[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5500-S5504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Barrasso, Mr.
Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coats, Mr. Coburn, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Moran, Mr. Thune, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1538. a bill to provide for a time-out on certain regulations, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last month's dire economic news is a call
to urgent action to get America working again. In August, our Nation
produced no net new jobs. Productivity fell. Home sales fell.
Construction spending fell. The manufacturing index declined.
Unemployment is stagnant at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence is
plummeting.
Businesses, our Nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting
economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs
is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the
uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations.
The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I am introducing today with 16 of
my colleagues, provides job creators with a sensible breather from
these burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to
get back on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately
need, and enhance the global competitiveness of American workers.
Let me make clear that we also need to reform the process for issuing
regulations. Earlier this year I proposed the CURB Act, which stands
for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act would require
agencies to examine the costs and benefits of proposed rules, prohibit
them from attempting to set rules through unofficial guidance
documents--thus circumventing the public notice and comment period--and
provide businesses with relief from first-time paperwork violations
when no harm comes from the violation. Senators Barrasso and Roberts
joined me in introducing this bill.
Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, many of our colleagues have
recognized the need to reform the regulatory process and have
introduced their own proposals. The Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on regulatory reform
this year, and I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee
this fall.
But the fact is, our economy cannot wait for Congress to complete an
overhaul of the regulatory process. If we want to create more jobs, we
must act now. We must send a clear signal to the job creators that we
have heard them. That is why I believe we must have a timeout from any
significant new regulation that would have an adverse impact on jobs,
the economy, or our international competitiveness.
Under my bill, no significant final rule that would have an adverse
impact could go into effect during a 1-year moratorium. This timeout
would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and
other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive
orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George
W. Bush and President Obama.
Let me give an example of a rule that would be covered by the 1-year
moratorium I am proposing. A rule that would be covered by this
definition is EPA's Boiler MACT rule. I am sure the Presiding Officer
is familiar with this rule. This one regulation, if it were fully
implemented, could cost Maine's employers alone hundreds of millions of
dollars. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, a
jobs study just released shows that Boiler MACT, along with other
pending air regulations, could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the
country to close, putting more than 20,000 Americans out of work. That
is 18 percent of that industry's workforce. That shows you the potent
and terrible impact excessive regulation can have on job preservation
and job creation.
And that is just for starters. Once these mills close, the businesses
that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. Estimates are
that nearly 90,000 Americans would lose their jobs, wages would drop by
$4 billion, and government at all levels would see revenues decline by
a staggering $1.3 billion.
That is why, along with Senator Ron Wyden, I have introduced a Boiler
MACT bill that 24 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
already cosponsored. Our bill has been endorsed by 292 employer
organizations and individual businesses--292 businesses and
organizations representing employers. That shows you how worried our
job creators are about the impact of just this one set of rules. Their
letter sums up the impact of the Boiler MACT rule very plainly. It
says:
These rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-paying
manufacturing jobs that our Nation cannot afford to lose.
The Boiler MACT regulations are exactly the kind of significant rules
that my Regulatory Time-Out Act is intended to reach. The moratorium
applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the
National Labor Relations Board as well as executive branch departments.
The impact of the regulatory burden under President Obama can be seen
in the pages of the Federal Register. As my colleagues know, the
Federal Register is the publication for all Federal regulations. Last
year alone, the Federal Register expanded by nearly 82,600 pages, a
level higher than any year under President Bush. Worse yet, the Obama
administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost the
economy at least $100 million. This is
[[Page S5501]]
nearly twice as high as the number of such rules that were in the
pipeline each year of the Bush administration.
Let me clarify that the legislation I am proposing exempts those
rules that are needed in emergencies such as imminent threats to public
health or safety, as well as rules that are necessary to enforce our
criminal laws, and with respect to military or foreign affairs. I think
it is important that I put that on the record.
It also exempts rules that would reduce the regulatory burden, in
order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of
American workers to compete. Unfortunately, those rules that actually
reduce regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between.
Finally, my bill requires that within 10 days of passage, agencies
and departments must submit to Congress and to the Office of Management
and Budget the list of rules they believe are exempt from the 1-year
moratorium. That is important to make sure the intent of the law is
followed and that Congress and the administration can exercise
appropriate oversight.
The intent of my bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is
causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs--
jobs our economy desperately needs.
During the August recess, I asked employers throughout the great
State of Maine what it would take to encourage them to add jobs. To a
person, no matter what line of business these employers were in, no
matter what the size of their workforce, each one of them replied that
Washington needed to stop imposing crushing new regulations; that these
job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies; that they
needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their
decisionmaking.
I am pleased that the Regulatory Time-Out Act has been endorsed by
the NFIB, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, and by
the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. My bill has also been
welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated:
American businesses need immediate relief. A ``time out''
would allow both the regulators and the regulated to take a
deep breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying
jobs and economic growth.
I agree completely. I will ask that the letters from the NFIB, the
SBEC, and the statement by the Chamber of Commerce, be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
I am honored to have the following colleagues as cosponsors of this
1-year regulatory moratorium: Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt,
Boozman, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cornyn, Hoeven, Hutchison, Isakson,
Kirk, Kyl, Moran, Roberts and Thune.
I urge all of our colleagues to support the Regulatory Time-Out Act,
which is a critical step toward easing the regulatory uncertainty and
costs that are keeping our job creators from getting Americans back to
work.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that materials of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 6, 2011.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry M. Reid,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner; Minority Leader Pelosi; Majority
Leader Reid; Minority Leader McConnell: We are writing to
express our united and strong support for H.R. 2250 and S.
1392, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011,'' bipartisan
legislation to address the serious concerns that remain with
EPA's Boiler MACT rules. As they exist today, the final
Boiler MACT rules will have serious economic impacts on a
vast array of facilities across the industrial, commercial
and institutional sectors. These rules place at risk tens of
thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs that our nation
cannot afford to lose.
As finalized, the Boiler MACT rules are unaffordable, just
as the proposed rules were. The rules are not achievable for
real-world boilers across the range of fuels and operating
conditions. EPA also has created a presumption that materials
commonly used as fuels are wastes subject to the extremely
costly and stigmatizing incinerator standards. This would not
only impose billions of dollars in unreasonable costs, but it
also would cause millions of tons of valuable materials to be
diverted to landfills and replaced with fossil fuel--a bad
result for the environment.
As EPA has acknowledged, the rules were finalized with
serious flaws because EPA was forced to meet a strict court-
ordered deadline. The final Boiler MACT rule alone would cost
over $14 billion in capital for the manufacturing sector,
plus billions more in annual operating costs. Complying with
the incinerator standards could cost several billion dollars
more in capital.
Legislation is needed to resolve serious uncertainties and
vulnerabilities, including to:
Ensure the rules are stayed for an adequate and certain
period, as EPA's current administrative stay is being
challenged in court;
Allow EPA adequate time to re-propose the rules and get
them right, including time for stakeholders to conduct more
emissions testing and to avoid mistakes that occur when
rulemakings of this scope and importance are rushed and
become vulnerable to legal challenge;
Provide direction and support for EPA to use the discretion
it already has under the Clean Air Act and Executive Order
13563 to add flexibility and make the rules achievable;
Clarify that using non-hazardous materials as fuels does
not result in boilers being treated as incinerators; and
Give facilities more time to comply with the complex and
capital-intensive requirements of the rules.
If enacted, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act'' will provide
the much-needed certainty and time for EPA to get the rules
right and for businesses that will be investing billions of
dollars to rationally plan for the capital expenses. This
legislation will preserve jobs and the competitiveness of the
U.S. manufacturing sector while protecting the environment.
We urge you to pass this important legislation as soon as
possible and send it to the President for his signature.
Sincerely,
A/C Power Colver; AbitibiBowater; Alabama Forestry
Association; Alabama Pulp & Paper Council; Allegheny Hardwood
Utilization Group, Inc.; American Architectural Manufacturers
Association; American Chemistry Council; American Coatings
Association; American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute;
American Composites Manufacturers Association; American Fiber
Manufacturers Association; American Forest & Paper
Association; American Foundry Society; American Frozen Food
Institute; American Home Furnishings Alliance; American
Loggers Council; American Municipal Power; American Petroleum
Institute; American Sugar Cane League; American Wood Council.
Amerities Holdings LLC; Anthony Liftgates, Inc.; APA--The
Engineered Wood Association; Appleton Papers Inc.; APUs by
Rex, LLC; Archer Daniels Midland Company; ARIPPA; Arkansas
Forestry Association; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce;
Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc.; Associated
Industries of Vermont; Association of American Railroads;
Association of Independent Corrugated Converters; Atlantic
Wood Industries, Inc.; Barge Forest Products Co.; Beet Sugar
Development Foundation; Belden Brick Company; Belimed, Inc.;
Bennett Lumber Company Berco, Inc.
Biomass One, LP; Biomass Power Association; Blue Bell
Creameries; Blue Ridge Paper Products; Boise Cascade, LLC;
Boise Inc.; Brick Industry Association; Business Council of
Alabama; Business Roundtable; Cahaba Timber Co.; California
Forestry Association; California League of Food Processors;
California Metals Coalition; Canyon Creek Logging; Carolina
Cotton Works, Inc.; Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition; Chaney
Lumber Co., Inc.; Charles Ingram Lumber Co.; Coast Wood
Preserving, Inc.; Coastal Plywood Company; Collins Pine
Company.
Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry; Composite
Panel Association; Construction Materials Recycling
Association; Corn Refiners Association; Council of Industrial
Boiler Owners; Cresote Council; Decker Energy International,
Inc.; Dietz & Watson, Inc.; Domtar Corporation; Douglas
County Forest Products; Eastman Chemical Company; Eaton
Corporation; Electric Mills Wood Preserving; Empire State
Forest Products Association; Evergreen Packaging; Fibrek;
Finch Paper LLC; Flakeboard America; Flambeau River Papers;
Florida Forestry Association.
Florida Pulp and Paper Association; Flower City Tissue
Mills Co., Inc.; FMC Corporation; Forest Landowners
Association; Forest Resources Association Inc.; Forging
Industry Association; Fowler Post Co, Inc.; Fox River Fiber
Company; Genesee Power Station LP; George A. Whiting Paper
Company; Georgia Association of Manufacturers; Georgia Paper
& Forest Products Association, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific LLC;
Glatfelter; Glier's Meats, Inc.; Green Diamond Resources
Company; H. W. Culp Lumber Co.; Hardwood Federation; Hardwood
Manufacturers Association; Hardwood Plywood and Veneer
Association.
Harrigan Lumber Co., Inc.; Hawaii Forest Industry
Association; Hesse and Sons Dairy LLC; Hood Industries, Inc.;
Idaho Forest Group; INDA, Association of the Nonwoven
[[Page S5502]]
Fabrics Industry; Indiana Hardwood Lumbermen's Association;
Industrial Energy Consumers of America; Industrial Fastener
Institute; Industrial Minerals Association--North America;
Innovative Pine Technology Inc.; Interior; International
Falls Chamber of Commerce (MN); International Paper; J.T.
Fennell Company, Inc.; JELD-WEN, Inc.; Jordan Lumber &
Supply, Inc.; Kansas City Power & Light; Kapstone Paper and
Packaging Corporation; Kentucky Forest Industries
Association.
Kercher Industries, Inc.; Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers
Association; Koppers Inc.; Lake States Lumber Association;
Land O Lakes Wood Preserving Co.; Langdale Forest Products
Co.; L'anse Warden Electric Company, LLC; Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated; Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.; Louis
Dreyfus Agricultural Industries; Louisiana Farm Bureau
Federation; Louisiana Pacific Corporation; Louisiana Pulp and
Paper Association; LyondellBasell Industries; Maine Pulp &
Paper Association; Manufacture Alabama; Manufacturers and
Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina; Maple Flooring
Manufacturers Association; Maxi-Seal Harness Systems, Inc.;
McShan Lumber Company, Inc.
MeadWestvaco; Melrose Timber Company, Inc.; Metal Treating
Institute; Metals Service Center Institute; Michigan Biomass;
Michigan Forest Products Council; Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce; Minnesota Forest Industries; Mission Plastics
North; Mission Plastics of Arkansas; Mississippi
Manufacturers Association; Missouri Forest Products
Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association;
Mount Vernon Mills, Inc.; Muscatine Foods Corporation;
National Association for Surface Finishing; National
Association of Manufacturers; National Association of
Trailer Manufacturers; National Concrete Masonry
Association; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Council of Textile Organizations; National
Federation of Independent Business; National Lumber and
Building Material Dealers Association; National Oilseed
Processors Association; National Solid Wastes Management
Association; National Spinning Company; NC Association of
Professional Loggers, Inc.; Neenah Paper Inc.; Nevada
Manufacturers Association; New Hampshire Timberland Owners
Association; Nippon Paper Industries USA Co.; Nisus
Corporation; NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers
(formerly the National Oil Recyclers Association); North
American Die Casting Association; North American Wholesale
Lumber Association; North Carolina Chamber; North Carolina
Forestry Association; Northwest Pulp and Paper Association;
Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Forestry Association.
Ohio Manufacturers' Association; Ohio Municipal Electric
Association; Ohio Willow Wood Company; OMNOVA Solutions,
Inc.; Oregon Forest Industries Council; Owens-Illinois, Inc.;
Pacific Wood Laminates; Packaging Corporation of America;
Page & Hill Forest Products Inc.; Partnership for Affordable
Clean Energy; Pellet Fuels Institute; Pennsylvania Business
Council; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry;
Pennsylvania Forest Products Association; Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association; Peterson Mfg. Co.; Pile Driving
Contractors; Association Piney Creek LP; Plum Creek; Port
Townsend Paper Corporation.
Portland Cement Association; Possum Tree Farm; Potomac
Supply Corporation; PPG Industries; Precision Machined
Products Association; Precision Pulley & Idler; Prince
Manufacturing Corporation; Railway Tie Association; Rex
Lumber, LLC; Rhodia, Inc.; River Trading Company; Rock-Tenn
Company; Rosboro LLC; Roseburg Forest Products Company; ROW,
INC.; Roy ``O'' Martin Lumber Company, LLC; Rubber
Manufactures Association; Rudd Company, Inc.; S.I. Storey
Lumber Co., Inc.; Sage Automotive Interiors.
Sappi Fine Paper North America; Sauder Woodworking Co.;
Scotch Plywood Company, Inc.; Seymour Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.; SierraPine Limited; Smith Street Mill; Society of
Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates; South Carolina
Forestry Association; South Carolina Pulp and Paper
Association (SCPPA); South Carolina Timber Producers
Association; Southeast Wood; Southeastern Lumber
Manufacturers Association; Southern Appalachian Multiple-
Use Council; Southern Forest Products Association;
Southern Pressure Treaters' Association; SP Newsprint Co.;
States Industries, LLC; Steel Manufacturers Association;
Stella-Jones Corporation; Streator Dependable Mfg. Co.
Sunbury Textile Mills, Inc.; Tegrant Corporation; Ten-Tec,
Inc.; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Tennessee
Forestry Association; Tennessee Paper Council; Texas
Association of Manufacturers; Texas Forestry Association;
Textile Rental Services Association; The Association for Hose
& Accessories Distribution (NAHAD); The Business Council of
New York State, Inc.; The Carpet and Rug Institute; The Dow
Chemical Company; The International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers; The Oeser Company; The United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Thilmany
Papers; Thomasson Company; Thompson Industries, Inc.; Timber
Products Company.
TMA; Tolleson Lumber Company; Tradewinds International
Inc.; Treated Wood Council; Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association; TrueGuard--wood preservation; U.S.
Beet Sugar Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Uniboard
USA LLC; Unifi Manufacturing Inc.; USA Rice Federation;
Vector Tool and Engineering; Verso Paper Corp.; Virginia
Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Forest Products Association;
Virginia Forestry Association; Virginia Manufacturers
Association; Washington Contract Loggers Association, Inc.;
Water Treatment Services Inc.; Wausau Paper; Webb
Consultants, Inc.; WEBB Furniture Enterprises Corp; The
Westervelt Company; Weyerhaeuser Company; Window and Door
Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers &
Commerce; Wisconsin Paper Council; Wood Machinery
Manufacturers of America.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 6, 2011]
Another EPA Rule Comes Under Attack
Just ahead of President Barack Obama's big jobs speech, the
American Forest & Paper Association says a pending
environmental rule could cost 20,500 jobs or 18% of the
industry's workforce.
In a study to be released Wednesday, the group is taking
aim at an Environmental Protection Agency rule to cut
pollution from factory boilers, saying the regulation will
cause 36 U.S. paper and pulp mills to close. The study comes
on the heels of a decision by Mr. Obama to jettison another
EPA air quality rule related to ozone that industry
complained would kill millions of jobs.
The so-called boiler rule has come under sharp attack from
both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, as well as
industry, which say the regulations would be too costly and
difficult to implement. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
included the rule in his list of 10 ``job-destroying
regulations'' that he has vowed to fight.
The boiler rule would affect paper mills, refineries,
chemical factories and other facilities that use boilers,
such as universities, hospitals and apartment buildings.
Boilers are on-site generators that can provide energy for
facilities and factories. Bipartisan legislation is now
pending in the House and Senate to delay implementation of
the rule, with the aim of having EPA reconsider the
regulation.
The AF&PA study, conducted by Fisher International, looked
at how many mills would be in danger of closing if they had
to comply with the new air quality regulations and install
new pollution controls. The study found 36 mills would have
to close, impacting 18% of the industry's workforce.
Supporters of the rule say the benefits far outweigh the
costs and counter job loss claims by saying the new controls
being required could provide an economic boost.
``Industry is trying to leverage fears about the economic
impact and jobs and ignoring that pollution controls are made
and installed here in the U.S.,'' said Paul G. Billings, vice
president of national policy and advocacy for the American
Lung Association.
Gina McCarthy, a top EPA official, is expected to testify
Thursday before a U.S. House subcommittee about the rule. The
agency, which has touted the health benefits of the rule, has
delayed issuing final regulations, saying it needs more time
for public input. That's frustrated environmental and public-
health groups, which say the rules would save lives and help
avoid thousands of heart and asthma attacks.
John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources
Defense Council, said the boiler rule is critical because it
will cut mercury and other toxic air emissions from
incinerators and boilers at industrial facilities. ``The the
reason it's important is those sectors are one of only a
handful that still have not had lawful toxic emission
standards adopted for them under the 1990 clean air act
amendments,'' he said.
Donna Harman, president and CEO of AF&PA, said the rule
will hurt an already hard-hit sector and said lawmakers and
regulators should give the industry more time and impose a
less stringent standard.
``We're not asking to not be regulated. We're asking to
have a regulation that can be achieved based on the
technology that's currently available,'' she said.
____
The National Foundation of
Independent Business,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2011.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: The National Federation of
Independent Business is pleased to support the Regulatory
Time-Out Act. This legislation provides small business
owners--who create roughly two-thirds of the net new jobs in
America--with relief from burdensome regulations for a period
of one year.
The bill would impose a one-year moratorium on
``significant'' new rules--those with a cost of $100 million
or more--from going into effect if those rules would have an
adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or America's
international competitiveness. These particular rules
generally come with considerable uncertainty, which inhibits
small businesses from making decisions that would help the
economy grow.
A recent study released by the U.S. Small Business
Administration showed that the cost of regulatory compliance
for the smallest businesses is 36 percent more than their
larger counterparts. The study estimates the cost of
compliance for small businesses to be $10,585 per employee
per year. Small businesses desperately need the help of
Congress to cut red tape.
Importantly, the Regulatory Time-Out Act would not prevent
important rules that address imminent threats to human health
or
[[Page S5503]]
safety or other emergencies, or that apply to the criminal
justice system, military or foreign affairs. Nor would the
legislation prevent rules which foster private sector job
creation and the enhancement of the competitiveness of the
American worker, or which otherwise reduce the regulatory
burden.
The Regulatory Time-Out Act that you have introduced is a
prudent step toward providing small business owners with the
certainty they need to create jobs for Americans. NFIB looks
forward to working with you to help ensure that this
important legislation becomes law.
Sincerely,
Susan Eckerly,
Senior Vice President, Public Policy.
____
Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council,
Oakton, VA, September 8, 2011.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the 100,000 members of
the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council),
I offer our strong support for ``The Regulatory `Time-Out'
Act.'' Given the severe fragility of the economy and dismal
job growth, placing a one-year moratorium on ``economically
significant'' rules is a commonsense strategy. Even in better
economic times, our economy and its competitiveness would
suffer under a regulatory onslaught of the current order.
Something must be done to counter the untamed and intrusive
rulemaking coming out of Washington. The ``Time-Out Act'' is
an approach that should warrant bipartisan support.
The torrent of new regulations being proposed by federal
agencies is generating significant uncertainty among our
nation's small business owners. Furthermore, once finalized,
these regulations will impose a substantial burden on
entrepreneurs, exacerbating existing financial pressures that
are a result of weak sales and higher business costs.
The number of ``major'' regulations issued last year is
unprecedented. Those costing the economy $100 million or more
number 224--an increase of 22 percent over 2009 and the
highest number on record. Many of these directly and
indirectly impact small business. Quite simply, our economy
and small businesses cannot absorb any more costs. As you
well know, the disproportionate cost of regulation places a
heavy burden on small firms. The ``Regulatory `Time-Out'
Act'' will help steady the rough economic and policy
environment that has so badly shaken entrepreneurs.
The ``Time-Out'' act provides consideration for rules that
address emergencies and imminent threats to human health and
safety, as well as those that would enhance the environment
for job creation, worker competitiveness or those that reduce
the regulatory burden. No one can label this legislation as
anything but smart, practical and essential.
Senator Collins, SBE Council appreciates your leadership.
Please let us know what we can do to help advance the
``Regulatory `Time-Out' Act'' into law.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President & CEO.
____
[From CHAMBERPOST, Sept. 8, 2011]
U.S. Chamber Welcomes Sen. Collins' Proposed Regulatory Time-Out Bill
(By Tom Collamore)
The U.S. Chamber welcomes Senator Susan Collins' proposed
legislation requiring a regulatory ``time-out.'' American
businesses have been overwhelmed by the recent onslaught of
burdensome and job-killing regulations. With another 4,257
regulations in the pipeline, American businesses need
immediate relief. A time-out would allow both the regulators
and the regulated to take a deep breath and ensure that
regulations are not destroying jobs and economic growth.
A regulatory ``time-out'' is one important step in stemming
the tidal wave of new regulations. Reforming the regulatory
process itself is another. Congress must bring fundamental
reform to the rulemaking process, some elements of which have
not been modernized in 65 years. We need permanent reforms to
the administrative process to ensure regulations are narrowly
tailored and impose the least amount of regulatory burden
needed to achieve congressional intent, are based on quality
data, and will not impede job creation and growth. Reforms
must also encourage Congress to exercise its essential
oversight over federal agencies to ensure they are carrying
out its intent.
We applaud Senator Collins for focusing on one of the most
important economic issues facing our economy--
overregulation--and look forward to working with her on her
regulatory time-out legislation.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1543. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States
Code, to address retirement for Pentagon Force Protection Agency
officers; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Retirement
Equity for Pentagon Police Heroes Act, a bill to place Pentagon Police
on par with Federal law enforcement officers government wide.
As we remember the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the
bravery of those who rushed into burning buildings as most ran away, it
is particularly fitting to recognize the bravery of Pentagon Force
Protection Agency Officers with this legislation.
Ten years ago, unthinkable acts of terrorism were perpetrated against
America, resulting in the loss of thousands of innocent lives at the
World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Virginia, and the final
landing site of flight 93 in Pennsylvania. The men and women of the
Pentagon Force Protection Agency were among the first to respond in the
chaotic minutes after flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
On the morning of September 11, Isaac Ho`opi`i, a Pentagon Police
officer from my home state of Hawai`i, rushed into the Pentagon and
carried eight people out of the rubble, many of whom were badly burned.
Many others made it out of the Pentagon thanks to Mr. Ho`opi`i, who
became known as ``the voice,'' because survivors remember him calling
out for those lost in the smoke and debris to crawl towards the sound
of his voice. In 2002, Mr. Ho`opi`i was awarded a Medal of Valor for
his bravery and quick thinking on that fateful day.
Threats to the Pentagon continue to mount in the time since 9/11.
Just last year, an armed gunman stormed the Pentagon, shooting at
officers while attempting to enter the building. Officers Jeffery Amos
and Marvin Carraway, Jr. were wounded during the shootout, but managed
to neutralize the perpetrator, ensuring that no other officers or
bystanders were harmed in the process.
Despite their heroic actions and the dangerous nature of their job,
Pentagon Police officers do not accrue retirement benefits at the same
rate as Federal law enforcement officers. This bill would add Pentagon
Police to the list of employees under the Civil Service Retirement
System and Federal Employees' Retirement System who make larger
retirement contributions than most Federal employees, and accrue
retirement benefits at an enhanced rate. The higher accrual rate is an
important recognition that police work is dangerous and physically
demanding, so law enforcement officers are required to retire earlier
than others.
The time has come to recognize the courage of these brave men and
women who everyday protect thousands of military personnel and
civilians at the Pentagon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1543
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Retirement Equity for
Pentagon Police Heroes Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PENTAGON FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY.
(a) Amendments Relating to the Civil Service Retirement
System.--
(1) Definitions.--
(A) Civil service retirement system.--Section 8331 of title
5 United States Code is amended--
(i) in paragraph (30), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (31), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(32) `Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer' means an
employee appointed to perform law enforcement and security
functions under section 2674(b) of title 10 whose permanent
duty station is the Pentagon Reservation and who occupies a
position in job series 0083, or any successor position, for
which the rate of basic pay is fixed in accordance with
paragraph (2) of such section.''.
(2) Deductions, contributions, and deposits.--Section 8334
of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``or customs and
border protection officer,'' and inserting ``customs and
border protection officer, or Pentagon Force Protection
Agency officer,''; and
(B) in the table contained in subsection (c), by adding at
the end the following:
``Pentagon Force Protection 7.5 After the date of enactment of the
Agency officer Pentagon Force Protection Agency
Retirement Act of 2011.''.
(3) Mandatory separation.--Section 8835(b)(1) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``or customs and border protection officer'' and
[[Page S5504]]
inserting ``customs and border protection officer, or
Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer''.
(4) Immediate retirement.--Section 8336 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``or customs and
border protection officer'' and inserting ``customs and
border protection officer, or Pentagon Force Protection
Agency officer''; and
(B) in subsections (m) and (n), by striking ``or as a
customs and border protection officer,'' and inserting ``as a
customs and border protection officer, or as a Pentagon Force
Protection Agency officer,''.
(b) Amendments Relating to the Federal Employees'
Retirement System.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 8401 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (35), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (36), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(37) `Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer' means an
employee appointed to perform law enforcement and security
functions under section 2674(b) of title 10 whose permanent
duty station is the Pentagon Reservation and who occupies a
position in job series 0083, or any successor position, for
which the rate of basic pay is fixed in accordance with
paragraph (2) of such section.''.
(2) Immediate retirement.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of
section 8412(d) of title 5, United States Code, are amended
by striking ``or customs and border protection officer,'' and
inserting ``customs and border protection officer, or
Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer,''.
(3) Computation of basic annuity.--Section 8415(h)(2) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or
customs and border protection officer'' and inserting
``customs and border protection officer, or Pentagon Force
Protection Agency officer.''.
(4) Deductions from pay.--The table contained in section
8422(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Pentagon Force Protection 7.5 After the date of enactment of the
Agency officer Pentagon Force Protection Agency
Retirement Act of 2011.''.
(5) Government contributions.--Paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (3)
of section 8423(a) of title 5, United States Code, are
amended by inserting ``Pentagon Force Protection Agency
officers,'' after ``customs and border protection officers,''
each place it appears.
(6) Mandatory separation.--Section 8425(b)(1) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``or customs and border protection officers
who'' and inserting ``customs and border protection officer,
or Pentagon Force Protection Agency officers who''; and
(B) by striking ``or customs and border protection officer
as the case'' and inserting ``customs and border protection
officer, or Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer, as the
case''.
(c) Maximum Age for Original Appointment.--Section 3307 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(h) The Secretary of Defense may determine and fix the
maximum age limit for an original appointment to a position
as a Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer, as defined by
section 8401(37).''.
(d) Regulations.--Any regulations necessary to carry out
the amendments made by this section shall be prescribed by
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense.
(e) Effective Date; Transition Rules.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall become effective on the first day of the first pay
period beginning at least 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition rules.--
(A) Nonapplicability of mandatory separation provisions to
certain individuals.--The amendments made by subsections
(a)(3) and (b)(6), respectively, shall not apply to an
individual first appointed as a Pentagon Force Protection
Agency officer before the effective date under paragraph (1).
(B) Treatment of prior pentagon force protection agency
officer service.--Nothing in this section or any amendment
made by this section shall be considered to apply with
respect to any service performed as a Pentagon Force
Protection Agency officer before the effective date under
paragraph (1).
(C) Minimum annuity amount.--The annuity of an individual
serving as a Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer on the
effective date under paragraph (1) pursuant to an appointment
made before that date shall, to the extent that its
computation is based on service rendered as a Pentagon Force
Protection Agency officer on or after that date, be at least
equal to the amount that would be payable--
(i) to the extent that such service is subject to the Civil
Service Retirement System, by applying section 8339(d) of
title 5, United States Code, with respect to such service;
and
(ii) to the extent that such service is subject to the
Federal Employees' Retirement System, by applying section
8415(d) of title 5, United States code, with respect to such
service.
(D) Rule of construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by
subsection (c) shall be considered to apply with respect to
any appointment made before the effective date under
paragraph (1).
(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer'' has the meaning
given such term by section 8331(32) or 8401(37) of title 5,
United States Code (as amended by this Act).
(4) Exclusion.--Nothing in this Act or any amendment made
by this Act shall be considered to afford any election or to
otherwise apply with respect to any individual who, as of the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) holds a position within the Pentagon Force Protection
Agency; and
(B) is considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of
subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code, by virtue of such position.
____________________