[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1649-H1655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate being recognized.
  In 1994, when the Republicans were placed in control of the House and 
Senate, they produced a magnificent piece of legislation, a legislative 
weapon against the overreaching of government. This was done in the 
Clinton administration, and it was signed into law by that President. 
This weapon hadn't been used but once during the Clinton administration 
and not at all during the three GOP years of President Bush.
  What it's called is the Congressional Review Act. This is an act that 
requires all Federal agencies to submit any new major regulation to the 
United States Congress for 60 legislative days prior to its enactment, 
during which time the Congress can vote to block these new rules if the 
Congress sees fit.
  With Mr. Obama in the White House and Senator Reid still throttling 
back in the Senate, the Congressional Review Act gives the House the 
potential to block or at least to expose the outrageous new rules being 
promulgated on the American people. These were done by the entrenched 
leftists in the Federal bureaucracy, and they are controversial rules 
that cost Americans jobs.
  If there is one thing that the American people have told us they are 
most interested in, besides the fact that we are running away with 
spending in this Congress, it's that they want jobs. You can do 
whatever you want to a family, but if you give a family a job, that 
family has at least the security of that employment. Since by that very 
destructive nature these regulations have the potential, rather than to 
create jobs, to destroy jobs, they should be seriously looked at by 
this House of Representatives.
  One of the things that people don't understand about how the Federal 
Government works--in fact, we had this said to us all the time--is 
``you passed X law, and it's really affecting and hurting my 
business,'' when in reality the law, itself, may not do any harm to 
one's business at all. The regulations, though, promulgated by the 
authority that has been given rulemaking power on that legislation have 
the effect of law. Yet they're not passed by this

[[Page H1650]]

Congress. They're passed by the various agencies and bureaus of the 
country when the Congress gives them regulatory authority.
  Now, if you really don't know what's going on here, you may ask: How 
important is that? Well, let's just take a look at last year.
  Last year, the Federal Government issued a total of 3,316 new rules 
and regulations, which is an average of 13 new rules a day. Seventy-
eight of those new rules last year were major rules. The definition of 
a ``major rule'' is a rule that may result in having an annual effect 
on the economy of $100 million or more--a major increase in prices or 
in the cost to the consumer. It may have a significant effect on the 
economy, including employment.

                              {time}  1550

  The ObamaCare bill, which was passed by this Congress in the last 
session of Congress, the health care bill, it arguably is the mother of 
all rule creators. The Congressional Research Service reports that 
ObamaCare gives Federal agencies substantial responsibility and 
authority to fill in the details of that bill and of that legislation 
with subsequent regulations. There are more than 40 provisions in the 
health care bill--that is called the overhaul bill--that requires, 
permits or contemplates Federal rulemaking authority just in that one 
act of Congress. Forty different agencies can create rules that affect 
the health care of every American citizen. This House can fight back on 
those rules with this Congressional Review Act.
  Now what is the Congressional Review Act? As I said, they filed this 
with the Congress. And then for 60 legislative days--and ``legislative 
days'' has a definition. A legislative day is a day that this Congress 
is available to act. So if the Congress recesses for 3 days, those 3 
days are not counted in the number of days. So it's not 60 calendar 
days; it's 60 legislative days.
  For instance, if you look at the last Congress, rules that were filed 
last summer, last June, in fact, which would be more than 6 months from 
the 1st of January, those rules are still available for review. Now, 
how is that possible? Well, between the 1st of June and the end of the 
year, this legislative body was not in legislative session 60 days. We 
had the longest recess in probably the institute of the Republic that 
took place in August because of the political world that the majority 
saw itself in and the fact that they felt like they needed to have 6 
weeks back home to do the politics. So the majority gave us the long 
recess. We had a break in the 4th of July week. Then we came back for 2 
weeks. Then we went back home for campaigning. And then we came back, 
after campaigning, in December for 2 weeks. So, in total, we didn't 
reach 60 legislative days. But all that counting starts over with a new 
Congress.
  Something that most Americans don't know is, every time we have a new 
Congress, everything starts over. So when we wrote rules for 2 years 
ago that governed this body, we had to write new rules for this session 
of Congress. At the end of this 2-year period, we will write new rules 
for the next session of Congress because we are required--you've heard 
it's a new world every morning. Well, at least for Congress, it's a new 
world every 2 years because the nature of our very existence is we are 
the people's court. The House of Representatives is the people's House, 
and the people's House changes depending on who gets elected every 2 
years.
  So now we have started a new 60-day period. The 60-day period, the 
rules that were filed that would be subject to this Congressional 
Review Act, those rules were all filed on the 15th of February because 
that was the first time that both Houses were completely in session. 
And so these things will expire sometime in June. After that clock has 
run, then this House can no longer act. So the House has, right now, 
during this period of time, from February to June, to act on a lot of 
regulations. This gives us a chance to make a determination.
  This is kind of the Congressional Review Act right here. I want to 
give you some examples of some kind of rules that are available to be 
dealt with under the Congressional Review Act and will be dealt with 
under the Congressional Review Act.
  The FCC has proposed rules that would allow the Federal Government to 
act as a gatekeeper and prohibit broadband providers from selectively 
blocking or slowing Web traffic. These new FCC rules will restrict 
access to the Internet and stall innovation in our country, further 
damaging the economy and hindering job creation.
  Most people think the Internet works pretty good right now, but there 
are those who think the Federal Government should intervene in the 
Internet and the agency in the executive branch should have a chance to 
actually regulate and decide how the Internet is going to operate. We 
can't affect the Internet worldwide, but we can affect the Internet in 
the United States. Most of us feel that we should not, in fact, be 
intruding on the Internet. This is now coming up for disapproval under 
H.J. Res. 37. Greg Walden is carrying the ball on this, and that clock 
expires on the 14th day of June.
  The NESHAP rule for Portland cement manufacturing. What is Portland 
cement? Portland cement is that bag of powder that you mix with gravel 
and so forth to make concrete. That's what Portland cement is. Portland 
cement is manufactured in the United States and manufactured all over 
the world. There is a regulation which would require the closing of 18 
cement plants in this country. These jobs from these cement plants, as 
a result of the regulations that are being proposed, would be forced to 
move to India and China if they wanted to continue to produce Portland 
cement because they would not be able to meet the standards that would 
be established by this rule.
  The U.S. cement industry today provides more than 15,000 highway 
jobs, with an average compensation of $75,000 per year, along with 
allied industries that account for nearly $27.5 billion of the gross 
domestic product. A statement made by the concrete industry is that 
there is only one element in the world that is more prevalent in 
construction than concrete, and that's water. You have to realize that 
the second element most important to construction around the world is 
the production of cement, the production of concrete, and water is the 
only one that's more important. It's a pretty amazing amount of 
concrete that is required in the world; and yet as a result of this 
rule, there is a distinct possibility that we will be looking at about 
70 percent of our concrete manufacturing being done outside of our 
country.
  Now, there has been a lot of criticism of this challenge to this rule 
because people are saying, but look, these cement manufacturers put 
mercury into the air; they don't regulate mercury. Well, I just want to 
show you something that I think was very interesting when this argument 
was made.
  This map, prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute. Now 
remember, this is the most and this is the least amount of mercury 
production on our chart. Now, you will notice that all of the red and 
these green and yellows here, they're scattered in there, is heavy 
concentration of mercury in the air. The source of that mercury 
originates outside the United States.
  This is not the result of American production of Portland cement; 
this is the result of foreign production of Portland cement, because 
these are regulated industries already in this country and nobody 
regulates those industries outside of this country. And because of the 
prevailing winds from the Far East, more than half of the United States 
has a major mercury output. And the solution is to write a bill that 
will force more companies to go overseas. That means more mercury will 
be in the air because they will be sending them to unregulated 
countries.
  This is a bill that wasn't thought out. This rule was not thought out 
well enough, and so we should stop it. We should sit down and work out 
a clean air set of regulations that actually work to reduce this 
mercury production and, in fact, bring more people to producing in this 
country rather than not producing in this country.

                              {time}  1600

  One of the things I hear every day when I go back to Texas is: When 
are you going to stop outsourcing our jobs to other countries? And yet 
we're writing a regulation right now under Clean Air that is going to 
outsource thousands of American jobs to other countries.

[[Page H1651]]

  This is something that needs to be thought through. Many times these 
agencies, because they don't answer to the American public in any form 
or fashion, other than this review, these are things that they need to 
be sat down and we need to get their heads on straight.
  This new rule, we will try to raise this rule. You say, This is how 
it works in the House of Representatives. How does it work in the 
Senate? Well, what makes this a really interesting rule is you first 
need to know what the rules of procedure are in the Senate. It takes 60 
Senators to agree to bring anything to a vote in the Senate, which 
makes it difficult to bring things to a vote when more than half of the 
Senators have to agree just to bring something to a vote. But written 
into this act, signed by President Clinton into law, is the provision 
that this particular examination of rulemaking authority only requires 
30 Senators to agree for a vote, that it can be brought to a vote.
  So when it passes out of the House and goes over to the Senate, it 
only takes 30 Senators to agree to bring this to a vote. If it passes 
the Senate, then it is sent to the President's desk. Then basically 
he's got the only vote left, in many cases to prevent bad regulations. 
The President told us the last time he had a press conference that he 
was going to stop job-killing regulations in this country. The 
regulations we are going to be working on are job-killing regulations. 
And so we're going to give him the opportunity to do that. If he 
chooses to veto it, so be it. Basically, he had the one vote that could 
have stopped the job-killing regulation.
  The Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology 
has promulgated complex, confusing and costly rules establishing what 
it means for hospitals and physicians to have a certain EHR, whatever 
that is. I don't know what that is. If not simplified, the rules will 
prevent health care providers from receiving incentive payments and 
increase the cost of EHR installations and limit the innovation in the 
health information technology market.
  Another rule that's out there is called the boiler MACT rule. 
Basically, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing four 
separate rules that would establish more stringent emission standards 
on industrial and commercial boilers and process heaters. The broad-
reaching proposals could cost manufacturers over $20 billion in 
compliance costs and place hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy. 
This needs to be dealt with by the 21st of June.
  The Florida numeric nutrient water quality standards rule. This is 
also by the EPA, as I understand it. This rule mandates nutrient 
standards for Florida lakes, rivers, streams and estuaries in response 
to litigation initiated by environmental and special interest groups. 
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services concludes 
that Florida's agriculture community will lose 14,545 full-time or 
part-time jobs and $1.148 billion in sales annually if this rule is 
approved. This is why this Congress ought to look at this rule.
  HHS rule on medical loss ratio requirements under the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act. This regulation requires all health 
plans to pay a minimum of 80 percent of premiums toward health 
services. Larger insurers should pay a minimum of 85 percent. Industry 
analysis estimates that as many as 47 percent of the participants in 
individual and small group plans which have higher administrative costs 
due to economies of scale will lose their health insurance if this 
regulation becomes law. So this one regulation, which comes out of what 
we call the ObamaCare bill, could cause 47 percent of the people who 
have small to midsize health care plans to lose their health care plan.
  We actually have a bill that is coming before this Congress. Geoff 
Davis of Kentucky has introduced this bill. It mandates that all new 
major rules must be approved by Congress before becoming law.
  This one is pretty simple, and it just supplements what we're already 
dealing with. It uses the same definition for major rules and requires 
Congress to approve all major rules and Federal regulations before they 
become effective.
  Why would we do that? To start off with, 3,000-plus new regulations 
were passed last year. These regulations could cause you or others to 
lose their jobs. And so if it is our responsibility, and I think it is 
our responsibility in this House, for us to come up with solutions that 
make jobs be created rather than make jobs disappear, then those things 
that have a potential to make jobs disappear, it's part of our 
responsibility to take a hard look at those regulations that might make 
jobs disappear. This is not rocket science. This is pretty easy stuff.

  We who are the people's representatives, who are elected to represent 
the people of the United States--and remember how our Founding Fathers 
set up our Constitution: The Senators represent States and the House of 
Representatives represents people. Our districts are drawn based on the 
population in those districts. Their district is the whole State, and 
they represent the State of Texas or the State of New Jersey or the 
State of New York or the State of California and all the other States. 
So we are the direct link to the people.
  We are the only branch of this House and Senate where no one can sit 
in these seats and be a Member of Congress unless they were elected. 
That's something a lot of people don't know. If we should have a 
Senator, heaven forbid, die while in office, that Senator can be 
temporarily replaced by an appointment by the Governor of the State 
that that Senator represents. But if we have a Member of Congress, 
heaven forbid, die while in office, that Congressman has to be elected 
before they can serve in the House of Representatives.
  We are the people's House. We are the only House that depends upon 
the vote of the people to keep us here under all circumstances. So if 
that's how we get here and our responsibility in today's economy is to 
try to get ourselves out of the poorhouse with all the borrowing we've 
been doing and to help create jobs so Americans can get back to work, 
if Americans get back to work, we will have a solution in many 
instances to the problems that face our country right now as far as 
debt and other things, because if they are working, they are paying 
taxes and those taxes will help alleviate the issues we have.
  If that's the case, why wouldn't it make just decent common sense 
that this Congress, the people's House, would have the opportunity to 
look at regulations that might destroy jobs? And if we have credible 
people that are saying they will destroy jobs, then we need to look 
seriously at those regulations. And maybe it's just a matter of killing 
the job-killing regulations so that we can renegotiate regulations that 
solve the problem without driving industries overseas or killing the 
jobs that these industries create.
  Sometimes agencies are not putting priorities on people; they're 
putting priorities on other things. Therefore, we need to examine our 
priorities. Our job on the floor of this House is to make sure of the 
safety and welfare of our constituents back home and make sure that we 
do everything we can to make sure that they've got a job so they can 
support their families and support themselves.
  Right now, with, not 9 percent anymore, 8.9 percent unemployment, 
which is about as close to 9 as you can get without being there, we are 
still in an unemployment nightmare in this country.

                              {time}  1610

  I can remember back during the Clinton administration when there were 
public service announcements made that said 5.5 unemployment was full 
employment for the United States. We later learned that unemployment 
got down, during the early part of the last decade, to a much, much 
lower number than that. But we certainly know we cannot continue to 
tolerate somewhere between the top end of 8 and 10 percent unemployment 
and expect our economy to be healthy. We've got to get our people back 
to work. These regulations are part of the issues that are going to be 
important to discovering the solutions to this problem.
  Some would say this is controversial. Some would say that if the 
Congress interferes with regulatory authority then Congress is going to 
take on something that by plan was passed out to the regulatory 
agencies to keep us

[[Page H1652]]

from having to work so hard and getting into the weeds on all these 
bills. I didn't come up here, and I don't think anybody came up here, 
not to work hard. If they did, they probably don't belong being up 
here.
  If the actions of a regulatory board or an individual that is in 
charge of a regulatory agency has a dire effect upon the employment of 
any American citizen, I think we as the Members of this Congress have a 
duty and a responsibility to at least look at it. If we don't think 
it's bad, we can vote accordingly. But to just ignore it and let these 
things be created, and I would argue without a serious due process of 
law, because the only people that police this up is the various 
agencies in the executive branch of the government, and it's generally 
done by career bureaucrats. And they make these decisions. These people 
don't answer to the American people. They don't go before the American 
people for a vote every 2 years. Therefore, they don't feel the 
pressure of the damage that can be done by some of these regulations.
  Some of these regulations that are going to come before this House 
are going to be good regulations, and I would expect them to be voted 
for and upheld. But if we have the responsibility and the duty to 
protect our fellows, then I think we should step forward and do that 
job.
  My friend from Florida is here. Welcome. I will yield you whatever 
time you would like to join me in commenting on this regulatory 
overreach.
  Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for recognizing me.
  I didn't plan to speak today. But I was in my office and I was 
listening to your explanation of this abhorrent and out of control 
administrative rules process, where people who are not elected and are 
not accountable make up the rules as they go along however they may 
want them to. We have had a number of cases that have injured my 
constituents, or at least caused them a lot of sleepless nights 
already.
  As you may know, sir, earlier this year the Securities and Exchange 
Commission exposed their intent now to examine the entities that they 
regulate not just based on their conformance with securities law, but 
on their environmental stewardship. Now, these are the same people that 
couldn't put Bernard Madoff away when they were given an open and shut 
case 10 years before Madoff basically turned himself in. This is the 
same agency that hasn't disciplined anybody. Nobody's been reprimanded. 
Nobody's had their wrist slapped. Nobody's had a day off yet. They 
can't do the job they are supposed to do now, but they're going to 
start regulating companies for their environmental stewardship based 
upon rules that they promulgated. And you're correct that's the wrong 
thing to do.
  Most recently, and near and dear to my heart because it affects so 
many people in my State, is the new rule the IRS has proposed to deal 
with banks and foreign deposits. You know, for over 90 years this 
country has encouraged foreign investors to put their money in our 
banks. It makes good sense. We have their money, we can loan it out, it 
creates jobs for Americans. It's a win-win situation. It's a win for 
them, it's a win for us.
  Now, the IRS has decided that they're going to promulgate a rule that 
says the banks must notify the governments of every foreign depositor 
regarding how much money they have in our banks. Now, what's the 
benefit to the United States for that? There is no benefit to the 
United States. They don't owe taxes in the United States. What's the 
liability to the United States for that? The liability is that $200 
billion to $400 billion will leave American banks and go back into 
foreign banks.
  Now, can you imagine if you were unfortunate enough to be governed by 
Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, or Castro what would happen if they found out 
that you had assets in the United States of America? You would not only 
lose your assets; you might lose your life. But more importantly, this 
wrong-headed rule would cause a dramatic de-stimulus effect on our 
economy when you look at a stimulus bill of $800 billion that basically 
didn't perform like it was supposed to.
  It doesn't make much sense to write a rule that would take $200 
billion to $400 billion, up to as much as 50 percent of what our 
stimulus bill was, out of our economy. The IRS tried to do this about 
10 years ago. Over 100 Members of Congress stepped up and said this is 
a lousy idea, and it needs to be defeated. So my plea today, sir, is 
that we can have at least 100 Members of this Congress that will again 
stand up and say this was a bad idea 10 years ago, it's a bad idea now. 
Let's kill this rule and don't let it happen.
  Mr. CARTER. I am glad you brought that up. You know, what's really 
interesting, Mr. Posey, is they've got this new rule, I am not sure who 
promulgated it, that if you are a volunteer on a commission or a board 
that has anything, any form or fashion that handles money, you have to 
pay a $600 licensing fee to get a license to serve on the volunteer 
board. You know, the one that comes to mind is, every city of any size 
has what's called a planning and zoning commission. I happened to serve 
as the chairman of that commission in my hometown of Round Rock, Texas. 
It's a hard job. It's in many ways a thankless job.
  But now, in order for a volunteer to come in and serve to decide how 
the city's going to plan and zone its area for various construction and 
business, you got to pay a fee to volunteer, 600 bucks. But that's not 
how ridiculous it is; any board, agency, or commission. And every State 
has literally thousands of these volunteer positions that people do to 
help out their State, their city, their county. If there is any form or 
fashion of bonding capacity for any relative group that you serve, you 
have to buy a license for 600 bucks because you are considered to be in 
the investment business.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman again. You know, many people, even 
elected people aren't really familiar with what exactly an 
administrative rule is. We talk about these administrative rules as 
rules, and people wonder what they are. I used to explain to people 
that in Florida, where I first got interested in the administrative 
rule process, all the laws on the books passed by their elected State 
officials were in four law books this big. They were shocked by that.
  They said, well, what about the commercials where we see the attorney 
in front of all the books advertising for Dewey, Cheatem and Howe? What 
are all those? Aren't those our State's laws? Yeah, that's last year's 
edition and the edition before that, and the interpretations of them. 
But all those rules are in those four books. They are shocked at that.
  They said, well, we thought there were a lot more laws than that. I 
would say, well, there are a lot more laws than that, but those are all 
the laws that were made by people you elect. The administrative rules 
are laws which are made by unelected people that you don't vote for. 
And usually, they could fill up half the room. They would probably fill 
out a quarter of this room. So that's what most people don't 
understand, the relatively few laws that are passed by people they 
elect, and the plethora of rules that are passed by people they don't 
elect.

                              {time}  1620

  I remember it's one of the reasons I ran for the State legislature. I 
had promised my wife when I got off the city council I'd never run for 
office again as long as I lived. She made me promise her. That changed, 
and one of the reasons was I was upset by the runaway proliferation of 
rules in that State, which seemed like they were making rules willy-
nilly that were causing an inconvenience for every business and putting 
jobs in danger.
  So I got elected and, Judge, you know, the first bill I passed made 
it a third-degree misdemeanor for a bureaucrat to promulgate a rule 
that wasn't authorized by statute. Of course, people thought I was 
crazy. A lot of the media made fun of me, and I was the brunt of a lot 
of jokes.
  The Governor at the time had a hit squad go after that bill, and when 
I had it come up in committee they went around and met every member and 
said, Kill this bill. But it still got out of committee. So they 
referred it to six more committees, and we weren't able to advance 
that.
  I struggled with trying to change the way the administrative laws are 
promulgated and come up with a system

[[Page H1653]]

for about 4 years, to no avail. Representative Simler, Representative 
Pruitt were doing the same thing, and it just seemed like we were 
getting nowhere. And then in the 4th year, the Governor that had 
previously seemed so disgruntled with my legislation gave his final 
State of the State address wearing one of these belts like they wear at 
Walmart or Home Depot or Lowe's so you don't hurt yourself, and he was 
holding all the rules that applied to a cook shack that he wanted to 
build on Chemonie Plantation. And he said, We have got to do something 
about this out-of-control rules process.
  And he gave every member of the House and every State senator at the 
time a copy of a book by Philip Howard called, ``The Death of Common 
Sense.'' It is a great book that I implore people to read. It is very 
short and it is an easy read. It talks about how the rules process has 
worked to harm society.
  You know, Mother Teresa at one time wanted to have a house for the 
homeless in New York City. She located the perfect spot, got the 
contractors ready, was ready to open the doors, but the building 
department said, No, you can't do that here. She said, Why? Because 
that building does not have enough restrooms. So we have to continue to 
let the people sleep on the sidewalks and use the street for a restroom 
because of the rigid, monolithic interpretation of the laws and the 
rules.
  So, as a result, finally, of his personal experience, the Governor 
said, We need to change rules, the rules procedure, and we did. And you 
know, we changed the way rules are vetted. There's a joint 
administrative procedure committee which reviews every rule to make 
sure there's specific statutory authority to write that rule.
  The new process wasn't in order very long before one of the State 
agencies determined that any land with a new type of fern or fauna on 
it should be considered a wetland and couldn't be used for any 
development. Fortunately, it impacted a very large landowner down there 
who challenged the rule through an investigative court, an 
administrative rule through an administrative judge. The administrative 
judge ruled in favor of the bureaucrats, saying the legislature could 
not possibly have meant exactly what they said. That was the crux of 
their 38-page decision.
  So the next year we passed House Bill 107, which basically said we 
mean unequivocally exactly what we said, and from a rules perspective 
the State has lived happily ever after.
  Now, Washington is more dysfunctional than I anticipated that it 
would be when I got here, and one of the worst dysfunctions is the 
administrative procedures or the administrative rules process here. 
It's shocking that it's a very old process built on a flimsy 
foundation. There have been numerous attempts to fix it. None of them 
have been really successful, and I think, as you and I have discussed 
before, we need to have total reform. We need to start with a clean 
sheet of paper, and we need to make the agencies accountable for the 
rules they write, and they need to be specifically statutorily 
authorized to do those things.
  And so I hope that our colleagues will join with us as we move 
forward trying to seek an accountability and an efficiency in our 
government that is greatly lacking right now but is within our grasp.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, we're joined by the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of our new Members. We're proud to have 
you.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you.
  Mr. CARTER. We're talking about the regulatory overreach of the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Absolutely. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Under the Obama administration, the executive branch has hijacked the 
legislative process. The administration is riddled with unelected 
officials who are regulating the American people. The FCC, for example, 
the EPA, and dozens of appointed czars have way too much to say. 
Congress needs to take back the reins on legislating, which is what we 
were elected to do.
  Appointed friends of the President, they don't know what the people 
need. That's why we have Congress. We were elected to know our 
districts and represent our districts' needs. That's why I know how 
detrimental the EPA's regulations are to farmers, for example.
  Time and again, the EPA has produced regulations that go way beyond 
the intent of the Federal law. For instance, the Clean Air Act was 
intended to keep our air safe and clean, but the EPA has turned it into 
something it is not: a means to regulate dust. Mr. Speaker, I have 
actually risen in support of legislation to not fund their ability to 
regulate dust, and here I am again talking about this very same thing.
  I represent a heavily agricultural district in the great State of 
Arkansas, and the farmers in the First District will tell you this. 
Food comes from the ground; and in the process of taking it out of the 
ground, they're going to stir up some dust, and now the EPA wants to 
regulate that dust. It's a natural byproduct of growing and harvesting 
crops and has been since man first put seeds in the ground. In order 
for these farmers to do their job and feed the millions of hungry 
mouths in our country, they should be allowed to do their job without 
being further poked and prodded by EPA bureaucrats.
  Under the new national ambient air quality standards, the total 
estimated cost to industry lies near $90 billion a year. A huge portion 
of this will be a direct hit to our farmers, putting many permanently 
out of business. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Clean Air Act was 
not legislated to put farmers out of business.
  Another example of unelected officials missing the mark is EPA's fuel 
containment regulations; once again, the EPA overstepping its bounds. 
They want to tell farmers how best to run their farms. Not only does 
the EPA not trust farmers to run their operations well, the parameters 
end up costing the farmers tens of thousands of dollars, depending on 
the size of their farms.
  What the EPA needs to remember and understand is that farmers are 
smart people. It is in the best interest of them to invest in 
containment berms to ensure the land remains productive. Farmers don't 
want to spend money to clean up a fuel spill, which is why they already 
take the necessary safety measures. They shouldn't be forced to spend 
$10,000 for each containment facility when $1,000 would do the trick. 
Farmers know best how to protect their own land.
  We can't forget to protect the farmers. Folks, if we eat, we're 
involved in agriculture. There are over 300 million people to feed in 
America and only 1 million farmers. In fact, out of that 1 million 
farmers, 250,000 account for 80 percent of the total food production. I 
know here in Washington we can barely agree on anything. But I think 
there's one thing we can agree on regardless of our political 
affiliation, age, race, or gender, and that is: We like to eat. So why 
are we harming the people who feed us?
  We need to bring common sense back to Washington. Quit letting the 
bureaucrats in Washington run a rice farm in northeast Arkansas, and 
let them do their jobs.
  The Clean Air Act and fuel containment are two solid reasons why the 
congressional relief act is necessary, and I proudly stand with my 
colleagues in this effort to scale back rogue agencies such as the EPA 
in order to restore congressional intent to the regulations that are 
being produced. No longer should we let the tail wag the dog.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank you for your comment. I'm sure there have got to 
be some people that are listening to this who want to say, Did he 
really say ``regulate dust''?
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Absolutely right.
  Mr. CARTER. Yes. There is a proposed rule to regulate dust. Now, that 
statute actually exists in the State of California, which is closest to 
bankruptcy of any State in this country. And the Central Valley of 
California has had an issue about water and the shortage of water in 
the Central Valley, one of the breadbaskets of the entire Nation, 
because of a debate over water. Until it started to rain, they've been 
dry as a powder keg, but they have the dust regulation in California.
  So we inquired of them, What do you do if you've got a gravel road 
going up to your farmhouse to keep the dust down?
  Well, we have to water it every day. We have to take this shortage 
water that we don't have enough to even

[[Page H1654]]

grow a clump of spinach, and we water our roads so we don't violate our 
local Clean Air Act in California.

                              {time}  1630

  And I got humorous about that because I went to school at Texas Tech 
in Texas. And although we have come a long way up on the south plains 
of Texas in reducing the amount of dust storms that have been up in the 
panhandle of Texas, we still have dust storms. And when I was at Texas 
Tech, we had dust storms that were so bad that if you drove into the 
wind, they would literally sandblast the front paint off of your car. 
Now I want to know what the fine is going to be and who's going to have 
to pay the fine when there's dust blowing in all the way from New 
Mexico and Arizona that comes blowing into your State, and who is the 
EPA going to punish? I haven't got a good idea. But chances are, the 
farmer. And that's the real tragedy here.
  Certainly there are particles in the air that are bad for folks like 
me who have asthma, and we have to be concerned about it. And we're not 
going to let people overproduce any kind of disaster. But to say you 
can produce no dust on a farm is pretty close to crazy. Just the turn 
of a plough creates dust. Just the driving of the pickup to the barn 
creates dust. And I think it's a little overreaching.
  I was talking about this $600 fee that you've got to have to be a 
volunteer. I tried to think of one that everybody might understand, and 
I thought of a good one. Everybody has got a school board in their 
State somewhere, a local school board. And generally these local school 
boards are either wanting to have a tax increase or they are wanting to 
float a bond issue or something like that. So they create these 
volunteer groups called ``friends of the school board'' who go out in 
the community and try to help the school board get this bond passed so 
they can have better schools for the children of that school district. 
Everybody experiences that across this whole Nation, and every Member 
of this Congress probably knows something about that. But under the new 
proposed regulation, every one of those volunteers that goes out and 
promotes the bond issue would have to pay a $600 federal fine to get a 
license to talk about the bond issue, as if they were some kind of 
financial adviser to the American public. And what we really have there 
is a new revenue source created by the bureaucrats to put more money in 
the coffers of their bureau or their agency. That's the kind of thing 
that makes no sense.
  My secretary was bragging on the fact that she thought the county 
commissioner was going to appoint her to this volunteer board. And I 
said, well, you'd better get a check ready for 600 bucks. She said, 
well, no, it doesn't pay anything. I said, yeah, and by the way, the 
regulation also says that the person, the entity that appoints you to 
that board, cannot pay your $600 for you. You have to pay it, because 
you are now a financial adviser because that board has the ability to 
issue bonds. Now that's just a little bit too much.
  I had an old cowboy back in Texas that made a comment to me. He said, 
we don't have very many shortages in this country, but the one shortage 
we got in Washington, D.C. is, we have a severe shortage, dang near a 
drought, as he put it, of common sense. And part of the reason we have 
the Congressional Review Act is so that hopefully the common sense of 
the representatives of the people can prevail in these issues that are 
going to either harm our individual constituents, cost us jobs, or 
drive industries offshore, overseas, as we did with the cement 
manufacturers if we impose these severe penalties upon people who 
produce Portland cement. Portland cement doesn't mean it's from 
Portland; it means it's the process that they use to make cement.
  So today we're talking about what, I think, is something that the 
American people, now that they hopefully know a little bit about how 
much the agencies of this country and the bureaucrats and the 
secretaries and all the people that follow them, of all the Cabinet 
members in this executive branch, the kind of power they have to change 
the life of the individual and the life of the job producers and the 
job seekers in this country.
  And if we are going to give them that kind of control and that kind 
of power over people's individual lives, over the employer's ability to 
make the profit necessary to hire and create new jobs, if we're going 
to allow them to have that power, just like anything else, someone has 
to have oversight over these people and take a look at what they're 
doing and see if it is to the good of the American people and the good 
of our country. And that's why we have the Congressional Review Act. 
And in that Congressional Review Act, we get the chance to look at it. 
Just because it hasn't been used but rarely does not mean it shouldn't 
be used when the number of regulations have grown by geometric 
progressions in the last 2 years.
  When we create one bill, one bill, the health care bill that was 
created in the last session of Congress that creates 40 entities with 
rulemaking authority, 40 new entities that can create rules that affect 
the individual life and the health care of the American people--we have 
one particular entity that will actually be able to say what treatment 
can and cannot be given to certain people--surely this House would want 
to at least take a look at those regulations, because it might mean 
life or death to an American citizen if we do not allow that. So it is 
important.

  Congresswoman Ellmers from North Carolina, we are pleased to have you 
here. We would like you to explain what you want to show us here today.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
  Today, I rise on behalf of the people of Garner, North Carolina. They 
are faced with a very difficult situation these days, one that is 
threatening, and it actually as we speak is basically shutting Garner 
down for business. As you can see from the chart, I will point out the 
red line there. That red line is essentially going through the town of 
Garner, North Carolina. It is an extension of Highway 540. And this is 
the proposed site from the Army Corps of Engineers. And as you can see, 
if you look at the chart, there are some other very colorful options to 
consider as well. However, those options go through areas of wetlands 
and things, and the area that goes through Garner, North Carolina, 
that's the option that they are looking at because it's the only option 
that is outside of any wetlands and out of any areas that would harm 
such things as the dwarf wedge mussels.
  Now, basically, what we are faced with today is a situation where 
Garner, North Carolina, is shut down for business. Right now, potential 
businesses wanting to relocate or set up shop or move to the area, 
individuals maybe wanting to move to Garner, North Carolina, are 
reconsidering that choice because they see that there is a potential 
highway going through the center of their community, which is kind of a 
ridiculous situation. Many of the organizations that are involved right 
now have all said that this is not a viable option. And yet we continue 
to look at it. We continue to allow Garner, North Carolina, to be shut 
down for business, potential loss of jobs. We have individuals that 
live in Garner such as Brenda and Jerry Summer, who are an elderly 
couple that have children and grandchildren who have moved back to 
Garner to be near them, and they have the threat of having that highway 
go right through the middle of their living room.
  We also are faced with a situation where the Springfield Baptist 
church, which has been there for 140 years, 2,000 parishioners, they 
will literally lose their church and 50 acres of land. This is 
continuing because of the Clean Water Act and basically the Army Corps 
of Engineers' refusal to remove the red line from consideration.

                              {time}  1640

  We have met with them. We have asked them to take that option off the 
table and to save the American taxpayers that expense of doing the 
study. They know it is not a viable option. They know it's going to 
hurt business. They know that there are potential other options there, 
and yet we continue to look at it.
  I have the utmost respect for the Army Corps of Engineers but, quite 
frankly, this is a waste of American taxpayer money and a potential 
threat to business, and continuing in Garner,

[[Page H1655]]

North Carolina, all so that we can preserve a mussel, all so that we 
can preserve and route around wetlands. You can go anywhere in North 
Carolina and it is pretty much considered a wetland except your 
developed areas that are already in progress.
  I'm not against the highway, the loop being finished, but certainly 
there are other options that could be looked at. You can see there is 
an orange line, a blue line, a pink line. They're all there. They all 
connect, and these are all viable options.
  Some of the other organizations that are involved in this, like the 
North Carolina Turnpike Authority, have already dropped three other 
options from consideration because of public protests in those towns 
about potential harm to the communities. Garner stands to lose a 
projected worth of $9 million in investments and hundreds of jobs. 
Investors are literally walking away while the town stands in limbo 
because of this potential project that is going to take place here.
  We cannot continue this. This is what is happening. We must stand for 
the people of Garner, North Carolina. We must stand for the people of 
America, who are continuously saying: Let's use common sense. That's 
the issue here today. Common sense. If we all know this is not going to 
be the project that's ultimately proposed, let's take it off the table. 
Let's not spend American taxpayer dollars. Let's preserve the business 
community of Garner, North Carolina, and all the good folks there who 
are potentially going to lose their homes. Let's do it now. Let's not 
wait. This is a ridiculous situation, and I think the American people 
have had just about enough of it.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so much for allowing me to stand for the 
people of Garner, North Carolina.
  Mr. CARTER. If the gentlelady would yield for a question, if I 
understand you correctly, the main reason for this route is because of 
the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act?
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Yes; that is correct.
  Mr. CARTER. It is a mussel, you're saying?
  Mrs. ELLMERS. It is. It's a particular mussel. Let's find the name 
just so you're familiar with it. It is the dwarf wedge mussel, and 
apparently that dwarf wedge mussel is found down in the wetlands of the 
lower area there, so they have avoided that area. And then there are 
some other wetlands there as well. Certainly there are ways we can work 
around these issues and not go through an entire town that has been 
developed for years and years.
  Mr. CARTER. This is the town, here, which they are going to go in and 
condemn basically all of the town?
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Go right through, go right through the very middle of 
it.
  Mr. CARTER. Yes, I can see why people are a little upset about that.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. And the thing is, there is potential for that highway 
to go through there, but right now as we speak, the town of Garner is 
basically stuck. There is no growth. There is none whatsoever because 
any potential business, any potential job that could be coming there is 
not. It is turning away from Garner, North Carolina, for this very 
reason.
  Mr. CARTER. I can understand that. So if I am a potential employer 
who wants to build a factory and that is one of the places I might look 
at, I look at this and say wait a minute, I can buy the land, build my 
building, and then here comes the Corps of Engineers which puts the 
highway right through the middle of my building?
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Absolutely.
  Mr. CARTER. So the builder says I think I'll wait or look somewhere 
else?
  Mrs. ELLMERS. And they look somewhere else. That is what is 
happening. This is why the people of Garner, North Carolina, are 
outraged. And rightly so. This is a situation which has been hanging 
for awhile. It needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed 
today. I have asked all entities involved, let's all look at this and 
use some common sense and make the right choices and let's save the 
American taxpayers some money.
  Mr. CARTER. These regulations should be looked at by this House if 
they are available to be looked at. Of course, some of these may be 
long since on the books before we had this tool to examine regulations 
as they come out. But still, it is good for you as the Representative 
of your folks in your district to come up and speak for the people 
because that's our job.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. It is.
  Mr. CARTER. I'm going to reclaim my time because I think we are about 
to run out of it. I want to thank the Speaker for this hour.

                          ____________________