Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I understand my amendment is subject to a point of order due to scoring or budget concerns. While I intend to cooperate and withdraw this amendment, I would like to acknowledge that this body has a history of waiving points of order on similar legislation that would result in substantive regulatory reforms, which is exactly what my amendment could accomplish.

One specific example would be the REINS Act, of which I am a cosponsor, passed in this Congress and passed in the last Congress, which would very meaningfully overhaul our rulemaking system, much like this amendment would. Prior to the passage of that bill, we rightfully waived all points of order, including one being applied against my amendment here this afternoon, presumably.

Mr. Chairman, I would propose that this body should wave points of order on legislation that would significantly and positively reform our regulatory process so that we can significantly help our economy by getting the boots of the regulatory and bureaucratic systems off the necks of those who create jobs in this country.

For too long, the executive branch has continued to build its power through expanding the regulatory state. The agencies that we in Congress have tasked with the execution of the laws we now pass is in contravention of our intent, acting improperly as legislative bodies, with no really direct accountability to the voter.

Whether through ``interpretive rules,'' ``general statements of policy,'' or through regulations themselves, administrative agencies have placed extreme burdens on all Americans without the transparency or electoral accountability that our Founders envisioned.

Today, that process has yielded nearly 175,000 pages of regulations, growing by roughly 1,500 pages per week, written by unelected people who rarely consider the impact on our economy or the lives of the people the rules impact. In fact, the only thing growing faster around here, Mr. Chairman, is our public debt load. This has been a decades-long abdication of duty by Congresses past, and we must correct it.

Currently, informal rulemaking is the method of choice for proposing rules and regulations around here and simply requires: one, publication of a rule; two, an opportunity for public comment, but has no requirement to give weight to those comments from the public. In fact, any time I have questioned an agency witness during my 3 1/2 years here, not one has been able to answer one simple question, and that is: What weight do you give public comments during the rulemaking process? What formula do you use? They can't answer the question because the answer is this: they don't care; it doesn't matter. What everyone wants or what the comment may be, if it stands in the way of the agenda of the rule, it gets no weight.

So I am offering this amendment today to require all new rules and regulations to follow the formal rulemaking process which is already in law--it is in the Administrative Procedure Act--while leaving in place existing emergency exceptions to the rulemaking process, fully recognizing, though, that we have to address the definition of ``emergency'' at some point as well.

Several reforms passed by this House go a long way in providing relief to the end of the regulatory process--at least to improving it. My amendment provides relief at the beginning of the rulemaking process, slows the regulatory state, and increases transparency of this increasingly opaque and secret bureaucracy.

Formal rulemaking requires a trial-like procedure, requiring parties to make their case for or against a rule in public. As a result, the administration, no matter the party, must prove the worth of their rules and regulations on the Record rather than relying on a closed-door balancing of public comments. Again, there is a record made, so we know--just like all of America knows from the proceedings on the floor of this House, we know the reasons for the final makeup of the rule; and, if need be, we can further challenge the rule.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is consistent with the intent of the 79th Congress, which created this law for the agency rulemaking process. In the Judiciary Committee report of the law, the committee stated that:

Matters of great import, or those where the public submission of facts will be either useful to the agency or a protection to the public, should naturally be accorded more elaborate public procedures.

The formal rulemaking process, Mr. Chairman, does that. So while, Mr. Chairman, I think that, in order to protect the public and the Republic, the rampant regulatory state must be stopped and agencies must afford the public weighted input and transparency during rulemaking.

Out of respect for the chair and its appropriations process, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source