[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 21 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H613-H621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 72, DIRECTING
COMMITTEES TO REVIEW REGULATIONS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 73 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 73
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 72) directing
certain standing committees to inventory and review existing,
pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of
the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their
effect on jobs and economic growth. The amendment recommended
by the Committee on Rules now printed in the resolution shall
be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, to final
adoption without intervening motion except: (1) nine hours
and 30 minutes of debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or
their respective designees, eight hours equally divided among
and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Agriculture, Energy and
Commerce, Financial Services, the Judiciary, Natural
Resources, Oversight and Government Reform, Transportation
and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means, and one hour equally
divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and
ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and
the Workforce and Small Business; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 73 provides for a closed rule for
consideration of H. Res. 72. It provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate,
divided by the committees outlined in H. Res. 72, and provides the
minority a motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill. This legislation is simple, direct, and easy to understand. The
text of the three-page bill was posted last week on the Rules Committee
Web site. This legislation is an attempt and an effort to provide more
transparency and accountability in the government regulatory process,
something that my colleagues and I have called for numerous times over
the last two Congresses.
The legislation before us today calls for 10 House committees to
review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from
agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their
effects on destroying jobs and economic growth.
With the current high unemployment rate, it is essential we do
everything reasonably possible that we can to look at and to reduce
government rules and regulations that impede job creation and economic
growth, that discourage innovation, hurt or harm global
competitiveness, limit credit, create economic uncertainty, impose
unnecessary paperwork and cost on small businesses, and that result in
large-scale and often unnecessary unfunded mandates on employers.
That is exactly what this legislation would do, and we are on the
floor today to talk about this as an important component of allowing
America to get back to work and to highlight these rules and
regulations that stifle not only investment but also job creation.
Every single Member of Congress understands and believes that
regulations are needed to provide the rules, safety, and structures for
this society to function properly. While regulations are important,
they can also cross that fine line and can become too burdensome. It is
essential to strike a balance to ensure that the imposed rules and
regulations do not lead to higher costs and less productive societies.
{time} 1230
The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final regulations
each year with about 500 to 700 that are reviewed by the White House.
According to a recent report from the Small Business Administration,
the total cost of Federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion a
year from the U.S. economy; $1.75 trillion is what this burden is on
the free enterprise system. Additionally, the study shows that
regulatory and paperwork costs were found to be more onerous for
smaller firms than their larger counterparts. More specifically, the
costs of regulations per employee for firms with fewer than 20
employees is now $10,585, a 36 percent difference between the costs
incurred per employee by a larger firm.
This is absolutely outrageous. This is outrageous because small
business is the backbone and the engine of our economy. It represents
99.7 percent of all employers. Small businesses, according to the Small
Business Administration, have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over
the past 15 years while employing over half of all private sector
employees. One of the fastest ways to put Americans back to work,
Republicans believe, is to limit the regulatory expenses that these
small firms have to comply with simply to satisfy Federal Government
regulations.
[[Page H614]]
Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. Regulatory burdens are
hindering investment and innovation while eroding some of the most
basic and fundamental freedoms in America. Congress and this
administration must work together to do more than prevent harmful new
regulations. They must also review, study, and eliminate unnecessary
rules that are already on the books.
On January 18 of last month, President Obama signed an Executive
order to provide a government-wide review of the rules already on the
books to remove outdated regulations. In an op-ed placed in the Wall
Street Journal last month by the President, he clearly states that
``sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing
unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation
and have had a chilling effect upon growth and jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, I
applaud and I appreciate the President for recognizing this, and I ask
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand what we are
attempting to do today, and that is to support as best as we can not
only the ideals that the President talked about but also a focus on
these rules and regulations that stifle innovativeness, create costs,
and ruin jobs in America.
Mr. Speaker, while the President is now taking a step in the right
direction when it comes to regulation, in the last fiscal year alone
the Obama administration unleashed 43 major new regulations that will
cost America more than, new, $28 billion annually. These costs will
affect Americans in many ways, from raising the price of cars, where we
buy food, where we eat, and every single one of these stands in the way
of making the free enterprise more efficient and somehow does not help
in creation of jobs.
The President will have to take a step back from some of the major
bills that he signed last year, and I believe he can do that by
employing the ideas that he had in this op-ed. He can do something
about it, and that is join Republicans who today are attempting to work
with the President. If the President is serious about reducing
regulatory burdens impacting every American, we can do this job
together. Fifteen of the 42 regulations proposed last year were from
the Frank-Dodd financial regulatory bill. Another five stemmed from the
ObamaCare bill, and 10 others come from the Environmental Protection
Agency, or what is known as the EPA, including the first mandatory
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
The annual compliance costs constitute only a part of the economic
burden of regulations on business. Many of these new rules curtail the
purchase of new equipment, conversions of industrial practices, and are
about revising data collection and reporting procedures. One example is
the new restriction on short sales from the Frank-Dodd bill that
requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to make modifications
to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms for gathering and
managing this information that will cost over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker,
that defies balance and I think ultimate accountability of what the
regulations should be about.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to direct our committees to
take the first step in reining in Big Government, reducing our deficit,
and encouraging job growth and economic prosperity. This simple bill is
three pages long, and it shines the light on the regulatory process and
provides the necessary transparency and accountability on Federal
agencies that has been lacking for years.
My Republican colleagues and I remain committed to putting America
back to work through creation of new jobs. This legislation is a way to
be a part of that good start. I encourage all my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res.
73, the rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 72, which directs
certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending,
and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal
Government, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The resolution isn't objectionable in and of itself. We all agree
that regulations that do more harm than good should be eliminated. The
President has said that, Democrats have said that, and Republicans have
said that. And the rules of the House already require committees to
carry out this sort of oversight. So I question, Mr. Speaker, why my
friends on the other side of the aisle insist on spending 9\1/2\ hours
debating a resolution that is entirely redundant. We're committing the
same offense that Republicans claimed to abhor about government:
wasting time, effort, and taxpayer dollars.
Devoting 9\1/2\ hours to this exercise is squandering yet another
opportunity. We could be using this time to pass legislation that will
create and retain jobs right here in this country instead of telling
the committees of jurisdiction to continue to do what they are already
mandated to do. What's next, Mr. Speaker? Nine-and-a-half hours of
debate instructing the House to close for Thanksgiving or Christmas?
Republicans marched into the majority over a month ago vowing a
laser-like focus on job creation, and they've done nothing towards that
end since. Today's debate is yet another reminder that Republicans care
more about their lockstep, anti-government ideology than they do about
getting down to the business of improving the lives of hardworking
Americans.
Democrats did offer to improve today's rule by adding language
instructing the committees to make job creation legislation their
highest priority and for such legislation to be considered under an
open amendment process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Democrats made the
effort to work in agreement with Republicans on this matter and to
ensure that this body emphasizes legislation to create jobs and improve
the American economy, but the Republicans said ``no.'' They said ``no''
to working with Democrats. They said ``no'' to prioritizing job
creation. They said ``no'' to fulfilling their promise for an open and
transparent legislative process.
My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) declared at the end of last year
that, and I quote him, ``Open rules will make a triumphant return to
the House floor,'' unquote, and that all Members, and I quote him
again, ``will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislative
process.''
{time} 1240
The House has been under Republican control for 5 weeks. In that
time, we have voted on 11 bills. None of those bills went through their
respective committees and none of those bills had actual open rules.
One had a modified open rule. That's not very triumphant in my opinion,
Mr. Speaker.
It is already the second month of this Congress and Republicans are
still dodging a real debate on real legislation that will create real
jobs and improve the American economy. And Republicans are still
refusing to address exactly what these cuts will mean to the lives of
the American people. Which regulations do Republicans propose to get
rid of? The ones for clean drinking water? The ones preventing
financial abuse on Wall Street? I was here, Mr. Speaker, along with my
friend on the other side of the aisle when Republicans assumed control
and that we did not provide the necessary regulation at the Securities
and Exchange Commission. I for one thought when a friend of ours who
served with us went to be the chair of the Securities and Exchange
Commission that finally we would get some regulations there. We did not
get regulations. What we got--and there's no secret about this, no
finger to point at anybody--the simple fact of the matter is by not
having adequate regulation of Wall Street, this country came to the
brink of disaster in November of '08. Do they want to get rid of the
ones that protect against massive oil spills and mine collapses?
So far this year, Republicans have moved to repeal health care,
they've moved to restrict a woman's right to choose, and they've moved
drastically to cut spending for a huge range of essential government
services that ensure public safety, economic opportunity and national
security. It seems the Republicans want to use their majority to settle
old scores. But I don't think that's what the American people have in
mind as a national priority.
Republicans seem to think that if we spend 9\1/2\ hours debating a
resolution
[[Page H615]]
that simply remarks on what House committees are already doing, they
will suffice to convince the American people that Republicans have a
plan for improving the economy.
It is clear that this resolution is really about demonizing Federal
regulations. But the Republicans ignore the benefits of regulations,
the importance of protecting existing jobs, and the necessity of
leveling the playing field to ensure economic growth and prosperity for
all Americans. If our constituents had the choice of whether to spend
this time practicing our rhetorical skills or actually passing
meaningful legislation that creates more jobs, I believe they would
vote for jobs. Let's get back to what the American people need from us,
and that is to improve the American economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend the gentleman from
Florida. I would like to state that the bills we have done in the Rules
Committee during these 12 bills have been about original jurisdiction
by the Rules Committee, which is what this bill is. This bill is a
jurisdictional issue where the Rules Committee, through the legislation
that my name sits on as the chief sponsor, is directing other
committees to have hearings, to be part of an open process, to do the
things that will be necessary not only for minority participation but
any Member who chooses in these committees to come and have their
voices heard, for hearings to be held, for thoughtful people across
this country to come and provide us information about the way they see
the regulatory burdens that are being placed upon them. If someone
thinks that what we are doing today is all about trying to stifle
regular order, it's completely the opposite. Nine-and-a-half hours of
debate, which is unheard of for a three-page bill, is all about regular
order and is exactly what I've been arguing for for years. That's what
the Republicans are delivering today on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Notwithstanding that the gentleman brought up some good ideas about
job creation, I would like to just put it into some bit of context.
Today what we are trying to do is to gather steam behind rules and
regulations that stifle the ability for the free enterprise system to
employ people. But in the larger scheme of things, our friends on the
other side are upset because what we as Republicans are going to do is
to find a way to live up to our campaign promises to cut spending
during the year by $100 billion.
Now some people say, oh, that's not enough amount, or it's too big of
an amount because it will mean all these draconian cuts across the
government. Well, I would remind this House that $100 billion is a
small part of the $3,000 billion spending plan that the Congress has
already given to government--$3,000 billion--and what we are talking
about not just today and not just over the past few weeks but taking
$100 billion and trying to take that as a burden off the American
people. The reason why is because 30 percent of all government spending
today or more ends up as debt, meaning that we have to borrow it from
somebody else.
``But this is so important, we've got to make sure we do it.'' Well,
Republicans disagree. We think not only a review of regulatory process
but a review of spending is important in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I
refer to what might be a sheet of paper that was in print described as
Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations. Within this paper,
there is a paragraph, a short paragraph that I would like to read which
perhaps embodies exactly why we are here today:
``Business leaders say government regulations, including those being
written for health care overall and financial reform, have hurt job
creation at a time of high unemployment.''
In fact, the Department of Treasury describes where we are as chronic
unemployment for today and our immediate past for as far as the eye can
see. Last year at some point even the longest projection by this
government showed no net new job creation. That is what Republicans
have inherited. We intend to be serious about what we're doing, and we
intend to make sure that the American people see this for what it is,
and that is an opportunity by Congress to work on the issues that
they're demanding.
[From FoxBusiness.com, Jan. 18, 2011]
Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations
President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he would order a
government-wide review of regulations with the goal of
eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the U.S.
economy less competitive.
In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Obama said
some government regulations have placed ``unreasonable
burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and
have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.''
He said he would require that in the future government
agencies ``ensure that regulations protect our safety, health
and environment while promoting economic growth.''
The president has recently ratcheted up efforts to soothe
relations with the business community, after alienating
corporate America through rhetorical attacks against Wall
Street and an agenda heavy on regulation.
Business leaders say government regulations, including
those being written for the healthcare overall and financial
reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high
unemployment.
``It's a review that will help bring order to regulations
that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result
of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both
parties and the influence of special interests in Washington
over decades,'' Obama wrote.
Noting that small businesses create most new jobs in the
economy, he said he would direct the government to make a
greater effort to reduce the burden regulations place on
them.
While vowing to eliminate rules that are ``not worth the
cost, or that are just plain dumb,'' the president said his
administration wouldn't shy away from writing new rules to
address obvious gaps in government oversight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we need more jobs and
less speeches. And what we will get from this bill on the floor is more
speeches and no jobs.
It is very disappointing in the current economic context that what we
bring to the floor for 9\1/2\ hours is a bill that simply instructs the
committees to do what we've already instructed them to do. This is
already in the rules, it's already required, we all agree on it. What
are we doing here wasting 9\1/2\ hours? If we just produced a thousand
jobs an hour, we could have produced 9,500 jobs. Instead, we're going
to produce 95 speeches. That's not what we need.
If you want to look for waste in government, take a look at this
bill: 9\1/2\ hours down the tube doing something we're already doing.
We had a hearing yesterday in the Commerce Committee. We're already
talking about these regulations.
But let me give a warning to people about what happens when the
Republican Party wants to look at regulations. You know the first thing
they did, they're trying to repeal the Clean Air Act. They're trying to
gut the Clean Air Act which is the guardian angel for the air that our
kids breathe.
{time} 1250
You know, they have introduced a bill, and we had a hearing
yesterday. The first hearing we had was to pass their dirty air act.
They have a dirty air act that would gut the ability--that would
eliminate in total the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency
to regulate harmful gases, carbon dioxide, ozone, and a host of other
dangerous chemicals.
Now, can you believe that? Their dirty air act will eliminate the
ability of the EPA to do things to try to prevent our kids from having
aggravated asthma attacks. Their dirty air act would eliminate the
ability of the EPA to deal with dangerous gases that exacerbate the
respiratory problems of our senior citizens.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. INSLEE. If you think I'm just blowing smoke here, go take a look
at their bill. Their bill doesn't try to fix the regulation. It
absolutely eliminates in total the ability of the EPA. The EPA was
started under a good Republican, Richard Nixon, and it is a sad story
that the first bill out of the box
[[Page H616]]
they want to go backwards on clean air.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the chairman of the Rules
Committee, and I will tell you that he is so pleased that we have not
only this bill that has been brought to the floor, but he is so pleased
that we are taking the time to speak about the facts of the case. And
one fact is that the first bill that we took up was the bill to repeal
ObamaCare. It had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. It had
everything to do with a bill which has caused an amazing number of
regulations.
And I would like to quote, if I can, a fact that, since the passage
in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is
known as ObamaCare, has added 6,123 pages of regulations, and the
Federal Register has printed those just over the last 9 months.
Secondly, according to a September 2010 report from the Small Business
Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion
annually, which is nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes
collected last year. That means that the ability for a person to have
to fill out all of their paperwork, the cost of that is twice what we
even collected in taxes. There is a balance here that's been overrun.
House Republicans: Identifying and Removing Onerous Job-Destroying
Regulations
This week, House Republicans are bringing a resolution to
the floor directing the committees to inventory and review
federal agency rules and regulations that may unfairly harm
the ability to create jobs and grow the economy.
While the nation suffers from 21 straight months of
unemployment at 9 percent or higher, President Obama and
congressional Democrats have doubled down on their strategy
to burden job creators with more government red tape.
With the U.S. economy struggling and American families hard
pressed to pay their bills and put food on the table, the
costs of federal regulations have never been more
significant. The fact is that federal regulations increase
the cost of doing business and destroy jobs.
Undue and archaic government red tape takes money out of
the hands of families and businesses. Agencies should not be
authorized to heap billions in new added costs on the economy
without reducing another burden elsewhere.
Job-Crushing Regulations--By the Numbers
During the Democrats' leadership of Congress, unemployment
skyrocketed from 4.6 percent to 9 percent as the economy has
lost more than 6.8 million jobs.
With 243 expected rulemakings from the Democrats' permanent
bailout of Wall Street law, and the inestimable number of
regulations to come from ObamaCare's government takeover of
healthcare, the President's newfound concern for the
regulatory burdens facing employers does not match his
actions over the past two years.
The Obama administration has not shied away from flexing
its regulatory muscle since taking office. A recent study by
the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major
regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total
economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at
least 1981.
Since passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) has added 6.123 pages of
regulations and Federal Register notices in just its first
nine months.
According to a September 2010 report from the Small
Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to
$1.75 trillion annually, nearly twice as much as all
individual income taxes collected last year.
Who Is Paying for this Reeulatory Burden? America's Small Businesses
and American Workers
The cost of regulations is felt even harder by America's
small business owners, the engine of our nation's economy.
According to the Small Business Administration, the average
small business with less than 20 employees faces a cost of
$10,585 in federal regulations each year per worker they
employ.
Businesses with fewer than 20 employees spend on average 36
percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with
federal regulations. These small employers represent 99.7
percent of all businesses and have created 64 percent of all
new jobs over the past 15 years.
The cost of federal regulations to small businesses must
either be passed on to the consumer or workers, either in the
form of lower wages or a shortage of jobs that would have
been otherwise paid for with money spent complying with
federal regulations. Imagine if small businesses could put
the $10,000 they spend on federal regulations directly back
into new jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friend.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million
Americans who are unemployed, and for them, this is another day of
searching the Web or the want ads to try to find a job they've been
unable to find after months of diligent searching. So what is the
Congress of the United States doing about this? We are wasting yet
another opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to
create an environment in which small business people and entrepreneurs
can create jobs for our country, the way we did work together at the
end of last year and passed legislation that 80 Senators voted for,
270-some House Members voted for across party lines.
The majority says that this process will somehow help to create jobs.
It is important to understand what this resolution really says. It
says, in response to the 15 million unemployed people we have in this
country, let's have a bunch of politicians have a bunch of meetings
they were already scheduled to have; right? So their response, Mr.
Speaker, is let's spend 9\1/2\ hours debating a bill that says a bunch
of politicians should have a bunch of meetings they would have had
anyway to talk about the problem.
You know, if we called 911 to report a fire in our home, we wouldn't
be very happy if the fire department said, ``We are going to
immediately have a meeting to decide whether to put the fire out at
your house.'' We would expect the fire company to come put the fire out
at your house.
The majority is not putting on the floor regulations they want to
repeal. That would be a worthy debate. We should have that. What they
are doing is saying let's, for 9\1/2\ hours, talk about whether to have
a bunch of meetings to talk about the problem.
In the last 5 weeks, there has not been one word in one bill or 1
hour of debate about a plan to create jobs for the American people. So
now we are going to spend 9\1/2\ hours talking about whether to have a
series of political meetings.
Why don't we put on the floor and argue the pros and cons of a plan
to put our people back to work building schools and bridges and
highways? You can be for or against that, but it's a real plan that
would actually put people back to work.
Now, the majority says that they do want to create jobs by cutting
spending and reducing the deficit. But of course the very first bill
they passed increased the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the
next 20 years. Then they ran on a promise--a promise--to reduce the
current year's budget by $100 billion, but 2 days ago, the
Appropriations Committee reported out a bill that reduces it by $32
billion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. The American people are placing a 911 call to Washington
that says this country needs help. It needs a real plan to produce real
jobs for the American people. What they are getting from the majority
once again is wasted words, wasted time, wasted opportunities.
Yes, looking at regulations is a good thing to do. We support that.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between analysis and paralysis.
The majority is giving us paralysis. All talk, no jobs. The right vote
on this resolution is ``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews) coming down to the floor. I would like to let him know
that we are doing 9\1/2\ hours of debate, and at the end there will be
an opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions
that has been lacking for the previous 4 years by my colleagues on the
other side, that they extended to us. So you will have every single
opportunity, if you want, just to use your brainpower and put together
that great jobs bill that you want to talk about.
But I would say to the gentleman, we have chosen to talk about the
things which stifle jobs, and we believe that as we talk about these
that a lot of the American people will get it. For instance, if you
lived out in the country--I will just bring up one example.
[[Page H617]]
The EPA has issued a draft policy doubling the stringency of the
standard by which dust is regulated--dust. Now, the Speaker would
understand dust because he is from a rural State. I understand dust
from some perspective, being from Texas. But the EPA regulates dust,
and they are going to issue a draft policy--or already did--that
doubles the stringency of the standard. Many farming activities kick up
dust: tilling the field, operating a feed lot, driving farm vehicles,
even dusty roads.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
I think we can have a very worthy debate about whether that rule is a
good one or a bad one. Why aren't we having that debate? Why don't you
just put on the floor a bill that says let's repeal that rule and have
a debate? Why aren't we doing that?
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman
was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules
Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this
bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look
at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front
of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be
in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this
proposed ruling is.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ANDREWS. It still seems to me to be all windup and no pitch, that
if you really believe that that regulation should be repealed, why
don't you put a bill on the floor that repeals it and let's do
something rather than just talk about it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is
the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We
need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your
side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let
there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the
Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag
Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the
chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who
are experts.
{time} 1300
I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't
spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision.
But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the
committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees,
then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk
about, and receive feedback.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman further yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate his courtesy.
The gentleman just makes a very good point about the importance of
hearings before legislation takes place. How many hearings have there
been on the renewal of the Patriot Act?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate
the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to
the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have
had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement
that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full
debate on this.
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman engaging me. I would also
make my point that the economic impact of the regulation of dust that
it will have on farmers, that it will have on people who live in rural
areas, is enormous. And this is part of that overall cost. It's not a
hidden cost; it's a real cost that makes us unproductive and costs
consumers a lot of money. And this is the kind of discussion we're
going to have.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell
both sides the remaining amount of time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 17 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous
question, I will offer an amendment to the rules to provide that
immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11,
the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.
To explain that further and to explicate as she so desires, I am
pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his
leadership in calling up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds, later.
Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to watch this debate because what
you see here is that we are talking about jobs. The American people
want us to create jobs now. And what you see on the floor of the House
now today and tomorrow is a make-work project.
The Republicans have no job initiatives; so they need to fill time,
and they're filling time with a resolution that we all recognize the
committees have the jurisdiction to do, and some of the committees
already have.
We should subject every dollar, every initiative to the harshest
scrutiny to make sure it fills its purpose, that we bring common sense
to what we are doing. But we don't need to spend 10 hours on the floor
of the House because we have no job proposal on the side of the
Republicans and make it look as if this is a job creation bill.
This is a make-work product for Republicans who are without an agenda
for job creation. However, we hope they will join us in renewing the
Build America Bonds to build America to create jobs now.
In every district nationwide, our constituents, many of them
struggling without a paycheck, tell the same story. They're waiting for
us to create jobs, to focus on jobs and economic growth before we do
anything else. Today I rise to echo their call and urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of America's
families and put people back to work.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama encouraged us to
do what it takes to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest
of the world. In that statement he continued his job-creating
initiative. From day one, President Obama has been a job creator. We
had to dig our way out of a deep recession, but, nonetheless, the
Recovery Act created or saved over 3 million jobs, and other
initiatives like Cash for Clunkers and other initiatives that this
Congress took, working with President Obama, spared us an even worse
unemployment rate.
Now, that isn't good enough if you don't have a job. And it isn't
good enough for us who are responsible for creating them. And that is
why the effort that the President started at the beginning of his
administration, reiterated in his State of the Union address, starts
with creating more jobs here at home, and in this Congress there should
be no higher priority. Yet, the Republican leadership has not met that
challenge.
Since taking charge of the House more than 1 month ago, they have yet
to propose a single jobs bill. They have yet to unveil a concrete plan,
and Americans are still waiting.
This week is no different. Instead of focusing on job creation, this
Congress is spending 10 hours on the floor, a filler, as concrete
evidence of the fact that they have nothing else to fill the time with,
directing our committees to conduct oversight, a very appropriate
instruction. The committees are already doing that.
These committees don't need a partisan resolution in order to start
their work, and this House does not need a long floor debate that only
diverts us from our purpose, which is to create jobs.
Instead, we should focus on investments that work, that create jobs,
that build America and grow our economy. And that is why we are proudly
putting forth the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act. This
legislation would leverage public dollars probably 40 to 1: For every
public dollar spent, $40 of investment to strengthen the private sector
and spur job creation at
[[Page H618]]
home by supporting projects to rebuild schools and transit projects.
Last week we had a hearing on this subject following the President's
State of the Union address and his pronouncements about innovation,
education, infrastructure, et cetera. We had a hearing on
infrastructure to which the Build America Bonds directly relates. A
representative of the Society of Civil Engineers told us that our
country has trillions of dollars of deficits; that our roads and
bridges get D's and C minuses in terms of their safety and
effectiveness.
In addition, our water projects, some of them are ancient, made of
brick and wood, and that's a health problem.
In terms of innovation for the future, our investments in
infrastructure such as broadband are also essential to the growth and
creation of jobs in our country. And so there's every reason for us to
do this in the best of times. But we're not in the best of times. And
so in this not good time, as far as jobs are concerned, it's absolutely
essential that we make a decision as a Nation to put forth the greatest
social initiative ever, job creation.
The initiative to Build America Bonds and leverage dollars for
encouraging the private sector has the support of mayors, governors,
and local businesses. It is good for taxpayers, using Federal
investments, to unleash billions from private businesses in our
neighborhoods. That's why Governor Martin O'Malley came to testify for
this, and Mayor Nutter of Pennsylvania, giving us their direct
experience on what a difference the Build America Bonds initiative,
which was in the Recovery Act, makes, and which needs to be renewed.
Most significantly, Build America Bonds keeps our promise to stay
focused on jobs, and it helps put Americans back to work.
Both parties agree that we must stay focused on reducing our deficit,
and that's exactly what Build America Bonds do. You cannot achieve the
goal of deficit reduction unless you invest in growth and job creation.
Vigorous oversight is critical to that effort, and Democrats remain
committed to doing our part. We are ready to eliminate waste, fraud,
abuse, duplication, and obsolescence in our budget, and we would
subject every dollar, taxpayer dollar, to the harshest scrutiny.
{time} 1310
We are prepared to make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in
order, but we will not sacrifice key investments that are helping our
economy grow, our small businesses expand. And we need to make more
investments in small business, not less, and help our workers find
jobs.
We said from the beginning of this Congress Democrats will measure
every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class,
and reduces the deficit. The resolution before us today does none of
the above.
I think it's interesting just to make a contrast between the first
month of this Republican majority and our first days here in the
Congress. Most of what we proposed is along the line, some of it signed
by President Bush in a bipartisan way.
H.R. 1 enacts the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This is 2007. The
9/11 Commission recommendations had not been enacted by the Republican
Congress. We know our first responsibility is to keep the American
people safe. H.R. 1, now the law of the land.
Raise the minimum wage. Economic fairness. It hadn't been raised in
over a decade of Republican rule, and we raised the minimum wage and it
became the law. Making college more affordable, which is now the law of
the land. We also had the Energy Independence Act as part of our Six
for 06, much of which is signed into law by President Bush at the end
of that Congress and his term.
A couple initiatives did not become law. One of them was to remove
the subsidies we give to Big Oil to give them an incentive to drill.
Big Oil, which has made $1 trillion in profit over the last 10 years,
does not need billions of dollars in taxpayer money to have an
incentive to drill for oil.
And so on this side, H.R. 1, instead of enacting the 9/11 Commission
recommendations, lowering the minimum wage, making us more energy
independent, making college more affordable, H.R. 1: repeal the health
care bill. No prospect of success in doing that, no hearings leading up
to it; but, nonetheless, a filler for the floor, red meat for those of
the health insurance industry, which opposes giving leverage to
America's patients and consumers by saying that they will not be
deterred from having coverage because they have a preexisting medical
condition, or keeping kids on their parents' policies until they are 26
years old. That's what they wanted to repeal. Again, red meat for the
industry, for the special interests, no jobs for the American people.
In the weeks ahead, we must renew our focus on job creation. Let's
vote on bills that grow our economy through innovation, public-private
partnerships, and tackle unemployment head on. Together, we can help
Americans create jobs, rebuilding America in a very green way; and the
technologies we will develop will make us and keep us number one,
investing in transportation and manufacturing and clean energy and new
technologies and industries and in small businesses.
As my colleague Mr. Hoyer reminds us every minute: If we make it in
America, America's families can make it in America. Let's set our path
on doing that, instead of frivolously using 10 hours that are
unnecessary, but they are for only one purpose: you have nothing else
to offer.
Today, we can keep our recovery on track and put Americans to work. I
urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, not that we
don't think we should subject regulation to scrutiny, but because we
think we shouldn't waste the public's time on this when it's already
being done in committee and we should be having a debate, a lively
debate, on what the best approach is to create jobs, grow the economy,
reduce the deficit, and strengthen the middle class.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank my colleague from Florida.
And, Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to focus their
priorities on saving and creating jobs, instead of spending 10 hours
debating what Congress already has the power to do. We already have the
power of oversight over the Federal agencies. And if 10 hours were not
enough to debate this, imagine the 54 hearings already scheduled by the
Republicans to focus on redebating the health care reform. Americans
remember, we debated that for almost 2 years, but they took the vote on
getting rid of the health care reform before they are ever even doing
the 54 hearings.
Listen, we do oversight. Actually, a legislative and authorizing
committee like the ones I sit on, be it Homeland Security or the Armed
Services Committee, we already have the power to do that; and the
Republicans hold the chairmanship. The chairman gets to decide what the
committee does. Just tell your chairman, let's do oversight. It's
really straightforward.
We don't have to spend 10 hours on C-SPAN telling the American
people, oh, my gosh, we've got to pass a resolution telling the
committees to do oversight. We already have that. We are already doing
that. We have already got subcommittees. On Armed Services Committees,
we have an oversight committee. I hope your chairmen know what they're
doing. They don't need a resolution telling them to do their job. Or do
they? We need jobs. Americans want jobs. That's what we want. When I go
home, we want jobs.
Build it in America. The Build America Bonds, I am a cosponsor of
that. Mr. Hastings, I'm so glad you're going to bring that up. Let's
pass that. For every dollar that we spend in that program, $40 at the
local, State, and private levels is used towards that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida and
as well my good friend from Texas on managing of this time.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there's a great opportunity to be redundant
sometimes. And I would imagine that
[[Page H619]]
any American would consider 9 hours of debating the authority of
oversight, which is vested in all of our committees, to be redundant.
But let me share just a few points of opportunity.
First of all, in the Homeland Security Committee, having served as
the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Committee, we introduced
H.R. 2200, which would heighten the security for the Nation's mass
transit. Jobs being created, of course, but also securing the homeland.
The idea of increasing the professionalism of TSA or TSO officers,
again, providing enhanced training for jobs, but also in essence
protecting the homeland. These are quick and ready issues that could be
addressed in the time allotted for debating redundancy.
Let me also congratulate my good friend on the infrastructure bank,
because infrastructure creates jobs, the high-speed rail that our
President is announcing, hearings to be able to assess how we can move
quickly on investing in high-speed rail to create jobs.
Or, for example, as one of my colleagues and I mentioned in a hearing
as well, a number of our airlines are using overseas airline repair
stations. Bringing those back to the United States would create and
provide more jobs. Again, an action item that could be done through
this Congress, creating jobs.
So my question is, When will we get to the discussion of how we
rebuild America? When will we get to answering the question, why, in
some of our cities, huge sink holes exist where trucks, buses, and cars
fall into sink holes because of the lack of resources in
infrastructure. When will we fix the flooding that goes on in this
country to avoid natural disasters?
So let me thank you for this time, but I'm ready to go to work in
creating jobs for America.
{time} 1320
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to be here today on this
important bill. What I want to say to you is continually we need to
make the point that this bill is all about referring to committees the
opportunity for them to look at onerous rules and regulations.
I would like to bring up just one more burdensome regulation. Milk
contains animal fat, and the EPA has suggested that milk storage could
be regulated under the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks. It is
estimated that it would cost U.S. dairy farmers thousands of dollars to
come into compliance with such a regulation that would be exactly the
same as large oil tanks. The EPA, only after congressional pressure,
has signaled that it would finalize an exemption for milk. However, it
has yet to do so and continues to drag its feet. Meanwhile, farmers are
having to face what is a burdensome regulation.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules
Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is all about creating
jobs. Job creation and economic growth is our number one priority.
I have been listening to this debate over the last few minutes and
have come to a really striking conclusion. My colleagues on the other
side of the aisle seem to believe that Democrats believe that the
government creates jobs, and we believe that the American people create
jobs, and our goal is to get out of the way so that in fact that can
happen. We want the government to get out of the way so that that can
happen.
Now, my friend from Santa Ana earlier was talking about the fact that
this institution has the ability to proceed with oversight to deal with
these onerous regulations. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the
regulations are great, but the fact of the matter is, in 2009, the
Obama administration propounded 59 major new regulations; in 2010 it
was 61; and under the permanent bailout bill, it is projected there
will be 218 new regulations dealing with 11 agencies that will be
impinging on the ability for economic growth.
We know that the average cost per employee for small businesses,
businesses with 20 or fewer employees, is $10,585. That is the average
per employee cost for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. That is
a study that came out last September from Lafayette University. So it
is obvious that we have been talking about this regulatory burden
undermining the potential for job creation and economic growth. This is
all about creating jobs, contrary to what so many of my friends on the
other side of the aisle are making.
We had in our pledge--we said we are going to rein in the red tape.
That is the priority we established last summer when we came forward
with our Pledge to America, and I am very gratified to see that the
President has followed through with his Executive order to try and deal
with the regulatory burden.
We know that in The Wall Street Journal he penned a very important
piece in which he recognized that this regulatory burden is very great
and needs to be reduced, and, of course, we saw the President's speech
before the United States Chamber of Commerce in which he talked about
the problems of regulation and his priority of ensuring that we do
that.
Why is it that we have this resolution? Let me say I greatly
appreciate the fact that my good friend, the vice chairman of the Rules
Committee from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, has authored this important
resolution. Why? Because we believe that this institution, with the
strength of a strong, bold, bipartisan vote, saying to committees that
we understand that when you have a $10,585 per employee cost for small
businesses with fewer than 20 employees due to regulation, that we need
to have a laser-like approach on dealing with that regulatory burden.
That is why we are here. That is why we are doing this.
So we believe that the signal that this resolution will send, Mr.
Speaker, will go a long way toward letting the American people know,
the marketplace know, that we are going to be committed in a bipartisan
way to getting input from both Democrats and Republicans to try and
rein in this regulatory burden that exists and undermines the potential
for job creation and economic growth. So I think that we will have a
strong bipartisan vote on the measure, and I urge my colleagues to vote
for it.
I say that I look forward, as I have upstairs in the Rules Committee,
to continuing my effort to reach out to Democrats, to working with them
on thoughtful proposals that they have, because there are good ideas
that come from both sides, and I believe that as we tackle the issue of
regulatory reform that both sides will be able to participate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee, the chairman and two other
Members cited repeatedly the January 18 article offered by President
Obama that appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Interestingly, they
leave out one section of what the President did, in fact, say. They do
say, and I agree that he said in the article, ``Sometimes those rules
have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business,
burdens that have stifled innovation and had a chilling effect on
growth and jobs.'' That is where they stop. But the President in that
article goes on: ``At other times, we fail to meet our basic
responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous
consequences.''
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, earlier I began by saying what a lack of
regulation caused at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
President, in The Wall Street Journal article, says, ``Such was the
case in the run-up to the financial crisis, from which we are still
recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly
led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale
depression.''
Now, that began before Barack Obama was President of the United
States. Most of us, especially those of us on the floor that are senior
Members, were here in November when Secretary Paulson came here and
cited with 3\1/2\ pages in his hands that the whole financial system of
this country was about to collapse; and I, along with countless others,
thought that that was the case, and we worked in a bipartisan fashion,
I might add, to do what we could to shore it up.
[[Page H620]]
``Over the past 2 years,'' the President said, ``the goal of my
administration has been to strike the right balance, and today I am
signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating
principle of our government.''
Then what else do we need? Here is what we did one month ago, just
one month ago. We approved the rules under which committees must, and I
repeat, one, lay out a written plan for overseeing Federal regulations;
and, two, conduct oversight through hearings and investigations and
provide the American people a written report on the results of that
oversight twice a year.
The rules even specifically tell committees to review, and I am
quoting from the rules that we passed for the House of Representatives
for the 112th Congress, they tell the committees ``to review specific
problems with Federal Rules, regulations, statutes and court decisions
that are ambiguous, arbitrary or nonsensical, or that impose severe
financial burdens on individuals.''
{time} 1330
Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange, then, that we would come here
today and say that we are doing something constructive and substantive
for the membership. My friend Mr. Sessions said earlier that we're
going to give every Member of the House of Representatives who so
chooses during that 9\1/2\ hours an opportunity to speak out on the
regulations and to have what they would offer to the committees for
regulation oversight. But what he fails to say is that we're proceeding
under a closed rule.
Now, it isn't that the American public always understands this
Washington inside-baseball closed rule, open rule, modified rule. He
was going to fix it, he says, by offering the Democrats a motion to
recommit, as if that would then provide all the substantive input that
Members could have. One of the reasons we have a Rules Committee is so
that Members of the House of Representatives can come to the Rules
Committee to offer amendments to proposals. The proposal that we are
here on today is regulatory reform. Not one amendment was permitted nor
will be permitted under this rule. We can come down here and talk all
we want, but it won't change anything substantively about this rule. As
I have indicated, Democrats are not opposed to conducting proper
oversight. If there are superfluous or excessive regulations clearly of
no benefit to the American people, then we ought to take a hard look at
how best to eliminate them.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, we're more than 5 weeks into this Congress and the
majority has yet to bring to the floor even a single bill aimed at job
creation. Yesterday I asked, Where is the job creation agenda? The
American people have said loud and clear job creation should be our top
priority, and the Republicans have pledged a ``laser-like focus'' on
the issue. Today they're planning 10 hours of meaningless debate to
instruct committees to do oversight which they should be doing anyhow.
Let me offer an alternative.
Today I introduced H.R. 11, legislation to extend the successful
Build America Bonds program--a jobs bill. During the last 2 years, $4.4
billion from the Recovery Act leveraged $181 billion in new bonds at
the State and local levels. And $181 billion is needed in construction,
bridge, and road repairs--$181 billion in job creation. My own State of
Virginia issued $3.3 billion of those bonds in 45 distinct projects,
and Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of jobs were created. We can
create hundreds of thousands more if we extend this program. So I ask
my colleagues, if you're serious about job creation, support H.R. 11.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my
colleague Mr. Sessions, as a matter of comity, it was pointed out to me
by the chairman that I could have asked him. I was of the opinion that
the Speaker would give the direction you did, and therefore I apologize
to Mr. Sessions for that.
But Democrats now stand for the wholesale undertaking of what is
necessary to provide essential public safety measures and crucial
economic benefits. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules
that prevent polluters from dumping toxic waste into drinking water
resources. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that
prevent Wall Street greed from forcing people out of their homes. And
Democrats will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules which ensure
that Americans can purchase food at the grocery store without worrying
about getting life-threatening illnesses.
While we won't object to Republicans wanting to debate the efficiency
of Federal regulations, we do object to spending 9\1/2\ hours debating
what everyone has already agreed to. House committees are already
required to conduct oversight. They already examine Federal
regulations. And they already promulgate legislation making changes to
Federal law. Wasting this body's time debating this matter only serves
to underscore that Republicans still have no plan for improving the
economy and no interest, it does appear, in prioritizing legislation
that will create jobs and best serve the American people.
In the 9\1/2\ hours this body will debate today and tomorrow this
entirely unnecessary, inconsequential resolution, not a single
regulation will be improved, not a single law will be changed, and not
a single job will be created. The American people watching know that
this is simply a waste of time. They know it is nothing but empty
rhetoric. And they know that a 9\1/2\-hour ideological rant is no
replacement for the job-creating measures our Nation so desperately
needs.
If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, as I announced
earlier, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that
immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11,
the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Big Government is still alive and well on
the floor today. Big Government is going to spend people's money from
back home. Spending, spending, spending--all about the government.
Well, that's why the Republican Party is the majority party on the
floor of the House of Representatives now, because the American people
saw the effects of huge government, bigger government, and rules and
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, you heard me earlier say that my Republican colleagues
and I are committed to putting Americans back to work. We believe that
what happens in Washington can aid and help the free enterprise system
by telling the story, putting the spotlight, showing the light of day
on the rules and regulations that are costing business $1.7 trillion a
year, which takes resources away from the activities that they would
have of job creation and keeping our job growth, innovation, and our
economy stable.
While small businesses are getting hit harder than any other firms in
the United States, now is the time to provide that relief to these
businesses so that they can reinvest in themselves, create jobs, and
level out the economy. This Republican Congress remains committed to
scaling back some of the 43 major regulations imposed in the last year
by the Obama administration that would add $28 billion annually.
Mr. Speaker, it's obvious to me that we must do better.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 73 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the
Build America Bonds program. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority
Leader or their respective designees. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. All points of order against
[[Page H621]]
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2--of this
resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________