Skip to main content

tv   Republican Natl Lawyers Association Conference - Labor Secretary Acosta  CSPAN  April 30, 2018 1:31am-2:00am EDT

1:31 am
join the discussion. monday evening at 7:00 p.m., james comey will be on book tv on c-span2 in primetime with his best-selling autobiography a higher loyalty. he will discuss several of the issues he faced as fbi director, including the russian investigation, hillary clinton females, and his views on president trump. book james comey, live on tv on c-span2 on prime time, monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> now, labor secretary alexander acosta discusses deregulation efforts by the trump administration. he spoke at friday's meeting of the republican national lawyers association. this is about 25 minutes. conference this is just under half an hour.
1:32 am
>> thank you. as the chairman i get to pick who i get to introduce he spent two terms as the civil rights division in the department of justice. when i arrived after eight years of the prior prior administration the president made it clear we had to be sworn in on inauguration day. i had to political sent that was it. suddenly people popped up within the civil rights division. to be honest i think her next speakers the one who brought them to the department of justice. the opportunity to introduce mr.
1:33 am
his a first gen college graduate following law school he served as a law clerk for samuel alito and he worked in private practice and taught at the george mason university antonin scalia of law. he served in three appointed positions. prior to that he served with the department of justice says the principal deputy he was nominated and confirmed to the national labor relations board where he authored more than 125 opinions. in 2003 he returned as the
1:34 am
assistant attorney general for civil rights where he served for a number of years. and he moved on as the u.s. attorney for the southern district of florida. president donald trump nominated him to be the 27th secretary of labor. >> thank you. >> good morning. thank you for the introduction. it's a pleasure to be here when i was invited i gladly took time away from my official duties to join you. i think what you do is important and it matters. today i want to talk about a
1:35 am
topic that's not more important than the rule of law. my first reaction is this is a broad topic. i've talked at length about regulatory guidance. this is one area difference that i think is overlooked but it's so important. the interpretive guidance to change substantive rule. that's wrong. it circled events the law, that's not what the rule of law is about. those of us in government have to exercise restraint. does one use the same approach to get to the particular and or do say that the process and the means matter.
1:36 am
the process does matter and we should not use a predatory guidance in the same way. that's a contrast between sub regulatory guidance that changes substantive law. another things that we have done such as bring back opinion letters. we say we will provide information on how we will restrain our judgments or how we will enforce the law one is a change in law when the two are fundamentally different toda.
1:37 am
today i want to talk about equally important topic. that successfully regulation. after rollback unnecessary regulation that eliminates job for that imposes costs that exceed the benefit they deserve good jobs and these are impediments to job creations. the disservice to american workers. that's not to say all regulations must or should be eliminated. commonsense regulations have an important place. there is far too much regulation and that something we need to take a step back and admit and do something about. it often serve to protect special interest from competition. sometimes businesses will say
1:38 am
the regulation is okay but were not here to do what businesses want. sometimes large business will say regulation is okay because it keeps the little business out of the market. that's not good. that's not pro- market. we need to recognize that some time regulations serve interest by shielding them from competition. regulations create costs at every step of the regulatory cycle. that's something difficult for lawyers. lawyers are large part of that costs. it costs taxpayers billions and trillions of dollars. they have to submit comments to interpret the regulations once they've issued to then advise
1:39 am
those regulations and then defend against litigation concerning the regulations. as attorney's sometimes difficult to stand up and say even though we stand to gain from it, this is wrong. by restricting the range of action regulations can enforce businesses and individuals to impede innovation. we would like to think that were not as heavily regulated as other nations but that's not true. we are in some cases more regulated. they can offer more workplace education or increase wages. the cost can be staggering. in 2016 they issued over 80
1:40 am
major roles. major rules are defined as those with an annual effect on the economy of 100 million or more. in one year over 80 roles came out that have been economic impact of 100 million or more. to the quick math. a lot of them are more than hundred million. that's just in one year. that's only a subset for all regulations. it's hard to estimate the number of good jobs those regulations have eliminated. one study estimated regulatory compliance of federal rules costs the economy $1.8 trillion. that's a lot of money.
1:41 am
the mere fact that a regulation is expensive is not reason to rescind it. sometimes they carry hefty price takes. there's examples and mining regulation that require costly practices they work hundreds of feet below ground. the problem occurs when those in power do not imply reasonableness or reasonable regulatory standard in the cause have a disproportionate regulatory costs. costliness is the most common rationale. today want to talk about his second rationale talked about much less and i think it is as
1:42 am
if not perhaps more important. that's deregulation to preserve liberty. [applause] the word liberty appears in the constitution and the pledge of allegiance. but here's a question, how many times using the word liberty appear in the federal register? policymakers focus on economic costs and benefits. the rule impact on liberty i have ever seen discussed that's understandable. it's use your to analyze economic costs and benefits then to analyze the cost on liberty. numerical costs and benefits
1:43 am
that all persons on the left or right can understand. the definitional arguments are assumption. rescinding regulations promote liberty that's a qualitative analysis. it requires that we have in the name of liberty what are we giving up. it requires that we look at the nature of liberty and the principle of self-governance. it asked we evaluate what were get up enough in light of other values and how do we do that. our modern society directs these discussions.
1:44 am
we tend us shunned discussions and values on the assumption that it's all a matter of personal opinion there are no fundamental truths. but there are. so as a result we don't see it talked about in the context of deregulation. i think that's a problem. liberty is what makes america different and exceptional. if liberty is sufficient to form the foundation than it should be sufficient to form the basis of chain changing or rescinding a regulation. if we go back to our founding document we see her founder
1:45 am
strongly believe the declaration of dependence could be read this way. it asserted the attempt to that it enhanced on man's inalienable rights. what follows those words if you read it is a long list of grievances. and certainly they complain of britain's economic regulation. what are they doing to regulate economic prosperity how are they treating our economies. but they also look at the liberty of americans. the ability of those individuals in the colonies to govern themselves. is that at the heart of our
1:46 am
american experiment. citizens sit on juries. voters represent washington. americans should be trusted to exercise choice. washing ten should regulate only when necessary and if limiting the scope of government protects space for people to make judgments for them so. we focus on monetary costs we assert that -- that would be a stand state of affairs. were so much more. freedom of expression into worship safety from government actions and the right to choose our leaders make decisions. that's what makes us the envy of the world. like to offer examples of how this works. one of the clearest examples is a regulation enacted by my
1:47 am
predecessor the praise persuader rule issued last year required individuals to disclose legal advice to employers in the union organizing election. as everyone knows the freedom to consult counselor choice -- even the american bar association came out in opposition to the rule. they did so based on the concern that it improperly infringed on attorney pop privilege. we have now published a new rule to rescind that rule. the issue is not the cost of compliance. the cost of the paperwork, the
1:48 am
issue is one of principle. to we believe the attorney-client privilege should be -- or not. and is it about cost-benefit analysis or should that be the end of the inquiry? i would argue that it should. the guidance i was adopted in the prior administration stated that one business could be liable for the actions of another because they were a joint employer. so tell the story by way of example. one of the best i thought was filed by microsoft. in march of 2015 microsoft announce a new corporate responsibility initiative. build a business with large
1:49 am
suppliers only if they supplied it with 15 days of paid annual leave. it's microsoft's prerogative to decide who to do business with and to say were only going to do it if they have a more stable supply chain. that's their right. suppliers have a choice to adopt a policy do business with microsoft or not to so. the government that ruled general lands poorly. here's what happened. shortly after microsoft announce initiative the union representing employees demanded they engage in collective bargaining without suppliers union. they cited the microsoft lead
1:50 am
policy and argue that they were now a joint employer and thus microsoft was liable for the action. the department has rescinded that guidance and here's why. putting aside the policy argument, that's changing fundamental structures wall. for decades if not centuries the notion of limited liability of corporations has been a basis of our system. so do we want to change that fundamental value liberty to proceed based on how they hire suppliers without taking on the suppliers employees by guidance? not even bible?
1:51 am
isn't that a fundamental change in the interpretation of the law? so many ways but were seen as regulations being used to restrict liberty. under the guise of economic analysis. sub regulatory guidance being used think we need to take a step back and think about it. one project particularly important is to think about sub- regulatory guidance. how are the policies within various departments of government impacting americans?
1:52 am
how does our approach to enforcing or interacting with americans affect them? it's not even a question of ruler guidance but one of operation. in many ways and also impacts liberty. something as simple as calling someone up and saying we understand are not required to do this by law but an audit would be so much better if you actually did that. i know you have not heard of that happening. but that's impacting liberty just as much as we talk about the role back in the president and the president very ahead of
1:53 am
that and that 22 - 1 in an effort to quantify this we can sometimes get lost in the forest and this is being done to preserve liberty. so it's about the qualitative outcomes as they said were founded on the belief that american should be trusted to govern themselves. if we trust that there we should certainly trust them to exercise individual choice unless there is a very good reason.
1:54 am
[applause] >> what we wanted to do is that this is the kind of deep thinker that's in there figuring out the underpinnings of these arguments and why it's so distracted. >> thank you.
1:55 am
>> it has driven down the death rate in all three of those cancers. priscilla chan, wife of facebook ceo mark zuckerberg discusses philanthropic efforts. >> we'd take a whole child approach, thinking about what each student needs to succeed.
1:56 am
wednesday, a discussion with supreme court justice clarence thomas and justice stephen breyer. >> we have a criteria. if the lower courts come to different conclusions on the --e question of federal law announcer: thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at people suffering from mental illness. >> since the 1980's, people going to jail, the numbers have tripled. as you peel back the onion and try to figure out what is happening, what you will find his most of it is due to untreated mental illness and substance abuse disorders. discussy, legal experts privacy. >> in my world, we have the u.s.
1:57 am
not regulating. you see that e.u. regulating a lot. we have not had a good enough imagination of what would be in between. >> this weekend on c-span. >> monday on landmark cases, new york times versus the united states better known as "the pentagon papers case." a top-secret pentagon study was released to the washington post and new york times. the supreme court decision restricted the government power over the press and broadened journalists amendment protections. watch "landmark cases" monday at
1:58 am
9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and the discussion. we have resources on our website for background. the companion book and a link to the constitution center's interactive constitution. >> monday evening at 7:00 p.m., james comey will be live on book tv on c-span2 and prime time with his best-selling autobiography. he will discuss several of the director faced as fbi including the russian investigation, hillary clinton females, and his views on president trump. watch james comey live on booktv on c-span2 monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> on tuesday, the supreme court heard oral arguments.
1:59 am
the case challenges the method used to redraw congressional districts in texas and the impact it had on minority voters. this is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> we will hear arguments this abbott versus perez and that consolidated case. texas legislature did not have a racial discriminatory purpose when it adopted the entire court ordered remedial told thes court district court to order districts that do not violate .he constitution it obeyed this court's remand.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on