted a policy to allow agencies to consider input from 
affected public and private stakeholders and experts when developing 
rules and regulations.
  There is also a mechanism in place that already requires agencies to 
adhere to specific requirements of Federal law before issuing a rule or 
regulation. The Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the Congressional Review Act all 
serve the purpose of making sure that agencies are not overstepping 
their bounds when issuing rules and enforcing existing regulations.
  At a time when Congress should be doing everything it can to create 
jobs and improve the economy, these bills are nothing but a 
distraction. They are unnecessary and potentially harmful to the public 
health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose each of them.

                          ____________________