Press Releases

Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (D-MI.) delivered the following remarks on the House Floor during the debate of H.R. 469 the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017.

M. Chair__, H.R. 469, the “Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017,” is anti-consumer, anti-environment, and anti-privacy. Not surprisingly, a broad consortium of more than 150 organizations strenuously oppose this bill, including the National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, various labor organizations, and other groups.

Title I of this bill, for example, has one goal: to discourage the use of settlement agreements and consent decrees that compel agencies to follow the law.

When enacting new statutes, Congress routinely establishes deadlines for agency action, particularly when it involves urgent public health and safety concerns.

And, when agencies fail to meet these deadlines, a party with standing may file a lawsuit under section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act to ensure that the agency performs this mandatory, non-discretionary duty.

By delaying the enforcement of statutory deadlines, the bill, however, jeopardizes public health and safety, which explains why the Obama Administration issued a veto threat to similar legislation considered last Congress.

Title I imposes nearly impossible hurdles for agencies seeking to resolve deadline lawsuits and gives opponents of regulation multiple opportunities to stifle agency regulatory actions.

With respect to consent decrees concerning a rulemaking, an agency would be forced to go through two public comment periods: one for the consent decree and one for the rulemaking that results from the consent decree, doubling the agency’s effort.

In addition, it would allow any “affected party” to intervene in opposition to a proposed settlement agreement or consent decree.

Contrary to the claims of those who support this measure, the Government Accountability Office has found no evidence that these deadline lawsuits are collusive.

As the Justice Department — which represents most federal agencies — acknowledged earlier this year, these agencies are “left with few defenses, if any” to these lawsuits.

I am also concerned that H.R. 469 will inevitably generate more litigation that will result in millions of dollars of additional transactional costs, all of which will be borne by the American taxpayer.

For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the bill’s predecessor from the last Congress, concluded the measure would impose millions of dollars in additional costs, most of which would be “incurred because litigation involving consent decrees and settlement agreements would probably take longer under the bill and agencies would face additional administrative requirements.”

In other words, title I of this bill is a costly solution in search of a problem.

Title II the bill is not much better. For instance, Title II overrides the Privacy Act to require publication of sensitive personal information of victims of government abuse or unlawful conduct, which raises serious privacy concerns.

Although proponents of this measure argue it will increase government transparency, its real effect will be to force the Treasury Department to publish on the Internet the names of individual victims of government misconduct compensated for their claims by the Judgment Fund, including victims of race and sex discrimination, in effect, re-victimizing victims harmed by the federal government.

Finally, Title III of H.R. 469 would facilitate the ability of the House Majority to intervene in pending cases where the Justice Department has determined that it will not defend the constitutionality of a federal law.

Not only do these provisions raise possible separation of powers concerns, it is unclear why they are even needed. This measure has not ever been the subject of a single hearing or markup by the Judiciary Committee. As a result, there has not been any opportunity to consider these critical issues and to analyze the ramifications presented by Title III.

For all of these reasons, I must accordingly oppose H.R. 469 and I reserve the balance of my time.

___________________________________________________________________

CLOSING REMARKS

In closing, it is important to note that I am joined in my opposition to H.R. 469 by a very broad spectrum of organizations, including –

the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations;

the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees;

Public Citizen;

the Consumer Federation of America;

the National Consumer Law Center;

the Natural Resources Defense Council;

the Sierra Club;

Earthjustice; and

the People for the American Way, among many others.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this thoroughly flawed legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.