Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that deals with an issue that quite often comes up on this floor. It is an issue about regulation and overregulation. What this amendment would do is prohibit the administration from using any of these funds to implement a rule that would cost the economy $100 million more. This is kind of like the REINS Act, but the rule doesn't come back for a vote; it is just prohibited.

The reason is there have been so many new rules and regulations that our economy is having a hard time keeping up. Just last year alone, there were 3,400 new rules--administrative rules, not from Congress, but these are from agencies. There were 80,000-plus pages of rules and regulations last year alone, and over half a million regulation pages over this President's administration.

This is having a real impact on the American economy. We have businesses that are having a more difficult time accessing loans to expand their businesses, to grow their innovation, to invest in innovation and create good-paying jobs within our communities. We have an increased cost of financing business expansions and home financing because of the compliance cost of our whole financial sector.

The costs have increased so much because the rules are now so complex and so many that it is trickling down to the business community and to our families. It is impacting our economy.

So I think it is time. At least right now, for a year, in this funding bill, let's take a pause. Let's just take a break on all the regulation. Let's stop, let's review, and then we can have a discussion about how we move forward. But this is a pause on the big regulation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), our chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that my good friend across the aisle talks about the great review process that we have by Federal agencies. These are the faceless, nameless bureaucrats who make rules that have huge impacts on our families, on our businesses, and on our economy.

I don't know about you, but people come to me and say: There is a horrible rule. Could you help me out, my Member of Congress? What I do is I write a letter.

We have disenfranchised the American people because we don't make the laws anymore. We have outsourced that to the regulators. Let's take that power back.

When we empower the Congress, we empower the American people to have a say in their government on the rules that have a huge impact on their lives. Let's have the backbone to take tough votes, to say ``yes'' or ``no'' to these kind of rules. But let's not outsource it to an agency that has no relationship with the American people and no accountability to the American people.

This is saying ``no.'' Let's take a stop and let's reempower the Congress to have a say, which, again, empowers the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, those of us in this institution talk a lot about how America is a nation of laws. But unfortunately, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that, while we are a nation of laws, we are not a nation of rules. At least not if you are a Federal worker. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds made available in the underlying bill with respect to Rainey v. Merit System Protection Board. Allow me to explain the case and why it's relevant to the bill before us today. Dr. Timothy Rainey is a State Department employee who, while serving as a contracting officer in 2013, was ordered by his supervisor to violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Dr. Rainey refused, and in doing so he was removed from his duties. When Dr. Rainey invoked the ``right-to-disobey'' provision of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that the law only protects him from refusing to violate Federal laws, but not rules or regulations. On June 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this ruling. So what does this mean, Mr. Speaker? I chair the Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee where we frequently get valuable tips from Federal whistleblowers about questionable and illegal activities at Federal agencies. This ruling will have the effect of taking away their protections to stand up to bad actors in the Federal workforce. Let's not forget that our rules and regulations are supposed to be derived from law. In effect, this ruling will give permission to political appointees and other supervisors in positions of authority to force Federal works to violate the rules and regulations that Congress, through law, directs the agencies to implement. At the Treasury Department, one of the many agencies funded by this bill, this would mean that Federal workers could be forced to violate sanctions against Russia for its violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity. Many of those sanctions are enforced through the Code of Federal Regulations pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. Ultimately, Congress will need to fix the Whistleblower Protection Act. I intend to work in a bipartisan fashion and with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to fix the Whistleblower Protection Act to address this ruling. In the meantime, I ask adoption of my amendment to put the House on record that Federal workers should follows laws and rules and regulations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source