Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016 is yet another unfounded and reckless attempt to prevent the implementation of critical laws by the Republican majority.

H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act to enable Congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a President's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent express authorization by Congress.

According to my Republican colleagues, the Obama administration's regulatory agenda has eroded job growth and economic prosperity--far from it, however. Under President Obama's leadership, we have seen the longest consecutive streak of private job creation, the fastest growth of middle class income ever, and more high-quality and affordable health care for working Americans.

Recently, the Census Bureau released new data indicating that in 2015 the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record, while the poverty rate fell at a faster rate than at any point since 1968.

New data from the American Community Survey indicates that the number of uninsured Americans is declining in nearly every State. These metrics reflect a strong record of progress as Federal agencies implement laws like the Dodd-Frank Act and the Affordable Care Act.

If anything, Mr. Chairman, we need new rules and better enforcement of existing law to ensure corporate accountability. In fact, it has only been months since the shocking revelations of Wells Fargo's years of illegal banking practices have come to light. This sweeping display of corporate deception and hubris smacks of the very culture and lack of internal controls that gave rise to the mortgage crisis, collapsing the economy and employment.

Indeed, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has cautioned, this scandal ought to be a moment where people stop and note, remember how dangerous the system is when you don't have the proper protections in place.

While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued its largest civil penalty ever--$100 million--in response to this scandal, this was a drop in the bucket compared to the bank's $20 billion in profits last year or its chief executive's $200 million stock compensation deal.

What is more, not only did the bank deceive its own customers, Wells Fargo buried the scandal through forced arbitration clauses that shielded itself from liability and public accountability.

This is simply unacceptable and drives home the point that there is still much work to be done to ensure fairness and accountability in the financial system, regardless of how many days may be left in the President's term.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would exempt rules issued by an agency more than 3 years prior to their submission to Congress.

This amendment is designed to confront the fundamentally flawed premise of H.R. 5982, namely, that rules submitted to Congress during the final 60 legislative days of a session are somehow less valid than rules submitted prior to that period.

To set the record straight, this bill does not apply to rules submitted during the lameduck period following an election.

Notwithstanding the bill's colorful title, H.R. 5982 applies to every rule submitted to Congress within the final 60 legislative days of a session.

As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has clarified, this would include rules submitted as early as May 2016. Eight months should be adequate time for Congress to consider the merits of economically significant rules, which often take years to finalize.

Indeed, according to the nonpartisan, congressionally established Administrative Conference of the United States, the ACUS, many of these rules adopted between an election and the inauguration of a new President involve ``relatively routine matters not implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations.''
Public Citizen similarly found in a report issued earlier this year that rules adopted during the final months of an administration take 3.6 years on average to finalize. And that is just rules that are submitted to Congress during the final 3 months of a President's term.

Again, this bill applies to rules adopted during much of the final year of the President's term, dramatically undercutting the bill's stated purpose. So, despite the majority's claims that the bill applies to midnight rules, this legislation would allow Congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a President's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a solution to a nonexistent and undocumented problem.

Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent express authorization by Congress.

I am also struck by the irony of the majority's stated concerns with a lack of transparency and public scrutiny in the policymaking process.

This bill has not been subject to a single hearing. In fact, it was introduced less than a week prior to its markup in committee.

This legislation is symptomatic of a Republican majority more interested in focusing on coming up with the next great bill title or acronym than actually solving issues or helping the American people.

Perhaps the majority should follow its own advice and proceed with regular order on new and controversial legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which is critical to ensuring that the rules that have already taken years to finalize to improve lives and protect people actually see the light of day.
I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I would submit that we, on this side, are always interested in making the rulemaking process more efficient, and this is an important bipartisan concern. The trouble is when you get bills that are half-baked and they are sprung on the minority and not even subjected to a full committee and the regular order that we would proceed through with legislation as important as this--it is sprung on us, and it ends up on the House floor as half- baked as it was when it was introduced--this is no way to go about reform.

I would just ask that this amendment be accepted. There is no doubt that this legislation is not going to go anywhere during this session of Congress, in terms of being signed into law.

My pledge is that we would work together in the future to draft legislation that improves the rulemaking process, and not shut it down or gum it up.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source