[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 21 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H631-H659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DIRECTING COMMITTEES TO REVIEW REGULATIONS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on 
ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 73) providing 
for consideration of 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, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 180, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               YEAS--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--180

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachus
     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Crawford
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Latham
     McCarthy (NY)
     Platts
     Ryan (OH)
     Shuster

                              {time}  1519

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

[[Page H632]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255, 
nays 169, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                               YEAS--255

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--169

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Cleaver
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Harman
     Platts
     Ryan (OH)
     Shuster

                              {time}  1527

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 73, I call up 
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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 73, the 
amendment printed in the resolution is adopted and the resolution, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                               H. Res. 72

       Resolved, That each standing committee designated in 
     section 3 of this resolution shall inventory and review 
     existing, pending, and proposed regulations, orders, and 
     other administrative actions or procedures by agencies of the 
     Federal Government within such committee's jurisdiction. In 
     completing such inventory and review, each committee shall 
     consider the matters described in section 2. Each committee 
     shall conduct such hearings and other oversight activities as 
     it deems necessary in support of the inventory and review, 
     and shall identify in any report filed pursuant to clause 
     1(d) of rule XI for the first session of the 112th Congress 
     any oversight or legislative activity conducted in support 
     of, or as a result of, such inventory and review.

     SEC. 2. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION.

       In completing the review and inventory described in the 
     first section of this resolution, each committee shall 
     identify regulations, executive and agency orders, and other 
     administrative actions or procedures that--
       (1) impede private-sector job creation;
       (2) discourage innovation and entrepreneurial activity;
       (3) hurt economic growth and investment;
       (4) harm the Nation's global competitiveness;
       (5) limit access to credit and capital;
       (6) fail to utilize or apply accurate cost-benefit 
     analyses;
       (7) create additional economic uncertainty;
       (8) are promulgated in such a way as to limit transparency 
     and the opportunity for public comment, particularly by 
     affected parties;
       (9) lack specific statutory authorization;
       (10) undermine labor-management relations;
       (11) result in large-scale unfunded mandates on employers 
     without due cause;
       (12) impose undue paperwork and cost burdens on small 
     businesses; or
       (13) prevent the United States from becoming less dependent 
     on foreign energy sources.

     SEC. 3. COMMITTEES.

       The committees referred to in the first section of this 
     resolution are as follows--
       (1) The Committee on Agriculture;
       (2) The Committee on Education and the Workforce;
       (3) The Committee on Energy and Commerce;
       (4) The Committee on Financial Services;
       (5) The Committee on the Judiciary;
       (6) The Committee on Natural Resources;
       (7) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform;
       (8) The Committee on Small Business;
       (9) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and
       (10) The Committee on Ways and Means.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 9 
hours and 30 minutes, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the majority leader and minority leader or their designees, 8 hours 
equally divided and controlled by the 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 1 hour equally divided among and controlled by the chairs 
and ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and the 
Workforce and Small Business.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all

[[Page H633]]

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 Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I 
often see the impact that regulations have on small businesses. Harmful 
Federal regulations can put serious hurdles in the way of 
entrepreneurship, making it difficult to create jobs and expand 
businesses. As we try to encourage a lasting, stable economic recovery, 
it is critical we review and analyze the impact of proposed and 
existing regulations on small businesses. We must make sure regulators 
are not making irreversible decisions that could strain the competitive 
ability of small businesses, prevent expansion, reduce access to 
capital and harm the overall growth of the American economy.

                              {time}  1530

  Not only are regulations potentially harmful to small businesses, 
there are simply too many regulations for businesses to follow. In 
2010, the Federal Register, the daily digest of the Federal agency 
regulatory announcements, contained about 82,000 pages, in comparison 
to the roughly 42,000 pages in 1980.
  President Reagan and every President since ordered Federal 
bureaucrats to review regulations. Despite this, very few rules are 
ever repealed. President Reagan and every President since has ordered 
the Office of Management and Budget to review new regulations. And 
despite this review, Federal agencies continue to issue new 
regulations. President Reagan and every President since has issued an 
Executive Order mandating that agencies only promulgate rules in which 
benefits exceed the costs. Despite this, agencies continue to issue 
regulations imposing undue costs on small businesses. President Reagan 
and every President since has sought to strengthen the enforcement of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act. But despite this, reporting and record 
keeping requirements continue to bury small business owners.
  Ultimately, what is at stake is whether small businesses will succeed 
in the free market or have their success determined by the whims and 
dictates of Federal bureaucrats. If the President and agencies are 
unable to stem this tide and allow small businesses to do what they do 
best--that is create jobs--then Congress has to act. The resolution 
before us today is just that, a call for Congress to act.
  I strongly endorse this resolution and look forward to the Committee 
on Small Business reviewing agency regulations that are duplicative, 
unnecessary, or otherwise inhibit small business expansion.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses are central to the economic recovery 
currently underway. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles for 
entrepreneurs to overcome in order to be successful. One of the most 
notable is regulatory burden, the hours upon hours it takes an 
entrepreneur to navigate and complete Federal, State, or municipal 
government paperwork.
  This impediment has grown dramatically in recent years. According to 
the SBA's Office of Advocacy, rules imposed from the Federal Government 
now cost Americans some $1.75 trillion each year. This is 50 percent 
higher than the $1.1 trillion in costs reported in 2005. We know that 
this burden falls heaviest on small firms. Research shows that small 
businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, an 
amount that is 36 percent higher than those facing large firms. And 
Federal agencies continue to release tens of thousands of pages of 
regulations each year.
  With this problem getting worse, it is certainly worth Congress' time 
and attention. In the Committee on Small Business, we have been 
reviewing regulations in a bipartisan fashion for years. As a result of 
this examination, we have called on Federal agencies to modify or 
eliminate regulatory requirements that adversely affect small firms, 
whether they are related to medical equipment at CMS, accounting 
requirements at the SEC, real estate procedures at HUD, or 
environmental regulations at the EPA.
  The reality is that we already do what this resolution calls for. As 
a result, today's resolution does not help one small businessperson. It 
sets up a bureaucratic process here in Congress with the goal of 
producing a list of regulations. How does a ``list'' help small 
businesses? It doesn't. Anyone that has spent 5 minutes with a small 
business owner knows that this is a top problem for them. This 
resolution is nothing more than a vehicle to rehash old politically 
motivated fights and just creates more paperwork here in Congress.
  Instead of approving this green eyeshade bookkeeping resolution, what 
we need to do is make sure that the actual tools already available to 
reduce regulatory burden are effective. This includes the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, which mandates that Federal agencies consider the 
potential economic impact of Federal regulations as well as conduct 
periodic reviews of rules that have a significant economic impact on 
businesses. Making these laws work better--or expanding them further--
is what we should be doing instead of passing this resolution. 
Requiring tougher and more agency reviews of regulation as well as 
considering broader economic effects of regulations are necessary. Here 
in the House, our committee reported bipartisan legislation in the 
110th Congress to do just that.
  As we navigate this issue over the next 24 months, we cannot lose 
sight of who we are trying to actually help. It is the small business 
owner that needs our assistance. Unfortunately, if this resolution is 
the best we can do, small businesses may have to wait a long time for 
real and meaningful relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution 
be yielded back and that H. Res. 72 be adopted so we can move to 
consider legislation creating jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the majority manager, the gentleman 
from Missouri, yield for the purpose of that unanimous consent request?
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield for the purpose 
of that request.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, we will continue this debate that will 
end up not creating one single job.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Health Care and Technology.
  (Mrs. ELLMERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, in all of my years in business, I can 
honestly say that I have never seen an administration so prepared to 
regulate nearly every ailment, either real or perceived. Nearly every 
segment of industry has been subjected to increased regulation, whether 
it be banking, energy, automotive, services, and of course, health 
care. Ronald Reagan once said, ``Government exists to protect us from 
each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding 
to protect us from ourselves.''
  As a nurse and small business owner, I worked with my husband as a 
clinical director of the Trinity Wound Care Center in Dunn, North 
Carolina, where I saw firsthand the damage that government regulations 
can do to the growth of small businesses. The costs of these rules pile 
up. It's easy to understand why businesses are reportedly sitting on $2 
trillion in cash. Businesses don't know the true cost to comply with 
the rules just imposed and are concerned about the costs and rules yet 
to come.
  No business can properly plan with roaming regulatory activity. This 
halts job growth and investment in its tracks. Just yesterday, a small 
business owner in my district testified in the Small Business Committee 
about this issue. He said working through a recession is tough, but 
adding to the burden with cumbersome and confusing new laws and 
regulations makes a recovery twice as hard. The uncertainty being 
created by Washington is stifling his small business recovery. He 
testified that the new health care law and the uncertainty it is 
creating for small business owners makes it harder for

[[Page H634]]

him to determine what his costs are. This is a time when he is 
struggling to meet the most basic costs of running his business. 
Another witness, a restaurant owner, even stated that if he had to 
start his business today, he would probably decide against starting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  He even stated that he wouldn't start his business. He further stated 
that he still may have to close his doors. Beyond existing businesses, 
regulations may prevent new firms and startups from entering the 
market. These startups are the very businesses that create the jobs in 
America.

                              {time}  1540

  According to a study using business dynamic statistics between 1977 
and 2005, in their first year new firms add an average of 3 million 
jobs. My message today is simple. We must remove burdensome regulations 
so that businesses can grow and entrepreneurs can start new businesses.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, the rapidly expanding Federal regulatory 
burden is a bipartisan problem, and I commend the chairman of the 
committee, my friend from Missouri, for his efforts in working, not 
just in his time as chairman, but working with the committee in the 
previous years.
  And I know that he understands that this is not a Republican or a 
Democratic problem, because the regulatory burdens on small businesses 
increased by $30 billion from the years 2001-2008, and Federal 
regulations now cost Americans $1.75 trillion each year, which is up 50 
percent from the $1.1 trillion in annual costs just in 2005.
  And last year, the Federal Register contained 80,000 pages. In its 
first year in print, the Federal Register contained 2,355 pages. And 
each year, Federal agencies continue to release thousands of pages of 
new regulations and accompanying information. And I know that the 
gentleman understands that, and we share the goal of reducing this 
burden because the burden is detrimental, and it affects small 
businesses.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, studies indicate that adhering to Federal rules 
cost $10,585 per worker for small businesses with 19 or fewer workers, 
but only 78 percent of that amount for businesses with 500-plus 
workers. It affects small businesses disproportionately.
  Overall, on a per-employee basis, it costs $2,400, or 45 percent, 
more for small businesses to comply with Federal regulations than their 
larger counterparts.
  Small businesses face the greatest disadvantage in complying with 
environmental and tax regulations. Compliance with environmental 
regulations cost 364 percent more in small firms than large, and 67 
percent more for the cost of corporate tax compliance.
  So we agree on the problem. The question is, Where do we go from 
here?
  And this is where I have a concern with what Chairman Graves is 
putting forward. What does H. Res. 72 call for that we're not already 
doing?
  The Committee on Small Business has been reviewing regulations in a 
bipartisan fashion for years. The gentleman has been involved in that. 
And as a result of these examinations, it's called on Federal agencies 
to modify or alter regulatory requirements that impose costs on small 
firms. This has included regulations pertaining to medical equipment at 
CMS, accounting requirements at the SEC, real estate procedures at HUD, 
environmental regulations at the EPA, and on it goes.
  So the reality, Mr. Speaker, is we've already done, as a committee, 
what this resolution calls for. And I will include in the Record the 
112th Congress Small Business Committee's Oversight of Federal 
Regulatory and Paperwork Burdens administrative plan, what the 
committee has already passed.
  So my question for the gentleman from Missouri to answer during the 
course of the debate is: What exactly does this resolution do for small 
businesses that we're not already doing? Is there anything in this 
that's not already being done now? Does it actually reduce any real 
regulatory burden on small businesses? Does it reduce paperwork? Does 
it limit government requirements on the small business community?
  I would submit that this particular resolution does not. It sets up a 
bureaucratic process here in the Congress with a goal of inventory of 
regulations, a long list of inventory regulations. But this list will 
be submitted as part of an administrative reporting process. It does 
nothing for small businesses.
  So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that instead of 
approving this bookkeeping resolution, what Congress really needs to do 
is strengthen the tools it already has available to reduce regulatory 
burdens. This includes the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which mandates 
that Federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of Federal 
regulations, strengthening the requirements and increasing agency 
reviews and regulations, regulatory relief that we passed here in the 
Congress during the 110th Congress, reported out by the Small Business 
Committee related to bipartisan regulatory reductions.
  And as we continue to revisit these issues here in the 112th 
Congress, we must remember that small businesses are who we're trying 
to help.
  So, in closing, I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that what this 
legislation does is add an unnecessary step to getting down to the 
business that we can all agree on, which is actually reducing the 
regulations that we all agree are a problem.


         oversight of federal regulatory and paperwork burdens

       The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into 
     unnecessary, burdensome, and duplicative federal rules, 
     reporting and recordkeeping requirements affecting small 
     businesses that may include any or all of the following, as 
     well as matters brought to the attention of the Committee 
     subsequent to the filing of this Report:
       Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
       Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
       Consumer Safety Products Commission.
       Department of Agriculture.
       Department of Energy, particularly the Office of Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
       Department of Interior, particularly the Bureau of Land 
     Management and Minerals Management Service.
       Department of Labor, particularly the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration.
       Department of Homeland Security, particularly the 
     Transportation Security Administration.
       Department of Transportation, particularly the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration.
       Environmental Protection Agency.
       Federal Communications Commission.
       Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and its 
     constituent agencies.
       Food and Drug Administration.
       Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
       Securities and Exchange Commission.
       The Committee will identify specific rules and regulations 
     already issued or at the proposed rule stage to assess the 
     impact on small businesses. The Committee will pay close 
     attention to the effect that regulations have on the 
     implementation of advanced technologies including, but not 
     limited to, the deployment of broadband communications 
     (either by wireline or wireless services) throughout the 
     United States. Oversight of the regulatory process also will, 
     to the extent relevant, examine the work of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of 
     Management and Budget. Special attention will be paid to the 
     work performed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the 
     United States Small Business Administration to ensure that 
     Office is fulfilling its mission to advocate vigorously on 
     behalf of America's small business owners in regulatory 
     matters at federal agencies. Finally, this oversight will 
     entail an examination of compliance by federal agencies with 
     amendments to Executive Order 12866 and memoranda on 
     regulatory flexibility and regulatory compliance issued by 
     the President on January 18, 2011.

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  (Mr. LANDRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, our government is working against us. Dana 
Dugas in St. Martinville wanted to continue to live the American Dream. 
He wanted to start his own small business.
  Mr. Dugas had all the credentials needed to secure a loan: he had run 
a small successful business before, creating jobs and helping fuel 
coastal Louisiana's economy. He had the approval from two banks in St. 
Martinville,

[[Page H635]]

$200,000 in cash, a prime location, $205,000 worth of renovations to 
bring the building up to code, $205,000 in equipment and fixtures that 
he needed.
  Mr. Dugas had an 800-plus credit score and 20 percent-plus cash in 
the bank for the down payment. He had a sound business plan with 
projections showing a 14 percent profit. His business would employ 10 
to 15 full-time employees, and 10 to 20 part-time employees. His 
appraisal came in at $605,000, $200,000 more than he needed.
  Everything looked great. Right? So you'd think. Everything looked 
great until his community small bank told him they could not make that 
loan. Due to new regulations, they directed him to work with a larger 
bank and through SBA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. LANDRY. Then the Feds needed him to prove that he could pay back 
the loan without the income of his restaurant. That sounds like someone 
buying a house and having to prove that he can pay the note without a 
job.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to get our government back on the side of Mr. 
Dugas and the American people, back on the side of free enterprise, 
back on the side of small businesses, and back on the side of the job 
creators.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. 
Res. 72. H. Res. 72 is basically a solution in search of a problem. The 
House Small Business Committee already has a long bipartisan legacy of 
providing oversight and, when necessary, calling on government agencies 
to alter regulatory requirements that adversely affect small 
businesses.
  H. Res. 72 does nothing to assist small businesses to create jobs, 
nor does it reduce Federal requirements on small businesses. All it 
does is order committees to do what they already do anyway.
  Instead of distracting the American people's attention with this ploy 
disguised as a resolution, we should be focusing on doing what the 
American people want from us, which is to focus our efforts on the 
sorely needed real job-creation measures.
  We are currently in our fifth week of the 112th Congress, and the new 
majority has not brought one bill to the floor that specifically 
focuses on job creation. How much longer must the job seekers of 
Brooklyn's 11th Congressional District wait before the new majority 
begins bringing legislation to the floor that promotes meaningful job 
creation?
  If this is the best we can do, we are falling woefully short of the 
expectation of America's small businesses.
  President Obama has made it clear that his primary objective is to 
promote job growth. We should be working with President Obama for the 
American people by bringing to the floor substantive legislation 
specifically targeted towards our small business entrepreneurs and 
meaningful and substantive job growth.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Energy and Trade, Mr. Tipton.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, regulations cost the American people $1.75 trillion 
annually. And just last year, the Obama administration unleashed 46 new 
regulations that will place an additional $26.5 billion drain on the 
American economy.
  Of those 46 new regulations, 10 came from the EPA, including job-
killing regulations of carbon emissions and increased CAFE standards. 
The cost of these new EPA regulations alone total $23 billion annually. 
These EPA regulations run counter to the free market principles and 
directly impact rural communities, small businesses, and families in my 
district. We simply cannot continue down the path of creating 
unnecessary regulatory traps that drain our economy and do little more 
than penalize small businesses and discourage job creation.
  To be clear, not all regulations are unwarranted. Commonsense rules 
play an important role in our economy and in keeping the American 
people safe. However, common sense has been lost in the regulatory 
process that has become politicized and wrought with bureaucracy and 
overlap.
  As a small business owner, I know firsthand the negative impacts that 
unnecessary regulations and excessive government involvement can have 
on entrepreneurs. Just yesterday, I participated in a hearing with the 
Small Business Committee where we focused on one such example of the 
job-killing government interference of the 1099 reporting requirement 
included in the President's health care law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. TIPTON. Repealing the 1099 requirement is a good start, and our 
focus must remain on restoring a stable climate in our economy so it 
will not be rife with uncertainty and overregulation so small business, 
the backbone of our economy, can do what it does best: create jobs and 
grow our economy.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade for 
the Small Business Committee, I will take action. The fact that the 
Federal regulation targets on small businesses more than on any other 
sector is not acceptable. It's time we change the way that regulation 
is enacted and increase congressional oversight.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri has 7\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on behalf of small business men 
and women all across America in their fight to survive and grow. 
Winston Churchill once said: If you have 10,000 regulations, you 
destroy respect for the rule of law. And that is exactly what our 
government is doing. We are destroying respect for law and losing the 
respect and trust of those who sent us here to do our job, not dictate 
through regulations how they do their jobs. Government regulations are 
putting a stranglehold on businesses in America, and it must be reined 
in.
  I just returned from spending 12 days across the Third District of 
Tennessee, and I heard the same thing over and over again: Chuck, 
please get the Federal Government out of our lives. It's destroying our 
businesses and preventing us from growing.
  As a member of the Small Business Committee, I was proud to cosponsor 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act that does away with the onerous 
1099 reporting regulation found within ObamaCare. It is long overdue 
for the government to get out of the way and allow the American 
entrepreneurs to do what they do best: create jobs and produce capital.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. I rise today to oppose House Resolution 72. This is a 
meaningless gimmick that only wastes time.
  While I do not oppose its spirit, I do oppose spending House floor 
time debating a bill that is wholly and completely redundant. It is 
already the job of committees to review Federal regulations and laws, 
and, in fact, the Committee on Small Business has been actively doing 
this.
  But this bill doesn't do one thing to help small business. It does 
nothing to actually reduce real regulatory burden on small businesses. 
It does not reduce paperwork nor limit government requirements on the 
business community. In fact, it only sets up a bureaucratic process 
here in Congress with a goal of producing an inventory of regulations, 
something we already do.
  We have already passed strong bills, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
and, most recently, the Dodd-Frank bill, which sets up a very strong 
protection,

[[Page H636]]

something that has not been done before. The Consumer Protection Agency 
must meet with small businesses before any new regulation is passed.
  So why aren't we doing something to actually help small business come 
out from this tough recession? Why haven't we voted on a single bill 
creating jobs since the Republicans took over the majority? Why haven't 
we voted on a single bill to help small businesses?
  Small businesses are responsible for two-thirds of net new jobs. But 
if this resolution is the best we can do, small businesses will have to 
wait a long time for real relief, and that's not good enough for our 
economy or the American people.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Investigation, Oversight and Regulations, Mr. Coffman.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 4, the Small Business 
Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.
  Yesterday, we heard testimony in the Small Business Committee from 
the bill's author, Representative Dan Lungren of California. In 
addition, small business owners, including a constituent of mine, Mark 
Eagleton of Golden, Colorado, also testified.
  House Resolution 4 would repeal the provision from the recently 
passed health care reform law that requires every business to file a 
1099 form with the IRS for every vendor with which they conduct 
business transactions of $600 or more on an annual basis. This 
requirement will force businesses to use scarce resources to comply 
with this burdensome government mandate, and it will take away from 
their ability to grow and create jobs.
  In these tough economic times, it is important for government to take 
proactive steps that will foster small business expansion and job 
growth. Unfortunately, the recently passed health care reform law will 
lead to the opposite. Increased government mandates, such as the 1099 
reporting requirement, will lead to reduced revenues, job losses, and 
will only extend this economic downturn with its high levels of 
unemployment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business 
Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011, which will rid American 
businesses of this job-killing requirement. We must start over and pass 
meaningful reforms that will lower the cost of health care for all 
Americans while supporting growth of America's small businesses.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are considering 
today will not help one single small business. It will not reduce 
paperwork for entrepreneurs nor will it result in a less intrusive 
government.

                              {time}  1600

  This resolution will do none of this.
  The previous speaker was talking about the fact that yesterday we 
held a hearing in the Small Business Committee discussing the burden of 
1099s. We know that there is bipartisan agreement on this issue, so 
let's fix it instead of wasting time, hours here that will take us 
nowhere. Why can't the Republican leadership bring the issue of the 
1099, where there is bipartisan agreement, and get it done? That will 
help small businesses, and it will create jobs. But this resolution 
will not achieve that.
  What it does do is create bureaucratic bookkeeping requirements for 
House committees. I guess for some this might be a good sound bite, but 
this does not provide any concrete solutions for our Nation's small 
business owners who are drowning in government regulations.
  If we want real change, we have to transform how executive branch 
agencies create and approve regulations. This means ensuring that 
businesses are given meaningful involvement in the process, not just a 
token role. It also means that agencies should consider the impact on 
the business community before they begin writing the regulation, not 
when it is nearly complete.
  Changes like this are long overdue. The reality is that the 
regulatory burden has grown dramatically under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, rising by over $30 billion under George W. 
Bush's administration alone.
  This is a bipartisan problem that needs a bipartisan solution. With 
this in mind, I look forward to working with anyone that is interested 
in bringing real regulatory relief to small businesses.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  As we are seeing unfold throughout our country and also especially my 
22nd Congressional District in Florida, this health care bill has been 
detrimental to the survival and growth of our small businesses. 
Employers are choosing to drop health care for their employees, which 
will flood this government-run health care system, eventually leading 
to a lower quality of health care.
  According to the Small Business Administration, the smallest firms 
spend 36 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with 
Federal regulations. It comes out to about $10,585 per employee for all 
Federal regulations. The multitude of rules, restrictions and mandates 
imposes a heavy burden on Americans and the U.S. economy and could 
destroy an untold number of jobs.
  The Obama administration promulgated 59 major regulations in 2009, 62 
in 2010, another 191 regulations are in the works, and the Dodd-Frank 
permanent bailout bill alone requires no fewer than 243 new rules by 11 
agencies over a dozen years.
  The SBA also estimates the total cost for all Federal regulations is 
roughly $1.75 trillion each year. All of the Federal red tape is a tax 
and regulatory straightjacket that is crippling our economic recovery.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say 
that this resolution before us, as has been said, it is not a 
Democratic or a Republican issue; rather, it is an issue of good 
government and it identifies those irrational rules that represent 
barriers to job growth.
  Mr. Speaker, the last Congress and this administration passed bill 
after bill after bill that either taxed or regulated businesses and 
small firms right out of business, and it is going to take time to 
unravel that mess. With this bill, again, we are going to identify a 
lot of those irrational rules that represent those barriers.
  With that, I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
pending resolution, particularly with respect to the effect on jobs and 
the economy.
  My colleagues on the other side are going to oppose this effort, 
claiming we are seeking to strip basic public health and safety 
protections. No one is in favor of hurting those in those areas, but 
that is not the purpose of us being here today.
  We have had numerous hearings over the last couple of days on rules 
and regulations and how they hurt job creation. This gives power back 
to the committees to then do that, fine-tooth comb through rules and 
regulations and address what the President talked about in his State of 
the Union; where there are rules and regulations that don't make sense, 
we need to eliminate them, because we need to focus on job creation. We 
can't regulate existing businesses into the ground on the hope that 
better ones will come later. We must protect the jobs currently we have 
and open the doors for new businesses as well.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, I 
am particularly interested in the activities of the EPA. I am going to 
talk about three examples, one we heard yesterday in testimony.
  United States Steel came before us and said imagine a regulation 
where we have to decrease the heat in the preparation of steel to 
comply with NOX, but as we move to EPA rules and regulations 
on greenhouse gasses we actually have to use the same process and heat

[[Page H637]]

that process up. So U.S. Steel will be caught in a catch-22. Under one 
reg, they have to keep the heat low to comply with nitrous oxide 
regulations; on the other hand, in the same process, they have to heat 
it up to meet the greenhouse gas rules.
  Now, what is a steel company going to do? They are going to move to 
China. You can't develop rules and regulations that cannot be complied 
with by existing known technologies, and that was just a perfect 
example.
  Another one that I find, and a lot of these things not only hurt 
jobs, but they are going to hurt the environment. The example is the 
redefinition of used oil as a solid waste. Now, this sounds like, what 
are they talking about?
  Many of us, and there are times when many of us, when we were young, 
we changed our own oil. We would get underneath the car, pull the plug 
and drain the oil. Fortunately, in today's world, you can take it to an 
auto repair shop, you can take it to maybe a parts store, and you can 
then recycle that used oil.
  Not if the EPA has its say, because what they do in the redefinition 
of this is the only way you can dispose of this off-brand, off-used oil 
is to burn it. Oh, that is real great for the environment, burning the 
used oil. And what will the home do-it-yourselfer do? They are probably 
going to pour it on the ground. So EPA regs not only hurt job creation, 
but they have a great effect in hurting and harming the economy.
  The next one, one of the issues we will address next week in the 
committee is coal ash byproducts. This is another one that is curious 
in which the EPA is trying to meddle in. Despite EPA's own testing and 
admittance that these coal byproducts do not qualify as hazardous waste 
based on their toxicity, EPA wants to label them as toxic material.
  What does that mean? Any byproducts used will then be required to be 
disposed of in special landfills or dumps and not recycled. Coal ash 
can't go into concrete. Gypsum can't go into wallboard. Wallboard that 
has to be disposed of or you are going to remodel your home, what 
happens to that wallboard? The cost of doing business increases, and 
these all are things that hurt job creation.

                              {time}  1610

  We applaud President Obama in his State of the Union when he says 
there's too many regulations and we need to ease the regulatory burden. 
That's the importance of what we're doing here--one of the few things 
we agree on with the administration. And this will allow us committee 
by committee to go through the process and identify those hindrances 
and start to move legislation to address those.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our highest priority should be to put America back to work. We need 
jobs, investment, and growth; but that's not what we're doing in 
Congress. Yesterday the Energy and Commerce Committee held one hearing 
attacking women's reproductive rights and another promoting legislation 
to roll back the Clean Air Act. And today we're spending all day 
debating a meaningless resolution no one disagrees with. None of this 
will create any jobs or make our economy stronger.
  The resolution we're debating directs several committees, including 
my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to conduct 
oversight of government regulations. Well, I support oversight and 
reforming unnecessary or outdated regulations. That's part of our job. 
We don't need a resolution to do our job.
  But we need to be honest with American families. Our economy is not 
in a recession because of regulations. We are in a recession because 
Wall Street ran amok and Federal regulators were asleep on the job. It 
is too little regulation of Wall Street--not overregulation--that 
caused our economic woes. And that's why this resolution is going to do 
nothing to get our economy growing again.
  I ask my colleagues to remember the collapse of Wall Street in 2008. 
This meltdown in the financial markets threw our economy into the 
deepest recession since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans 
lost their jobs, and it cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars to bail 
out AIG and Wall Street banks. The cause wasn't regulation. As Alan 
Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve Board, testified before me 
and other members of the Oversight Committee, he had ``made a mistake'' 
in promoting deregulation. He said he had ``found a flaw'' in his free-
market ideology and was in ``a state of shocked disbelief.''
  The Deepwater Horizon oil spill wreaked havoc on the economies of the 
Gulf States. It wasn't caused by too little oversight and too much 
regulation. It was because there wasn't enough oversight and 
regulation. Thousands of jobs were lost in the gulf because Deepwater 
Horizon was not subject to proper safety and environmental regulations.
  No one disagrees that ongoing oversight of regulations is necessary. 
In his address to the Chamber of Commerce on Monday, President Obama 
said that Federal agencies are already conducting a comprehensive 
review of existing regulations to identify and fix those that are 
outdated and unnecessary. As the President said, we should design 
regulations intelligently and ``get rid of regulations that have 
outlived their usefulness or don't work.''
  But this isn't going to create new jobs, reduce our deficit, or make 
the middle class stronger. To grow our economy, we need to invest in 
new clean energy jobs; we need to bring broadband connections to all 
parts of America; and we need to continue to make health care more 
efficient. That's what we should be talking about on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed 
to control the time for the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Health 
Subcommittee, Joe Pitts.
  Mr. PITTS. The United States is in danger of losing its status as the 
world leader in medical device innovation. Multiple studies have shown 
that regulatory uncertainty and a delay and inefficiency at the Food 
and Drug Administration are damaging this critical industry.
  Shorter, more predictable and more transparent approval processes in 
Europe have led many device companies to seek to market their products 
in Europe before submitting them to the FDA. This hurts American 
patients who, on average, have access to innovative medical devices 2 
years later than patients in European countries, and, in some cases, 
never have access to these devices. And does a longer, more uncertain 
regulatory process by FDA result in making American patients any safer? 
The answer is no.
  According to recent studies, medical devices marketed through the 
shorter and more transparent European regulatory processes are 
statistically as safe as FDA-cleared and -approved devices and have 
comparable patient outcomes. Regulatory uncertainty also hurts American 
competitiveness as innovative device companies are moving jobs 
overseas.
  And these are good jobs. Nationally, jobs in medical technology pay 
almost 40 percent higher compared to the national earnings average. San 
Diego-based NuVasive, a medical device company, is a case study of what 
regulatory burdens and delays can do to a company. NuVasive reports 
that in the last 18 to 24 months, ``longer FDA approval times have 
directly resulted in significant revenue loss estimated at $70 million, 
increased operating expenses of over $2 million, hundreds of new jobs 
eliminated, and less investment in research and development.''
  The company continues: ``It is becoming far more efficient and faster 
to innovate outside the U.S.A. in such places as Europe. Non-U.S.A. 
systems have more timely, predictable, and transparent process. We have 
seen U.S.A. delays of 3 to 70 months, which has forced NuVasive to 
rethink longer-term strategies around where to place research and 
development jobs and even whether or not to invest in innovation of new 
products.''

[[Page H638]]

  This is just one company, but this scenario is playing out 
nationwide. Unfortunately, this scenario also is playing out in 
prescription drugs space. The uncertainty and lack of transparency in 
the drug approval process is hurting American job creation and hurting 
American patients. We need to improve these problems at FDA so American 
patients have timely access to life-saving, life-improving drugs and 
devices and American workers have access to these good jobs.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to get going. We were sworn in over a 
month ago now, when the highest priority in this country, everybody 
agrees, is creating jobs. And, frankly, with unemployment still 
hovering around 9 percent, we have no time to waste dithering around 
arguing about what we should do.
  This resolution does not do one thing to create one job. So, once 
again, what are we doing? We're standing on the House floor debating 
for 9\1/2\ hours, wasting the American people's time, which is time we 
could be using to sit down on a bipartisan basis and bring jobs, 
investment, and growth to this country. What we're doing here is time-
consuming, but it really means nothing in the end. It's a resolution. 
It's a resolution that directs certain standing committees to look at 
regulations and to decide if they think that it has some impact on 
jobs. It lists a number of matters for consideration. It gives no 
deadline by which the committees have to investigate these issues. It 
gives no standards for the various matters for consideration, including 
impede private sector job creation, et cetera. So you can bet we'll 
have long debates over each one of those criteria.
  But, then, what is most unbelievable about this resolution, it really 
doesn't say what we should do about it. Let's say all the committees 
meet month after month determining day after day, hearing after hearing 
that there's some impeding on business. Then what do they do? And 
that's what's so frustrating, because the American people don't want 
more review, inventory, or compilation of regulations. They want their 
families to have jobs. And so that's why we really need to sit down and 
talk about how will we create jobs.
  This resolution won't save one home from foreclosure, it won't help 
repair one crumbling bridge or potholed road, it won't extend a mile of 
broadband. It wouldn't ensure one school lunch for our children or 
provide a patient greater access to hospitals or doctors. It won't do 
any of that.

                              {time}  1620

  What's worse, Mr. Speaker, is that, as we take this debate on today, 
we need to remember the committees are already bound by the rules of 
the House to provide proper oversight. We don't need 2 days to debate a 
resolution that tells the committees what they already have a 
constitutional duty to do.
  Frankly, I am concerned, too, because there is nothing this Congress 
has done today to give us any indication that the majority intends to 
spend any time creating jobs. We had 7 hours of debate on a bill to 
repeal health care, which everybody knows is not going anywhere in the 
other body and which doesn't create one job. This week, today--it's 
Thursday--we passed exactly one piece of legislation, and we are done 
voting for the day.
  While this resolution does nothing to create jobs and nothing, 
frankly, to make Congress expeditiously use its already existing 
regulatory oversight, at the same time it neglects the fact that laws 
and regulations can be important to protect our constituents' health.
  For example, when we had insufficient laws and regulations to deal 
with outbreaks of foodborne illness, we acted on a bipartisan basis to 
reduce 76 million foodborne illnesses, 300,000 hospitalizations, and 
5,000 deaths a year in the United States. This type of regulation and 
oversight is important. It keeps Americans safe. It reduces the cost to 
our economy, and it ultimately helps save jobs. There are billions of 
dollars of lost productivity for workers, damage to our economy, and 
lost profits due to foodborne illnesses, which this Congress acted on a 
bipartisan basis to reduce.
  Mr. Speaker, I've also introduced legislation to foster the 
development of a clear and predictable regulatory pathway that enables 
better approval of safe and effective products and the support of 
regulatory research to promote the understanding of regenerative 
medicine. These types of regulatory initiatives can actually help 
create jobs in the future and are a critical part of our work in this 
body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  Look, there is nobody on either side of this aisle who thinks we 
should have an unnecessary or overly burdensome regulation, but that's 
not what this is about. We have a long history of regulatory review, 
and we can do that without spending 9 hours debating a resolution like 
this. A few hours ago, we all stood here and read the Constitution 
aloud together. I am sure everybody remembers that the authority for 
committees in this Congress to review and inventory regulations is 
already provided.
  So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we do is bring this debate 
to an end, that we focus on the regulations that we can repeal, and 
that we really focus on what the American people want us to talk about, 
which is creating jobs for the American public.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. It is business that creates jobs. Easing the regulatory 
burden helps create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California, Congresswoman Bono Mack, who is the chairman of the 
Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee.
  Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to rightfully hear a lot today during this 
debate about how excessive government regulations are hurting our 
economy, but there are other forces at work as well, and they are just 
as damaging, even, perhaps, more insidious.
  Shortly after taking office, President Obama issued an executive 
order encouraging Federal agencies, which was really sort of a wink and 
a nod, to require project labor agreements on government construction 
projects costing more than $25 million.
  Mr. Speaker, with unemployment in my California district over 14 
percent and unemployment in the construction industry above 20 percent, 
these so-called ``crony contracts'' are not only wrong; they are 
immoral. Instead of an executive order, what we really need from the 
White House is a cease and desist order.
  Simply put, project labor agreements mandating ``union labor only'' 
are anticompetitive. The infamous Big Dig in Boston is clearly the 
biggest boondoggle of them all. Originally projected to cost about $3 
billion, this 3-mile tunnel project turned out to be one of the most 
expensive Federal highway projects in U.S. history. At last count, the 
meter was still running: $15 billion in construction costs and another 
$7 billion in interest alone. Put another way, when it's all said and 
done, the Big Dig is going to cost us about $1.2 million per foot.
  Not only do these PLAs waste taxpayer money, but they are also un-
American. Today, less than 15 percent of construction workers in our 
Nation are unionized. So every time a PLA is mandated by some 
government bureaucrat, 85 percent of America's construction workers, 
some 8 million hardworking men and women across the country, are told 
either tough luck, too bad, or maybe next time. Since 2007, nearly 2 
million construction workers across America have lost their jobs.
  Enough already. Let's put an end to political favoritism. Let's 
demand the best deal for the taxpayers. Let's say ``no'' to the ``wink 
and nod'' culture in Washington.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mrs. BONO MACK. As the new chairman of the House Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, I am going to do everything to make 
``made in America'' matter again. That starts by taking a critical look 
at what we do here at home to foster competitiveness. Today, with the 
economy still struggling to recover, it is time to do what is best for 
all Americans, not what is best simply for a select, favored few.

[[Page H639]]

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution being offered by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a simple waste of time, 
and it doesn't address job creation, which must be the number one 
priority of this Congress.
  Today, we are literally coming to the floor to spend nearly 10 hours 
of debate telling the committees of the House to do what they already 
should be doing. Since January 5, when this Congress was sworn in, we 
have not voted on one bill that will strengthen our economy or create 
jobs--not a single one. While we're doing this, the Republican 
leadership is putting together a spending bill that will cost our 
economy jobs. The bill makes sweeping cuts in research and development, 
cuts that will jeopardize America's position as a world leader in 
innovation.
  In the State of the Union, the President set the right priorities 
with his focus on job creation, economic recovery, debt reduction, and 
economic opportunity for all Americans.
  I am here with my Democratic colleagues from the Energy and Commerce 
Committee where we worked over the last 4 years to keep America at the 
forefront of the world in clean-energy technologies and quality health 
care, so I am trying to understand why our committee is down here 
today, wasting our time, when we could be having hearings to generate 
new ideas on how to create jobs and strengthen our economy.
  Republicans simply don't get it. They don't have a clue. Democrats 
have lots of ideas. Investments in clean energy will not only reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and keep our environment healthy, but they 
will also create countless new jobs.
  I am encouraged by the President's announcement this week that he is 
going to prioritize offshore wind development in areas off the Atlantic 
coast, including in my State of New Jersey. This is exactly the type of 
clean energy America should be investing in, which will reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and gas and create jobs. That's why I oppose 
the Republican plan to cut almost $900 million from energy efficiency 
and renewable energy programs that create jobs and move America towards 
a more self-efficient energy market that doesn't rely on foreign oil 
from volatile places like the Middle East.
  Another important issue that we could be discussing in our committee 
is health science and innovation. The health science industry, which 
includes pharmaceuticals, medical devices and biotechnology, plays a 
critical role in our national economy as well as in New Jersey's 
economy. A recent report by Research America noted that New Jersey is 
the third largest research and development employer in the U.S., with 
more than 211,000 jobs supported by health R&D, including 50,000 direct 
jobs in health R&D.
  Federal R&D investments are critical for continued economic growth. 
For example, the National Institutes of Health award many grants to 
universities, which, in turn, bring money and jobs to States. In 2007, 
New Jersey received $280 million in research grants from NIH, which 
helped create and support 3,738 new jobs.
  We need to continue to make smart, disciplined, forward-looking 
investments in innovation. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have proposed cutting $1 billion from NIH funding in 
the spending bill they plan to bring to the floor next week. This is 
not the solution to keeping America at the forefront of R&D in the 
world, and it is going to hurt our ability to create high-quality high-
tech jobs.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of 
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Chairman Stearns.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  My colleagues, recently the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
of Energy and Commerce held a hearing, and I chair this subcommittee. 
It was one of the first hearings on the rapid pace of regulations that 
are coming from the Obama administration. We made clear to the witness, 
regulation czar Cass Sunstein, that we objected to the fact that the 
administration is considering and issuing regulations with regard not 
to jobs and the economy, but is simply using as a standard such 
ridiculously amorphous terms as equity, human dignity, fairness, and 
distributive impacts. I asked him what this meant and he said, well, 
basically distribution of income. What? The administration is making a 
decision on regulation on the basis of distribution of income? I 
thought the market was supposed to decide that, not a government czar.
  In fiscal year 2010, Federal agencies promulgated 43 major rules that 
impose costs that are estimated to cost industry $28 billion, the 
highest annual level since 1981. Along with all these major rules come 
daunting levels of red tape, the cost of which cannot easily be 
counted. The Obama administration's regulatory agenda released this 
past fall identifies 4,225 rules under development.
  Now, the EPA alone has finalized almost 1,000 new regulations since 
the start of the administration and has also proposed a number of 
expensive and complex new rules affecting our energy system, our 
industrial and manufacturing infrastructure, and even the electric 
power we rely upon every day.
  Now, with this Nation suffering from 21 straight months of 
unemployment at 9 percent or higher unemployment, our focus should be 
on jobs. Unnecessary and burdensome regulations act as a de facto tax 
on every American family and small business in this country; yet 
there's no end in sight for all the regulations that are coming from 
the Obama administration. From our health to our wealth to the freedom 
to live our lives the way we want, the Federal regulatory state 
continues to grow and grow and intrudes.
  It's time for Congress to reduce this burden and get our economy 
growing again.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that in this hearing with 
Professor Sunstein, the evidence was that the regulations that came out 
in the first 2 years of the Obama administration were less than the 
regulations that came out in the last 2 years of the Bush 
administration.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 72. This 
resolution does nothing to actually create jobs and is a distraction 
from what should be our focus: creating jobs here in this country. 
Instead of spending time debating and creating legislation that would 
create jobs and further our economic recovery, we are here debating 
legislation that basically reiterates what the Energy and Commerce 
Committee is currently doing.
  In contrast, I believe that the American people have been clear. They 
want this Congress to focus on jobs, and that should be our number one 
priority. In fact, I recently sent a survey to my constituents asking 
them what they thought should be the top priorities of this Congress. 
Not surprisingly, 81 percent responded that creating jobs should be our 
top priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I routinely hold clean energy roundtable forums in 
Sacramento with CEOs and with other local leaders, including one just 
last week, and they consistently tell me that they need real incentives 
and assistance in expanding their manufacturing base and finding new 
markets abroad for their products and services. In doing so, they 
recognize that new jobs will be created. They will have additional 
revenues to purchase new equipment, invest in R&D, and benefit our 
economy. Perhaps, instead of debating today's resolution, we could 
instead be focused on debating legislation that would create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to be focussing on moving our economy forward by 
creating new jobs in different sectors of our economy. Just as the 
President emphasized in his recent State of the Union address and 
announced in his Startup America initiative, America must continue to 
lead the way in innovation in order to both rebuild today's economy and 
bolster the industries of tomorrow.
  The clean energy manufacturing sector is a critical area where most 
leading economists believe our Nation can

[[Page H640]]

experience the highest job growth potential. In fact, the Department of 
Energy has found that continued investment in the U.S. clean energy 
sector could create more than 750,000 jobs over the next decade. 
However, it is one area where the U.S. is unfortunately falling behind 
many of its competitors, including China and Germany. Mr. Speaker, we 
must change that.
  America has an historic opportunity to become a leader in clean 
technology manufacturing and creating new, good-paying jobs in this 
country. That is why I, along with Congressman John Dingell, recently 
introduced legislation to bolster the U.S. clean energy and 
manufacturing industry with the goal of creating jobs and advancing our 
Nation's standing in the ever growing clean energy economy.
  As part of the Make It In America agenda, this legislation, H.R. 502, 
the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 
2011, would help boost U.S. innovation and competitiveness by promoting 
the manufacturing of clean energy technology at home and supporting its 
exports abroad. The bill helps strengthen America's domestic clean tech 
manufacturing industry by directing the Commerce Department to provide 
specific tools and resources to those companies that need it most: 
America's small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, manufacturing jobs are the fabric of our country that 
could put millions of Americans back to work. But we must manufacture 
the products that are in demand and that have an exponential potential 
to grow, and the clean energy sector is that ever growing industry. But 
in order to create those jobs, this Congress must pass legislation that 
will help us do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill passed the House last Congress with bipartisan 
support, and it is my hope that it will be considered again soon during 
this new Congress so we can move our Nation's clean energy economy 
forward and create new, good-paying jobs here in this country. 
Unfortunately, H. Res. 72 fails that test.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution before us.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We don't care which administration created all these burdensome 
regulations. If they do not protect public health and harm job 
creation, we want to review them. I don't see what's the big damage of 
that, and every time you hear the word ``incentives'' you know what 
that means? Tax dollars. That means borrowing money from China to 
incentivize who knows what.
  We want capital formation through the private sector to create jobs. 
The government can no longer do that.
  I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), 
who is the vice chairman of my subcommittee.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  You know, we now have 29 million people in America who are either out 
of work or looking for work, and we also are facing a problem of 
trillions of deficit spending that affects those jobs. There's four 
pillars to what we need to do to turn our economy around.
  One is the issue of cutting government spending and turning that 
deficit around. Two is to deal with making sure we're keeping taxes low 
and regulations fair that promote growth of jobs and not hinder that 
growth. We must also have trade enforcement law changes that allow us 
to grow in another way.
  China alone, for example, is exploiting loopholes big enough to sail 
a freight ship through. They tax and embargo the export of raw 
materials and rare Earth minerals. They mandate local content 
requirement so American companies can't build in the U.S. and ship to 
China. They steal patents, copyrights, and reverse-engineer U.S. 
technology and products. They offer below-market government loans to 
their companies, and they manipulate their currency. All of this has 
created a great wall of illegal and unfair manufacturing trade 
practices, and we cannot sit by while they undermine our jobs.
  But a fourth pillar has to do with how we need to grow our resources, 
an important issue for the Energy and Commerce Committee. While the 
Outer Continental Shelf of this country is off limits for oil drilling, 
we are passing by massive amounts of jobs and massive amounts of 
economy for our Nation.

                              {time}  1640

  If we were allowed to have drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, 
the Federal revenue alone, without borrowing money, without buying from 
OPEC, without increasing our trade deficits, would yield $2.5 trillion 
to $3.7 trillion in Federal revenue, and all of that based upon 1970s 
estimates of how much oil is out there.
  In addition to that, even though there is not supposed to be a 
moratorium on drilling off the Gulf of Mexico, there is in effect a 
``permatorium'' because all of these wells which previously have been 
permitted are now told they can't drill. Regulatory agencies dither, 
which means higher oil prices at the pump for American families, 
greater reliance on OPEC, and with the threats of Egypt and the worries 
about the Suez Canal, we are sitting by as American families wondering 
what's going to happen next. Let's deal with all these issues and grow 
American jobs.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
  Three points. Number one, any regulations that aren't doing their 
job, they're imposing excessive burdens, let's change them. I agree 
with that. The President agrees with that. You're arguing that. You're 
right. The American people want regulations that are limited to 
achieving legitimate goals and not imposing unnecessary burdens.
  Second, and this is a question, why are we going to debate this? Why 
are we going to substitute words for actions? The Committee on Energy 
and Commerce and all the other committees that are being charged to act 
on this resolution are free to act. And rather than have a discussion 
and debate about it, ask those committees to come in with what their 
specific recommendations are. Let the House of Representatives vote yes 
or no on any proposed action.
  But third, jobs. Both sides have been saying we've got to focus on 
jobs. A couple of very good speeches, Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Stearns from Florida, we agree with that. Why don't we dust off a 
proven and bipartisan job-creating bill, Home Star, which the Energy 
and Commerce Committee passed out on a bipartisan basis last year, and 
bring it forward to this Congress this year? It's something that saves 
money for our homeowners on their energy bills, it's something that 
puts local contractors who are reeling from the decline in homebuilding 
back to work retrofitting our homes, and it saves $10 billion in energy 
bills, creates 170,000 jobs and it's all about using less, not more. 
It's about efficiency. And that's common ground. We're not having a 
debate about whether we should or shouldn't be drilling, or what's the 
preferred energy source, whether it's coal, nuclear or solar. It's 
really whatever energy source you're using, if you use less of it, as a 
business or as a consumer, you're going to save money. So it's 
something we can do together. The new majority would have the final say 
on how we would pay for this. It could be designed in a way to take 
care of the capital formation concerns that the other side has 
expressed.
  What we're talking about here is important. Regulations should be 
limited to the legitimate purpose for which they're intended. They 
shouldn't be excessively burdensome. If there are specific regulations 
that ought to be adjusted and it requires statutory action, come back 
with the specific statute, let this body vote on it and move on. That's 
action. It's not words. But then the common goal that we have, even if 
it's a significant debate and disagreement about how best to get from 
here to there, is we've got to create jobs in this economy. Home Star 
is a way we can do it with the new majority working with the new 
minority.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues, we'll 
have a chance next week to vote on greenhouse gas regulations, which 
will kill jobs. Those bills are coming.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues across the aisle

[[Page H641]]

are showing their displeasure. They think that it requires passing a 
law to create jobs and they want to tax and spend so that they can use 
the term ``invest.'' But I think the American people have really wised 
up to what is going on. They know that every time a law is passed, 
rules and regulations start to pile on. They also know that if money is 
coming to D.C., then they can't use that money there in their 
communities to create jobs. Because the way it really works is this: 
Government does not create jobs. Government creates the environment in 
which the private sector can create jobs.
  Last week, as we were home, I visited, I worked with my Chambers of 
Commerce and with job creators to tell us, what is getting in the way. 
We heard a lot about regulation and the overreach of regulation. From 
bankers, we heard about auditors and regulators and the FDIC. From 
builders, we heard about OSHA and the EPA. From small business 
manufacturers, we heard about the EPA and carbon emissions. From 
retailers, we heard about the FTC. From our implement device 
manufacturers and biotech community, we heard about the FDA overreach. 
From our high tech innovators and our health informatics, we heard 
about the overreach of the FCC.
  Regulation is stifling job growth. It is time for us to cut back on 
this $1.75 trillion a year hit that the business community, the job 
creators, are taking; rein this regulation in; and, yes, my friends, 
let's repeal some of these laws and rules and regulations, get them off 
the books and free up the private sector so they do what they do best--
create the jobs that the American people want to see.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my Colorado colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm sort of troubled that we're here this afternoon. 
Americans are still facing staggering unemployment rates and our 
economy has not yet fully recovered. But instead of focusing on job 
creation, we're wasting 2 days--and taxpayer dollars--on a resolution 
directing committees to conduct oversight on government regulations.
  I have been a Member of Congress for over a decade and I know that 
committees already do oversight on government regulations. Without 
prompting, a well-run committee will make sure the government's 
regulations are necessary and effective at protecting the American 
people. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee, under the 
leadership of Henry Waxman in the last Congress, did just that. Our 
committee conducted oversight on the failures that led to the BP oil 
spill in the gulf and the reckless Wall Street behaviors that caused a 
near meltdown of our economy.
  When insurance companies announced that they would pad their profits 
with huge rate increases on American families--after they dropped 
individuals from coverage just because they got sick--it was our 
committee that stood up to them. I'm afraid, though, that in this new 
Congress, American families won't get that same kind of protection.
  Yesterday, our committee held a hearing on legislation that would 
insert the government into private decisions between a patient and her 
doctor. We also held a hearing on legislation that would put the 
interests of polluters ahead of the health of millions of Americans, 
including our children, our seniors and the most vulnerable among us. 
That wasn't oversight to help create jobs or to help the American 
people; it was just examples of promoting an extreme agenda that puts 
the public's health at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of telling committees how to do their jobs, we 
should be creating jobs for the American people--health care jobs, 
clean energy jobs, high tech jobs, manufacturing jobs. This is 
America's top priority. This is what we should be talking about here on 
the House floor today.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
from Ohio who is from the largest manufacturing district in the 
country, Mr. Latta.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the EPA has indicated they intend to overturn 30 years 
of precedent and designate coal ash as a hazardous waste, despite 
findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway 
Administration, State regulatory authorities and the EPA itself that 
the toxicity levels in coal ash are well below the criteria that 
requires a hazardous waste designation. In fact, in the EPA's May 2000 
regulatory determination, they concluded that coal ash does not warrant 
regulation as a hazardous waste, and that doing so would be 
environmentally counterproductive.
  About 45 percent of the coal ash generated is recycled, being used as 
an additive in cement, concrete, wallboard and roofing materials, road-
based fill materials, and snow and ice control. While all of this is 
completely safe, designating coal ash as a hazardous waste would halt 
these beneficial uses, which the EPA estimates will lead to $16.7 
billion in increased costs per year, further damaging our economy.

                              {time}  1650

  Finally, the increased cost of coal ash disposal will lead to the 
closure of up to 18 percent of current coal-generated power, resulting 
in lost jobs, higher electricity costs, and further increasing our 
dependency on foreign countries for our energy needs, which we cannot 
afford.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with having our 
committees review regulations. But the problem is we are wasting 9\1/2\ 
hours when we are involved in a great race, a great competition.
  We are in a race with China and other places in the world to build a 
clean energy economy that can create millions of new jobs in solar and 
wind and electric cars and lithium ion batteries.
  And you can be assured that the Chinese are not wasting 9\1/2\ hours 
when it comes to figuring out how to form capital formation for solar 
power companies. That's what we should be doing.
  You can be assured the Chinese aren't wasting 9\1/2\ hours trying to 
figure out how to site high-density transmission lines so we can have 
clean energy plants and move that electricity across their country. 
That's what we should be doing on a bipartisan basis.
  You can be assured that the Chinese aren't wasting 9\1/2\ hours 
figuring out how to create a demand for new wind energy so we can put 
people to work building wind farms. That's what we should be doing.
  And you know what, last year the Republicans passed a clean energy 
standard which we could be talking about this year on a bipartisan 
basis. Instead, we're wasting 9\1/2\ hours talking about something all 
of us agree to do.
  Now, how do the Republicans intend to do this going out of the gate 
next week? We're told that their first act is to remove from our 
Federal law the ability to create jobs in the green, clean energy 
sector because they want to pass their dirty air bill. Their dirty air 
bill will strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the ability to 
create an incentive for 1.5 million jobs: jobs in the solar sector 
industry, jobs in the wind industry, jobs in the enhanced geothermal 
industry. These are jobs.
  Don't let them pass the dirty air bill.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the vice chairman of the 
Republican Conference.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. 
Res. 72.
  Last week, I met with a company who said the only way to comply with 
the regulations is to not operate. Just last month, America slipped in 
its economic freedom rating. We are no longer an ``economically free'' 
society but a ``mostly free'' society because of the costly and 
duplicative regulations--not labor costs, but regulations. We don't 
have to look any further than the hard rock mining industry, many of 
which operate in eastern Washington.
  Despite effective safeguards implemented by States, the Federal 
Government, through the EPA, has decided

[[Page H642]]

that it needs to step in and add regulations that will all but 
certainly drain this industry of capital, forcing businesses to cut 
jobs, not invest in America, and ultimately make us more dependent upon 
foreign countries for these important minerals.
  Mr. Speaker, regulation is not what our Nation is all about. America 
is about entrepreneurialism, innovation, and living the American Dream.
  Let's get these oppressive rules and regulations off the books. A 
good first step is the passage of the resolution we are considering 
today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from Colorado has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Houston (Mr. Olson) the former Navy fighter pilot.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my friend from Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 72. In this 
economic environment, it is critically important for this Congress to 
find and eliminate government regulations which are damaging to the 
economy and are destroying American jobs.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, the current administration has 
imposed 43 major regulations in fiscal year 2010 alone, with an 
estimated cost of $26.5 billion. A prime example of this senseless 
regulation is the EPA's new greenhouse gas regulations which will 
adversely affect every business and energy consumer in America. The 
increased costs associated with the new EPA regulations will be passed 
on to consumers in the form of higher energy costs. Those impacted 
include small businesses and individuals still struggling to make it 
out of the current recession.
  The EPA's regulations will eliminate American jobs and send them 
overseas. It's just plain and simple. The bureaucratic EPA permitting 
process will cause countless construction delays on new projects, and 
the increased compliance costs will drive many companies abroad where 
the regulatory environment is more favorable. Again, American jobs 
heading overseas to foreign soil.
  America has suffered 21 straight months of unemployment above 9 
percent. Our top priority should be to reduce the cost of doing 
business so companies can expand their operations and hire new 
employees.
  The new EPA greenhouse gas regulations are a tax on energy. They will 
only serve to drive up energy costs, reduce economic activity, and 
destroy American jobs. Most importantly, under the Constitution, it is 
Congress--not unelected EPA bureaucrats--who determines whether and how 
greenhouse gases are regulated.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee will soon be reviewing existing 
regulations to determine if they make sense. If so, we will keep them. 
If not, we will throw them in the dustbin of history.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to one of our new 
colleagues from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 72 and of 
Congress' new emphasis on oversight. Over the past few years, Federal 
agencies have promulgated a litany of rules and regulations with little 
regard for their impact on American businesses, jobs, and everyday 
American workers.
  Last week, I met with a business in my district that employs nearly 
1,000 people. They expressed their concern that the onslaught of rules 
and regulations threaten our energy infrastructure, power stability, 
and electricity costs. In other words, reckless regulation threatens 
their very existence.
  I met with a business that employs 53 people, whose owners said they 
won't expand because they don't know what the cost of health care 
regulations will mean to their business.
  At a committee hearing just yesterday before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, businesses stated that the regulatory environment is 
hindering investment in our economy, not promoting it.
  In Colorado, Federal regulations that could usurp the State's role 
over energy production may stop the creation of jobs that are set to 
employ thousands of people in northern Colorado.
  It's time for Congress to listen to the voices that are America, that 
move our country, feed our country, power our country, and make our 
country great. It is time to put an end to reckless regulation.
  If there are 1.5 million jobs to be created, then let's get started 
creating them. But let's not turn to the role of government to regulate 
people out of business to create other jobs. That's not the job of the 
Federal Government. Let's put an end to reckless regulation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concerns 
about attempts to undermine one of our country's most cherished and 
effective environmental policies, the Clean Air Act.
  Simply put, recent attacks against environmental protections threaten 
the health, safety, and quality of life of the American people. All 
credible scientific evidence proves that emissions of carbon and other 
pollutants change our climate and harm our environment, posing risks 
for our communities and our children. Americans deserve to breathe 
clean air and drink clean water.

                              {time}  1700

  We know beyond any doubt that pollution can increase asthma, heart 
attacks, and cancer. I do support legitimate efforts for regulatory 
reform. But the majority's attempt to pass a new dirty air act by 
gutting needed health provisions is a travesty.
  Now, the majority party, on the other side, my friends, will try to 
tell you that we have to make a choice between clean air and jobs. And 
that is a false choice. We can create, in fact, if we create clean air 
we will create jobs, we will create an environment where businesses 
will want to do business in our country. So our country needs forward-
thinking energy and environmental policies that create jobs and protect 
public health. And we will not tolerate a return to the pollution 
allowed before the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm glad my colleague talked about the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air 
Act was passed in the 1990s, and it identified six criteria pollutants. 
And we know a lot of what those are--nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, 
particulate matter. Carbon dioxide was never identified in the law. In 
fact, Chairman Emeritus Dingell said numerous times the Clean Air Act 
was never designed to regulate carbon.
  Even as the EPA now moves in the direction of climate, they've 
changed the rules. They are not complying with the Clean Air Act 
because of their tailoring rule, thus picking winners over losers.
  If we go down the road to regulate carbon, we raise the cost of 
creating jobs. Jobs move overseas. That's what the Waxman-Markey debate 
was last year. That's why the majority last year could not pass a bill 
to regulate carbon, because of the impact on jobs.
  So why are we here?
  We're not trying to end regulation. We're trying to make sure that 
there's an economic analysis on what occurs on jobs. What's the job 
impact?
  Administrator Jackson, throughout the entire process, could not tell 
us. In fact, they only do it in silos and never the cumulative effect 
of what are the jobs lost based upon regulation.
  What is the compliance cost?
  We ought to know that because the more there is a requirement to 
comply with the rules and regulations when we're competing against 
China, who has no rules and regulations, we are less competitive, we 
lose jobs.
  Is it so harmful to ask where's the benefit, a cost-benefit analysis 
of all these regulations?
  So we'll get a chance. I know I was asked by the other side earlier 
in the debate, where is the legislation to affect rules and regulations 
that will create jobs?
  Well, it's coming next week, and it's the greenhouse gas rules and 
regulations, which does not affect the Clean Air Act, which does not 
change, after all their portrayals on dirty air, it does

[[Page H643]]

not affect a single criteria pollutant in the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman 
has any further requests for time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I was expecting a few Members, but I don't expect them 
to come now.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it has now been 36 days since we were sworn in in the 
112th Congress. Yet, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I know 
Mr. Shimkus and I will both agree is the most illustrious and powerful 
committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, the committee with 
broad-ranging jurisdiction, everything from energy policy to food 
safety to health care, even to national league sports, we have not 
passed one legislative bill in those 36 days. We haven't passed one 
bill to repeal an onerous regulation. We haven't passed one bill to 
create one new job.
  In fact, the first subcommittee markup in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee is tomorrow. This markup is of an extreme bill which will 
restrict a woman's right to choose. This is a divisive bill that has 
nothing to do with repealing one onerous regulation, and, in fact, it 
doesn't create one job, except maybe a job for lawyers who, if this 
actually became law, would have a field day litigating the legislation.
  Look, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that if there are burdensome 
regulations, they should be repealed. But let's not let this discussion 
devolve into a partisan debate under the guise of regulatory reform.
  So we know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like 
the new EPA greenhouse gas regulations. We know that they don't like 
the new health care bill. But just because those bills have been passed 
and are being implemented does not mean that the regulations, per se, 
cause a loss of jobs.
  So what I would suggest the American people would like us to see, 
what they told us in the election, what they've told us since the 
election, what all of my constituents told me when I was home last week 
is, when are you going to stop the partisan bickering? When are you 
going to create jobs?
  I believe that if my colleague from Illinois and I, and all of the 
rest of us got together, we could identify a number of regulations, 
regulations passed under Democratic and Republican administrations that 
are burdensome, that are outdated, and that we could repeal. But in the 
meantime, let's just call it what it is. Let's have the debate if we're 
going to have it. But let's not call it a debate about burdensome 
regulations. Let's create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a great debate. And 
Diana DeGette is a great friend of mine. We've served here in the 
Chamber for a long time. And I think it's good for the public to 
understand that we can have strong disagreements without being 
disagreeable. And I'm probably one of the strongest, outspoken 
loudmouths on the committee. And I have been recently. But I think it's 
also good to know that we can continue, even on very controversial 
issues on life. She has very strong opinions, and I have very strong 
opinions. But Congresswoman DeGette has my respect, and she's a friend.
  During last fall, businesses kept coming to me and saying, all we 
want to be is left alone. That's really part of this debate.
  The Democrat majority, in fact, in the last 2 years, they had the 
whole shooting match. These are the same debates you had about us. You 
could have addressed the regulatory burdens on business, but you 
didn't. You had the House, you had the Senate, you had the Presidency. 
Not one bill to ease the regulatory burden.
  So now the pendulum has shifted. We're into job creation. One of the 
burdens of job creation is excessive regulation. Businesses want to be 
left alone. There's too much uncertainty.
  What have we done to bring to the floor to help provide certainty? We 
voted to repeal the health care law. If you want to talk to businesses, 
both large and small, one of the biggest things that has created 
uncertainty is Obamacare. And that was on the floor.
  The second thing that created the most uncertainty is climate and a 
carbon tax, raising the cost. That's going to come to the floor.
  So here are two major provisions passed in this Chamber, hurt jobs, 
we get a chance to address on the floor. And so this is an important 
exercise. We're going to be doing it in the committee. We've had four 
hearings in the committee on issues all around the regulatory burdens.
  I gave you the example of U.S. Steel. Here they've got a 
NOX requirement so they keep the burners on low. But a 
carbon requirement would require that the burners are on high. How do 
they comply? I'll tell you how they comply. They move the steel mill to 
a country that does not have those regulations. Or we import it.
  Should we look at these and address these? The answer is yes.
  I see my colleague from Louisiana has shown up. If my colleague from 
Colorado doesn't mind, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Let's talk really quickly about just what's so important 
about this resolution.

                              {time}  1710

  As my colleague from Illinois talked about, we have had those 
hearings. In fact, we had the EPA administrator yesterday in committee, 
and she actually tried to state that her regulations are helping create 
jobs. The only problem is that, right after that, we had panelist after 
panelist of American job creators talking about how those exact EPA 
regulations are running jobs out of the country. So there must be some 
parallel universe that these bureaucrats are living in. They think they 
are creating jobs. And I guess, if you want to really look at it, they 
are creating jobs, in China, in India, in other places around the world 
instead of in America.
  We just had another hearing today on the problems with what is 
happening with the administration not issuing permits in the Gulf of 
Mexico. They are actually making our country more dependent on Middle 
Eastern oil at a time when you are seeing the Middle East in total 
disarray with what is happening in Egypt. There was just another super 
tanker that was hijacked by Somali pirates right off the coast of Oman, 
just yet another example that this is a volatile world. Yet you have 
got an administration that's using regulations to run more jobs out of 
this country. This is a time when we should be creating jobs.
  I'm really glad that we are actually focusing under this Republican 
Congress on exposing what those regulations are doing to destroy jobs 
in America. We can create jobs. We have got to get ahold of these 
regulations.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening remarks, I yield 
3 minutes to my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. We have all heard 
the expression, Keep It Simple, Stupid, the KISS formula. Our 
government needs to do a better job of adhering to this phrase.
  In the transportation sector, there are numerous examples where the 
regulatory process is burdensome and impedes private enterprise.
  The Department of Transportation has regulations pending that 
classify lithium cells and batteries as hazardous materials. If 
implemented, this could create an impediment in getting batteries to 
consumers, the military, and government agencies. As a result, this 
could jeopardize manufacturing jobs in my district, jobs we cannot 
afford to lose.
  DOT has also put forth regulations that would implement changes to 
hours of service regulations. This proposal is soliciting comments on 
whether to retain the current 11-hour time limit, or reduce the maximum 
driving time to 10 hours, something the agency prefers. If implemented, 
it will create ramifications for goods movement and likely affect 
consumers' wallets and private enterprise.
  Finally, the National Mediation Board recently published a rule that 
alters how labor elections occur. Under previous guidelines, a majority 
of the eligible electorate must vote in favor of unionization. Under 
the new proposed rules, this majority is defined by

[[Page H644]]

those who actually vote in elections, meaning the outcome could form a 
union when the majority of persons affected did not express the desire 
to do so. This is simply another way for the labor movement to gain 
traction and dictate an outcome that they cannot achieve otherwise.
  We support reducing the number of regulations, Mr. Speaker. But that 
is not to say that we support compromising safety. Indeed, we do not.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. We can provide oversight that is 
simple and straightforward without impeding private enterprise. Our 
economy will benefit if we bear in mind the saying, Keep It Simple, 
Stupid.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of H. Res. 72. Under both Democratic and 
Republican administrations, Federal agencies can, and do, abuse their 
regulatory powers.
  For the last 2 years, in my own district, coal miners in communities 
that depend on coal have been struggling with the uncertainty created 
by the Environmental Protection Agency that has pushed its regulatory 
authority to extremes.
  As a result of EPA's extensive intervention in Clean Water Act 
section 404 permitting for service mines, miners in my district and 
their families are in an untenable limbo, wondering from week to week 
whether their mines will get a permit and whether their jobs will end.
  EPA is setting new timelines and new criteria for permits, timelines 
and criteria that differ from what is in statute and regulation. And 
they are doing so not through the proper regulatory procedure, but 
through interim guidance, skirting the rulemaking process that would 
provide for greater transparency and public comment.
  The agency is setting a terrible precedent that opens the door for 
further abuses in future administrations. So I stand here today 
supporting the contention that Congress ought to check overzealous 
executive agencies. We ought to be conducting rigorous oversight and 
siphoning off regulations that hamstring our economy and the wellbeing 
of Americans. And I fully expect our committee, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, to soon review the EPA's actions 
with respect to coal mining permits throughout central Appalachia.
  But I also remind my colleagues that this is not a new 
responsibility. It is the duty placed on Congress, the people's branch, 
by the Framers of the Constitution, who knew firsthand the abuses of an 
all-powerful executive.
  Nothing in this resolution changes or enhances that responsibility. 
Rather than expending so much time, energy, and taxpayer dollars in a 
display on this floor that provides the Members of this body and the 
American people not a single ounce of new or enhanced benefit, we ought 
to be concentrating on the real work. We ought to be moving legislation 
that creates jobs, good family-wage jobs.
  There is no better way to create family-wage jobs than investing in 
our Nation's transportation and water resources infrastructure. These 
investments create and sustain millions of American jobs and generate 
billions of dollars of economic activity.

  According to the Federal Highway Administration, for example, each $1 
billion of Federal investment creates or sustains 34,799 jobs and $6.2 
billion of economic activity. Moreover, these investments strengthen 
our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
  It is for these reasons, creating family-wage jobs and strengthening 
our global competitiveness, that the presidents of the Chamber of 
Commerce and the AFL-CIO have linked arms in support of increased 
infrastructure investment. Yet, in the first six weeks of this 
Congress, the only action to date has been to wipe away the legacy of 
former Republican Chairman Bud Shuster, the budgetary firewalls that 
ensured that we invest the revenues of the Highway Trust Fund in 
highway and transit infrastructure. We have abolished the ``trust'' in 
the Highway Trust Fund.
  In the last Congress, the House passed a Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization bill that significantly increased 
airport investment, including runway, terminal, and tarmac 
construction. The bill also authorized and accelerated the FAA's next-
generation air transportation system, which will be an engine of 
economic growth. It will benefit airlines, workers, the traveling 
public, and the FAA over the long term, providing greater job security 
and opportunities for the Nation's 567,000 airline workers and the 
624,000 employees that work for companies that manufacture aircraft and 
components.
  We also passed a bill to help cash-strapped States and communities 
invest almost $14 billion in wastewater treatment facilities and sewer 
lines.
  In addition, the committee, on a bipartisan basis, approved a $500 
billion Surface Transportation Authorization Act to significantly 
increase investment in highway transit and rail infrastructure. The 
bill would create and sustain an estimated 6 million jobs.
  Finally, our committee on T&I approved a water resources development 
bill to invest in our Nation's water resources infrastructure and an 
Economic Development Administration reauthorization bill that provides 
grants to economically distressed communities to help them build the 
necessary infrastructure to foster business investments and create 
jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the bills that we should be debating on the 
floor today. These are the bills that make a difference in people's 
lives.
  We cannot wait. The construction season is upon us, and 1.9 million 
construction workers are still out of work.

                              {time}  1720

  They need a job, not another feel-good resolution from this 
Republican majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution 
be yielded back and that H. Res. 72 be adopted so we can move to 
consider legislation creating jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the majority manager, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio, yield for the purpose of that unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I do not, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does not yield for the 
purpose of that request.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for 
yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 
72.
  I thank the Speaker and the House leadership for giving us this time 
to help call to the attention of the Nation something that has become a 
very serious problem, and that is the explosion of rules and 
regulations and red tape that has taken place over these last several 
years at a very rapid pace.
  In 2005, a study by the Small Business Administration found that 
businesses spent approximately $1.1 trillion to comply with Federal 
Rules. Confirming that, another study in 2009 by the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute said Federal regulatory compliance had reached 
$1.2 trillion for businesses.
  The annual outflow of rules has meant that nearly 60,000 Federal 
rules have been issued just since 1995. Regulatory agencies issued over 
3,500 final rules in 2009. Today's Code of Federal Regulations contains 
an astounding 157,974 pages. They haven't designed a computer that can 
keep up with all of that, much less a human being. And the average 
family, according to another study by the SBA in 2010, they said the 
cost of Federal rules and regulations now costs the average family over 
$15,000 a year, and that has increased by more than $4,000 just in the 
last 5 years.
  George Mason University put out a report earlier this year which said 
that U.S. regulations ``are now more onerous than those in other 
countries, particularly countries that offer similar property rights 
and infrastructure,'' and that ``the United States risks losing 
investment capital and jobs.''
  Speaking more specifically about the Transportation Committee, 
according to a GAO report the typical transportation project now takes 
between 9 and 19 years to plan, gain approval of and construct a new 
major federally funded highway project.
  Let me give you two examples. Several years ago when I chaired the 
Aviation Subcommittee, we had a hearing in which they said the main and 
newest runway at Atlanta airport at that time took 14 years from 
conception to completion. It took only 99 construction days. They were 
so happy to get all the

[[Page H645]]

final approvals they did those in 33 24-hour days. It was all 
environmental rulings and regulations and red tape.
  Four years ago, we had a hearing in the Highways and Transit 
Subcommittee, and they said that a highway project in Southern 
California, a 9-mile project, took 17 years from conception to 
completion, from 1990 until 2007.
  What these delays and rules and regulations have done is driven up 
the cost. We now take on average three times as long and three times 
the cost of any other developed nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. What this does is it hurts the poor and 
lower-income and working people of this country because it destroys 
jobs, it drives up prices, all these regulations. It even kills people, 
when you delay for years widening and improving highways and making 
them safer. So it is causing problems for everything that comes out of 
our committee.
  This is a very important resolution, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman 
of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from the great State of 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the good lady for yielding.
  Mr. and Mrs. America, our economic growth is being stifled by 165,000 
pages of regulations; 1.4 million laws were never voted on by this 
body. They are the law of the land, passed by the bureaucracy. We are 
to blame for this ourselves.
  As you can see from the chart--I venture they will get it up here--
the number of environmental laws and executive orders affecting the 
construction industry has exploded since 1965. Just take a look at 
this. Here is where we are. Look at what they have to go through here. 
All these things have to be met by the construction company. This is 
why it takes 17 years to build a highway.
  I want to keep in mind now--you keep hearing about creating jobs. You 
do not create a job; you allow a job to be created, and regulations 
prohibit that. We see regulations every day that prohibit the growth of 
industry and jobs in this country. You mentioned, Mr. Ranking Member, 
who was chairman, we can't even mine coal because of regulations.
  So let's start thinking about the money. By the way, it costs 
$1,000,100,000,000 a year to implement these regulations that were 
never voted on. We can balance the budget in 13 years if we eliminate 
these regulations.
  The agencies keep going forth each day spending more money. Their 
idea of success is having another law that has never been voted on. It 
gives an untold power to the executive branch. This is the House of the 
people, and if we don't address this issue, shame on us. It is 
absolutely important.
  I just got a regulation proposed at Alaskan Airlines. They had to get 
a permit. By regulation, they are required to apply to the Pipeline 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration before they could fly it. You 
know what it was? It was whipped cream. You can't fly whipped cream 
without a permit. Another regulation from an agency. Who thought that 
up?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The second one, the newest one to come out is a 
regulation by EPA under the oil spill liability clause where the EPA is 
proposing a regulation to apply to dairies because milk has fat in it. 
They want to apply the oil spill liability regulation to a dairy. That 
means each cow costs $600 per life of the cow because they want to 
clean up milk. The saying ``don't cry over spilt milk'' is now going to 
cost you money, a regulation by an agency that makes no sense at all.
  Wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America. Let's eliminate these regulations that 
prohibit job creation in this country. That is what we ought to be 
talking about.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the American voter spoke loud and clear in November. 
They said they are tired of business as usual in Washington. They want 
less government intrusion and more freedom to prosper. This resolution 
begins that journey. It ensures freedom from government overregulation.
  The buck stops here in this Chamber. The Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee alone, in this committee there are 
overregulations in every mode of transportation and in every area of 
infrastructure.
  Specifically, our committee is going to look at a recent rulemaking 
by the National Mediation Board; arbitrary revocation of environmental 
permits by the EPA; new hours of service regulations for truckers by 
DOT; costly implementation of positive train control by DOT; the overly 
broad lithium battery rule; an extremely burdensome EPA rule to comply 
with the Cotton Council versus the EPA decisions; EPA's regulation of 
leaded general aviation fuel and airport de-icing fluid; EPA's expanded 
regulations of storm water discharge; and EPA's jurisdiction grab while 
they claim to implement the Clean Water Act.
  An issue of particular concern to me and others are the actions taken 
over by the National Mediation Board.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Speaker, under the current administration, unelected and 
unaccountable political appointees at the National Mediation Board have 
been bullying hardworking airline employees. As many of us know, Delta 
Airlines merged with Northwest Airlines in 2008. Northwest employees 
were represented by unions and traditionally most Delta employees were 
not. To complete the merger, employees have to decide whether they will 
elect union representation or not.
  Beginning in 2008, Delta repeatedly urged the unions to seek 
elections so that the issue could be resolved one way or another. The 
only way to start that process was for the employees who wanted a union 
to call for an election. Many of the merged Delta working groups had 
already made their decision about representation. Pilots, mechanics, 
dispatchers, and meteorologists had all chosen, and the mediation board 
affirmed those decisions promptly.
  In August of 2009, everything was in place to allow votes to proceed 
for the remaining work groups. The mediation board, however, dragged 
its feet and did not act on these requests, despite receiving and 
acting on three other requests from three other employee groups at 
other airlines in the intervening time.
  The reason became clear in September of 2009, when the AFL-CIO asked 
the mediation board to change the rules in the middle of the merger. 
With no consultation or transparency, the mediation board rushed 
through new rules which makes it much easier to join a union. The new 
rule does so by only requiring a majority of those voting--not the 
majority of the work group, as required under the Railway Labor Act--to 
decide whether or not employees would be represented by a union. This 
meant that if, of a workforce of 20,000 people, only 1,000 people voted 
and 501 wanted a union, the entire 20,000 would be then represented.
  At the same time, the new rule, while making it easier for unions to 
gain a foothold among employees who might not want them, didn't provide 
any mechanism for decertifying the union. In other words, the mediation 
board made it easier to get the union in and nearly impossible to get 
it kicked out.
  With these new rules proposed, the unions which represented Northwest 
employees withdrew their request for votes while they waited for the 
new, easier rules to be finalized. The rules change was then finalized. 
They refiled for elections under the easier rule, and the mediation 
board promptly acted on those requests.
  So what the unions wanted and got was the chance to have their vote 
under the new, more favorable rules. It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, 
of how much the mediation board is mediating on behalf of workers as 
opposed to coordinating with special interests.
  If the mediation board were reasonable, it would have allowed Delta 
and Northwest flight attendants and airport workers to decide whether 
or not

[[Page H646]]

they wanted union representation as soon as the unions filed. The NMB 
let three other airline elections go forward under the old rules but 
not Delta.
  I would hope that the mediation board is watching out for workers' 
rights and not just union dues. Nothing appears to have been done to 
enhance worker rights and protections, and many feel that their rights 
are being trampled on by the very agency that is supposed to be looking 
out for them.
  Despite the rule change, Mr. Speaker, when votes were eventually held 
late last year, a majority of the employees in fact voted not to join 
the union. The unions now have filed a complaint with the mediation 
board, asserting that Delta interfered with these elections and asking 
for new elections under--guess what?--another new set of rules. The 
National Mediation Board has not yet responded, but there are 
rightfully concerns with how it will proceed based on its past 
behavior.
  It should be up to the employees and no one else to decide whether or 
not they will have a union--not the company and certainly not the 
Federal Government. Forcing employees to unionize through regulation is 
not why the National Mediation Board exists.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with many of my newly elected 
colleagues, as one of the Members that came to Washington to stop the 
``red tape'' factory of regulations and help businesses get back to 
creating jobs.
  In every community I visit in my district, I have met a business 
owner who is fed up with spending tremendous amounts of money to comply 
with unlimited, burdensome regulation--or have invested dollars that 
are tied up for months or even years waiting for Federal agencies to 
make the decisions held up by regulations and also the permitting 
process. This is what I came to Congress to stop. These rulemakings 
create uncertainty and costs, as the details of the regulations take 
extensive periods of time to finalize. At a time when job creation is 
paramount to economic recovery, businesses are being forced to postpone 
decisions on hiring and expansion.
  A prime example of these harmful regulations is a company in my 
district that asked the EPA in 2001 to make changes to the Land 
Disposal Restrictions to ensure proper treatment and promote recycling. 
EPA decided to take a different track on their request, and 10 years 
later that company is still waiting for an answer--10 years later. This 
has to stop.
  Another example, EPA has overextended its authority over 404 permits 
by allowing a permit to be issued, then years later, retroactively 
vetoing the exact same permit. By doing so, it not only leaves the 
business questioning the worth of the permit, it leaves investors 
wondering if they can commit funding to a project without fear of the 
EPA arbitrarily revoking the permit. EPA has fundamentally changed the 
term from ``permit'' to ``perhaps.'' This has to stop.
  We need to hold our regulators accountable and make sure they are 
carrying out the intent of the law, not enhancing their own agenda or 
stifling economic and job recovery.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our distinguished 
leading Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the generous grant of time.
  So here we are trying to fill up space while America is in crisis. 
Now, why do I say that? One of the most important and ongoing 
obligations of the United States Congress is oversight. We don't need 
to pass a meaningless hortatory resolution to tell the committees to do 
oversight. I've observed a number of the Republican-led committees are 
already vigorously engaged in oversight. I held dozens of hearings in 
oversight of the bureaucracy and programs when I chaired the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee. That's something we have not done enough 
of and we should do more of. But spending 10 hours on the floor instead 
of a few hours marking up some bills that could create jobs in America 
is a waste of time and meaningless.
  We had two commissions that were named when the Republicans 
controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in the Bush era. 
Both
of those commissions, Republican-led, Republican-authorized 
commissions, came to the same conclusion: We are dramatically 
underinvesting in our Nation's infrastructure. We are becoming Third 
World: 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System need substantial 
repair or replacement; 40 percent of the pavement on the National 
Highway System fair or poor, causing blowouts, axles broken, accidents. 
It's a mess. Talk to anybody. A $60 billion backlog on capital 
investment in our transit systems. And you know what? When we make 
these investments, there's a great thing about it. We have strict buy 
America requirements--buy America requirements I intended to make more 
strict, and I hope the Republicans will now that they're in charge, 
when we reauthorize the Surface Transportation Bill.
  You get a phenomenal multiplier of jobs out of those investments. 
Instead of the stupid stimulus bill we passed, if we had taken one-
fifth of the money that went into that stimulus bill and we had 
invested it in surface transportation in this country, we could have 
created another couple of million jobs a year; because they aren't just 
jobs of people out there building the bridges and the highways and 
those sorts of things; they're the people that make the things that we 
use to build the bridges and highways--the steel industry. They're the 
people who make the tires for the buses or the engines for the buses or 
the streetcars that we now make in Oregon again, made in America for 
the first time in 70 years. A huge multiplier effect. Inadequate.

                              {time}  1740

  So what they said is, the amount of money we're currently investing 
won't even keep the Eisenhower-era system up. Now the Republicans are 
refusing to look at enhanced investment in transportation 
infrastructure, and we haven't even begun a discussion of authorizing 
that legislation.
  As for the Federal Aviation Administration, we are wasting billions 
of gallons of fuel and people's time in the air because we don't have 
an adequate aviation system in terms of air traffic control and the 
tools that our controllers need. They're focused on the controllers: 
Oh, those controllers, they just earn too much money.
  They're working with 1950's equipment. You can't get vacuum tubes 
anymore.
  Let's focus on the things people need in order to do the jobs more 
efficiently, to get our planes where they're going as safely as we do 
today but more efficiently. Let's stop the congestion in the skies. 
Allow our airports to expand. Get the jobs out of construction. Let's 
talk about those things.
  Today, the Democrats introduced a bill, our first major bill, H.R. 
11, to authorize more Buy America Bonds. Now, this doesn't cost the 
Federal Government anything in the end. What we are trying to do is 
help the local jurisdictions, the States, and others who are strapped 
now--their bonding authority is either tapped out or they don't have 
good credit because of other problems--to do needed projects and give 
it to them at interest rates they can afford. Yeah, there's a little 
subsidy there in the interest rate--but guess what? With the jobs we 
generate, we're going to get more than that back in the taxes.
  The best way we can deal with the deficit in this country is to put 
Americans back to work. Thirty to 40 percent of our deficit could be 
dealt with if we had full employment and reasonable rates of taxation 
like in the Clinton era. But no. The Republicans want to sit here and 
pretend they really care about these things.
  We're going to get rid of those job-killing regulations and we'll 
start to do something new--oversight.
  Well, good as to the oversight. You're already authorized to do 
oversight. Don't pretend you aren't, and don't pretend that this 
meaningless resolution is going to make any difference at all. Why are 
we wasting this time? Why are we wasting this time? Because you want to 
put on a show. Well, good for you. You're putting on a show. You're in 
charge. You can put on a show whenever you want, but someday, you're 
going to come to account for it, and if you haven't delivered on the 
jobs, and

[[Page H647]]

you're not doing much so far that I've seen to produce any jobs. You 
can pretend this is about jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. What this is really about is your day-in, day-out 
agenda, which is big business. This isn't about independent 
truckdrivers who struggle to make a living. This isn't about small, 
independent businesses that go out and get contracts through the States 
with Federal money to build highway projects and some of the paperwork 
they have to deal with. I'm all with you on that stuff. Let's 
streamline that stuff. Let's get rid of that junk.
  Just today, I had some people in my office who I've helped to get 
some money to reopen a rail line that was closed by some hedge fund in 
my district that bought it out, and they're being hung up on getting a 
Federal grant, which I helped them get one of those horrible earmarks 
we get around here to further enhance that short rail line, by some 
paperwork at the Fish and Wildlife. It just happened that the regional 
guy from the Feds for Fish and Wildlife was there in my office to talk 
to another staffer. I put them together, and we solved the issue in a 
couple of minutes, but it shouldn't have happened. We can streamline 
the paperwork. We can do that in a transportation bill and deal with 
those sorts of things.
  So if you want to do real stuff to help real people, small business, 
Main Street, I'm with you, but not if this is yet another ruse to 
either engage in some sort of political, you know, pursuit of the 
administration, or if it's just something else to help your big 
business allies or something else to coddle Wall Street. Get rid of 
those burdensome regulations on Wall Street. Why, they can regulate 
themselves. Look what a great job they did over the last 10 years in 
regulating themselves. Well, they did crater the U.S. economy and the 
world economy and cost a few million people their jobs, but they would 
never do anything that would jeopardize our country.
  Those burdensome regulations on Wall Street. Those burdensome 
regulations on BP. My God, how can we have those burdensome regulations 
on those big oil companies? Just free them up. They'll drill safely 
anywhere and everywhere, and there will never be a problem.
  We had crappy regulation. Let's fix that. But we need regulations to 
avoid abuses. Don't pretend that we don't. Don't pretend that big 
business won't choose to abuse the privilege if we don't regulate them 
properly and smartly.
  Do you want to have an aviation industry further deregulated? Let's 
deregulate safety. Let's get rid of those troublesome inspectors and 
all that stuff that goes on. No one would ever fly a plane that isn't 
safe. They wouldn't ever engage in cutting corners. Whoops. That 
already happened a few times in history, didn't it, during the 
deregulatory binge in the Reagan years.
  So if you want to focus on meaningless, bothersome, trivial 
regulations, things that impede real working people, small businesses, 
truckers, other people who use our transportation system, the general 
aviation pilots, you know, and the airlines, great. But if it's just 
another hortatory thing, which it seems to be, or another gift to your 
big business allies, forget about it.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
72 to review regulations and orders from agencies and their effect on 
jobs and the economy.
  One example of an unnecessary proposed rule change is a change in the 
hours-of-service rule being considered by the Department of 
Transportation. It would have a detrimental impact on productivity and 
the economy.
  Under the current rule, both the number and rate of fatal and injury-
related accidents involving large trucks have declined by more than 
one-third. These accidents are now at the lowest levels in recorded 
history. We are successfully balancing safety with productivity, and 
this current rule works.
  The proposed rule change would put additional trucks on the road to 
deliver the same quantity of goods. This puts more drivers at risk, 
increases congestion, pollution, and will result in higher final 
product costs, not to mention the burden this would place on the 
trucking industry, particularly the small business truckers, some of 
whom could be forced out of business. Furthermore, the proposed rules 
are so complex and restrictive, compliance and enforcement would become 
nearly impossible.
  Why would we replace a rule that has served us well, particularly 
when the proposed change is hardly practical and would negatively 
impact productivity and our ability to compete?
  In the least, this is a redundant and unnecessary process. At worst, 
it is designed to appease a narrow group of special interests.
  On two prior occasions, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration estimated that this change to the rules would cost the 
U.S. economy $2.2 billion, and that number includes the safety 
benefits. Somehow and for some reason, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration then changed its methodology for estimating both the 
costs and the benefits for this new proposed rule. This led to a 
statistically positive benefit-cost ratio. Strangely, however, the 
agency's own analysis still demonstrates the estimated benefits of 
retaining the current rule exceed the estimated benefits of the 
proposed change.
  Changing this rule is both unnecessary and wasteful on the part of 
the Federal Government and of small businesses and large businesses 
everywhere.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is simple. It instructs the 
committees to do the job they already do--conduct oversight of the laws 
passed by Congress.
  I believe clarity of purpose is an important component to 
successfully tackling the challenges we face as a Nation. So, while I 
have no objection to this resolution, I question why we need to spend 
9\1/2\ hours debating what we should all unanimously agree on. Spending 
this much time on this resolution is like making sure we finish chewing 
our gum before we start walking--when just a few months ago we were 
doing both at the same time.
  Take the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for example. This 
legislation was passed as an unprecedented response to the most severe 
economic crisis our Nation has faced since the Great Depression. We 
knew that there was a lot of taxpayer money involved in this 
legislation. That's why we included reporting requirements for the 
recipients, and that's why we included diligent committee oversight. 
Because of these measures, I know that approximately $1.5 billion was 
allocated to Hawaii. Since 2009, this money has helped to save or 
create 13,000 full-time equivalent jobs in Hawaii.

                              {time}  1750

  I also know that Hawaii received approximately $156 million for 
highway and water infrastructure improvements. These funds are helping 
to build Hawaii's infrastructure for the future right now.
  For example, when completed, the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant 
expansion project on the island of Kauai will double the capacity of 
the existing plant. It will allow the county to take advantage of 
photovoltaic systems that will minimize the facility's carbon 
footprint. The expanded capacity will also reduce the county's reliance 
on potable water for irrigation, water that they need for other 
purposes besides irrigation. Altogether, this investment will allow for 
expanded development in the area, which will lead to more new 
businesses and, importantly, more new jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same 
time again. As the Recovery Act demonstrates, when we do, we can make a 
positive difference in the lives of our constituents, create jobs, and 
address the challenges we face together.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

[[Page H648]]

  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, let me clear up something really 
quickly. The reason I'm rising in support of this resolution and the 
reason it is so important that we debate the job-killing costs of 
regulation is because we are at an all-time high in my neck of the 
woods for unemployment. We're at double-digit unemployment in southwest 
Washington, and we've been doing it just in about every single county 
in my district for weeks.
  The other side keeps saying, oh, my goodness, this is simple, this is 
kid's stuff. If this is kid's stuff, why are we dealing with it today 
at the beginning of this Congress? Why wasn't it dealt with last 
Congress? I'll tell you why, because we need to make changes. We need 
to tell these agencies back off small businesses, back off families, 
back off our cities. Operate within the law. Don't make your own laws.
  Last year, the EPA promulgated 928 new rules last year alone, 928 new 
rules. You know, when I have my construction workers who are out of 
work right now come to me and say we've got these storm water 
regulations and they're requiring us to go back into pre-Lewis and 
Clark days, we don't even know what that looks like. We've got these 
regulations handed down to us from the Feds and we can't hire new 
workers. We can't build new businesses. We can't even redevelop without 
cutting our arms off, when it comes to costs.
  It needs to change. I'm all for commonsense solution-oriented 
regulation. I want to protect our environment. I want to protect our 
way of life, but business and our economy are not mutually exclusive 
with our environment. We're simply saying, and we're taking the time 
today to say, that the EPA and other Federal agencies that have 
overstepped their bounds need to check themselves, or we're going to 
have this debate.
  So I invite my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We want to 
create jobs. We want America to be working again. I have friends and 
family out of work in southwest Washington and they want to work; but 
then their small employer says, I'm sorry, I've got to put new money 
into this infrastructure piece to retrofit it to bring it up to speed 
with this new regulation, I can't hire you or I need to minimize your 
hours.
  So there is work to be done.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. I thank the gentlelady for the time, and, Mr. Speaker, I 
also want to briefly at the beginning comment on why we're here today. 
We're here today because the 111th Congress didn't do some of this 
work, and we have a resolution that is going to make the 112th Congress 
get the job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 72, and I'm speaking 
about the egregious overregulation by the current administration. One 
specific instance I would like to bring up to the floor occurred with 
Spruce Number One surface mine in southern West Virginia.
  I know that it is not uncommon for the EPA to veto mine permits, but 
this is the first time in the history that the EPA has vetoed a mining 
permit after it has been issued and placed into action. The portion of 
the Clean Water Act referenced was section 404, a requirement for 
commercial investment in several industries, including mining and 
transportation.
  I'm the son of a coal miner who worked in an underground coal mine 
for 37 years, and now I'm representing southwestern Indiana, a district 
rich in coal reserves; and in State of Indiana, 95 percent of our 
electrical energy comes from coal. Every coal mine in Indiana, except 
for one, is in my district. I find it very troubling that the EPA would 
veto a mining permit after it had been issued by the Corps of Engineers 
and put into operation by the mining company. The mining company had 
invested $250 million and was going to bring good jobs to southern West 
Virginia.
  I am troubled by this overstepping by the EPA because I am fearful 
that all mining companies going through the permitting process in my 
district are going to be at risk, even if they're granted a permit. I'm 
also fearful for all the industries that require section 404 permits 
that could have theirs retroactively vetoed and would waste private 
capital investment and hurt job creation.
  With our Nation's labor force participation rate at a 26-year low, we 
must end the overregulation and stop the atrocious overreaching by 
government agencies. We need jobs in America.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have my last speaker. I yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity today to 
begin the long process of addressing the hidden tax of burdensome 
regulations. These are the regulations that choke small businesses, 
hinder U.S. manufacturers, and obstruct job creation.
  Last year alone, the Federal Government created 43 major new rules 
that cost our economy approximately $28 billion, and my friends on the 
other side of the aisle wonder why jobs are going overseas.
  By directing committees to review and purge outdated and unproductive 
regulations from the books, this resolution provides much-needed 
oversight to a regulatory system that is spiraling out of control.
  As the co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, I hear almost 
every day from manufacturers and other small businesses that are being 
crushed by unnecessary regulations which constrict job growth and yet 
don't make us any safer, any healthier, or any more secure.
  Our country needs a sensible and economically competitive regulatory 
policy. We need to give the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration a stronger voice within the executive branch to stop or 
amend bad regulations before they become finalized. We also need to 
pass the REINS Act that will require Congress to have the final say on 
major regulations before they take effect to ensure that they are 
following congressional intent.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 72.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say I look 
forward to working with the gentleman from West Virginia and all in 
this House to make our America a better place to live, work, and raise 
a family.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) and Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor and the House leadership 
for bringing this important resolution forward.
  This resolution represents the opening battle in the fight against 
the continued expansion and overreach of the regulatory state, that 
state being the Federal Government.
  We have just gone through 4 years of a very liberal Congress and 2 
years of a very liberal administration, and working hand in hand, they 
have passed massive new laws that expanded government and weakened 
personal freedom. The 10th Amendment says that all powers not 
specifically granted to the Federal Government are left to the States 
and the people. But from health care to financial services to other 
sectors of the economy, Congress has ceded its constitutional 
responsibility to unelected and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats.
  Two years ago, President Obama reminded us that elections matter when 
he said, ``I won.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, in November, the American people 
won. In doing so, they made it clear to anyone listening that they 
strenuously objected to the direction that our country has taken. They 
object to the limitations imposed on our freedom, on our choices, and 
on our ability to create jobs. This is not new. In the past as well as 
in the current administration, liberal Presidents who could not achieve 
their goals by the consent of the people have resorted to regulatory 
fiat to give their most extreme supporters what they want.
  Under these regulatory regimes, the power of Congress and the people 
has been reduced to notice and comment, a

[[Page H649]]

notice and comment period in which they can only state their 
objections. However, as is becoming increasingly apparent to the 
American people, these comments are regularly ignored by the 
regulators. The expansion of the regulatory state continues to 
concentrate power in the executive branch and to marginalize 
representative government with congressionally enacted legislation 
being replaced by decrees from regulators who are insulated from the 
popular vote.
  Fortunately, this Congress is committed to doing something about 
unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory burdens, and the resolution we 
are debating today is a great start.
  Under this resolution, 10 House committees--including the Financial 
Services Committee--will review pending and existing regulations to 
determine their impact on our Nation's economy, on its ability to 
create jobs and, most importantly, our own personal freedoms.
  This review comes not a moment too soon. Our job creators struggle 
under a seemingly endless and constant flurry of mandates pushed out by 
the administration and initiated under the former majority in Congress. 
Nothing better illustrates the rule of the unelected in the regulatory 
state than the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of this one massive piece of 
legislation passed in the last Congress, there will be a tsunami of 300 
new Washington rules and regulations. The burden of these regulations 
will almost certainly limit access to credit for small businesses and 
consumers. They will divert private sector resources that should go to 
expanding businesses and creating jobs. And they will also limit the 
owners and the consumers of those firms from making their own choices 
and decisions.
  The Financial Services Committee has heard testimony from many 
witnesses about the harmful impact of the act. One of them, the Cargill 
Corporation alone, told us that the act's requirements on derivatives 
would cost the company $1 billion, funds that otherwise would be 
deployed for the construction of a new plant in Kansas City, a plant 
that would create thousands of jobs and put Americans back to work.
  That is only one example of the uncertainty our economy faces due to 
these new Washington regulations. It shows how the expanding regulatory 
state too often forces U.S. companies to divert resources and time away 
from job creation and investment and instead toward obeying the ever-
growing demands of a bigger and more intrusive government.
  In a hearing in my committee only this morning, there was bipartisan 
agreement and no opposition to a provision in our oversight plan 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) requiring a 
review of the mixed messages in which we hear Washington regulators 
calling for increased lending by banks but examiners in the field 
micromanaging bank activities and stifling lending. These conflicting 
signals are creating uncertainty that prevents banks from lending to 
small businesses, and in extreme cases they have caused the failures of 
those very banks. This uncertainty, in turn, impedes economic growth 
and costs jobs.
  Let me conclude by saying this Congress was elected to limit the 
scope of the Federal Government, not to expand it. Our forefathers who 
fashioned the 10th Amendment would be pleased with our debate and our 
efforts today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets 
and Government Sponsored Enterprises, I am extremely concerned about 
the impact of the Republicans' continuing resolution on the ability of 
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to police our capital 
markets, thereby preventing another financial crisis.
  To be clear, the Republican continuing resolution, with its $100 
billion in proposed cuts, is an assault on job creation, vulnerable 
populations and our communities. However, it is also an assault on our 
financial markets. If the Securities and Exchange Commission is level-
funded or funded at 2008 levels, we risk defunding the main agency with 
oversight over the risky financial products that started the 2008 
financial crisis. The SEC is supposed to be our Wall Street cop. It is 
supposed to make sure that the brokerage firms are obeying the law. It 
is supposed to protect the investors. It is supposed to make sure that 
those people who work every day having their money invested by 
institutional investments like the pension funds are not losing their 
investments in their 401(k)s.
  Let's talk about what happened in 2008. In 2008, our financial 
markets collapsed. In 2008, it was clear that the SEC didn't have the 
tools or the resources it needed to monitor or police those markets. 
So, frankly, I don't understand why Republicans would want to underfund 
the SEC with the same amount of funding it received in the year that it 
lacked the resources to monitor financial markets that were spinning 
out of control.
  From 2005 to 2007, during the buildup to the crisis that imploded in 
2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 to 
2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined by 50 
percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled, the number of 
investment advisers has increased by 50 percent, and the funds they 
manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion.
  Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees 
currently oversee 35,000 entities--including 11,450 investment 
advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker dealers, and more than 
10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies that 
trade on average 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone 
every day.
  The Dodd-Frank Act will prevent the next crisis by authorizing the 
SEC to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisers 
and broker dealers, and rein in credit rating agencies. In order to do 
this, the SEC needs additional funding. The Securities and Exchange 
Commission that is our Wall Street cop to protect us all needs 
additional funding. Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC 
to staff up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. Why? If 
funded at fiscal year 2008 levels, the SEC would have to lay off 
hundreds of staff and cut its IT budget down to $86 million, its lowest 
level of IT spending since 2003.

                              {time}  1810

  At this level, the SEC would not be able to implement the new systems 
it needs to protect the Nation's securities markets.
  We have all said to the public in so many ways, and certainly through 
Dodd-Frank, that we are going to change the way the SEC has been 
working; we are going to make sure we have some protections for 
consumers and investors. Yet we know it can't be done without the 
resources, without the money. You can tell where your priorities are 
based on where you put your funding. This attack on the SEC is more 
disturbing because the agency's funding will be deficit-neutral. 
Beginning in fiscal year 2012, fees collected by the SEC will match its 
congressional appropriation. The critical role that the SEC plays in 
our Nation's financial markets is precisely why Wall Street, the very 
entity that the SEC regulates, is asking for Congress to fully fund 
this agency.
  According to a February 7 article in The New York Times, 41 prominent 
securities lawyers and professionals have already written to Congress 
to ask for full funding for the agency. Why do we have to beg for 
funding for the SEC if we are truly about the business of protecting 
our consumers?
  Mr. Speaker, the SEC needs a sufficient level of funding. If Wall 
Street's cop on the beat is unavailable, we risk another financial 
crisis and loss of more jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the time. Thank 
you for your leadership on our committee as we work toward better 
solutions for a modernized financial regulatory structure.
  Last year, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act was signed into law. Today we

[[Page H650]]

are realizing the overarching effects such legislation will have on our 
economy, and this has only just begun. Onerous new regulations and the 
creation of an entirely new agency with vast influence over consumer 
choice will only impede our recovery. Instead of expanding the scope of 
government, we need efficient and effective regulatory oversight to 
support the private sector which will drive our economy's recovery.
  I have deep concerns about what this new law will mean for 
employment, as do many of my constituents. Charles Maddy, who is the 
president of Summit Community Bank, testified before our committee. The 
bank is headquartered in my district, and he testified just this month 
about the effects of the new rules and regulations enacted under the 
Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation on small institutions. Even 
though small institutions are supposedly ``carved out'' of this law, 
Charlie expressed serious concerns about his institution's ability to 
compete in this new regulatory regime. Banks that didn't take excessive 
risks or use exotic financial products are going to see higher 
compliance costs, limited access to capital, and regulatory pressures 
on lending issues, all of which hurt our ability and his ability to 
serve the community.
  While it is necessary to regulate those that acted irresponsibly, it 
is important that the regulations be targeted and effective, not broad 
and burdensome. At a time when we should be creating economic certainty 
in our markets, we are seeing the unintended consequences of this law. 
According to Mr. Maddy, ``New standards are being applied without banks 
having a clear understanding of where they are.'' This will only 
discourage investment and innovation and hinder job creation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I come after a couple of members of the Financial 
Services Committee with whom I like to work and I admire; but I've got 
to say, what's being proposed here today is that America forget what 
happened on Wall Street 2 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago. It's a 
request to have collective amnesia and forget that giant Ponzi schemes 
were perpetrated on hundreds of thousands of people. Pension funds, 
firefighter funds, people all across this country.
  Let's just start with one guy named Madoff. The reason you have 
regulations, the reason you want a regulatory body is to stop crooks 
like Bernie Madoff. And under the Republican watch, it was, Let's not 
regulate. Let's not enforce regulations. Let's allow the market to 
regulate and police itself. And then we have a guy like Bernie Madoff.
  I heard Mr. Bachus talk about a company that, because of regulations, 
won't invest $1 billion. Well, regulations and the lack of regulations 
under the Bush administration cost investors $65 billion in the Madoff 
Ponzi scheme alone. Forget about Stanford and the other ones where 
these bandits were running rampant.
  Our economy expects regulation. It requires regulation so people 
aren't defrauded and looted. And it's this kind of oversight where we 
make sure the regulators are doing their job to look out for crooks who 
are stealing people's money. That's their job.
  The thing that threw this country into a tailspin was the Wall Street 
excesses and the rampage that these Ponzi scheme artists put on 
America, and my friends on the Republican side of the aisle want us to 
forget that. They want to say, Let's not have any regulation. We have 
too much regulation. Well, that lack of regulation almost killed this 
country's economy, millions of jobs lost. We don't hear anything from 
the Republicans about, Let's put people back to work; let's create 
jobs. It's about, wait a second; we've got to get rid of these 
regulations that they did not enforce when they were in power, causing 
this country to lose billions of dollars and millions of jobs.
  So we all agree that there should be oversight of the executive 
branch. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. The regulations are important, especially in an arena 
where huge amounts of money are being transferred. Billions of dollars 
were stolen from Americans. We have regulations in place. We need those 
regulations enforced. And if the Republican Party thinks that these 
things are in excess, they should go talk to some of the victims of 
those giant Ponzi schemes that occurred under their watch.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chairman of the Housing 
and Insurance Subcommittee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, government burdens are the number one concern that 
employers in my district share with me every time I visit a small 
business or talk with local entrepreneurs. Among all the economic 
hurdles we face, Federal demands clearly play a leading role in driving 
the uncertainty that has frozen our job market. And it's no wonder.
  Over the last few years, contrary to what the gentleman from Colorado 
just talked about, Congress has enacted sweeping new laws regulating 
finance, health, and more; and as a result, employers are facing 
thousands of new pages of Federal regulations, mandates, and paperwork 
nightmares. For example, the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul will result 
in an estimated 330 new rulemakings that have the potential to raise 
the cost of credit, impede private investment, and curtail innovation 
in the financial sector.
  As a result, the Small Business Administration estimates that 
America's most active job creators, small businesses, are the hardest 
hit by Federal regulations. Those with 20 or fewer employees pay an 
astounding $10,585 per year per employee to comply with Federal 
regulations. It's time to go line by line through the Federal rule 
book. Let's examine what works, throw out what doesn't, and make sure 
we aren't imposing unfair and unnecessary burdens on job creators.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 72.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).

                              {time}  1820

  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her 
leadership, and I join her and my other colleagues in speaking out in 
strong protest to the projected cuts that they are pushing through the 
Securities Exchange Commission, the watchdog agency that is looking to 
find corruption, abuse and to protect the investors and to protect our 
financial community.
  Our Republican colleagues have proposed that the SEC's budget should 
be cut back to 2008 levels. But I can hardly imagine that they can be 
pleased at the level of oversight that was performed by the SEC in 
2008, the year the economy cratered, the year that massive abuses such 
as the Madoff scandal came to light, and other abuses.
  We should not be scaling back the staff and oversight capability of 
the SEC. We should be adding to it so that they can do a better job in 
protecting investors and the American taxpayer.
  According to the SEC inspector general, the Republican proposal would 
force the agency to cut over 600 staff members--over 600.
  Now, we know that the SEC has 60 studies that they have to come out 
with, hundreds of rules, and they are clamoring for more staff to meet 
the mandates of this Congress and of the regulatory reform bill that 
has been written to save taxpayers from having to bail out too big to 
fail and excesses and mismanagement in the financial industry.
  Just as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling for 
more accountability, they would cripple one of the key agencies that 
holds people in a key sector accountable. The SEC's budget for all of 
2010 is equal to just a small fraction of the bonus pool for just one 
major firm in the financial sector.
  So let's look at the facts here. The total loss of household wealth 
as a result of the Great Recession has been estimated to be 
approximately $14 trillion. $14 trillion. It was a financial disaster 
that did not have to happen.

[[Page H651]]

  There was a movement on the Republican aisle to roll back regulation. 
There was a lack of adequate oversight, and the lack of oversight and 
regulation were major contributing factors to this financial disaster.
  So the Republicans' new proposal to cut the badly needed oversight of 
our financial system brings to mind the old American saying, ``They are 
being penny wise and pound foolish'' with the economy of our great 
country.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), the senior member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in terms of a lack of regulation, I think 
it's interesting to note that it was the Republicans who attempted to 
regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the Republicans who were 
attempting to bring regulation against those government-sponsored 
enterprises because the Federal Reserve had approached us and told us 
that we faced a systemic economic consequence that might bring down, 
not only the housing sector, but the other sectors of the economy.
  And who was it that pushed for those zero down payment loans? Who was 
it who pushed for the arbitrage over at Fannie and Freddie?
  Now, here's the reality. The SEC has always had the ability to 
prosecute securities fraud. But what happened under Madoff for, what, 
18 years, 20 years under President Clinton and under President Bush is 
that you had an inability on the part of the young lawyers at the SEC 
to find that fraud. And this is something I and others have pushed for.
  One of the things we tried to do during the Dodd-Frank bill was to 
get a reform of the culture over at the SEC. Why? Because that over-
lawyered institution was incapable of even understanding what Madoff 
and others had done with these Ponzi schemes. And when we tried to push 
those reforms through, what did we get out of it on the other side of 
the aisle? They agreed to a study, a study, of the SEC culture.
  Now, in the meantime, we have 3,800 people over at the SEC. At a time 
when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit, we're going to have to have 
haircuts. We cannot ramp up everybody's salary around here. We can't 
give promotions to everybody all the time. Everybody's going to have to 
take a little bit of the cut in order for us to get this budget back 
into balance.
  And I can share with you a couple of other thoughts, too, about the 
way in which we've approached this, because we've magnified too big to 
fail with what we've done with Dodd-Frank.
  Ask any economist about some of the consequences of this legislation. 
We've reduced the cost of capital for the largest institutions at the 
expense of their community bank competitors or their credit union 
competitors. It is the large institutions that have a 100 basis point, 
a 1 percent interest point advantage now in the market, because now we 
have made them too big to fail under this legislation.
  If we don't reform this, if we don't change our system in a way in 
which we get some commonsense regulations out there, it's not as though 
we're not competing around the world. Think for a minute about what's 
happening in Germany. Think about what's happening in Britain and 
Brazil and Singapore. They are competing against us because of the 
antibusiness environment we have created, and not only in terms of 
regulations that don't make sense many times. But I appreciate the 
opportunity to point this out.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the SEC has 
3,800 employees, and this is correct; it does have 3,800 employees. But 
it also has to be said that they oversee 35,000 entities. It must also 
be noted that they have to police 11,450 investment advisers. It also 
must be said that they have to monitor 7,600 mutual funds. They have 
5,000 broker dealers that they have to keep an eye on. And they also 
have 10,000-plus companies that they have to monitor. Yes, 3,800 
employees, but they are overworked already and they are overwhelmed 
with what they have to do.
  I might note, also, that if we go back to the 2008 levels, we're 
talking about over $200 million in cuts to the SEC. The SEC needs help, 
not hurt. This piece of legislation, if it is implemented to its 
fullest thought intent, will indeed hurt the SEC.
  Let's talk for just a second about who the SEC employees actually 
are. These are the first responders to possible financial disasters. 
They are the ones who have to catch the Madoffs of the world, as has 
been indicated. And I must add, also, that it was under the 2008 levels 
that Madoff was able to make off with about $80 billion with his Ponzi 
scheme.
  We need to protect the SEC. Let's make sure that we don't cut jobs in 
an effort to save the economy--and these are jobs that are actually 
needed. So let's not just cut any jobs. Let's make sure that we protect 
the jobs that are going to help protect the financial security of the 
United States of America.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California, our subcommittee chairman of 
the international policy, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. This side hasn't forgotten what 
went on. We haven't forgotten about Madoff. But the problem is that 
some people have forgotten that, in 1998, a whistleblower first went to 
the SEC on Madoff and they did nothing--nothing. Repeatedly, 
individuals went to the SEC on Madoff and they did nothing.
  Now, we can pass all the new regulations through Dodd-Frank we want 
to pass. Madoff went to jail because he was a criminal. He violated the 
law. And you don't need 20 laws in place to punish a person for one 
act. We did it. Dodd-Frank goes far beyond that. It is 243 new 
regulations in the pipeline; 243 is scary.
  Now, the SEC has failed in many ways. I know many of my friends on 
this side of the aisle heard me talk about mark to market principles 
for 4 years with the SEC. Now, mark to market means when the lender 
makes a loan, they have to mark the value on their books of what the 
product is worth at current market value.
  For example, if 5 years ago a piece of property is worth $20 million, 
they lent $15 million, today it's worth only $12 million, well, the SEC 
says we should lend no more than $8 million. Now the loan comes up for 
renewal and the loan is performing, meaning the individual who owns the 
property is current on his payments. What the lender is required to do 
based on SEC requirements, because Federal regulators have no control 
over that because SEC sets the requirements, they can either set a $7 
million set-aside because the loan is overvalued based on the books, or 
they can say to the individual, You owe us $7 million to reinstate the 
loan. In this economy, most people don't have the $7 million.
  Had we modified mark to market standards and looked at loans on 
realistic fortune principles in the future, most of these lenders today 
would be in business and many people would not have lost their loans 
and their product that they had under that loan.
  We have done nothing through the SEC. In fact, the first time I asked 
the SEC Chairwoman in the hearing, and the question was 4 minutes long 
regarding mark to market principles, she looked at me and she said, 
I'll get back to you on that, Congressman.
  Nothing to date has happened.
  So to look at the SEC and say they are saints, they are doing their 
job and they are protecting the citizenry and the individuals out 
there, I can't say that. I would like to see these individuals held 
accountable for what they did not do. In 1998, had they moved with 
Madoff and done what they should have done, or in 2000 or 2002, a lot 
of investors would have more money than they have today, but they did 
not.
  Just as our Nation is trying to recover, it seems like the Obama 
administration is doing nothing but making it harder for American 
businesses.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to another member of the 
Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Mel Watt.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I came in in the middle of this debate, and I 
have been trying to figure out if the American people who may be 
watching this, and even my colleagues here on the floor, may even 
understand what this debate is about.

[[Page H652]]

  The original resolution talks about inventorying and looking at and 
evaluating regulations. I think that's a substitute for trying to 
figure out how to cut back on various agencies and their authority and 
what they are doing, and we don't want to lose sight of that. I think 
that is an honorable objective.
  The problem is that this debate has wandered off into a discussion 
about whether the SEC effectively did what it was supposed to do with 
respect to Bernie Madoff. And when I hear my colleague, Mr. Miller, 
say, well, this is about holding the SEC accountable for what they did 
not do, I don't know how you hold the SEC accountable for what they did 
not do by decreasing their ability to regulate an industry and by 
decreasing their budget. Those two things don't compute with me. I just 
am having a big problem internalizing this.
  You have an agency here that has a $1 billion annual budget. It has 
responsibility for policing and monitoring all of the things that Mr. 
Green talked about in his debate. But on a gross level, 8.5 billion 
shares of stock are transferred every day, so $1 billion a year. We are 
supposed to monitor and control 8.5 billion shares a day transferred 
and transacted, and here we are talking about, well, let's take 
authority from the SEC and let's take money away from the SEC to do 
what it's supposed to do.
  Friends, that does not compute, and the American people know that it 
does not compute.
  Now, the underlying resolution says that you are supposed to find 
ways to identify how these regulations impact and limit access to 
credit and capital. Well, imagine what is going to happen with 
investors in this country if the SEC isn't available to regulate the 
transactions, 8.5 billion transactions a day. And you are going to say, 
Okay, we want your capital, but we are not going to do anything to 
protect you as an investor. We are going to let Bernie Madoff do 
whatever he wants to do, because we are getting ready to limit the 
number of regulations the SEC can impose on Bernie Madoff, and we are 
getting ready to limit their budget to enforce the regulations that 
they have.
  Friends, that does not compute. It does not compute with Members of 
this House, and, I will tell you, it will not compute with the American 
public.
  This is a simple debate: Do you allow the private sector to do 
whatever they want to whenever they want to in whatever circumstances 
they want to so that we can be back in another economic chaos like we 
had for the last 2 or 3 years, or do we have some reasonable 
regulations and reasonably fund the ability of the regulators to 
enforce those regulations? That's what this debate is about.
  I don't know what Mr. Miller was talking about. I don't know how this 
relates to Fannie and Freddie. It doesn't. Everything in our committee 
seems to relate to Fannie and Freddie. But this is about how we are 
going to regulate these stock transactions. And if you reduce their 
budget and reduce their ability to regulate, I guarantee you, we will 
be out of control. It does not compute.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished freshman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Our focus this Congress should be on supporting job creation. I would 
like to refocus this debate a little bit, because I support a pretty 
simple proposition when it comes to regulation, and that is the 
benefits of regulation should exceed the costs.
  Last week, in Worthington, Ohio, I heard from over a hundred small 
business owners at a local chamber of commerce. They are worried about 
uncertainty. They are worried about limited transparency in this 
current regulatory environment, and it causes them to slow down on job 
creation and it stifles our economy.
  Over the past couple of weeks, the House committees have had hearings 
on jobs, including the Financial Services Committee, that talked about 
job growth. We discussed the need to compare the benefits of the costs 
of regulation to those benefits even with the independent agencies. 
Experts suggested that we review overly burdensome and duplicative 
regulation, which hurts access to capital and job growth.
  I believe the Office of Management and Budget should be required to 
analyze the tradeoffs between proposed regulations and what they have 
on affecting job creation, economic growth, innovation, and 
competitiveness.
  We must ensure that our new Federal regulations don't interrupt 
consumers' ability to obtain credit, or prevent small businesses from 
adding jobs or hindering economic growth.

                              {time}  1840

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks), who also serves on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. MEEKS. I thank the gentlelady from California.
  You know, I have been listening to the debate in my office, et 
cetera, and I agree with my colleague Mel Watt. Sometimes we get 
confused, I think. Maybe if we can just break this down to the common 
denominator.
  I used to be a prosecutor, and I asked the following question: If a 
burglar breaks into your house and steals your life savings, do you 
then go to the police department and ask the police department to have 
the investigator or someone there so you can try to find out who did it 
or put in measures to prevent it from happening again, because you ask 
him to look to see how they broke into your house, what they did, how 
can you fix it? Or do you say, we don't need a police department. 
Forget having the police department, so that other people's homes can 
be broken into also. That is really what we are talking about here.
  So in the aftermath of the largest crisis of our lifetime, a crisis 
that not only wiped out trillions of dollars worth of investments and 
savings but led to the exposure of what we talked about, the Ponzi 
schemes and crimes perpetuated against the American people, it is 
imperative that we don't handcuff the people who can look and put in 
preventive measures and make sure that we don't have this catastrophe 
again.
  The amount of money that the SEC and the CFTC are requesting, $160 
million, is less than we spend a day in petroleum marketplaces, in 
Baghdad or Kabul. We all agree, this argument comes in, everybody knows 
that government needs to tighten its belt. But indiscriminate cutting 
across the board is not only absurd, it is dangerous. Reducing funding 
for the SEC and the CFTC is irresponsible and will lead to additional 
Madoffs in the future. I think that we owe the American people much 
more than that.
  What we are simply talking about here is making sure that those 
individuals whose responsibility it is to make sure that we don't get 
in this predicament again, that people don't lose their life savings, 
have the resources that are necessary to do it. That is what we are 
talking about.
  So I would urge that we not cut, but give the amount of money that is 
requested by the SEC and the CFTC, because I think that is what the 
American people would expect of us as being Members of the People's 
House, taking care of them and making sure that their life savings are 
protected.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished freshman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am a small business owner. I own and operate 
a business. I employ just under 100 people. For me, that is 100 
families. One of the reasons that I am here today is I decided the 
government was making it harder and harder for me to put the key in the 
door and open up my business every day, and it should be quite the 
opposite.
  We need regulation. I am going to agree with my colleagues on the 
other side. We need regulation, but it has to be smart regulation. H. 
Res. 72 finally gives the American public, employees, consumers, 
businesses, and families a bright light at the end of what is a very 
dark and long regulatory tunnel. And while we agree that many 
regulations are there to safeguard the American public, this resolution 
will simply require that House committees review these government 
regulations.
  While doing so, each committee will identify each regulation's 
effects on jobs and economic growth, and, more specifically, ask 
certain sets of fundamental questions, including, will the proposed 
regulation impede private

[[Page H653]]

sector job creation? That is the number one goal right now, to try to 
create jobs. Will the proposed regulation discourage innovation and the 
entrepreneurial spirit? Will the proposed regulation harm 
economic growth and investment? Will it harm America's global 
competitiveness? Will the proposed regulation limit access to credit 
and to capital? Will it create economic uncertainty?

  Unfortunately, for years, many in the Congress and regulators have 
simply ignored these questions, with devastating results for job 
creation.
  Mr. Speaker, in our global marketplace we must ask, analyze, and 
debate the questions contained in this resolution if we are serious 
about creating an environment where private sector jobs are created.
  Unfortunately, in the past we had multiple massive bills with 
thousands of pages of legislative text written and jammed through the 
Congress without meaningful debate, without transparency, and without 
opportunity for most Members to actually read and to analyze the 
mountain of legislation, creating countless regulations, rules, 
studies, and commissions. How can we possibly expect businesses to 
invest scarce capital in new equipment, in new research, in 
development, in new product lines, in new marketing programs, 
maintaining existing jobs and new initiatives, when our regulations are 
paralyzing businesses and entrepreneurs with a tremendous amount of 
uncertainty?
  I hear back in my district all the time from those that are trying to 
create jobs. A good example of the regulatory environment is a small 
business in the 10th District back in Illinois, Learning Resources, 
whose sole mission is to provide better resources for teachers and 
students to learn more easily.
  Learning Resources has suffered along with its current employees, and 
I would argue potential employees and their families, because of undue 
burdensome regulations. Their regulatory compliance costs have 
increased ten times, 1,000 percent, in just the last 5 years, even 
though the company has not had any safety issues or any problems during 
that time or the years prior to. With unduly burdensome regulations, 
jobs have been lost, business expansion opportunities have been cut 
short, employee benefits have been shaved and consumer prices have been 
artificially inflated.
  The Small Business Administration estimates that a total regulatory 
compliance cost imposed on American businesses amounts to over $1.75 
trillion each and every year. This is nearly twice as much as all 
individual income taxes collected each year. This takes away from 
productive investment and growth.
  We live, Mr. Speaker, in a global marketplace where businesses and 
capital are mobile, where businesses and jobs gravitate to where they 
are most welcome, where customers can easily choose to buy goods and 
services from businesses based anywhere in the world. We want those 
businesses and those jobs here in the United States. We want businesses 
to innovate. We want them to make sure they are welcome here in our 
borders. We have to create, however, an environment where they can grow 
and they can thrive.
  H. Res. 72 is good for individuals, for families, for employees, for 
businesses. It is good for our government, and it is good for our 
Nation, and I would respectfully urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support its passage.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who also serves on the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, we have on this side spoken tonight at some 
length about a dangerous and poorly thought out effort on the part of 
the majority to underfund and gut the financial services regulatory 
apparatus that was established in the 1930s, which, yes, failed us in 
the last couple of years. And let's be clear: There is a legitimate 
tension between the amount of regulation which creates stability and 
confidence in a system and that which puts undue burden on the vigor of 
the private market. But this effort is wrong-headed.
  Let's look at the SEC. The mission of the SEC is to protect 
investors. The notion that we should gut the funding of the SEC is 
anti-free market, it is anti-jobs and it is anti-growth, because we 
must protect those investors who take their savings and write a check 
and put it in the mail to a company in some town they have never 
visited, in a fund that they don't fully understand, because they know 
that there is a cop on the beat.
  The families who write those checks, that is not just money. That 
money is a college education, it is a secure retirement, and they do it 
because they have faith. They have faith that there is a cop on the 
beat, that whoever takes that check is closely watched, that they are 
responsible and prudent. This is the fundamental aspect of our vigorous 
economy--that families and pension funds invest. We have efficient and 
vigorous capital markets because of faith.
  Let's look at the lessons that have been learned in the last couple 
of years. It wasn't that the SEC was somehow complicit in what 
happened.

                              {time}  1850

  Yeah, they fell asleep at the switch. They didn't perform any better 
than a myriad of other organizations. But, if anything, the lesson is 
that the SEC was outgunned, underfunded, and needed help. And the 
effort of the majority now is to further underfund and gut that agency. 
It's particularly wrongheaded because the SEC pays for itself. In 
fiscal year 2012, the SEC will be budget-neutral. Why do this? Why risk 
the faith of the investors that are at the very heart of our system?
  We hear a lot about uncertainty; there's so much uncertainty. Imagine 
the uncertainty for American families and pension funds and savers and 
small businesses if they need to send that check without knowing that 
there's a cop on the beat.
  Mr. Speaker, we've seen this movie before. When the SEC was 
established in the 1930s, the Republicans at the time said this would 
be the end of capitalism. It would be the end of the free market. It 
would crush the U.S. economy. Instead, putting in place a well-balanced 
and vigorous regulatory apparatus led to 60 years of the most 
aggressive and intense economic growth human history has ever seen--
because people had faith in the system.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 5 minutes remaining
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 72.
  The greatest challenge facing this new 112th Congress is our 
responsibility to support policies that foster an environment of 
economic certainty and that will provide businesses in Virginia's Fifth 
District and across this Nation with the confidence necessary to hire 
and expand once again.
  It was refreshing to spend last week meeting with constituents and 
businesses in the Fifth District. People and businesses continue to 
struggle, and it is clear that job creation remains the top priority 
for the people that I represent. As I have talked to these same job 
creators and constituents over the past years, it is equally clear that 
access to capital is the lifeblood of Main Street business. It is also 
clear that the overregulation represented in Dodd-Frank will make it 
increasingly difficult for capital to be available so that our small 
businesses can succeed and hire new employees.
  My constituents believe that we must rein in the size and scope of 
the Federal Government by removing unnecessary regulations for our job 
creators. House Resolution 72 will begin this process in a deliberative 
and thoughtful manner as it directs our committees to review Federal 
regulations and assess their negative impacts on our economy.
  As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I look forward to 
working with the chairman and my colleagues as we conduct a close 
review of the regulations that are hindering job creation and economic 
growth for the people of the Fifth District and our Nation.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 72.

[[Page H654]]

  Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
House Resolution 72, which would direct the Financial Services 
Committee to conduct an inventory reviewing existing, pending, and 
proposed regulations that impede job creation and economic growth. Once 
again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid of the 
answers that they will find when we shine the light of truth on what 
these regulations do.
  As Members of Congress, we need to work with job creators to help 
create an atmosphere in our country that will foster job growth, 
particularly within the small business community. Simply put, the 
private sector, not the public sector, creates prosperity. We don't 
need more government or a bigger one. Last year alone, the executive 
branch issued more than 3,000 new rules and regulations which their own 
Small Business Administration reports will cost businesses over a 
trillion dollars.
  Both sides of the aisle agree that small businesses are the backbone 
and the engine of the economy and provide more than two-thirds of all 
American jobs. As a small business owner, I know firsthand how Federal 
regulations can choke small businesses. The average small business with 
less than 20 employees faces an annual cost of $10,585 to comply with a 
myriad of Federal regulations per worker they employ. For my small 
gravel company that employs two full-time workers, including a 
gentleman who's worked for my grandfather, my father, and myself, that 
equates to more than $21,000 that I have to spend towards compliance--
money that I could be using to invest in much-needed new equipment.
  Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the national 
unemployment rate fell from 9.6 percent to 9.4 percent. This drop is 
due largely to people who have simply stopped looking for work. In some 
areas of my district, the Second District in Michigan, that number is 
nearly double the national average.
  I believe there are some universal principles of successful 
businesses that Congress could work on to help grow our economy again. 
For government, that means creating an atmosphere for success through a 
reasonable tax and regulatory environment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage my colleague, Mr. 
Himes, in a colloquy for the balance of our time.
  I appreciated the comments that you made just a few minutes ago, but 
you alluded to the length of time that we have organized the SEC and 
some protections and what happened, the kind of growth we had, but now 
things have changed somewhat and the oversight responsibility is a 
little bit more complicated and a little bit more difficult.
  What did you mean by that?
  Mr. HIMES. I thank the gentlelady from California for that question.
  If you look at when these regulatory bodies were established in the 
1930s and you look at the volatility and the growth that happened in 
the next 60 years, volatility was way down and growth was way up, and 
the American middle class took hold because they had confidence in the 
system. They knew that their investor dollars would be protected.
  Then we began in the early nineties, policymakers from both sides of 
the aisle, to dismantle that regulation, to take the referee off the 
field. And so we find ourselves where we are today--uncertainty, a 
financial crisis meltdown--at the very moment when the technology, the 
flash trading, the complicated securities are bewildering in their 
complexity.
  Now is exactly the wrong time to be gutting the SEC. We do that and 
people lose their confidence.
  Ms. WATERS. I want to ask you, is it true that the average investor--
I'm not just talking about the big institutional investors, but the 
average investor understands the complication of this? Do they expect 
that we understand it and we're going to regulate it, we're going to 
watch out for them? What does the average investor know about the 
system?
  Mr. HIMES. The average investor, the mom and pop, the widows and 
orphans funds, they're not necessarily financially sophisticated. They 
need somebody looking over the shoulder of those that are selling them 
stock, selling them bonds.
  The institutional investors that you're talking about, of course, in 
many instances, are exempt from regulations by the SEC. They're deemed 
to be sophisticated, so they can participate in private placements. 
They can use 144(a) or reg D to make investments.
  But our individual investors who are so important to this economy 
need somebody looking over their shoulder and protecting them from 
snake oil salesmen and deception and poor disclosure.
  Ms. WATERS. We heard on several occasions here today the tremendous 
oversight responsibility given all of the capital markets that have to 
be monitored, that have to be regulated. What do we need to do to make 
the SEC stronger? We've gone through this meltdown. We've have gone 
through this crisis. The American people expect something to happen. 
What do they need in order to be good overseers, good cops?
  Mr. HIMES. In a more complicated and sophisticated financial world, 
the SEC must be faster. It must be more efficient. It must hire people 
who really understand the markets. It must be more robust, and it 
should be held accountable. One thing it should not be and cannot be is 
underfunded and weak, which is what the proposal of the majority would 
do to it.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield the balance of my time to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New 
York will control 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. HAYWORTH. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in New York's 19th District, our employers and small 
businesses and community banks tell me costly regulations are crushing 
economic growth by discouraging investment and expansion, by creating 
uncertainty in the marketplace, and by delaying hiring. We can all 
agree that some commonsense regulations are good, but excessive 
government rules and regulations are bad.
  On the Financial Services Committee, we know, from reporting 
requirements in Sarbanes-Oxley to countless excessive new regulations 
in Dodd-Frank, the Federal Government is sending a message to our 
financial institutions--an industry vital to my home State of New York. 
The message is: you aren't welcome here.
  The United States is currently the financial capital of the world. 
Our capital markets must be vibrant, and we must foster an environment 
that promotes growth and attracts enterprise. If we fail to do that, we 
will see an exodus--and that threat is very real--to nations like 
Singapore and China, which appreciate the opportunity a healthy 
financial industry brings.
  What a shame, because the American people want to go back to work. 
They want jobs. Burdensome, costly, and unnecessary regulations must be 
eliminated; and we must trust and empower our enterprises and our 
entrepreneurs and our small businesses and community banks and our 
employers. By supporting the resolution, we will start America on the 
path to creating jobs and prosperity for our citizens in New York 19 
and our Nation. They deserve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the size of the 
Federal Government and the size of our regulations.
  In the last 4 years of our Democratic Congress, which took power in 
January of 2007--and I will remind everyone that that was prior to the 
financial crisis--our national debt doubled in that period of time. In 
other words, we have incurred more debt in the past 4 years under a 
Democrat Senate and a Democrat House and in the last 2 years under a 
Democrat President than we had in the 220 years before. We are talking 
about a record national debt of

[[Page H655]]

$14 trillion. We are talking about a growth in the size of the Federal 
Government which in 10 years will absorb every dollar and every dime 
and every penny generated by our economy.
  Now think of such a thing--every dollar being spent by the Federal 
Government.
  You have to ask yourself: With record deficits and record debt, don't 
we have too much Federal Government? Don't we have more government than 
we can afford? Don't we have more government than we need?
  So I think it is entirely fitting for us to look at each government 
program and ask ourselves: Is there a benefit from this program? Is 
there a cost to this program? Does it eliminate jobs?
  If you will go through a list of comments that people have made to 
these regulations, you will see comment after comment after comment: 
this regulation will cost my business this much money. This regulation 
will cost this much money. I won't be able to create a job.
  So the government is spending record amounts of money. Yet it's 
adding to the cost, not only to the taxpayers, but to the cost for them 
to earn a living themselves.
  Our Secretary of Defense, a member of the administration, has 
warned--he said that this country's dire fiscal situation and the 
threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world 
will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in 
order. He actually says that our financial situation is affecting our 
credibility, and that's absolutely true. Didn't we see Japan's 
sovereign debt downgraded recently? Standard & Poor's has said, if we 
don't act, our debt will be downgraded.
  We talk about foreclosures. If our credit rating goes down, can you 
imagine the wave of foreclosures, the wave of job losses? We talk about 
foreclosures. What causes foreclosures? Most of it is job loss. We have 
testified here today--and we will tomorrow--that this regulation will 
cost jobs. You talk about foreclosures. Regulations that cost jobs 
cause foreclosures. It's that simple. We talk about the State and local 
governments not having tax revenue. When people lose their jobs, they 
don't pay the State; they don't pay the city; they don't pay the 
Federal Government. They can't. Yet we continue to add cost and job-
killing regulations.
  Admiral Mullen, our own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 
this: Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.
  What does it take for us to finally realize that we are putting our 
country in jeopardy? We for 224 years have lived and enjoyed an 
independent democracy, a Republic, but we are threatening that by our 
inability to say ``no,'' by our inability to say ``no'' to more Federal 
Government.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is not growing government. It's 
turning the private sector loose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are rising, and we have near double-
digit unemployment. The Obama administration should be doing everything 
within its power to spur economic growth and to create new jobs. 
Unfortunately, they have not.
  This administration has chosen to impose regulation after regulation 
and policy after policy on American businesses that impede their 
potential growth and thus impede our economic recovery. Many of these 
regulations delay or flat out prevent Americans from responsibly 
developing our own natural resources. They block access to American 
energy; they block access to American minerals; they block access to 
American water supplies; and they block access to American forest 
products.
  By their actions, this administration is jeopardizing our economic 
competitiveness. This jeopardy is making America more reliant on 
foreign countries to meet our everyday needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe Americans are content with locking up 
our valuable resources.

                              {time}  1910

  I don't believe Americans are content with sending American jobs 
overseas, but that's exactly what these regulations and policies are 
doing.
  President Obama says that he wants to eliminate regulations that are 
strangling businesses. That's noble, but this appears to be one more 
example of his rhetoric not matching his actions. The rules and 
regulations imposed by the Obama administration have allowed the 
Federal Government to insert itself in places that it's never been and, 
frankly, doesn't belong. Let me give you several examples.
  First, burdensome regulations are being used to restrict access to 
American energy production on public lands, both onshore and offshore. 
Last year, new rules were imposed for onshore lease sales that have 
significantly decreased energy production throughout the intermountain 
West. Offshore, the administration continues to impose a de facto 
moratorium on drilling in the gulf and has yet to issue a single deep-
well permit since last April. President Obama's de facto moratorium has 
put thousands of Americans out of work.
  These regulations are not only impeding oil and natural gas 
production but also renewable energy such as wind and solar. Why? 
Because these regulations will restrict renewable energy development to 
only a tiny, tiny fraction of our public lands.
  Second, the Obama administration is aggressively pursuing sweeping 
new changes to mining regulations. These regulations--Mr. Speaker, let 
me repeat this--these regulations, by their own admission, will cost 
thousands of American jobs and decrease American energy production in 
22 States.
  Third, the Obama administration has reversed a long-standing legal 
agreement and moved to establish a new ``wild lands'' policy that will 
further restrict public access to multipurpose public lands. This 
backdoor approach will prohibit many popular forms of recreation and 
severely restrict job-creating, energy-producing activities. By 
creating de facto wilderness, the administration is circumventing 
Congress' sole authority to establish wilderness areas.
  Fourth, the President has signed an Executive order establishing a 
new National Ocean Policy and Council that could severely restrict 
recreational and commercial use of our oceans. This policy establishes 
mandatory marine spatial planning, otherwise known as ocean zoning. The 
reach of this policy may stretch far inland, extending to potentially 
all rivers, tributaries, and lands that drain into the ocean.
  Fifth, the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed questionable 
science to be used to impose regulations that could end the use of 
vital farm crop and tree protection products. This will cost jobs and 
adversely impact trade of our agricultural products.
  And last, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not least, the Obama 
administration has supported withholding valuable water from 
communities in California's San Joaquin Valley, prioritizing the needs 
of a 3-inch fish over thousands of workers and their families. This 
Government and manmade drought caused hundreds of thousands of acres of 
fertile farm land to dry up, and that has resulted, Mr. Speaker, in an 
unemployment rate that exceeds 40 percent in that area.
  So this is just one example of how the implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act, which I might add hasn't been reviewed for 
almost 20 years, is being used to block or delay job-creating projects. 
Mr. Speaker, the goal of the ESA was to conserve key domestic species, 
but today, unfortunately, it's being used by special interest groups to 
file lawsuits and drain resources away from the real recovery efforts 
of those species.
  The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and other 
environmental regulations are going far beyond their original intent, 
and they, too, are being used to place unnecessary and costly burdens 
on economic development projects throughout the country. NEPA has 
become a tool for litigation, sometimes resulting in decades worth of 
delays before a project can move forward.
  The list of burdensome regulations and policies go on and on, and 
what I have described just scratches the surface. American businesses 
are struggling to keep their doors open. Rural communities who depend 
on these resources are feeling their livelihoods threatened. And 
American families, many of whom are already finding it difficult to 
make ends meet, are paying more for everything from gasoline to fruits 
and vegetables.

[[Page H656]]

  A clean, healthy environment is a priority for all Americans. But an 
equal priority is a Federal Government that sets sensible rules that 
provide clarity, certainty, and allow job-creating initiatives to move 
forward in a timely, efficient manner.
  The Obama administration needs to exercise common sense. Spending 
more money and imposing new rules will not lead to economic recovery. 
Businesses and communities need relief from these top-down policies 
that are costing American jobs.
  The Natural Resources Committee and all of its subcommittees will be 
conducting thorough oversight of the Obama administration policies, 
taking a close look at how and why decisions are made. So, Mr. Speaker, 
I fully support this resolution, and Republicans on the Natural 
Resources Committee are committed to promoting policies that will 
reduce spending, strengthen the economy, and create American jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  This is a very important debate because it goes right to the very 
heart of what is needed in order to ensure that we provide the proper 
protections for families across our country, from the despoliation of 
the environment and all the public health and safety and environmental 
catastrophes that then can affect American families.
  I have here a picture of the Deepwater Horizon in flames as it's 
about to go to the bottom of the ocean. This is what happened because 
of deregulation. This is what happened when regulations are not applied 
and enforced in a way that ensures that the public health and safety is 
protected, the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the 
United States, devastating the lives of 11 men and the livelihoods of 
millions of people in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the legacy of what 
happened during the Bush administration, a ticking timebomb that 
exploded across our country, leading to this environmental catastrophe.
  The same thing, by the way, is true in our financial marketplace 
where, in the Bush years, they turned a blind eye to obvious problems 
with derivatives, obvious problems with chicanery inside of the 
financial marketplace, a ticking timebomb that exploded, that has 
wreaked havoc on millions of Americans, losing their home, their jobs.
  When George Bush left office, the Dow Jones industrial average at 
6,400, 6,400, after 8 years in office. That's what George Bush left in 
office, by turning a blind eye to the kinds of regulations that it 
needed there to protect the lives of families. Today, with Barack Obama 
on the job, with a Securities and Exchange Commission doing its job, 
the Dow is now over 12,000, almost doubled, because people have 
confidence in the regulations. They can trust their money in the stock 
market once again. That's what happens when regulations are there to 
protect ordinary people.
  Now, what is their proposal? Their proposal is to take the 
Environmental Protection Agency and to turn the Environmental 
Protection Agency into every polluter's ally. They're going to bring a 
bill out here onto the House floor that says they're going to repeal 
the ability of the EPA to improve the fuel economy standards of the 
vehicles which we drive, to ensure that regulations are on the books 
that we have renewable fuels that we develop here in the United States, 
not imported from OPEC.
  The result of that bill that they're going to bring out here on the 
House floor in the next 2 weeks? Some 5 million barrels of oil per day 
that otherwise would be backed out, that we would not import from the 
Middle East, will now have to be imported. At $100 a barrel with 365 
days in a year, we're talking about $162 billion a year that the 
American consumer will have to send to the Middle East because they do 
not want to regulate.

                              {time}  1920

  They do not want to ensure that the efficiency of the cars which 
people drive, the amount of pollution that comes out of those cars, 
they say, is too high a price to pay. While here as we watch Egypt 
explode, Tunisia explode, other countries in the Middle East on the 
verge of having the same kind of explosions, this kind of 
environmental, this kind of safety protection that we put on the books 
enforces the need for us to ensure that we do not allow for the repeal 
of these environmental and safety protections. That's what this debate 
is all about.
  This is the same kind of war on the environment that we saw during 
the 8 years of the Bush administration. This is the result of that, 
ladies and gentlemen. And that's where they're going to take us if we 
have this wholesale destruction of this environmental and safety regime 
which has been put on the books in order to protect the American 
public.
  At this point I ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution 
be yielded back and that H. Res. 72 be adopted so that we can move on 
to consider legislation to create jobs in our country, which is really 
what we should be debating out here on the House floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the majority manager, the gentleman 
from Washington, yield for the purpose of that unanimous-consent 
request ?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield for the purpose 
of that request.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the chairman of the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman.
  I have a prepared statement here and I'll probably use some of it. I 
can't help but answer the gentleman from Massachusetts, who has never 
supported at any time, has never supported in any way, any energy 
development in this country. He was against nuclear power many years 
ago. He is still against it. He was against solar power and then since 
it is wind power in his State. And he's against, very frankly, any 
fossil fuel development. And depending on his so-called make-believe 
wind power, make-believe solar power, in the meantime, we're buying oil 
from overseas. And you know that.
  The EPA, very frankly, is part of the problem. I am the chairman now 
of the American Indian and Alaska Natives and their lands can't be 
developed because of EPA. The Navajo Nation had a coal plant. They had 
the coal. They had the financing. And the Obama administration says, 
no, you can't do that through the EPA, through the Fish and Wildlife, 
et cetera, and they lost the financing for a coal project because they 
don't believe in coal. We have a trust relationship to the American 
Indians. And to have other agencies within the government say, ``No, 
you can't do it, you stay right where you are'' is wrong. They have the 
highest potential of energy of any land mass in this Nation and they're 
precluded from development because of regulations.
  EPA just came out--I mentioned this earlier today--with a new concept 
of a regulation for dairies. This is your government, the Obama 
administration. And, by the way, thank God for George Bush. They're 
still blaming him for everything. But if I remember correctly, Horizon 
was done under the Obama administration. If I remember correctly, it 
was his Minerals and Management agency that wasn't doing their job. 
There were enough regulations in place. They weren't doing their job. 
If I remember, that's correct. George Bush was out of office.
  But EPA now comes out with a new regulation under the oil spill 
liability where we develop oil that the moneys will be put aside for a 
cleanup, of which I support, but there are new regulations because they 
want to regulate the dairies of our Nation today. Mr. and Mrs. America, 
keep in mind, they want to regulate the dairies today because there's 
fat in the milk. Fat in the milk. And they want to have each cow be 
charged $600 per lifetime of that dairy, put aside in a fund to clean 
up spilt milk. That's your EPA and regulations. Remember, the term 
``don't cry over spilled milk'' is going to cost you money now. That's 
the government regulations. I can go on and on what they've done to 
American Indians. They don't allow them to develop

[[Page H657]]

their resources. There's a paternalistic type of society they have 
today. And I'm saying here as chairman, we are going to develop those 
resources in the nations that they are. That's our responsibility as a 
Congress. And to preclude that because of actions of regulatory 
agencies is dead wrong.
  I am asking my colleagues to remember this. Every committee should be 
looking at every regulation. You want to balance this budget?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. By the way, 1,600,000 laws on the books today 
were never voted on by anybody. Not ever voted on. It costs $1.01 
trillion a year to implement those regulations. You want to balance the 
budget? Eliminate those regulations and you can balance it in 13 years. 
We could have industry again.
  I'm just saying this is a good idea. Let's pass it.
  Federal policies and regulations stand in the way of economic 
progress and free enterprise for all Americans, but the problem is 
especially bad in Indian Country.
  Indian reservations have the highest rates of unemployment and 
poverty of any comparable areas in America.
  These statistics are astounding when you consider that tribes own an 
estimated ten percent of the Nation's energy potential.
  But so many tribal lands lie vacant and unused.
  The problem is that development of Indian land is based on outdated, 
paternalistic Federal laws and policies.
  Let me describe a few examples of these laws and policies.
  We have the Long-Term Leasing Act . . . a 56-year-old statute that 
restricts most Indians from leasing their property for more than 25 
year terms. In some cases this has prevented tribes from constructing 
new homes.
  There is the National Environmental Policy Act, a law routinely used 
to delay and stop the use of lands reserved exclusively for tribes 
under solemn treaties with the United States.
  The Endangered Species Act has become the weapon choice by special 
interests seeking to harm tribal development.
  And then we have the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. One of the first 
acts of the Obama Administration was to have these agencies stop the 
Navajo Nation from building and operating a 1,500 megawatt power plant 
on its reservation.
  The project would have created thousands of good jobs on a 
reservation with 50 percent unemployment, generating $1.5 billion over 
30 years for the tribe's treasury.
  Thanks to our government, the tribe is not allowed to create jobs for 
its citizens or produce power for millions of consumers.
  This is wrong.
   Tribes are caught in a Catch-22. They have over 50 million acres of 
land pursuant to treaties and Acts of Congress, but the catch is they 
can't use them without permission of Washington, DC.
  Tribes are suffering from 19th-century Indian policies, and the 
result is a continuing Great Depression across many reservations.
  Fortunately, a number of tribes have taken control of their resources 
from Washington, DC. They have proven to be outstanding stewards of 
their lands while providing huge energy resources needed by the 
country.
  The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs is going to 
study the accomplishments of these tribes. We will consider changing 
outdated laws and policies that stand in the way of tribal economic 
development.
  I look forward to the Subcommittee making progress--on a bipartisan 
basis--to create more tribal opportunity, and more tribal freedom from 
outdated Federal laws.
  These sort of harmful regulations are not unique to Indian Country. 
For example, my Alaska fishermen are faced with similar crippling 
stupidity.
  EPA now requires fish processing vessels operating in the Bering Sea 
to take water samples which are then tested at such a high resolution 
level that the tests cannot be performed by any labs in Alaska. The 
samples have to be sent out of Alaska at great expense.
  To make matters worse, the test are required to be so precise and to 
such an unrealistic resolution level that if a technician has mercury 
amalgam fillings, his breath could alter the result.
  In another instance, EPA is requiring complex seafood processing 
permits and gear for Alaska's small freezer troll fleet.
  These folks only catch about 1,000 pounds of fish a day. They have 
45-foot fishing boats and one or two deck hands--they fish with hook 
and line and clean their fish immediately. They toss fresh fish heads 
right back into the waters they came from--one at a time, and EPA wants 
them treated like a big factory ship. This is preposterous!
  Again, this Committee will examine these issues and take steps to 
remove these foolish regulations that are stopping the production of 
new wealth.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to the debate, and I can relate to a lot 
of what is being said.
  I am going to speak to the issue of water and the role it plays in 
our local economies. We've been working steadfastly with my colleagues 
on the other side, although sometimes I don't think they buy into some 
of the issues that we're trying to push forward, the water recycling, 
water conservation, water efficiencies that create, not paper water, 
that is paper on ledgers, but real water that create jobs because of 
what it does in the local communities.
  When we refer to the ESA, I sat through many a hearing with Mr. Pombo 
on the Endangered Species Act and I can tell you that protecting 
domestic species is one of the ideals that we have in this great 
country of ours. Species. Fish. Species. Man. When is our turn? That's 
one of the things that we look towards to protect the American public, 
the ability for us to ensure that whatever is delivered to them, 
whether it is food, transportation, water, anything, that it is going 
to be safe not only for people but for other species.
  The Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART grants and title XVI projects, 
which is water recycling, are locally initiated and fully supported and 
are an important part of our water supply solution. These projects 
create in our areas and have in the past many jobs which allow 
communities to sustain their economic growth while producing potable 
water, or water for agriculture, through real efficiencies, 
conservation and water recycling.
  The Bureau of Reclamation created 62,000 jobs and supported through 
funding in 2009 through all their programming, including title XVI, and 
it has already awarded over $93.2 million in Federal funding for 235 
WaterSMART grant projects in 16 western States from 2004 to 2010. These 
projects will conserve approximately 705,000 acre-feet of water per 
year when fully constructed at an approximate cost of $132 per acre-
foot. Currently it runs anywhere from $300 to $1,500 in Arizona in some 
areas. Title XVI projects have produced an estimated 260,000 acre-feet 
of real, pure water in 2010.
  Please, ladies and gentlemen, speak to your local water agencies; ask 
how critical projects in your communities, their funding, create jobs, 
local jobs, and create water so badly needed especially during times of 
drought, and Mother Nature does have drought cycles upon us in the 
United States. Real water and jobs are created through conservation, 
not by talk or conversation about regulation. We must support projects 
to conserve water, to conserve our communities and thereby create jobs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the 
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, last year the Senate and House 
Western Caucus produced a document that was entitled the War on Western 
Jobs, in which we discovered 10 areas in which regulations from this 
administration and past administrations have created specific problems 
and specific loss of jobs to the West.

                              {time}  1930

  The Bureau of Labor Statistics has said that the West has the highest 
regional unemployment for the past year; that, indeed, six of the top 
12 States that had the largest decline in employment-to-population 
ratio since the recession began were found in the West. Three of the 
top five States showing the most stress were found in the West, and 
Washington's misguided policies were making the matter worse. Whether 
it was in the areas of energy

[[Page H658]]

use, takeover of water, domestic energy mandates, prioritization of 
species, multiple use on national forests, overregulating, seizing 
Western lands, bureaucratic overreach, all 10 of those areas illustrate 
the problems that we face in the West.
  In Western public lands, it is essential to have a resource 
management plan. It is an effort where professionals on the ground were 
able to come up--in the case of Utah after 6 to 10 years of planning--
following the law, including the public process to come up with a 
policy and procedures for our plans, all of which have been turned 
upside down by arbitrary regulations coming out of the Interior 
Department here in Washington.
  Let me give you simply two examples: an arbitrary decision that made 
a restrictive new regulatory framework for U.S. oil shale. The U.S. 
Geological Survey said in a 16,000-square-mile area of Utah, Wyoming, 
and parts of Colorado, they estimate at least 2 trillion barrels of oil 
shale--that is equal to what Canada is enriching themselves through 
their tar sands proposal--were available and experimental programs were 
moving forward until a regulation stopped it. The estimate: a potential 
loss of 100,000 jobs and $1.9 trillion to the GDP of this country was 
lost in that particular project.
  The day after the last day of our lame duck session, the Secretary of 
the Interior, using questionable authorities, created a new or 
announced a new wild land policy which, once again, stopped those 
management plans in their tracks.
  The result of that, let me simply give you one example: one company 
in two counties of my State, having 300 high-paying jobs, that had been 
working for 3 years with leasing and environmental review process with 
the BLM, within hours of that wild lands announcement, special interest 
groups recommended the area they were working being managed as wild 
lands; and their leasing process was delayed indefinitely for a 
potential wild lands inventory, despite the fact that this entire area 
consists of 800 drill holes with cement casings, roads, man-made Earth 
berms, and every other sign of man that would be prohibited if it was a 
wilderness designation.
  Local governments desperately need those management plans because 
they provide the consistency for business to understand that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, in the West, thousands of jobs have 
been lost. Millions of dollars that should be going to schools on trust 
lands have been lost. Billions in capital investment have been lost 
because of this war on the West through regulation. It's time to end 
the war. It's time to help the people out. I look forward to this 
process.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member, Mr. 
Markey, for the opportunity.
  This resolution is, quite frankly, an unfortunate use of our time. 
Rather than discussing jobs proposals, we are discussing a resolution 
that is telling ourselves to do something we are already doing, which 
is the regulatory review. The majority is intent on talking about what 
they perceive the unemployment problem to be while spending no time at 
all attempting to work on some real solutions.
  In the New West--and the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, 
mentioned that--there is high unemployment. I would suggest that we 
need to look deeper than the regulatory issues that he pointed out. The 
West leads the country in foreclosures. Those were the manipulations of 
banks and mortgage companies and shenanigans that Mr. Markey called. 
And as a consequence of that, we lead the Nation in unemployed 
construction workers. We lead the Nation in unemployed labor. And that 
is a deregulated industry. So I would suggest that if we are going to 
use unemployment as an example, we look at the root problem of where 
our unemployment is in the West.
  The Republican majority on the Natural Resources Committee seems to 
think that American people have to choose between healthy, vibrant 
national parks, forests, and public lands or jobs. If you ask them for 
their ideas regarding job creation, what you hear is that we have got 
to roll back existing environmental protections and open up the ever-
expanding areas of public lands to unregulated, destructive resource 
extraction. This is a horribly false choice created by those who care 
more about increasing the profits for oil, timber, and mining companies 
than really about creating jobs. This is a false choice because with a 
little bit of forward thinking, we can create jobs that will not only 
provide people with paychecks but will actually improve our environment 
and the economy and at the same time take care of our public lands.
  We have heard many examples from Members on this side of the aisle, 
and we will continue to hear that today, and I am proud to try to do my 
part as well. Yesterday I reintroduced, with the senior member of our 
committee, Mr. Markey, the Public Lands Service Corps legislation, H.R. 
587. This legislation passed the House last Congress, and I am pleased 
to reintroduce it.
  At the same time that we are facing high unemployment, we also face 
huge backlogs of labor-intensive work needed on national park lands, 
forests, wildlife areas, historic sites, and Indian lands. Years of 
inadequate funding have put land management agencies far behind on the 
vital maintenance work while infrastructure continues to crumble.
  Our legislation would provide opportunity through three Departments: 
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; provide service learning 
opportunities on public lands; help restore our natural, cultural, and 
historic resources; train a whole new generation of public land 
managers; and promote the value of public lands. This legislation will 
modernize the scope of the corps projects to reflect the new 
challenges, such as climate change and adding incentives to attract new 
participants, especially from underrepresented populations.
  By providing job training, by providing opportunity, we are providing 
people with a chance to succeed. I would suggest that as we talk about 
legislation and we talk about jobs, that we talk about job creation and 
not merely talk about the need for jobs but talk about the specificity, 
what are going to be the mechanisms and the techniques to put people 
back to work.
  To use the misery of unemployment in this community as a reason to 
give away our natural resources is cynical at best. It doesn't create 
jobs; it doesn't protect Americans; and it doesn't empower our 
communities or protect our very valuable and cherished public lands.
  And to do so, this bill begs the question. It does not talk. It does 
not specify what we need to do. It merely reiterates an ideology that 
says, no regulation. We've seen that history. We have seen its 
consequences, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee 
chairman of the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, the programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee bring in 
the second-highest revenue to the Federal Treasury, provide 
opportunities for American job creation, and contribute to our Nation's 
economic and national security. However, the Obama administration is 
crippling American energy and mineral production through restrictive 
new policies, rules, and regulations.
  President Obama's de facto moratorium on offshore drilling in the 
Gulf of Mexico has left many thousands of people out of work. Since 
last spring, the administration has issued only a handful of new 
shallow water permits, and they have issued no new permits for 
deepwater leases. Why are no new permits being issued? The reason is 
simple: it's regulatory confusion. The administration is attempting to 
create new rules for oil and gas permitting and has repeatedly changed 
the rules and moved the goal posts on companies operating on both 
Federal lands and waters. Instead of thoughtful, reasoned

[[Page H659]]

rulemaking that seeks public comments and engagement, the 
administration unilaterally directed the change of over 14,000 
engineering requirements.

                              {time}  1940

  The Louisiana Secretary of Natural Resources has said the changes 
would not enhance safety but, instead, ``creates a regulation with 
increased safety risks, mandates that cannot be met, and too many 
ambiguous and unenforceable requirements to count.''
  This same regulatory uncertainty is happening all over the country. 
Take the Western United States. While the administration has announced 
that solar energy is one of its highest priorities, it has once again 
created tremendous regulatory confusion.
  The new solar energy zones proposal, while potentially helping some 
solar development, has left dozens of major energy projects and many 
jobs with no regulatory path forward.
  The regulatory confusion on Federal lands is even worse for onshore 
oil and gas production. Rule changes and regulations have cost billions 
in lost investments in the West. In my home State of Colorado, there's 
been nearly a 90 percent drop, a 90 percent drop in new leases on 
Federal land.
  A recent study by the respected Western Energy Alliance has 
documented $3.9 billion in investment that was diverted from the West 
in 2010 because of red tape and overregulation by the Department of the 
Interior. The Western Energy Alliance estimates this lost investment 
could have helped create upwards of 16,000 jobs in the West. And these 
are high-paying jobs.
  The administration is now examining how to impose Federal regulations 
for the first time on hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands. This 
proposal would duplicate State permitting and create an unnecessary 
obstacle for American energy development.
  Finally, no discussion of burdensome regulations would be complete 
without addressing the administration's war on coal. Nowhere is this 
effort more evident than their effort to rewrite current surface mining 
rules. The current rule was the result of years of environmental 
review, public comment and hearings, and responsible rulemaking. The 
administration is now purposefully limiting public comment 
opportunities and rushing forward with a rule that, by its own 
admission, will cost thousands of jobs.
  Even worse, the Obama administration recently pulled a permit 3 years 
after it was approved for a coal mine that was already hiring people. 
What sort of confidence can anyone have in an administration and its 
regulatory environment when issued permits can be stripped away at 
whim?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, this resolution asks us to 
focus on the impacts of restrictive regulations just like these, and 
that is what we plan to do. We will focus on how we can clear away 
these regulatory hurdles to create a path for energy security, lower 
energy prices, help for balancing our budget, and, most of all, more 
high-paying energy jobs for Americans.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. As I listen to this debate this evening, Mr. Speaker, 
I find myself wanting to focus on jobs, but what I just heard makes my 
blood boil.
  I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior while 
the rapers and pillagers of the public land wanted all regulations to 
disappear. They wanted to have open hunting for minerals, for oil, for 
gas and coal on all public lands.
  And you talked a moment ago about the pulling of that permit for that 
coal mine. They would, in that permit, level the hills of Appalachia, 
flatten them, ruin the streams, destroy, destroy, destroy.
  The regulations are there for a reason. They are there to protect the 
precious environment of America. And if it is your intent to do away 
with those regulations, then know this: You will have a fight on your 
hands.
  You will have a fight on your hands when you try to do away with the 
regulations that protect the men and women on those drilling rigs from 
the extraordinary accidents that happen in deepwater drilling.
  But, my purpose here tonight is different. My purpose here tonight is 
to ask why it is that the Republican majority has spent 5 weeks, 5 
weeks leading this Congress, and not created one bill that creates one 
job, not one. Five weeks, zero jobs. You ran on jobs. Where are your 
job bills?
  Your regulations are hiding--this whole debate is hiding something, 
because, as we speak, here you are in the process of figuring out how 
to cut $100 billion out of the Federal budget for the next 7 months.
  What does that mean? It means that national parks will close. It 
means that the clean water people that came to my office today will 
have no money, no money to build the sanitation systems and provide 
clean water for their citizens in the rural communities that you were 
just talking about.
  What is this about? This is about hiding the ball. This is about 
wasting our time. When we ought to be talking about jobs, instead, you 
are hiding a $100 billion cut that will displace hundreds of thousands 
of workers in the next 7 months. That's what this is about.
  We're talking about hiding the ball when it comes to the men and 
women that maintain those very places you talk about out there in the 
great western lands.
  You're hiding the bill about the cuts you are going to make to 
education, for the teachers that will lose their jobs, for the 
janitors, for the bus drivers, for those people that are now employed 
that will lose their jobs as you attempt to put those cuts in place.
  This is about jobs. The Democrats are talking about jobs. We're 
talking about making it in America. We're talking about those solar 
projects. Yes, we're talking about who's going to win the next energy, 
the next energy systems for this world. It's not coal. It's not oil. 
It's the green renewable energy and nuclear. That's what we're talking 
about on our side. We're talking about how we can do that.
  And you're talking about wasting 9 hours of precious time on this 
floor doing what you've already done. You've already issued the edicts 
of what you are going to do in this committee. I received it 2 weeks 
ago. You're going to explore this; you're going to review that. Two 
weeks ago you told me, a new member of this committee, what you intend 
to do, and now you're wasting our time on this floor when we ought to 
be talking about jobs.
  We ought to be talking about China getting ahead of us on tomorrow's 
energy, wind, solar, solar thermal, all of those things. But no, no, 
we're going to talk about what you've already done. You did it 2 weeks 
ago.
  Why are you wasting our time when Americans want jobs, when Americans 
want solid legislation like Make It In America, using our tax money to 
buy solar and wind equipment that is manufactured in America? Why don't 
we talk about that?
  Why don't we talk about using our money, our tax money that we pay 
every day at the gasoline pump, about American-made buses and trains?
  But no, we're going to talk about regulations. You already have told 
us what you're going to do.
  Let's talk about creating jobs. That's what we ought to be doing 
here. We ought not be wasting our time doing what you've already done. 
You've told us what you're going to do.
  And, by the way, if you think for a moment you can do away with those 
regulations that are protecting America's precious resources and lives, 
know this: You've got a fight. You've got a fight that you lost in the 
1990s. You lost it in the 2000-2008 period, and you will lose that 
fight because we are about creating good, healthy jobs in America that 
do not destroy the American environment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last 
gentleman, I yearn for these open rules we're going to have.

                          ____________________