[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 21 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H659-H673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
[[Page H660]]
{time} 1950
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), the subcommittee
chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Subcommittee.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to bypass the
hysterics that have been going on tonight from some of our speakers and
let's talk about the things that are important to Americans.
I have the great honor of representing the people of the Fourth
District of Louisiana. I have a deep and abiding appreciation for the
coastal wetlands and the thousands of jobs that are dependent on the
health of the Gulf of Mexico. We in Louisiana understand that the
offshore oil and gas industry is critical to our long-term economic
survival.
Despite the tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon accident, the citizens
of Louisiana support environmentally safe offshore energy development,
and they are growing increasingly frustrated, if not angry, at the
Obama administration's de facto moratorium that occurs today in the
gulf, time delays that recently resulted in a Louisiana Federal judge
finding the Department of the Interior in contempt of court. This
moratorium has caused the loss of thousands of jobs; it has increased
our growing dependence on imported oil, and it has contributed to the
accelerated increase in the price of gasoline.
We have also heard an ongoing drumbeat of misinformation about
hydraulic fracturing, which is a longstanding practice that has been
effectively regulated by the States for over 60 years. In my own
congressional district, hydraulic fracturing is necessary for the
development of the Haynesville Shale play.
As a result of this energy activity, our local and State tax revenues
have increased by at least $900 million in 2009 alone, and more than
57,600 new jobs in Louisiana have been created. Let there be no
mistake; if you add unnecessary and strangling bureaucratic red tape to
hydraulic fracturing, the net result is less jobs and less energy for
this country.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans
and Insular Affairs, I will be conducting comprehensive oversight
reviews, hearings on several job-destroying regulations and policies
that are being promoted by the Obama administration.
The most far-reaching and least understood of these policies are
those being proposed by President Obama's National Ocean Council, which
will add additional layers of bureaucracy as well as a new zoning
process for the coastal and marine environments. Yes, actual zoning out
in the ocean. The council is in the process of creating a new layer of
oversight over both recreational and commercial activities. This effort
will either override or replace a number of existing State-initiated
cooperative efforts with a federally led planning process based on new
Federal guidelines. In addition, the administration has undertaken a
process to zone the Nation's oceans and coastal areas. This process
could reach far inland and could override local planning and zoning
processes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
Mr. FLEMING. Clearly, this will have an effect on the jobs and
economic livelihood on coastal and fishery-dependent communities and
could have a devastating economic impact on a range of ocean users. So,
for that reason, I stand in support and urge my colleagues to support
this resolution as well.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the independent bipartisan commission on the BP oil
spill issued its final report last month. And what did it conclude?
Well, that the Deepwater Horizon that went to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico, creating the worst environmental disaster in our country's
history, was not an isolated incident; that the problems were systemic
across the entire oil and gas industry.
That report was a blistering, scalding indictment of the deregulatory
environment which was created at the Department of the Interior that
led inexorably, inevitably to this catastrophe, this environmental
catastrophe.
But are we here tonight debating legislation to implement the reforms
that the commission presented to the Congress in order to prevent
another catastrophe like this? No, we are not. We are instead debating
whether or not we should have fewer regulations, whether or not
regulations that actually protect against incidents like this hurt job
creation.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, what we learned from the Deepwater
Horizon catastrophe was that lax regulation doesn't save money; lax
regulation costs money. Lax regulation does not create jobs; lax
regulation destroys jobs. And in this case, lax regulation led to the
loss of 11 lives and 155 other individuals who were seriously injured.
Lax regulation, ladies and gentlemen, leads to catastrophe.
Boosterism breeds overconfidence, and overconfidence breeds disaster.
That's what happens in our financial markets. That's what happens in
environmental and health regulation when you just trust the private
sector to always do the right thing. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what
happens when the government doesn't move in to protect the little guy,
to protect ordinary citizens.
The reason that we were able to move from the average age of death at
48 years of age in the year 1900, after 5,000 years from the Garden of
Eden until 1900, to 79 years of age just 100 years later is we started
to regulate for public health and safety for ordinary people.
Methuselah always lived to 900 years. The wealthy always did well. But
only when regulation started to be put on the books to protect the
meek--the water, the air, and the environment in which people live--did
ordinary families start to benefit as well. That's what they want to
take off the books. That's the agenda of large companies across our
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
How do you create jobs? We haven't heard that yet. We haven't heard
that yet. Well, they say drilling. Well, last year there were 4,700 new
leases that were granted by the Bureau of Land Management, but the oil
industry only began drilling on 1,400 of them, only one-third.
Now, we don't really have to worry going forward in the future,
because at $100 a barrel plus, ladies and gentlemen, the $40 billion in
tax breaks that the Republicans want to give to the oil industry over
the next 5 years, we don't have to worry that they are going to go
drill, because they are going and drilling.
But why are we giving them $40 billion? Why aren't the Republicans
out here as free market devotees saying let's take that $40 billion of
taxpayers' money away from the oil industry? Why aren't they doing
that? Why are they going to allow the taxpayers to be shaken upside
down at the gas pump and have money come out of their pockets for the
rest of this year as the price of a gallon of gasoline goes to $3.30,
$3.40, all the way up to $4 a gallon again?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
Because the real agenda here is to create as many red herrings as
they can about the real agenda. As a matter of fact, we can put an
aquarium out here there are so many red herrings. As a matter of fact,
so many red herrings are being created by the Republicans in this
debate that they wouldn't be an endangered species there are so many
things that are taking us off the real agenda that they are taking
about. And the real agenda is to make sure that we do not invest in
wind, that we do not invest in solar.
And, by the way, in the Waxman-Markey bill that was passed that year,
$60 billion was put in to the Waxman-Markey bill for clean coal
technology; $75 billion was put into that bill for nuclear technology
that they could apply for low-interest loans to build new nuclear power
plants in our country, plus wind, plus solar, plus geothermal, plus all
the other things that we could do domestically in our country.
[[Page H661]]
What we are talking about here, though, is a different agenda
altogether. It's an agenda that will just allow the oil industry to go
back to business as usual without the regulations to protect the public
health and safety.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much
time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the subcommittee chairman of the Water and Power
Subcommittee, Mr. McClintock, from California.
{time} 2000
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I know I speak for all of my Republican colleagues on the Water and
Power Subcommittee when I say that we are excited and eager to
undertake the mission outlined in House Resolution 72 to identify the
Federal regulations in this field that are impeding job creation and
that are slowing the economy. The only problem we have got is deciding
where to start.
A generation ago, the principal objective of our water and power
policy was to create an abundance of both. It was an era when vast
reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities produced a cornucopia of clean
and plentiful water and electricity, on a scale so vast that many
communities didn't even bother to measure the stuff. But that objective
of abundance has been abandoned in favor of the rationing of shortages
that have been caused by government. The result is increasingly scarce
and expensive water and power that now undermines our prosperity as a
Nation. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Central Valley of
California.
This last Congress sat idly by as this administration deliberately
diverted 200 billion gallons of water away from the most abundant
agricultural region of our Nation, all to satisfy the environmental
left and its pet cause, a 3-inch minnow called the delta smelt. This
willful diversion cost over 20,000 farm workers their jobs. It
inflicted up to 40 percent unemployment rates in the region. It
destroyed more than a quarter-million acres of the most fertile
farmland in America. And it forced up the price of groceries for us
all.
Or we could start with the Klamath, where this administration is
pushing to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams that
generate 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the
planet, enough to power over 150,000 homes, because we are told of
catastrophic declines of salmon.
When I suggested building a salmon hatchery instead, I was informed
there already is one. It produces 5 million salmon molt a year, 17,000
of which return to that river as fully grown adults to spawn. But they
are deliberately ignored in the population counts. To add insult to
insanity, as they tear down these dams in the name of saving the
salmon, they are also tearing down the fish hatchery that actually is
saving the salmon.
Or we could begin in Colorado, where they have sacrificed over 1,000
megawatts from the Glen Canyon Dam for the humpback chub--at the
expense of a long-neglected species called homo sapiens.
Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan was right: In this crisis, government is
not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. The good
news is that it's entirely within our power to correct, and it was
clearly the mandate of the American people last fall, and we will act
on that mandate beginning with a series of hearings and actions
directly related to this much-needed resolution.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do so just to say
that Democrats see high unemployment and we look forward. We recognize
that American ingenuity, innovation, and hard work can dig us out of
this hole by creating high-paying, long-term domestic jobs in new
vibrant industries.
The Republican majority, they see high unemployment and they look
backwards. They seek to increase the already massive profits for huge
international corporations and hope that on their way to the bank they
hire a few people here and there.
Ladies and gentlemen, the great challenge of our time is to not allow
China and Germany to replace OPEC as the place from which we have to
import our energy technologies. If there is no plan which is
forthcoming from the Republican majority, which so far has not
presented itself, because they have yet to have one bill that actually
creates one job come here onto the House floor in the first 5 weeks
that they have controlled the majority, then I am afraid that the next
generation of young Americans will wonder why all the solar and wind
technology is being manufactured in China, and they here in America are
unemployed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the valuable new member of our committee, Mr. Gosar from
Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, rural Arizona is under attack from
overregulation, out-of-control spending, and government redtape. The
small businesses that power my district can no longer compete. I just
wrapped up a weeklong tour of my district, and one thing was clear: The
Federal Government is in the way and inhibiting my district from
creating jobs. Government agencies have over-regulated our businesses
out of existence.
Take for example the Schultz Pass Fire in Coconino County. Last year,
a 12-year-old girl, Shaelyn Wilson, lost her life because of the
government's inability to use our forest resources in a commonsense
fashion. As a further insult, this manmade, bureaucrat-dictated
disaster resulted in a fire that could have been prevented, and now we,
the American taxpayer, will be forced to pay for it for the next 50 to
100 years.
Enough is enough. A bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., should not
dictate decisions that are best left to local communities that have to
suffer the tragic consequences of government's actions.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we only have one speaker remaining on our
side, so until the majority is down to one speaker, we would like to
reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to another new valuable member of the Resources Committee, Mr.
Johnson of Ohio.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
House Resolution 72. For too long, the EPA, the Department of the
Interior, and other permitting agencies have held vitally important
energy projects hostage to their unreasonable job-killing demands.
In eastern and southeastern Ohio, our unemployment rates are among
the highest in the State, and we are falling behind the rest of the
Nation. But we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that
we could tap into to create thousands of high-paying jobs and economic
opportunity, if the government would simply get out of the way.
Over the last week, I met with my constituents at three town hall
meetings, and there was one message that came through loud and clear:
Get the government out of the way so we can get back on the right
economic track.
Right now, there is a company that wants to invest $6 billion in
eastern Ohio for a clean energy project that would turn coal to liquid
while capturing 85 percent of all carbon dioxide produced. This project
would create at least 2,500 direct jobs that would help revitalize the
local economy. But at each and every turn, Federal regulators have
moved the goalposts, making it more and more difficult for this project
to get off the ground.
Mr. Speaker, eastern and southeastern Ohio cannot afford to lose the
jobs this project would create. We can't afford for the company to call
it quits due to what can only be described as Federal harassment.
It is time that the Federal Government gets out of the way so we can
unleash our natural resources, both onshore and offshore, to create
high-paying jobs and put us on the road to energy independence. We have
got to get serious, Mr. Speaker, about our energy future.
I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am the last remaining speaker on our side.
I reserve my time.
[[Page H662]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to
yield 2 minutes to another new member of the Natural Resources
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, one of the top concerns I am hearing from my
constituents is the state of our economy and jobs, and that is why I
rise today in support of this resolution directing the committees of
the House to examine and exercise oversight of Federal agency
regulations and their impact on the economy.
The U.S. Department of Energy recently announced that we currently
have the highest gas prices in this country that we have ever had
during the month of February, and it makes no sense for the Department
of Interior to continue to resist access to our own sources of American
energy. This is critical, because our country's economic health is tied
to having a robust energy sector.
Obama administration officials estimated it would cost roughly 23,000
jobs if they enacted the deepwater drilling moratorium, but it went
ahead anyway. And to add further insult to Americans, it also included
a shallow water regulatory permit slowdown. Recently a judge held the
Department in contempt for administration's drilling moratorium.
{time} 2010
Congress and this administration can and should encourage private
sector job growth, not hinder it with unreasonable regulations. We risk
losing more scarce jobs and more investment capital every single day
due to the ever-increasing weight of our Federal bureaucracy. Many of
these regulations place significant burdens on manufacturers and small
businesses at a time when our economy can least sustain them. According
to the Small Business Administration, Federal regulations cost American
businesses between $8,000 and $10,000 per year per employee and between
$15,000 and $37,000 per American household each year.
One of the worst offenders of this regulatory epidemic under the
Obama administration is the Environmental Protection Agency.
Unfortunately, the expansion of their power is not without cost. To
name a few of EPA's pending egregious actions and estimated
consequences:
One, a ban on the pesticide Atrazine, which will result in a
potential loss of 45,000 ag-related jobs;
Two, a mandate requiring the use of expensive and/or economically
unsound renewable energy sources, causing a $5.2 trillion cut in our
GDP, a $2,400 cut in household incomes per year, and the loss of more
than 1 million American jobs;
Number three, new unsubstantiated ozone standards costing $1 trillion
in compliance costs and 7.3 million jobs lost.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Herger). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. FLORES. And to add insult to injury, when asked if their
regulations had a cost benefit analysis, they said that they didn't
need them, that their rules were the most cost-effective in government.
I strongly beg to differ. I think that the arrogant nature of the EPA
and the administration is not doing American business any favor or
American jobs any favors. Something has to be done to stop this
epidemic.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I say to the gentleman from Washington State that just 2 weeks ago we
passed by unanimous consent the oversight plan which the majority has
for the Department of the Interior, and the minority signed off on that
oversight plan over all of the regulations and all of the various
agencies that come under the jurisdiction of our committee. We did not
fight that.
This debate tonight is something that doesn't really even have to
take place. The committee--our committee, the Natural Resources
Committee--is already fully empowered to do all of the oversight that
they believe is necessary, and we will be there joining with them where
it is necessary to conduct that oversight.
Coming back, though, to the central point, that's something that we
all agree upon. What the American people want is to see what the agenda
is for creation of jobs in our country. That's what has been lacking on
the House floor since the Republicans have taken over the House of
Representatives. And that's the most important agenda for our country.
And I don't believe that we can accomplish that goal if the Republicans
continue with their objective of $100 million in profits going to oil
companies at the same time that they want to give $40 billion worth of
tax breaks to them.
That is not really a good policy for our country. That's not going to
create any new jobs. It would be better if we took that $40 billion,
moved it over to wind and solar and all-electric vehicles; that we
moved it over to take care of the low-income people whose oil prices
are just skyrocketing across this country, so that people don't freeze
in their own homes. That would be a better use of that $40 billion
instead of handing it over to the oil and gas industry. We would create
more jobs, we would protect people and keep them safe in their own
homes, and we would have a better balance for where this country should
be going. Instead, we're here debating oversight of these agencies, and
we agree with the need to do so.
We probably disagree over the extent to which we should deregulate
them. In fact, if we deregulate too much, if we take too many
regulations off the books, we're just going to see a repetition of the
same kind of environmental disasters that have ravaged our country over
the years, the same kind of economic collapse that was a result of
turning a blind eye to the shenanigans that went on in the financial
marketplace with the big Wall Street firms that were not given the
proper oversight, and on and on down the line.
So I want to just say again to the majority that we want to work with
you on our committee. We want to work with you on the oversight that is
necessary. That's why we signed off on the plan to do the oversight. I
just think that we have wasted an hour here on an issue that we already
agree upon; that we should be partnering to make sure that wherever
there is chicanery, wherever there is wrongdoing that we should partner
together to root it out.
But I'm afraid that this is part of a larger agenda that really seeks
to destroy the wind and solar industries in our country, to cut
dramatically the low-income heating assistance that we give to the
poorest people in our country, to keep the $40 billion in tax breaks on
the books for the largest oil and gas companies in our country even as
they are going to enjoy $100 billion worth of profits this year given
to them by tax breaks that are a hundred years old, with the price of a
barrel of oil now at $100 a barrel.
That is absolutely absurd, ladies and gentlemen. It is a squandering
of the limited resources that we have in our country that should be
spent on creating new jobs in the renewable energy sector and creating
jobs by the millions that young people in our country want to create.
They want to able to tell OPEC, We don't need your oil any more than we
need your sand.
And as Mubarak is teetering, the one message that we can send to the
Middle East is the same message that President Kennedy sent to Kruschev
in 1961, We are going to use our technological might in order to fend
off this threat that is posed to our country economically, militarily,
diplomatically, environmentally. We are going to use this as an
opportunity.
That is not what this debate is about. That's where we should move
over the next weeks and months. My hope is that we can do it together.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from
Washington has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time, and I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts' willingness
to work with us on this very important issue.
But I want to make it very, very clear because there are some on the
other side that were suggesting that we want to do something that we're
not even debating here, and that is to wipe
[[Page H663]]
every regulation off the book. No, what we are trying to do here is to
look at the regulations and see where perhaps they are not being
carried out as Congress intended them. And I think specifically what we
want to do, since this President took office, even though we should
have done that with past Presidencies on both sides of the aisle, but
since this President took office, the scope and reach of the executive
branch has greatly expanded as has been documented by just about every
speaker and even acknowledged by speakers on the other side. And the
question, Mr. Speaker, is: Why? And what is the cost to our economy and
American jobs?
Congress has an obligation to look into this and to hold the
administration accountable--and any administration, for that matter, in
the future. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here tonight and what
this resolution on the floor that we are debating by virtually all
committees in the House is simply starting that process. And I look
forward to working with my friends across the aisle because we appear
to have common ground.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2020
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 72. It instructs the
Committee on Ways and Means, as well as nine other committees, to
review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from
Federal Government agencies and to focus on their impact on the
Nation's economy.
In listening to the stories I hear tonight from both sides, one thing
that I would like to say for the record is that oftentimes our
discussion about regulations gets caught up in unnecessary emotion and
ideology.
One point that I would like to make is that so much of what we
address are process issues. When we increase complexity--and I'm
speaking as an engineer, not as a Member of Congress--we can reduce
effectiveness. I am not opposed to regulation, but I am a strong
supporter of sensible regulation, of honestly looking at the secondary
and tertiary effects of regulations that either come from poor
legislation that was too broadly written or from compromises so great,
so elastic that the bills were thrown over the wall to agencies that
may or may not act within the intent of Congress and are not working
closely with those who are regulated.
I think it is of constitutional importance for our body to make sure
that we work together with those who are regulated and with those who
are the executive agencies that we oversee to ensure that there is a
high-quality outcome and that our communities are not unreasonably
burdened with the objective that is defined. Much of that context has
gotten lost from the original intent of many of the agencies that have
come into being over time.
I will tell you that the motivation for me, after my professional
career prior to Congress, that the motivation for me in addressing this
issue of regulations doesn't come from feeling that standards are
wrong, but that so many regulations impede or prevent actual job growth
and innovation.
The question that I'd asked time and again over the period of the
last Congress, particularly last year, was: Where are the jobs?
With this growth of a regulatory state, what we do not understand are
those impacts on business owners, who need predictability in order to
hire people. We can have fine sounding language about the intent of
legislation, which might sound okay here in the Chamber, but as we know
from the health care bill and others, many Members didn't read the
bill, didn't understand the secondary effects that would come from
implementing policy, and left regulators with a near impossible task.
And many of the rules that have begun to come out on this are nearly
impossible to implement effectively and in a cost-effective manner.
I would say that any reforms in government should be bipartisan. This
should be one of those--first for the institution and second for the
people we represent to create jobs. We can remove a great deal of that
unpredictability and give certainty rather than create an adversarial
relationship between the executive branch and the people who create the
jobs and who pay the taxes, and I am speaking specifically to our small
business owners.
This resolution is necessary because the ever-expanding regulatory
code is far too complex and burdensome. Regulations are the off-budget
hidden cost of government impeding Americans' ability to create jobs.
The Small Business Administration estimates the annual cost of Federal
regulations in the United States exceeded $1.75 trillion in 2008,
almost double the amount of all individual income taxes collected last
year.
Both sides agree all the time on the ability to refine regulations. I
would say that the Government Reform Act was only used one time in its
existence since 1995 to stop a regulation that was going to be
considered unnecessary or too costly.
There is a program through the Small Business Administration to
address regulations and their costs over time. In coming out with their
top 10 regulations for review in that time, the only thing that has
been done out of thousands and thousands of regulations that have been
reviewed or pushed for reform was to simply remove a withholding of
payment to architects and construction companies doing government
contracts. That's not affecting the core of this, which is our tax-
paying base--the ability to create the jobs that generate the taxpayers
that fund the government.
At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, we can't afford
to have anything other than a sensible and competitive regulatory code.
It must be the mission of this Congress and our government to improve
the competitiveness of the United States and the global economy and
thus create jobs.
The resolution we consider tonight represents an important first step
in the process by learning to develop eyes to see the roots of the
problem and the impositions on businesses. Again, this is not anti-
regulation. It is asking the question: Why are we accepting a
regulation? What are the impacts of it going to be? It is allowing
those who are being regulated to be part of this discussion, and more
than comments from the Federal Register that are very rarely heeded by
the agency community.
It is important for us to reform the code and to reform the process
of how we view that code so that there is transparency and
accountability and a check and balance that the American people have,
not only on us but on the executive branch as well.
We've just entered our 21st straight month of at least 9 percent
unemployment or more. As Americans across the country continue to look
for work, Members of Congress have a responsibility to ask ourselves:
Are we adequately addressing job creation by removing the barriers to
growth and creating conditions that encourage businesses to hire? In
industrial engineering language, we would call that asking the
questions: Is this a non-value-adding regulation? Does it add value to
safety in a true and tangible form?
For example, half of all the regulations in OSHA have nothing do with
actual safety. They have to do with paperwork compliance standards that
could shut a business down. This is not a statement against the
importance of industrial safety. It's simply asking the question so as
to remove excesses and remove extraneous overhead. The agencies will be
more efficient, and we will be much more effective in creating jobs in
the private sector.
For the past 2 years, the answer to one question is simply that we
have not been adequately addressing job creation by removing these
barriers to growth and encouraging businesses to hire. From the failed
stimulus package to the misguided attempt at health care reform to
financial regulatory reform, American businesses have been hit with an
explosion of new taxes and regulations. They increase the cost of doing
business, and therefore make it more difficult for businesses to hire.
For small businesses that have less than 20 employees, the regulatory
burden amounts to an average of $10,585 per employee per year. These
small firms have been responsible for 64 percent of the net new hires
over the last 15 years and could play a role in lowering our
unemployment rate if the
[[Page H664]]
regulatory burden on them were reduced and brought into a scale of
context for their size versus a very large business. Excessive
regulations can also have a direct impact on American families, many of
whom are already struggling to make ends meet, by increasing the cost
of food, medicine, doctor visits, and utility bills for basic services
such as electricity, water, and sewer rates.
I am encouraged that President Obama has recognized the potential
negative economic effects of regulations and rules in both his State of
the Union address and in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that
followed an editorial about a bill that I introduced last year called
the REINS Act.
This is not a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations have contributed to the massive growth of government
and to expanding the volume and complexity of the regulatory state.
However, I am concerned that the President's recent rhetoric on
regulation may be just that--rhetoric. Despite these comments, the
administration has used the regulatory process, not the Congress, to
advance elements of its agenda that cannot be passed in the Congress.
After Speaker Pelosi forced the job-killing cap-and-trade bill
through the House of Representatives, the legislation was stopped in a
democratically controlled Senate. In December of 2009, however, the
Environmental Protection Agency took matters into its own hands,
without the express approval of the Congress, to begin moving to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
This raises serious questions of our ability to control and provide
oversight of the executive branch on behalf of the constituents we
represent. These regulations would have disastrous consequences for a
weak economy. They would result in higher energy costs, which, in turn,
will result in increased utility rates for struggling families and for
the small businesses and manufacturers that employ millions of
Americans.
Any time a regulation or rule enacted by an executive branch agency
can have this kind of impact and broad-reaching implications on our
economy, it should be subject to the review of the Congress to be
accountable to our citizens and not a faceless bureaucrat in an agency.
This was the idea behind H.R. 10, the REINS Act, legislation that I
introduced to provide greater accountability and transparency in the
rulemaking process. On all rules that have a direct economic impact of
over $100 million, the REINS Act would require an up-or-down, stand-
alone vote by both the House and the Senate and require that they be
signed by the President before they can be enforced on the American
public.
While the REINS Act reforms the process of how these regulations are
approved going forward, the resolution we are debating tonight
addresses those rules already on the books or those that have been
proposed. President Obama has also ordered his agencies to review rules
and proposals that may be hindering job creation or economic growth.
However, H. Res. 72 is superior to the President's review in several
important ways.
First, the resolution before us would ask the House committees to
review regulations rather than the agencies that created them and
enforce them. The fox should not guard the henhouse. Before even
beginning the review required by the President's Executive order, the
EPA announced that it was confident that the review process would not
result in the repeal or alteration of a single current or pending rule.
That is not internal oversight, and it goes against the clear,
express will of the American people and their elected Representatives
and Senators. In fact, when House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell
Issa called on business and trade associations to identify regulations
that burden their businesses, EPA rules were cited more than any other
Federal agency.
{time} 2030
By passing this resolution, we will begin a regulatory review that is
both objective and analyzes costs and benefits in real numbers.
Before being elected to Congress, I ran a small manufacturing
consulting business. What we did for a living was process improvement
and flow management. In other words, we took inventory of a
manufacturing facility's processes. We understood the flow. We sought
to decrease complexity, remove processes that didn't add value, and
increase the overall throughput and efficiency of the facility, thus
protecting the existing jobs and creating more jobs in return. That's
exactly what H. Res. 72 asks the House committees to do with the
Federal regulatory process.
Removing and altering outdated, costly or ineffective rules will
streamline our regulatory code and make our economy more competitive
and inviting to investment and job creation. Even saving a small
percentage of the $1.75 trillion that is currently spent on regulatory
compliance each year by job creators would free up capital which can be
reinvested into our economy to create jobs.
Please join me in supporting this resolution so that we can begin the
process of reforming the Federal code and get our economy moving and
hiring again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.
This is about oversight, and what the majority is doing is losing
sight of the needs of tens of thousands of workers in this country.
What they are doing is overlooking the needs of the workers of this
country.
Our committee has jurisdiction over trade adjustment, and what's
happened this week regarding trade adjustment assistance is really
incomprehensible and, I think, disgraceful. This Congress is going to
leave town tomorrow. On Saturday, the extension of TAA expires, the
2009 extension. And what's going to happen? Tens of thousands of
people, who will be laid off because of trade, will no longer be able
to be certified--tens of thousands. They will be out of luck when they
hit bad luck through no fault of their own.
We've received all kinds of communications from people in my State,
and I'm sure there are people like this in every single State. We heard
from a machinist laid off, qualified for TAA, and is now pursuing a
career as a technician. He's in a program that goes on for a few years.
Before TAA was overhauled in 2009, States could not have approved
training of that length nor have approved the prerequisite training.
We heard of another worker, a service worker in the State of
Michigan, laid off, qualified for TAA, and is now pursuing an
associate's degree. She's planning to complete her program in June of
2012. Before the TAA reforms of 2009, service workers were not even
eligible for TAA.
We also know of another person who was laid off, a die helper, who's
qualified for TAA to continue training on a part-time basis. Only
because of the extensions of 2009, the changes, the improvements, could
this person have been in that training.
And then another worker in Michigan--and you know, workers throughout
the country are like this--who learned that she would be laid off,
petitioned for TAA and began pursuing an M.A. degree before she
actually lost her job.
There are thousands of people who are going to be in this position,
and because the majority in this House have failed to act, there are
going to be tens of thousands of people who will have no place to turn
in terms of training.
Since the 2009 improvements, about 177,000 people have been able to
receive training--170,000--and now, beginning Monday, tens of thousands
will not be able to be certified for help.
Now, this isn't only in the State of Michigan. It's not only in the
State of Ohio. It's not only in the State of Indiana. It's not only in
Pennsylvania. This is true throughout the country--true throughout the
country--and essentially, the majority here is leaving, turning their
backs on the people of this country.
So what happened this week was the following: that a few groups
outside of this institution decided they did not want to support the
2009 expansion of benefits; and a group within this House, the
Republican Study Committee, issued a document urging Republicans not to
support the extension. There are many, or some, Republicans in this
House who were ready to support it, but they pulled back the bill,
[[Page H665]]
and the document from the study committee has this as one of the
reasons why we should not step up to the plate.
They said, under TAA programs, the government picks winners and
losers because TAA favorably discriminates towards workers who lost
their job due to trade. Well, picking winners and losers, what TAA does
is to fill in gaps that were not filled in previously and often gaps
that were increased because of the inaction of the now-majority of this
House.
And talking about winners and losers, the losers are going to be the
unemployed people of this country, unemployed through no fault of their
own, unemployed, looking for work, who will not be able to be certified
for TAA. This is a disgrace. And there are some people who will
continue to be eligible for TAA who are going to have to now pay more
for their health care if they can afford it.
When we put this together a few years ago, this is what Senator
Grassley said about the reforms, and I quote, Today's achievement is
the result of the dedication, hard work, and commitment of many
individuals. It is the culmination of years of effort, and I am
confident that the result will serve to benefit American workers in
Iowa and across the United States for years to come, end of quote.
The failure of the Republicans to bring this bill to the floor this
week means that what Senator Grassley said will serve to benefit
American workers in Iowa and across the United States for years to
come, that's going to end on Monday, because Saturday is a weekend.
People who are laid off because of trade are going to hit a wall, a
wall.
So we are in favor of oversight. We made that clear earlier. We are
also sure we should not be shortsighted about the needs of productive
people who want to work and cannot find a job.
The person speaking on behalf of the Republicans, my distinguished
colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, talked about those who are
out of work through no fault of their own. You mentioned 9 million.
There's a record number of people in this country who have been
unemployed for a longer period of time than has been true in the past,
and now all they ask for, unemployment comp in many cases--they're
looking for work--and a chance to be retrained. On Monday, for
thousands that chance will be gone.
{time} 2040
That should not have happened.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) manage the balance of the time on the
Democratic side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished fellow member of the Ways and Means committee, the
gentleman from California, Chairman Herger.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky
for his leadership in working to bring more congressional oversight to
the regulatory process. The heavy hand of overbearing environmental
regulations has struck my northern California rural congressional
district in full force. The Endangered Species Act, in addition to
regulations under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and other
environmental laws continue to be enforced by Federal agencies and
activists to curtail irrigation water for family farms and ranches,
force communities and developers to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars on environmental ``analysis'' and even threaten public health
and safety by delaying forest management to reduce catastrophic
wildfire and much needed infrastructure such as flood preventing levees
and transportation improvements. Another set of job-crushing
regulations surrounds the 3 percent withholding tax that is set to go
into effect next year. This tax will cost far more in unfunded mandates
on small businesses and State and local governments than it will ever
raise in revenue for the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be reintroducing bipartisan legislation
to repeal the unfair 3 percent withholding tax. I would like to enter
into the record a letter from the Government Withholding Relief
Coalition highlighting this provision's regulatory burden and urging
its repeal. I strongly support this resolution and look forward to
stopping the regulatory assault on my constituents and our Nation's
economy.
Government Withholding
Relief Coalition,
January 28, 2011.
Re: regulations and their impact on the economy and jobs.
Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Issa: The Government Withholding Relief
Coalition and its 116 member associations appreciate your
interest in regulations that negatively impact the economy
and jobs. We welcome the opportunity to highlight one
specific issue that was the genesis for the creation of this
coalition: the 3% tax withholding mandate. This requirement
is set to go into effect on January 1, 2012 if it is not
repealed. It will cost jobs and waste significant amounts of
time and money for companies as well as governments to
implement.
The 3% withholding law, which was enacted in Section 511 of
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-222) as section 3402(t) of the Internal Revenue
Code, mandates that federal, state, and local governments
withhold 3% of nearly all of their contract payments,
Medicare payments, farm payments, and certain grants.
Compliance with this law will impose significant, unnecessary
financial burdens on both the public and private sectors,
with a disproportionate impact on small businesses.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a proposed rule
in December 2008 and is scheduled to issue a final rule to
implement this counterproductive law in the near future.
However, this is just the beginning of the regulations that
need to be altered and issued. The Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR) will need to be changed, and regulations
for Medicare payment, farm payments, and grants will also
need to be modified. These are merely the federal regulations
that will need to be changed, but since this requirement
flows down to state and local governments (as an unfunded
mandate), every state and many city, county, and municipal
governments will need to change their regulations and
companies will have to learn to comply with these numerous
and likely divergent implementing regulations.
The provision is already proving costly and will increase
exponentially as the implementation deadline moves closer. If
this tax is not repealed, it will cost companies and
governments at all levels substantial amounts of money. These
exorbitant expenditures will be at the expense of hiring new
employees, expanding businesses, and providing government
services at a time that neither the public nor private sector
can absorb such unnecessary costs.
The Department of Defense in April 2008 estimated that it
would cost more than $17 billion in the first five years to
comply with the 3% withholding requirement, which far exceeds
any estimated revenue gains due to tax compliance. While this
estimate may be reduced depending on how the law is
implemented, needless to say, the costs will be huge across
all levels of government.
The Coalition believes this law and its corresponding
regulations are a prime example of wasteful requirements that
have a negative impact on the economy and job-creation. As
you develop your agenda, we strongly urge you to consider the
damaging effects of the 3% withholding tax and include its
repeal among your priorities for this year.
Sincerely,
Government Withholding Relief Coalition.
Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Aerospace
Industries Association, Air Conditioning Contractors of
America, Air Transport Association, America's Health
Insurance Plans, American Bankers Association, American
Clinical Laboratory Association, American Concrete Pressure
Pipe Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping,
American Council of Education, American Council of
Engineering Companies, American Heath Care Association,
American Institute of Architects, American Logistics
Association, American Moving and Storage Association,
American Nursery and Landscape Association, and American Road
& Transportation Builders Association.
American Society of Civil Engineers, American
Subcontractors Association, American Supply Association,
American Traffic Safety Services Association, American
Trucking Associations, Armed Forces Marketing Council,
Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Equipment
Distributors, Association of National Account Executives,
Association of School Business Officials International,
Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers
Association, California Association of Public Purchasing
Officers, Coalition for Government Procurement, Colorado
Motor Carriers Association, Computing Technology Industry
Association, Construction Contractors Association, and
Construction Employers' Association of California.
Construction Industry Round Table, Construction Management
Association of America, Design Professionals Coalition,
Edison
[[Page H666]]
Electric Institute, Electronic Security Association,
Engineering & Utility Contractors Association, Federation of
American Hospitals, Financial Executives International's
Committee on Government Business, Financial Executives
International's Committee on Taxation, Finishing Contractors
Association, Gold Coast Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
Government Finance Officers Association, Independent
Electrical Contractors, Inc., International City/County
Management Association, and International Council of
Employers of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers.
International Foodservice Distributors Association,
International Municipal Lawyers Association, Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, Mason
Contractors Association of America, Mechanical Contractors
Association of America, Medical Group Management Association,
Messenger Courier Association of the Americas, Miami Dade
County, Modular Building Institute, Munitions Industrial Base
Task Force, National Asphalt Pavement Association, National
Association for Self-Employed, National Association of
College & University Business Officers, National Association
of Counties, National Association of Credit Management, and
National Association of Educational Procurement.
National Association of Government Contractors, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Association of
Minority Contractors, National Association of State Auditors,
Comptrollers and Treasurers, National Association of State
Chief Information Officers, National Association of State
Procurement Officials, National Association of Wholesaler-
Distributors, National Beer Wholesalers Association, National
Corn Growers Association, National Council for Public
Procurement and Contracting, National Defense Industrial
Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, and
National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
National Emergency Equipment Dealers Association, National
Federation of Independent Business, National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing, National Italian-American Business
Association, National League of Cities, National Precast
Concrete Association, National Office Products Alliance,
National Roofing Contractors Association, National Small
Business Association, National Society of Professional
Engineers, and National Society of Professional Surveyors.
National Utility Contractors Association, National Wooden
Pallet and Container Association, North-American Association
of Uniform Manufacturers & Distributors, North Coast Builders
Exchange, Office Furniture Dealers Alliance, Oregon Trucking
Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--National
Association, Printing Industries of America, Professional
Services Council, Regional Legislative Alliance of Ventura
and Santa Barbara Counties, Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce,
Security Industry Association, Service Disabled Veteran Owned
Small Business Council, and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Contractors National Association, Inc.
Shipbuilders Council of America, Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council, Small Business Legislative Council,
TechAmerica, Textile Rental Services Association of America,
The Associated General Contractors of America, The
Association of Union Constructors, The Distilled Spirits
Council of the U.S., The Financial Services Roundtable, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, United States Telecom Association,
Veterans Entrepreneurship Task Force, and Women Impacting
Public Policy.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we come out to discuss this resolution, H. Res. 72, I
couldn't but think of a story from the middle part of the United States
of America. There was a Methodist minister who fell ill, very, very
seriously ill, and the head of the board of deacons called the board
together to have a discussion about what they should do about the
problems of the ailing minister. They had a long discussion. It took,
not as long as this debate will take, but it took 2 hours. And at the
end, by a vote of 4-3, with 17 abstentions, they wrote a letter to the
minister urging him to get well.
Now this resolution has about as much effect as that letter to that
minister in central Illinois. Two years ago--and what a difference a
day makes--January 28, 2009, this Congress passed the American Recovery
Act. Seven hundred billion dollars that stopped the economic collapse
in this country, that got us started on recovery from the problems
created by the previous administration. We did that in less than a
hundred days.
We've been here a hundred days. There used to be a TV program I liked
when I was a kid called This Is The Week That Was. Now let's review
this week that was. I arrived back from Seattle and on the calendar
were two bills. One was a bill to deal with, as the gentleman from
Michigan has suggested, the problems of workers who have been displaced
by trade, the so-called Trade Adjustment Act, TAA. That was one bill.
The other bill was a bill to extend the Patriot Act. I don't know what
the leadership on the other side was thinking. Maybe they can't count.
But the bill to extend the Patriot Act went down in flames. They then
pulled the bill on extending TAA. That was Tuesday.
Then we came to Wednesday. That was the day they brought the bill in,
a meaningless bill, messing with the United Nations funding, that
didn't save one single dollar but simply said we weren't going to pay
our dues to this, then that section of the United Nations that somebody
didn't like, and so they decided they'd come out here and make a big
show about the United Nations. That bill went down in flames.
Now the week has not been a total loss. We did change the name of a
courthouse; we did it on Wednesday, and I think we got something to go
home and talk to our people about in our districts.
And now we're to Thursday. Here we are spending 9 hours out here on a
meaningless piece of legislation. It is truly a sad day for the House
that we are spending another day not helping the people of America. Not
helping the private sector create jobs. Not doing what the people sent
us here to do. Early this morning, congressional representatives and
staff came to work on Capitol Hill to work for the American people. It
is the job every day for Members and staff to oversee the agencies of
the Federal Government, to oversee the regulations so that the common
good is served. It doesn't require House Resolution 72. We are here to
track how money is being spent and that it is being done responsibly.
That is the Congress' constitutional responsibility and has been for
224 years.
You would have thought that maybe the people on the other side would
have figured this out, Mr. Speaker. We stood out here and read the
Constitution. I guess for some of them it was the first time they had
ever read it but they weren't paying attention or something because
this resolution is simply restating what has always been our
responsibility.
Now it's been 100 days, as I said, for the Republicans in control of
the House, and they have done not one single thing to create a job.
Nada. Nil. Zilch. Nothing. Not a single thing to create a job in 100
days. We have 14.9 million unemployed in this country. We have an
intense economic competition with the rest of the world that we are in
danger of losing if we don't get moving. We have a home foreclosure
crisis in this country. We've got two wars. We've got huge energy and
environmental issues to deal with and an economic system that's falling
further and further behind the rest of the world. We do not lead the
world in college graduates per capita. We are about sixth or seventh or
eighth, somewhere down there. Other countries are passing us because of
our inaction.
And what do we do? The Republicans say, let's go out and waste the
10th of February. Now, instead, the Republicans are having us working
for two whole days to tell the House of Representatives to do its job.
For heaven's sakes, what a silly piece of legislation. This bill is an
insult to the American people. It's an insult to the people who work
here, and they don't even seem to understand they're insulting
themselves, as though they didn't know what their job was. It's like
Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The House is sitting here while
millions of Americans are unemployed. They're selling their belongings.
They're emptying their 401(k)s. They're doing everything possible to
stay afloat.
{time} 2050
Now, this isn't 1930. In 1930, what people did was, they took what
few belongings they had, went out, put it on the top of the car, drove
to California, and found a job. That's what people did. But every day,
millions of Americans can't move to take a new job because they can't
sell their house because their homes are under water, according to the
banks. In Seattle today, one-third of the homes are under water. Now,
if you don't think some foreclosures are coming out of that, you don't
understand how it works. There is a whole new underclass of unemployed,
undertrained Americans who are not being helped to compete in the world
economy.
And while Americans across the country suffer, the Republicans come
[[Page H667]]
out here with H. Res. 72. They are going to do nothing. The
Republicans, the party of ``saying one thing and doing another,''
promised big action on jobs during the election: If you elect us, we
will get this country rolling again. So they have taken control of the
House, and what do the American people get? Instead of helping the
private sector with a smart science, technology, and energy investment
policy, we are considering Republican legislation on pornography. That
certainly makes a lot of sense if you don't have a job.
Instead of compassionately and energetically helping the unemployed,
the Republicans want to redefine the rape of women to keep some women
who have been raped from getting abortions. You will see that one next
week. That's going to be the great bill.
Where's the job bill? Where are the job bills? I have no idea. There
are more 99ers every week. Now in case you don't know what a 99er is on
the other side, let me educate you. We have an unemployment system that
provides for unemployment insurance for 99 weeks; and when it runs out,
you are done. And there are four or five people for every job that
comes up in America. So if you go out looking for a job, you have a one
in four chance of having any chance at getting it. And yet these 99-
weekers are piling up all over the country because they've run out of
their unemployment insurance, and the Republicans do nothing about
creating jobs.
Instead of intelligently debating administration plans in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Republicans want to vote on meaningless bills
like the one I talked about with the United Nations that save no money
and don't advance the U.S. interest in anything.
The Republicans ran on a slogan, Mr. Speaker: Government spending
kills jobs. They are the extreme party of ``everyone for themselves,''
no action for the common good. And now that the Republicans have
responsibility, all they have is their message machine. That's what
these 9 hours are about. Just in case you haven't broken the code, they
are all in their offices now, Mr. Speaker, cranking out press releases:
I'm going to take on this regulation. I'm going to take on that
regulation. And somehow they think that those messages will get them
reelected in November of 2012. They are creating a paper blizzard. Like
we have had some snow around here, well, this is a real blizzard.
Now when you try to govern without ideas, it doesn't go over very
well with the American public, and slowly the Republican leadership is
hearing the feedback. What is the new Republican response? They say the
need to ``retool their messaging.''
Since we have to waste the people's time on the floor today on this
meaningless resolution, I thought I should try and be helpful to the
Republican effort. It's my civic duty. As a member of the minority, I
should help the majority rule. Now, the problem the Republicans are
having is that what they ran on, that `` Big Government is the
problem,'' isn't true. Big Government is not the problem. No one wants
Big Government. What do we want that for? We've all been through TSA.
We don't want that stuff.
But the government is not the problem. The government is made up of
Americans, good Americans who are writing rules and regulations to do
things that Americans want. Americans want clean water. They want to be
able to drink the water. They want some water to irrigate their crops.
They want water for a lot of things. And it takes regulation because if
you let anybody take as much water as they want, some people and some
very important things are not going to get done.
They want clean air. Americans want clean air. They know there is an
epidemic of asthma among children living in cities, and they're worried
about it. And they want regulations. They want regulations in
construction so that you don't create an epidemic of youngsters with
asthma who fill the emergency rooms every night in hospitals in this
country.
Now, the American people want fairness. They want the rule of law.
They want laws fixed that don't work. Sometimes you pass a law; and 10
years ago, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Things change.
Things need to be changed. Sure, we ought to be doing that. But you
don't need House Resolution 72 to tell you to do it. Common sense would
tell you to do it. And the American people need the collective help
that we can give them. The American people want effective government
that deals with people's problems.
Now the Republican ``fear and blame machine'' is an old, tired,
failed philosophy that from time to time can be used to scare the
American people in an election. They did it in 2004. Remember the
orange alerts and the Oh, God, yellow alerts. Oh, God, we've got to
have 4 more years of the same stuff. And we got 4 more years of it. In
2010, here they are again.
We were over in the Ways and Means Committee today doing oversight
with a wrecking ball. Let's wreck the bill that we passed last year on
health care. Now Bill Frist--you are not going to call him a wild-eyed
liberal. He used to be the majority leader in the Senate. Bill Frist
said to the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, don't repeal it. Fix it. But what
we're doing today is getting ready to blow the bill out of the way so
that we can have the Paul Ryan road to the end of Medicare and to a
voucher system. Paul Ryan vouchers for every senior citizen in this
country is the goal. And that oversight is really set to blow apart any
chance of developing better law than we got through here last year.
It would work better if both sides worked together, there's no
question about it. But if you're going to use a wrecking ball and try
to put in a voucher system and say to all the old people in this
country, Hey, here's your voucher. This is an $8,000 voucher. Go out
and find yourself an insurance company that wants to give you
insurance. Mr. Speaker, consider that idea. I mean, I don't know how
old the Members' mothers and fathers are; but when you get to be 75 or
80, and you go out with an $8,000 voucher and try to build health
insurance, you can't do it, except by taking another $5,000 or $6,000
out of your pocket.
The seniors in this country spend already one-third of their income
on health care. They have got plenty of skin in the game. They don't
need any more. But the Ways and Means Committee today is doing that
rather than trying to figure out what it is that we can do to make the
law better. There wasn't a single question about how can you make the
law better. All it was was an attack on the man who ran CMS. The first
question was, Do you still believe that the national health system of
Great Britain is the best thing since sliced bread? The question
wasn't, Doctor, how can we help you make this law work more effectively
for the American people?
There is an extreme agenda here, and it won't be helped by retooling
the message. Now, the other thing that is kind of ridiculous about this
whole thing is, we have an Oversight Committee on the Ways and Means
Committee. We have a very distinguished Member from Louisiana. Dr.
Boustany is a very smart Member of Congress. He is the ranking member
on the Oversight Committee. He does not need H. Res. 72 to tell him to
do oversight. He is a very thorough man. He is a cardiac surgeon. I
mean, come on. This guy is smart and able and can see what the problems
are, and he doesn't need these 10 hours out here flogging this
resolution so that we can then have our press releases.
{time} 2100
The American people deserve better than this. They deserve us to put
positive proposals forward that will create jobs, that will deal with
the foreclosures, that will deal with the health care problems they
have, that will deal with the energy problems, will deal with what's
happening in the world and what's going on overseas.
And we are about to see in the budget that comes out what the
priorities of the Republican Party are. The budget is a moral document.
It is when you say what you really care about. And when you look at
that document, you will see what they really care about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, returning to the subject of
regulations and its impact on the creation of jobs and the need to
create jobs to create taxpayers, I yield 2 minutes to the
[[Page H668]]
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a distinguished new member of the
Ways and Means committee.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of today's
resolution directing committees to review existing, pending, and
proposed executive agency regulations. Congress is charged not only
with legislating but with also overseeing the implementation of
legislation.
Agencies continue to promulgate blanket rules which ignore
Congressional intent. Forty-three major regulations were published by
executive agencies in 2010, and another 191 are currently in the works.
These regulations marginalize small businesses and communities which
have less ability to absorb the cost of compliance. Small towns in
Nebraska, for instance, are spending millions of dollars installing
water treatment facilities and electric generation units to comply with
EPA standards which continue to be arbitrarily changed, regardless of
the science. These people are, in good faith, purchasing lower emission
units. They want to comply with the law, Mr. Speaker. But cities and
residents can no longer afford higher prices because of these arbitrary
and inconsistent regulations. It's not fair, and it's not good
government.
I would also like to touch on some Medicare regulation, which has the
potential to disproportionately hurt rural hospitals. Medicare
outpatient physician supervision requirements have a serious impact in
my district and I'm sure many others. For the last 2 years, Medicare
rules for outpatient hospital procedures have included a provision to
require a medical doctor be on site for even the simplest of
procedures, for example, a phlebotomist taking a blood sample.
Certainly, I don't think that was congressional intent.
Without the current temporary suspension of this rule for small rural
hospitals, many critical access hospitals in my district would not have
the manpower to perform outpatient procedures on a regular basis, the
result for patients being lengthy travel to larger cities for care, be
it routine care or otherwise.
This regulation is also having a negative impact in more urban areas.
Yesterday I was speaking to a group of physicians from Nebraska, and
one shared with me his ability to remotely order a CT scan at the
hospital when he knows such a procedure is necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. However, the hospital cannot begin the scan
until after he arrives at the hospital to oversee the scan, although
not even necessarily perform the scan.
As a cosponsor of the REINS Act, I also applaud this effort to begin
curbing unchecked agency regulation hampering families, job creators,
and the growth of America's economy.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2
minutes now to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise also in support of this
resolution which directs committees to review Federal agency rules and
regulations which indeed may unfairly harm the ability to create jobs
and grow our economy.
I continue to hear on a pretty regular basis from my small businesses
in my community in Minnesota about new rules and new proposed
regulations that absolutely could hamper their operations and
opportunity for growth. I'm just going to give a couple of examples
real quickly.
I've heard from financial service companies in my district about a
rule that the Department of Labor is proposing now that fundamentally
changes a 35-year-old definition of ``fiduciary'' under ERISA. Now, if
implemented, this new rule would cause a major disruption to the
marketplace and directly result in higher costs and severely limited
access to much-needed products and services to consumers.
I've also heard from some of my medical device companies in my
district that are leading the world in developing these new lifesaving
technologies. And there's a new rule now that's been proposed by the
Department of Transportation which would require finished medical
devices and other products that contain lithium batteries to now be
shipped as hazardous cargo. Now, this is going to have a devastating
impact on the production of pacemakers, defibrillators, and
neurostimulators.
This is a new requirement that would severely disrupt the medical
industry's just-in-time delivery system. It's going to lead to
bottlenecks in the supply chain, and it's going to delay access to care
for patients all over the country, even though these devices pose no
demonstrable safety risk.
And it isn't just medical devices, Mr. Speaker. The regulation is
also going to have a significant impact on shipping of everyday
technologies. All in all, it's estimated that this new regulation alone
is going to cost about $1 billion annually to the economy and these
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the examples, and we've heard
others tonight of some of the burdensome regulations that are out there
and being proposed, and it clearly outlines the need for some oversight
and reform.
I ask for support of the resolution.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm just sitting here thinking about this whole business
about regulation. Since I've been in Congress, when I arrived here we
were in the midst of the savings and loan crisis which cost this
country something like $50 billion or something to bail ourselves out
of. It wasn't the fact that we didn't have the right rules and
regulations; we just weren't enforcing them.
Then we had Enron went on down in Texas, and we had the Exxon Valdez,
and you look at all these issues.
We need regulation and enforcement to make sure that the people are
protected. It is our job, in part, to protect the American people from
the capitalist system. The capitalist system is not bad. It simply
doesn't have any morals. It is designed to make money. That's all it's
about.
And the regulations that are put in are, in large measure, to protect
the American people from the excesses of the economic system. And if we
don't do that, we don't do our constituents what they sent us here to
do, which is to represent them and protect them. We think about
protections in terms of, you know, things overseas and missiles flying
in from somewhere and all that kind of stuff, but there is more damage
done to American people by what happens here in this country by our own
companies to the water and the air and the land and the air we breathe.
So it is very important that we do this. We should be doing continuous
oversight. And in some instances, we should be tightening the
regulations.
The banking system that collapsed collapsed because we allowed Wall
Street to have a heyday with derivatives and said, you know, do
whatever you guys think is right. What they thought was right was to
gamble with our pensions and our people's savings, and the whole system
collapsed. And we're digging our way out of it.
And to come out here and say what we need is to remove regulations is
simply not--doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't make sense to anybody
who thinks about it for 1 minute. And I urge my colleagues to vote
against this. It's useless. It's stupid. Every committee already has an
oversight subcommittee and they will do it, and I think that there is
no reason to pass this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2110
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I find some degree of
irony in the gentleman's comments that anybody saying that we need to
do away with regulation was stupid, because the President of the United
States stood in this Chamber last month and was citing specific
regulations that were redundant or were inappropriate.
The resolution that we have been debating tonight is a critical step
toward restoring our economy and getting Americans back to work. I
would like to point some context out on this.
I think we have 100 percent agreement in the Chamber tonight that we
want clean water and we want clean
[[Page H669]]
air. I'm the father of an asthmatic child, two asthmatic children, I
might add, who has been up all night and made the trips to the ER and
understands this. But there's a significant difference between the
context of application there and dealing with some of the changes and
the moving standards in the regulatory community that have huge
economic impact on our communities.
I would like to cite three brief examples of different contexts of
regulations that need to be modernized or changed, or have lost their
context.
Again, we are not talking about an anti-regulation issue here. The
fact is that regulations have never been aggressively attacked. What
happens is we layer another regulation on top of an existing
regulation. We increase the complexity of that. We create new
organizations that do the same thing, costing more money, creating
uncertainty. And I think we have common ground on the need for that
reform. But let me give you the first example.
Clean air is a great concern to me. I grew up around the steel and
the mining industries as a small boy on the other side of the tracks
and got to see the bad things that were done. When the EPA came into
being, there were some good starts. Ironically, the real efforts of
true environmental remediation began in the States. Operation Scarlet
in Pennsylvania began changing the way the land was treated. Much of
that was copied by the Federal Government and changed our community
demonstrably. But those days are long gone, those good old days, and
the complexity and the intrusiveness of the bureaucracy is even
different to a greater degree.
The Marathon oil refinery that's in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, spent
tens of millions of dollars in full compliance with existing
regulations. Long-term capital investments were made to deal with
sulfur, nitrous oxide, and mercury, other chemicals that were in
potential emissions, both in water and in the air. And then, after
these huge, multiyear capital investments, the ball was moved again. It
has crippled the ability of that specific facility to grow and to
create jobs.
That is what I'm talking about, context and predictability. Having
overseen long-term capital investment plans in the manufacturing
industry, when you have to take 10 years, you cannot afford to have
that lack of predictability. This is what we are talking about.
At a closer level to home, we talk about veterans a lot here, we talk
about prescription drug problems, drug addiction issues. That's
something I care very much about. Growing up in a dysfunctional
household and seeing the worst of substance abuse or substance
addiction in family members, I can say, as somebody who has volunteered
for over 30 years to help people escape from these kinds of things,
that regulation in fact is helping to create a worse problem.
We work very closely with the Veterans Administration. As a former
Army Ranger myself, I care very much about our veterans coming home.
And the one thing I would say here, Mr. Speaker, is that we do have a
prescription drug diversion problem with older veterans in certain
parts of the country.
I was approached by a group of doctors from the Veterans
Administration who shared with me that they had been banned by the
Veterans Administration general counsel from using the drug registries
that are in the State of Indiana and the State of Kentucky, as well as
all other States in the Union that have these registries, from simply
checking to make sure that the patients weren't seeing a civilian
doctor in another State or a civilian doctor in Kentucky and going to
the VA to get a double or triple dosage of the same pain medications
like Oxycodone and selling it on the street or abusing it themselves to
a degree. The doctor said to me, ``I'm not interested in criminal
prosecution. I don't want to kill my patients. I want to make sure they
receive the best health care.''
With a stroke of a pen, the general counsel of the VA has added to
the complexity of this problem. I spoke to the head of National Drug
Control Policy at the White House personally about this, and he said
his hands are tied and, ``We are looking into that.'' All of this
impacts jobs ultimately.
Finally, I will give a context of the small business owner who gets
trapped in this before fully closing. We have lots of great innovative
small business owners who go out and they see an opportunity, and they
take the risk, usually with their life savings, which may not be much.
We only had a few thousand dollars when we started our business that
became successful and supported a number of families for many years
before I came to Congress.
My friend, Nick Bell, who started Braxton's Cleaners, was an
entrepreneur that wanted to take a chance and build a dream with that.
His customer service is outstanding, and people flock to him for the
responsiveness, the creativity, the initiative, the kindness of his
people. He implemented home delivery and suddenly wanted to set up
satellites. So many people were coming to him for business, he realized
he needed to put another dry cleaning machine in place. One would think
that, to support more customers, we could do that.
He suddenly found out, as he bumped up against the Division of Water
and the Environmental Protection Agency for the first time, that he had
to do a soil sampling under the pad, the concrete pad of his building,
before putting that second machine in. What he didn't know along the
way was that an arbitrary decision was made in another Federal agency
that dry cleaning fluid was put on a list of carcinogens. As one
oncologist told me, you would probably have to drink about 80 gallons
of this product daily to create the chemical pH in your body to cause
cancer in the first place. But that's beside the point. Here is the
context of why we have to forcibly address regulations, and I will
point this out.
Mr. Bell suddenly found out that one teaspoon of water under 14 bore
holes under the pad was discovered. In that teaspoon of water were
several parts per million of dry cleaning fluid. Guess what. They said,
``Well, you're going to have to remediate this.'' Mr. Bell said, ``I
can't afford to do that.'' The response from the compassionate Federal
agency that cares about jobs was, ``If you don't remediate it, you are
going to shut it down.'' That made him an activist. He was going to
have that business shut down, every family working there, over one
teaspoon of water, and he had to spend effectively his life savings of
$60,000 to clean up one teaspoon of water, and it took him years to
recover.
Those are the stories. I appreciate all the comments about caring
about workers. I care about those. My grandfather was a mine inspector
after he retired. I care about those issues. And I think that it's
incorrect to try to create this demonization of those of us who just
ask the question, why is that there? We have regulations that not only
impede jobs, but regulations that make it so complex.
And I will speak with authority as an engineer on this. The more
complicated you make something, the more likely you will have errors.
Thus, many of the things that have been cited tonight as reasons we
need more regulations are because we have got so many that it can
become arbitrary overnight.
I agree with the gentleman that we need to address these issues, but
we need to do them in a manner that is devoid of emotion and with a
technical focus on what the numbers actually say. And, regarding
regulations, let's measure the right things, because we don't do that.
What worked in 1960 is not necessarily applicable with the technology
and the tools today.
Reviewing all current and proposed rules is the first step. We should
do it, because successful businesses, successful schools, any
successful institution, even, I guarantee you, the champion Green Bay
Packers, review their playbook on a regular basis throughout the season
to make sure that they were adaptive and agile for that great game we
saw last week.
Reviewing it is a necessary step for us, and it's one that by
reviewing this will not hinder economic growth; it will help it. It
will free people to achieve, to fulfill the spirit of regulations and
help enhance prosperity for all Americans. On behalf of the Ways and
Means Committee, we are eager to do our part in this task.
The next step will be to change the way that major rules take effect
in the first place. We need more accountability up here. That is
nonpartisan.
[[Page H670]]
And the last administration, I am sure that the gentleman and I could
find plenty of opportunity to point out regulations that were against
the will of Congress that were being implemented regardless of who was
in the majority here. For the sake of our Constitution and the people
who sent us here, we should embrace that.
To provide greater transparency and accountability to this process, I
look forward to the House moving forward with the REINS Act, which will
be a complement to H. Res. 72. I urge all of my colleagues to support
this resolution as the critical first step of opening the eyes of the
Congress, opening the eyes of the American people to the impact of
these regulations honestly, and to alleviate job creators from not the
burdens of legitimate safety standards, of legitimate standards to
benefit our communities, but those non-value-adding overheads that are
imposed upon us that prevent the hiring and create unpredictability.
Let's move forward. Let's take the burden off our families from these
excessive and unnecessary regulations, and create jobs and put America
back to work.
Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H. Res. 72, the
great engine of America for the last 235 years has been innovation.
American ingenuity is a tremendous source of pride in our nation's
history. Sadly, this aspect of American life is reeling today from a
wave of new regulations that have been added on top of an already
complex regulatory system that costs money, jobs, and growth across
every sector in our economy. We've been told that more regulation is
somehow ``good for us,'' that a select few know better than our
citizens how to make the day to day decisions in our small businesses.
But every time a teenager in our country is prohibited from entering
the work force because his would-be employer has to comply with a new
health law and can't afford his labor, we lose the chance for that
teenager to learn valuable skills and perhaps create something special
later in his life. Every time a small bank in West Texas is forced to
comply with a law that came as a result of the irresponsibility of
others, we lose the chance for that bank to extend a loan to an
entrepreneur that is capable of creating hundreds of jobs in a small
community. Mr. Speaker, Pecos County State Bank in Fort Stockton, Texas
takes in 50 percent of the deposits of that town's residents. The cost
to run their annual audit is now almost four times as much as it was
before the onslaught of regulations we've seen passed in the last two
years. We cannot keep placing these burdens on our small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to begin the work of placing the
responsibility and trust in our society back where it belongs--in the
hands of the people. We must begin it now before it's too late.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member of the
Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Ed Markey, for the opportunity to
speak on this important issue. I also like to thank Chairman Doc
Hastings for his leadership.
Every year, thousands of federal rules or regulations governing
almost every aspect of society are conceived through the federal
rulemaking process. Consequently, federal agencies perform quasi-
legislative functions and, in many ways, serve as an extension of
Congress. This notion of an unelected entity having such tremendous
impact on society rests uneasily with democratic theory. For this
reason, a critical feature in our democracy is to control excessive
bureaucratic discretion and to ensure that rules and regulations
promulgated by federal agencies are consistent with the intent of
Congress as expressed in the law.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, exists for this
purpose--to constrain excessive bureaucratic discretion through
procedural requirements for agency decision making, including setting
goals and standards for regulations, and ensuring public participation
through notice and comment. Other statutory rulemaking requirements
applicable to a wide range of agencies include the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, and the Information Quality Act. These statutory
requirements established a clear process for agency rulemaking and
standard by which the quality of regulations should be measured.
I appreciate the concerns of my Republican friends that there are
problems with many federal regulations. Over the years, we have seen
evidence of excessive bureaucratic discretion that result in federal
regulations being too burdensome, costly, counterproductive and even
prohibitive. Critics argue that mundane requirements have led to the
ossification of the rulemaking process, which at times could mean years
before the final regulations are put in place.
Meanwhile, federal regulations are derived from the laws that are
enacted by Congress. These laws are put in place to safeguard public
interest. Without federal regulations though, we could have situations
such as the recent Deepwater Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The lack
of regulatory oversight contributed to one of the biggest oil spills in
the country, in which, the deepwater well released about 200 million
gallons or 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico,
over a period of 84 days. To prevent such environmental disaster in the
future, we need stronger federal regulations to ensure that appropriate
standards are in place.
Mr. Speaker, I support a more common sense approach to federal
regulations. Federal agencies should strive to protect the public
interest and to ensure that proposed regulations do not stifle economic
growth and job creation. For this reason, I am pleased that President
Obama has ordered a government wide review of federal regulations to
root out those regulations that stifle job creation and make our
economy less competitive.
As the lawmaking institution in our system of government, we also
have a responsibility to ensure that federal agencies are given the
resources and better guidance to formulate regulations that are
consistent with the intent of the law.
Mr. CRITZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind this body of what the
American people asked of us in November. They did not ask us to
continue the parliamentary back and forth this institution has become
known for; nor did they ask us to stand around while small businesses
are hurting on Main Street. What the constituents of the 12th district
of Pennsylvania asked of me, and what the American people demanded from
this Congress, is for us to help build an environment where business
can create jobs.
Yet today, we are here considering a resolution that would give lip-
service to creating jobs, but have no actionable results. H. Res. 72
simply instructs House Committees to review existing, pending, and
proposed regulations by federal agencies. These Committees are to then
create an inventory of these regulations to report this information.
Mister Speaker, this is what our committees are already doing. These
are the actions we are already taking to ease the burden on the small
businesses in this country. What productive action are we taking by
debating and voting on our Committees to fulfill a role in Congress
that has already been defined for them?
This resolution is the epitome of the redundancy. I can say with
certainty that H. Res 72 does nothing to reduce real regulatory burden
on small businesses. Yet we are on the cusp of adopting a rule that
will have my colleagues charged in a debate for an extended amount of
time. This is what Americans see as the problem in Washington. As they
are struggling, we are engaging in debate on a symbolic measure that
does nothing more than reiterate what we have already been charged to
do as Members of Congress. What are we doing for our small businesses
today?
Small businesses create two-thirds of net new jobs each year in this
country. It is our duty to make sure that we help generate the best
environment to allow these job creators to thrive. Some of the reasons
we were all elected to the 112th Congress was to help these small
businesses and help our economy. What we are considering today, will
produce no actionable result for either of these two goals.
There is no question that the small businesses of America face a
large burden when it comes to federal regulations. Federal regulations
now cost Americans $1.75 trillion each year; that's up 50% from their
annual costs in 2005. Federal agencies continue to add thousands of
pages of new regulations which add to the already challenging task of
creating a small business. It's estimated that these federal rules cost
$10,585 per worker for businesses with less than 20 workers. This
cannot be the environment in which we expect our unemployment rate to
turn around. It will take a bipartisan effort to reduce this burden and
guarantee that our economy continues to thrive.
As a member of the Small Business Committee, I am determined and
ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to review
these challenges and barriers faced by job creators in this country.
But I am sure this can be accomplished with the rules already set in
place for this body. What will hinder this process and do nothing for
small business is a debate on the House floor for nine and a half
hours, as this rule sets in place, on instructing members to do what
has already been asked of them. After that time, how can Congress say
that it helped foster the environment for small businesses to create
jobs? How many jobs can we say have been created as a result?
What our small businesses need is action. What the American worker
needs is action. What our economy needs is action, and today, with this
resolution, we have no action. I urge
[[Page H671]]
my colleagues to vote no on this rule, which will result in no jobs for
the small businesses of America.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
72, a resolution 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.
While it is clear that across government there are tremendous amounts
of red tape that we must cut in order to more effectively and
efficiently spur job creation, I would like to focus on four specific
issues under the jurisdiction of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
FMCSA Hours of Service
Proposed changes by the U.S. Department of Transportation to hours of
service rules for truck drivers would have a substantially negative
impact on productivity and the U.S. economy.
The rules currently in place are working well and do not need to be
changed. Since the current rules were implemented seven years ago, the
trucking industry's safety performance has improved at an unprecedented
rate. Both the number and rate of fatal and injury accidents involving
large trucks have declined by more than one-third and are now at their
lowest levels in recorded history. The remarkable reduction in the
number of truck-involved fatal and injury crashes occurred even as
truck mileage increased by almost 10 billion miles between 2003 and
2008, the latest year for which data is available.
If the proposed changes are implemented, trucking companies will need
to put additional trucks and drivers on the road to deliver the same
amount of freight, adding to final product costs and increasing
congestion on the nation's already clogged highways. Small business
truckers would be especially hard hit.
On two prior occasions, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) estimated that similar changes would cost the
U.S. economy $2.2 billion, inclusive of safety benefits. However, in
the new proposed rule FMCSA has changed its methodology for estimating
both the benefits and costs of changes to the hours of service rule,
effectively decreasing estimated annual costs by $1.5 billion and
increasing estimated annual benefits by $1.1 billion in order to
produce a positive benefit-cost ratio. Further, the agency's own
analysis shows that the net benefits of retaining the current daily
driving time limit exceed the net benefits of reducing allowable
driving time by one hour, the option favored by FMCSA. Frankly, it is
very difficult to understand how FMCSA rationalizes its proposal on
this fact alone.
In addition to encumbering the industry and a struggling economy, the
proposed changes would significantly challenge law enforcement. Because
the proposed rules are complex and restrictive, motor carriers could
have difficulty understanding them and enforcement officers could have
difficulty accurately identifying violations. For instance, in order to
determine if a driver can legally claim to have met the conditions of a
weekly rest provision, enforcement officials would have to ensure that
at least 168 hours had elapsed since the beginning of the most recent
weekly rest period, and that the break included two consecutive
nighttime periods between midnight and 6 a.m. Such complexity will only
serve to hamper both industry compliance and motor carrier enforcement.
Now is not the time to impose costly new regulations that would
impede the nation's economic recovery and increase the cost of almost
every product Americans produce and buy.
Along with my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves, I
am circulating a letter on this issue to be sent to the Secretary of
Transportation, Ray LaHood. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in
signing on to this important letter.
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Issues
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous materials, there are three issues under my jurisdiction that
I want to draw attention to--two related to railroads and another
related to hazardous materials.
Put simply, the United States has the greatest freight rail network
in the world. Our system is the most efficient and cost-effective in
existence, and relies on virtually no subsidies from the federal
government. Over a century ago, America's railroads opened the door for
economic expansion, literally ushering in the great advancements in
industry that sparked America's emergence as an economic power on the
world stage. By linking our coasts, rail opened markets for goods and
services in parts of our nation before rendered inaccessible. America's
railroads revolutionized transportation, gave promise to freedom of
movement and made business more efficient. That heritage continues to
this day.
Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new era of a freight rail
renaissance. With 140,000 miles of track carrying almost two trillion
ton-miles annually, freight rail is an immense jobs generator and a
major driver of the nation's economy. In fact, the industry supports
directly or indirectly over 1 million jobs, and 43 percent of all
freight carried each year in the U.S. is moved by train--with demand
projected to grow. In order to meet this demand, it is essential that
there is continued growth in rail capacity.
Surface Transportation Board
Yet given their successes and self-reliance, the railroad industry
appears to be in the crosshairs of the Surface Transportation Board
(STB). The question is this: will America's railroads continue to be
given the freedom necessary to grow their industry without direct
interference by the federal government or will the STB attempt to move
to re-regulate the industry?
Re-regulation would be a potentially catastrophic public policy that
could erase 30 years of positive growth in rail, and threaten to reduce
the railroads to the ruinous decreases in services and disinvestment
not seen since the 1970's. I firmly believe that if the Surface
Transportation Board attempts to re-regulate this vital industry, it
will be only a matter of years before our once self-reliant railroads
will be forced to rely on taxpayer dollars to invest in infrastructure,
safety and efficiency as federal mandates mount.
The Surface Transportation Board has recently announced two hearings.
One will review rail traffic exemptions while the other will assess the
competitive marketplace in which the railroads operate. In connection
with those hearings, we would like to express our collective view about
the importance of the freight rail industry as a critical component of
our nation's transportation system, and impress upon you the importance
of maintaining the existing regulatory balance between the railroads
and shippers.
The passage of the Staggers Act in 1980 created a balanced regulatory
system that has allowed the rail industry to build the world's best
freight rail system, while protecting shippers in areas where there is
no effective competition. Since its passage, average inflation-adjusted
rail rates measured by revenue per ton-mile are down over 50 percent
and freight railroads have re-invested more than $480 billion back into
their operating networks. That could not have been done--and will not
be done in the future--unless the STB maintains the current regulatory
balance as contemplated by the Staggers Act.
Recently I joined with my senior colleagues on the Transportation
Committee, what we call the ``Big 4''--the Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Mica, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.
Rahall, the Ranking Member of the Railroads Subcommittee, Ms. Brown,
and myself, the Chairman of the Railroads Subcommittee--in sending a
letter to the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board regarding
maintaining the existing regulatory balance between the railroads and
shippers.
In our letter, we made it clear that any policy change made by the
STB which restricts the railroads' abilities to invest, grow their
networks and meet the nation's freight transportation demands will be
opposed by the Transportation Committee.
Positive Train Control
Notably, these debates are occurring at a time when the rail industry
is at a crossroads dealing with massive new mandates and proposals that
threaten to undermine our rail renaissance. Recent unfunded mandates on
the freight rail industry to retrofit equipment with Positive Train
Control (PTC) equipment are expected to cost in excess of $10 billion,
with limited, if any, operational benefit. This mandate will divert
scarce capital from critical investments in one of the most capital-
intensive businesses in the world.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Final Rule in
January 2010 to implement the statutory requirement in the Railroad
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to implement Positive Train Control
(PTC) systems by December 31, 2015 on mainline rail tracks that carry
passenger trains or hazardous materials that are toxic by inhalation.
Positive Train Control is a technology (or combination of
technologies) that is designed to automatically stop or slow a train
before accidents caused by human error can occur. The accidents PTC is
intended to prevent include:
Train-to-train collisions;
derailments caused by excessive speed;
unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where
maintenance is taking place;
trains moving through track switches left in the wrong position.
A fully functional PTC system must be able to precisely determine the
location and speed of trains, warn train operators of potential
problems, and take action if the operator does not respond to a
warning. The type of accidents that PTC systems are designed to prevent
are very rare. Of all train accidents on rail
[[Page H672]]
mainlines over the past seven years, only around 4 percent would have
been prevented if PTC systems had been in place.
According to the FRA, freight railroads will have to spend up to
$13.2 billion to install and maintain PTC systems over the next 20
years, but PTC will yield just $608 million in benefits over the same
period--a cost-benefit ratio of 20 to 1.
An April 2010 study by the consulting firm Oliver Wyman found that
the so-called ``business benefits'' of PTC--reducing train delays and
being able to move more trains through congested sections of track--are
actually very low or nonexistent. In fact, systems very similar to PTC
that are currently being implemented in Europe do not support that
claim that PTC will yield significant business benefits for U.S.
railroads.
The manner in which FRA determined which track will be required to
have PTC installed has caused a great deal of concern in the railroad
industry. Many provisions of the Final Rule go well beyond the
statutory requirements of the Railroad Safety Improvement Act. These
provisions add hundreds of millions of dollars to costs, but will not
improve safety in any meaningful way.
In the final rule, the FRA orders railroads to install PTC on rail
lines that carried toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials in 2008.
Nothing in the law refers to using 2008 as the base year for
determining where PTC must be installed.
As it currently stands, the Final Rule will require that
approximately 70,000-80,000 miles of rail miles have PTC systems
installed, about half of the total Class I railroad 160,000-mile
national freight network.
The decision to use 2008 as a base year for determining which tracks
require PTC implementation makes no sense, because hazardous materials
routing in 2015 will be vastly different than in 2008, for the
following reasons:
Significant hazardous materials rail routing changes were recently
implemented in response to a Department of Transportation/Department of
Homeland Security joint regulation requiring railroads to ensure that
toxic-by-inhalation chemicals are transported on routes posing the
least overall safety and security risk.
Additionally, marketplace dynamics are changing the transportation of
hazardous materials. For example, many chemical companies are phasing
out production of chlorine, or moving their production sites to where
the chemical will be used, thereby dramatically changing the amounts
and routes over which these toxic-by-inhalation materials are moved.
Finally, the rule does not provide for a ``de minimis'' exception,
where a rail line carrying very little of these materials could be
exempted from the PTC requirement. Such an exception would
significantly reduce costs without compromising safety in a meaningful
way.
The PTC mandate applies to all passenger railroads on the general
railway system, including Amtrak and 26 different commuter railroads.
Amtrak's capital needs and operations are fully subsidized by annual
appropriations. Commuter railroads also receive capital funds from the
Federal Transit Administration for repair and modernization of their
systems, but these federal funds represents only about 40 percent of
total funds spent on their systems, which are primarily supported by
local governments.
The cost of installing PTC is a significant burden for these commuter
railroads. The American Public Transportation Associations estimates
that installation of PTC on commuter railroads will cost more than $2
billion--these agencies are already cutting service levels or raising
fares because of the recession's impact on local government budgets.
Additionally, most commuter railroads operate over freight rail-owned
track. These agencies must ensure that the PTC technology they install
on their commuter systems is interoperable with the systems that their
host railroads put in place.
Because of issues like interoperability, there is real doubt that PTC
can be successfully implemented by December 31, 2015.
There is also a severe shortage of available broadband spectrum for
the wireless communications networks that are central to PTC
implementation. The Federal Trade Commission has authority over
allocating spectrum, and the FTC decision process is slow and
cumbersome.
Instead of penalizing the rail industry for its success, Washington
should be promoting new investment and expansions in service to keep
America's railroads in the driver's seat of the global economy. That's
why I support tax credits for the expansion and rehabilitation of the
nation's rail infrastructure.
Tax credits are a proven and effective policy tool to encourage
businesses to invest in worthwhile projects. Because the railroads
still pay for their projects under tax credit plans, tax credits ensure
that the railroads will only pursue projects that will grow their
businesses, and ultimately expanding the economy. Direct grants, on the
other hand, could be seen as ``free money'' that would not be subject
to the same rigorous business decisions. There are two tax credit bills
that I support, including a 25 percent tax credit for rail projects
that expand the rail network and ease congestion, and a short line tax
credit that expired at the end of last year.
America's railroads are at a crossroad. The direction the
Administration pushes the rail industry will have a lasting impact on
American competitiveness and economic growth. Washington must resist
the urge to over-regulate an industry that has proven it to be largely
self-sufficient and capable to weather economic stress and improve upon
its business model. We cannot go back to the days of stifling over
regulation and I will do my part as a member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee to make sure it does not happen.
Lithium Batteries
Finally, I want to touch on the transportation of lithium batteries.
In January 2010, the Department of Transportation issues a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to regulate the air transport of lithium batteries.
The proposed rule:
Regulates and treats as a hazardous material all lithium batteries
and most devices shipped with or containing such batteries, such as
laptop computers, cell phones, and medical devices.
Applies to air shipments within the U.S. and to shipments carried on
U.S. registered aircraft traveling anywhere in the world.
Proposes to limit stowage of lithium batteries on cargo aircraft to
crew-accessible positions or in yet-to-be-approved Federal Aviation
Administration fireproof containers.
Billions of lithium batteries have been safely transported as air
cargo in the last twenty years. This is not one of NTSB's ``Most
Wanted'' safety recommendations. In fact, there are no confirmed
fatalities associated with the lithium batteries transportation that I
am aware of.
The proposed rule grossly underestimates the cost of the regulation
to American businesses. The Department of Transportation analysis
estimates approximately $9 million per year in cost to the U.S.
economy. But actual costs to hundreds of businesses--battery
manufacturers, consumer goods manufacturers, freight handlers, and air
transportation companies--could easily top $1 billion a year.
I believe the Department of Transportation analysis did not take into
account:
Additional annual payroll and internal handling costs,
Administrative costs associated with negotiating and executing
hazardous materials contracts for customers shipping these newly-
regulated goods,
Adverse impacts on retail shipping outlets,
Potential layoffs associated with the burdensome requirements, and
Commercial consequences from potential lithium battery shipment
consolidation.
The United Parcel Service alone estimates this new regulation would
cost the company $264 million in the first year, and more than $185
million in each following year.
This proposed rule threatens to stifle job creation and industrial
advancement, and affects a wide segment of the economy, including U.S.
manufacturing, transportation, and retail sectors. It will also give
foreign cargo carriers a competitive advantage over U.S. companies.
Transportation regulations for lithium batteries have been
extensively considered by international bodies such as the United
Nations, International Civil Aviation Organization and International
Air Transport Association. In order to protect the competitiveness of
the U.S. in the international marketplace, standards for the transport
of lithium batteries should be fully harmonized with international
rules and regulations. This is the only reasonable focus of any
regulatory action on air transportation of lithium batteries. I
strongly support efforts to make the transport of lithium batteries as
safe as possible, but we must do so in a reasonable, responsible
manner.
I applaud our House leadership for bringing this important resolution
to the floor and thank them for the opportunity to discuss these
important issues.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues--Democrats and
Republicans--to support small business and small business trucking.
As we debate H. Res. 72, the most critical issue facing America is
how to increase jobs so that families can rise up against economic
hardships.
Small businesses are essential to our nation's economy.
They account for half of our gross domestic product, more than half
our jobs, and three-fourths of new jobs created each year.
We must support new and small businesses through open access to
loans, credit and capital.
We can reduce onerous paperwork, and give small companies the tools
they need to
[[Page H673]]
take care of their employees and build their companies.
By passing legislation focused on protecting the economic vitality of
small businesses in the trucking industry and all other sectors, we
will facilitate economic growth for all Americans.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of this resolution is postponed.
____________________