[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7949-H7957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3463, TERMINATING PRESIDENTIAL 
 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND AND ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; PROVIDING 
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 527, REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT 
   OF 2011; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3010, REGULATORY 
                       ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 477 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 477

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3463) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by 
     terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election 
     campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the 
     Election Assistance Commission. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 527) to amend chapter

[[Page H7950]]

     6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of 
     potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Small Business. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary and Small 
     Business now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee 
     Print dated November 18, 2011. That amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 3010) to reform the process by which Federal agencies 
     analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of December 2, 2011, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1(c) of rule XV, relating to a measure 
     addressing railway labor.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 477 is a structured rule 
for the consideration of three bills: H.R. 527, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act; H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act; and H.R. 
3463, a measure to terminate the Election Assistance Commission and end 
taxpayer financing of presidential elections and campaigns.

                              {time}  1330

  Not only do these bills show this House's commitment to small 
businesses, but they also demand that agency rulemaking be held 
accountable, reclaiming that authority that is vested here in this 
House.
  H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, requires 
agencies to analyze the impact that a new regulation would have on 
small businesses before the regulation is adopted. By requiring all 
Federal agencies to obtain input and develop and conduct regular 
regulatory reviews of existing regulations, this bill, I believe, 
complements and codifies President Barack Obama's commitment in 
Executive Order 13563 that directs agencies to review their regulations 
and solicit public input.
  H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, makes further positive 
changes. It reforms and modernizes the Administrative Procedure Act. It 
makes agencies more accountable and regulations more cost effective. In 
a recent study, Madam Speaker, that the Small Business Administration 
commissioned, they estimated the cost of the U.S. Federal regulatory 
burden at $1.75 trillion. Now, that's not to say there aren't benefits 
that outweigh that burden; but when the burden is that substantial, 
Madam Speaker, we have to have a process in place that balances those 
benefits and those burdens, and that's all H.R. 3010 asks to do.
  Madam Speaker, time and time again the American people have demanded 
more accountability from their Congress, more accountability from their 
government. This collection of bills today not only provides that 
accountability of Congress, but requires that accountability of our 
executive branch agencies.
  As we talk about accountability, Madam Speaker, it's important to 
note that these bills are paid for by terminating the Election 
Assistance Commission. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that was a 
commission created in 2002 that was supposed to sunset by 2005 and yet 
has continued even until today. That commission was set up in the 
aftermath of the hanging chads of the 2000 Presidential election to 
help States implement election reforms, to help States make sure the 
integrity of their electoral process was preserved. And yet today, 6 
years after the expected sunset of that commission, we hear from our 
Secretaries of State that they no longer need that commission, that 
that commission is not providing useful benefits to them. By 
terminating that, we're going to save the American taxpayer more than 
$600 million over the next decade.
  Madam Speaker, taken together, these three measures, H.R. 527, H.R. 
3010, and H.R. 3463, help small businesses, increase agency 
transparency, and increase public participation in the entire 
regulatory process. They save money for hardworking American taxpayers 
and are positive reforms that this Congress can pass in a bipartisan 
way.
  I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support 
these underlying measures, and I hope they will support this rule so 
that we may consider them today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive 
rule--and

[[Page H7951]]

not only restrictive, but a very convoluted rule--and I rise in 
opposition to the three bills that would be made in order by this rule.
  Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that 
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda 
supported by the Big Business community year in and year out. In other 
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious 
effort to deal with high unemployment. Those aren't my words, Madam 
Speaker. Those are the words of Bruce Bartlett, a Republican who worked 
for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul.
  Think about what Mr. Bartlett is saying in his last sentence: 
``Republicans would rather play political games instead of putting 
people back to work. They would rather fiddle while Rome burns instead 
of putting out the fire.'' And look at the Republican track record 
since the start of the 112th Congress: no jobs bills, not one. But 
we've found time to debate bills defunding Planned Parenthood and 
National Public Radio. There's no extension of the payroll tax cut or 
unemployment insurance, but we can spend hours debating the need to 
allow unsafe people the right to carry concealed weapons from State to 
State. No effort to take away tax breaks for oil companies who continue 
to make billions of dollars in profits each month, but we can find time 
to make our air dirtier and our water less safe by dismantling the 
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
  Seriously, Madam Speaker, the agenda of the far right continues to 
dominate this House leadership, and that agenda is out of touch with 
the needs of the American people. We have a jobs crisis in this 
country. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is struggling. 
Yet the Republicans continue to side with the people who don't need any 
help. They killed the supercommittee because they would rather protect 
tax cuts for millionaires instead of dealing with the deficit. They are 
refusing to take up the extension of the payroll tax cut that expires 
at the end of the year because they don't want their millionaire 
friends to pay just a little bit more.
  Just look at what we're doing this week. We're going to consider 
anti-regulatory bills that will make our country less safe and our 
citizens less healthy. We're going to consider a bill that actually 
promotes putting more corporate money into the political system. And 
we're going to debate a bill that makes it harder for workers to 
organize. Not one of these bills will put people back to work. Not one 
of these bills will help struggling families keep their heat on during 
the winter. Not one of these bills will help repair our aging 
infrastructure.
  To quote Mr. Bartlett again: ``People are increasingly concerned 
about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.'' And 
that's the truth, Madam Speaker. Republicans have absolutely nothing to 
offer.
  The President proposed--and I have cosponsored--the American Jobs 
Act. It's a proposal that would help put Americans back to work, would 
extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, would help 
repair our aging infrastructure, and would provide aid to cities and 
States so they don't have to lay off more teachers and more police 
officers and more firefighters.
  It's a bill that is paid for. It doesn't add one cent to the deficit. 
And it's made up of measures that Republicans and Democrats have 
supported in the past. Let me repeat that: what the President has 
proposed is a series of measures that Republicans and Democrats have 
supported in the past. The idea that a program was good under President 
Bush but not under President Obama doesn't make much sense to me, but 
that seems to be the thought process that passes for governing under 
this Republican leadership.
  So where's the Republican plan? They don't have one. It's not enough 
to cross our fingers and hope that our economy improves. It's not 
enough to close our eyes and wish that more people would find a job. 
Actions speak louder than words, and it is clear by the Republican 
leadership's actions that they don't care about the economy. Either 
that, or they are making a conscious decision not to act simply for 
political gain. Either way, Americans are hurting because of their 
inaction.
  Madam Speaker, our economy is not where it needs to be. There are 
still too many unemployed people in this country. There are still too 
many people struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their bills 
and to put food on the table. But this notion that red tape is what's 
keeping our economy from getting off the ground and that thoughtful 
regulations are preventing people from getting jobs is just untrue.
  We don't need to waste time debating bills that make our air and 
water dirtier and less safe. We don't need to waste our time with bills 
defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. We don't need to waste our time 
debating bills to reaffirm our national motto. What we need to do is to 
get this economy moving. What we need to do is create jobs.
  Republicans have been in charge now for 330 days. That's 330 days 
without a jobs bill. It's not enough to call something a ``jobs'' bill 
if it doesn't put someone back to work. No, Madam Speaker, we need a 
real jobs bill. We need definitive action that shows the American 
people that we care about their well-being, that we understand what 
they're going through, and that we're here to help--in short, that 
we're on their side. The bills we will be considering this week just 
don't get the job done.
  It's been 330 days, and Republicans still don't get it. I can't say 
that I'm surprised. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I look at the clock above your head. I think it's been about 11 
minutes since my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz called for a toning 
down of the rhetoric and focusing more on policy. I don't think we were 
able to make it to minute 15.
  I will quote my friend as he referred to Republicans: Either they 
don't care about the economy, or they are just acting for political 
gain.
  Is that all there is? Either folks don't care, or they're just acting 
for political gain. It could be that their principles are different. It 
could be that their principles are different, but I don't actually 
believe that. I believe our principles are the same, because what these 
bills do is one thing and one thing only. Let's balance the regulatory 
burden with the benefits that it provides.
  Madam Speaker, who is it in America that does not believe that 
balance is important in what we do here in Congress? I hear it back 
home all the time: Rob, balance. I want you to get things done, but I 
don't want you to get things done that are the wrong thing for the 
wrong reasons. I want you to come together and work on these issues.
  Who is it, Madam Speaker, that does not believe that regulation to 
protect health and safety is important? I do. I come from one of the 
farthest right districts in the country. I believe health and safety 
are important things to regulate, but I believe we should balance those 
regulations.
  When we doubled the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency 
between 2008 and 2009, where do you think that money went, Madam 
Speaker? The environment that I live in in Georgia was clean and 
thriving in 2008. But when you double the amount of money that you give 
to regulators, they have only one thing that they can do with it, and 
that's regulate more, regulate more.
  We need balance, and that's all these bills are asking for. I have 
all the committee reports here, Madam Speaker, if any of my colleagues 
would like to come and look at them. There is not a line in any of 
these pages that says: Thou shalt not regulate. Not one. What they say 
is: Thou shalt regulate with balance--with balance.
  A friend of mine was walking through the Occupy Atlanta protest the 
other day, Madam Speaker. A fellow came up and shook his fist at him. 
One of the protesters shook his fist at my friend and said, It's all 
about jobs. And my friend looked him in the eye and said, You know, 
you're exactly right. You should go out and hire somebody. You should 
go out and hire somebody. The fellow said, I'm not talking about 
providing jobs. I'm talking about I want a job myself.

[[Page H7952]]

  Well, that's right. Every single bill that this Congress considers 
that helps job creators helps jobs.
  We've got to end the rhetoric of loving jobs and hating job creators, 
Madam Speaker. There's only one opportunity that we, as Americans, have 
for employment, and that is finding an employer. And line after line 
after line of these bills say, before you punish American industry, 
make sure the balance is there, because, let's be clear, Madam Speaker, 
it's not that these jobs don't have to be performed.
  Time and time again I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that 
we're not creating jobs. I, too, bemoan the fact that this 
administration has not created jobs. But that's not our only problem. 
Our problem is jobs that are leaving this country, Madam Speaker. Our 
problem is destroying even more jobs.
  Industry is going to continue to operate around this planet. We can 
either embrace it here in this country in a balanced way or we can run 
them all overseas.
  There's something that I believe we sometimes do disagree about here 
in this Congress, and that is that government cannot create jobs. 
Government can create an environment in which job creators can create 
jobs.
  I cannot pass a bill in this Congress, no matter how hard I try, 
Madam Speaker, no matter how hard I work, that will make everybody in 
this country rich. I cannot do it. But this Congress has succeeded all 
too often at passing bills that can make everybody poor.
  Balance, Madam Speaker, is what these bills contain. What this rule 
does--and it's important because it's a new operation that we're doing 
here in this House; and I'm very proud of it, and I hope my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are proud.
  This is not an open rule today. I don't want to claim that it is. 
It's not on open rule. What we did, though, as the Rules Committee, is 
we asked all of our colleagues, anyone who has a proposal that they 
believe will make these bills better, send those amendments to the 
Rules Committee for consideration. Anybody--Democrat, Republican--send 
those amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. This is what 
we did in the Rules Committee.
  We received six Democratic amendments for H.R. 527, six ideas from 
the 435 Members in this House, six ideas for making these bills better. 
They all came from the Democratic side of the aisle, and we made every 
single one of those ideas available for debate here on the House floor 
today. You didn't used to see that. You didn't used to see it under 
Republican administrations. You didn't used to see it under Democrat 
administrations. That's what we're doing here today in a bipartisan 
way.
  H.R. 3010, sent out a notice to the entire Congress, Send your ideas 
for making H.R. 3010 better. Send them to the Rules Committee so that 
we can consider them for consideration on the House floor. There were 
12 ideas that were submitted, Madam Speaker--one Republican idea, 11 
Democrat ideas. Three of those Democrat ideas were later withdrawn, 
said, We don't want to bring those ideas to the floor. So that leaves 
us with eight, and we brought all but one.
  My colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), his amendment was not made 
in order because my colleague from Texas (Mr. Olson) had an amendment 
that was substantially similar, and knowing that time is valuable on 
the House floor, we wanted to consider all ideas, but not all ideas 
from everybody, each idea only once.
  Seven Democratic amendments, one Republican amendment made in order 
because we invited the entire United States House into this process.
  This is the time on the rule, Madam Speaker. I'm not here to debate 
the underlying provisions. We've provided time to do that. But I do 
want to defend this rule as an example of what we ought to do.
  Is it a little more convoluted than I would have liked? Yes, it is.
  Is it a little outside of my issue areas? Yes, it is.
  But does it make in order all of the amendments that our colleagues 
want to submit? It provides for time for debate on every single idea 
submitted.
  That's an important change in this House, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful 
that we've been able to do it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want my colleagues to understand that one of the amendments they 
didn't make in order was the amendment offered by our colleague, 
Congressman Johnson, which basically stated that if the experts 
conclude that a rule would result in a net job creation, the rule 
shouldn't be delayed and blocked by all the stuff that's in this bill 
because we need jobs right now. It's interesting that that's the one 
that my Republican friends chose to block because it has to do with 
jobs.
  Another amendment that they blocked was one that I had offered. I've 
offered it many, many times in the Rules Committee, and that is to 
basically bring to the floor an amendment that would allow us to vote 
to strip big oil companies of taxpayer-funded giveaways--subsidies is 
what I call them. And I've tried to bring it up on the floor a 
gazillion different times in a gazillion different ways, and I'm always 
told that there's a germaneness issue. But yet what does the Rules 
Committee do? Oftentimes, it waives all the rules so that sometimes 
nongermane amendments can come to the floor.
  I mean, when you talk about balance, the fact that taxpayers are 
subsidizing big oil companies that made over $100 billion in profit 
last year, that we're going to somehow continue taxpayer subsidies to 
these big oil companies, yet, when you look at the Republican budget 
that they passed, they find ways to balance the budget on every single 
program that impacts middle-income and low-income people in this 
country.
  What they do is they choose to balance the budget by lowering the 
quality of life and the standard of living for everyday people and for 
those struggling to get in the middle. There's no balance here. There's 
no balance here.
  And in terms of bipartisanship, the President of the United States 
came to this Chamber and he gave a speech in which he outlined his jobs 
bill, which included a number of initiatives, all of which had in the 
past enjoyed bipartisan support. But I guess because he's the 
President, he's a Democrat, Republican leadership doesn't want to have 
those debates here on the floor, give him any victories, because that 
might not be politically advantageous to them.
  Let's be frank about what's going on here. In my opinion, this is 
about political opportunism. This is about the leadership of this House 
blocking important legislation to put people back to work just because 
they can, just because it's been proposed by the President of the 
United States.
  We need to focus on jobs in this Congress. We need to be focused on 
helping people get back to work. I don't care what part of the country 
you're from, people are hurting, people are struggling, and they're 
looking for us to do something, something meaningful, not to bring 
bills to the floor like this that, in the scheme of things, mean 
nothing or to have these great debates over reaffirming our national 
motto or on bills that make it easier for unsafe people to carry 
concealed weapons from State to State.

                              {time}  1350

  That we're debating those things when there are millions of people 
that are out of work, I think, is outrageous.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as we stand here today, I would like us 
to pause for a moment and think about an American family who is not 
here. The husband works in a Home Depot, the wife works as an 
administrative assistant in a hospital, and they make together about 
$50,000 a year. And they're among the fortunate Americans who have 
jobs, but they're frankly very worried because it seems like the harder 
they work, the less ground they gain. They're going backwards the 
harder they work.
  The House needs to understand that a month from tomorrow, unless this 
House acts, that family's taxes will rise by $1,000. A month from 
tomorrow,

[[Page H7953]]

unless the House and the other body and the President act, that 
family's taxes will go up by $1,000 a year.
  President Obama has said he will sign legislation that prevents that 
tax increase from happening. The Democratic leader of the other body, 
Senator Reid, has said he will move and support legislation that 
prevents that from happening.
  Last night the minority leader, the Republican leader of the other 
body, indicated that he was now moving to a position in favor of 
legislation preventing that from happening. House Democrats are 
prepared at this moment on this bill, on this day, to support 
legislation that will postpone that tax increase on middle class 
families.
  The American people want us to work together, and I would trust that 
the vast majority of American people would say that in these economic 
times working together to suspend a thousand-dollar tax increase on a 
$50,000-a-year family is something we ought to work together on. 
President Obama agrees. Senator Reid agrees. It looks like Senator 
McConnell agrees. Leader Pelosi and the House Democrats agree. But we 
don't have that bill on the floor this afternoon.
  This is our opportunity, colleagues, to move away from the daily 
back-and-forth of Republican versus Democrat politics and do something 
for which there is broad agreement and, I think, urgent need.
  Now, we have 30 days to get this done, and our track record is not 
very promising on meeting deadlines around here. My suggestion is let's 
move this agenda on this day at this time and put before the House a 
bill that would suspend this thousand-dollar tax increase on middle 
class families, all wage earners, across the country. Certainly this is 
something on which we ought to agree, certainly this is something the 
House should be able to devote its time to, and certainly we should act 
on it here today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Even though I'm a freshman in this body, I have been working hard to 
try to find metrics by which I can judge what's happening here because 
this body is not like so much that happens back home. The metric that I 
have found while we're debating a rule is that the less folks are 
talking about the rule, I think the better job we did crafting it. I 
think that's right. Because if it was an awful rule, we'd spend our 
time talking about what an awful rule it is. When it's a pretty good 
rule, we spend our time talking about other issues on the floor.
  I happen to agree with my friend from New Jersey. A thousand dollars 
for a family earning $50,000, that's real money. Now, I would say, 
though, to my friend from Massachusetts that if you take that $1.75 
trillion burden that the Small Business Administration tells us is upon 
the American people because of regulations, that's actually $5,000 per 
person. That's $15,000 per a three-member family. And so yes, I agree 
with my friend from New Jersey that we should absolutely cooperate on 
focusing on those burdens. The burden we're focusing on today? Even 
larger, by orders of magnitude.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would just ask the gentleman, then, if he is prepared 
to tell us whether the majority will put on this floor before the 31st 
of December a bill that suspends this tax increase on middle class 
Americans.
  Mr. WOODALL. My friend flatters me by thinking I have the answer to 
that information as a young freshman on the House floor, but I'll tell 
you this. I'll tell you that two things are true, and it is a puzzler 
for me on the payroll tax holiday that's gone on this year.
  On the one hand I will tell you that Republicans are absolutely the 
party of lower taxes and not higher taxes and that actually speaks to 
this issue. We're also the party of making sure that we're paying for 
those commitments that we're making. Social Security is different from 
any other tax, and when I go and talk to my grandfather, he'll say, 
``Rob, I want that Social Security. I paid into it all my life.''
  Well, we're not paying into it right now. The proposal is not to pay 
into it next year, the proposal was not to pay into it last year. I'd 
be interested to ask my friend if he's prepared to support lowering 
those Social Security benefits because, again, this is something we're 
paying into.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am most certainly not in favor of that. I would 
frankly make up for the lost revenue with a surtax on people making 
more than a million dollars a year to cover it.
  Let me ask the gentleman another question.
  I understand that there are differing views in his party, and frankly 
ours, as to whether an extension of the cut for middle class families 
should continue. And I'm not asking him to say it would pass. That's 
beyond the reach of any Member, even the Speaker.
  But is the majority prepared to make a commitment to the American 
people to at least get to vote on it, that it will let the majority 
work its will and either vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on avoiding this tax 
increase on middle class Americans?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend that the majority, again 
speaking out of school as a young freshman here on the House floor, but 
I know enough about my leadership to know the majority is absolutely 
committed to protecting and preserving Social Security not just for 
this generation but the next generation and beyond. And the question is 
going to be can we find a proposal, because the one that was passed 
last year was not a proposal that both lowered tax burdens and 
protected the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.
  We must be sure not to further bankrupt a program that we all agree 
is already going bankrupt. I look forward to that debate, Madam 
Speaker, between now and the end of the year.
  And it's not just that tax that's expiring. I know my friend is also 
concerned about the Bush-Obama tax cuts that were extended in December 
of 2010 and wants to be sure that those will be extended in 2011 on 
into 2013.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'll be happy to yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Those income tax reductions, of course, were extended to 
December 31 of 2012. So there's not an urgent imminence to addressing 
that issue the way there is with this.
  I would just again put the question this way. I fully understand 
there are different views as to whether or not we should avoid this 
middle class tax increase. I'm simply asking whether the gentleman 
supports giving us a clear up-down vote on having that happen.
  Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend that I happen to support up-
down votes on all sorts of things. I'm an open rules guy, and I'm very 
proud of our Speaker who believes that the House works best when the 
House works its will. That's really one of the changes that I 
understand we've seen in this year that we haven't seen in years past.
  I think that's important, Madam Speaker, for us to be able to bring 
those votes to the floor.
  But it's also important to make sure that folks have all of the 
information in the same way that folks might be tempted to 
mischaracterize these balancing provisions that we're bringing forth 
today as some sort of Republican chicanery.
  Folks might also be tempted to characterize something that is going 
to hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as being something that has 
no consequence at all. There really are consequences to this decision. 
And to say to my friend I look forward to a robust debate on that 
because it's an important issue for American families.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate that on H.R. 527, 
six Democratic amendments offered, six Democrat amendments made in 
order. The House works best when the House works its will. The rule 
today is providing that opportunity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Georgia for engaging in good 
spirit in this dialogue.
  I would simply want to make it clear: I think it's the position of 
our party very clearly the House should vote on whether to avoid this 
thousand-dollar

[[Page H7954]]

tax increase on the middle class. That's our position.
  I think you can hear that the majority position is a little more 
nuanced than that. It is a yes-or-no question. We think there ought to 
be a vote on avoiding a thousand-dollar tax increase on the middle 
class. And we're ready to put our cards in the machine and do that.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, said that his party likes to 
pay for things. That statement startled me a little bit because they 
didn't think it was important to pay for the Bush tax cuts, mostly for 
the rich, which have now bankrupted us. They didn't think it was 
important to pay for the Medicare prescription drug bill, which was a 
lot more expensive than they had promised and was not paid for. They 
don't think about paying for the two wars that we're fighting in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  We had balanced budgets when Bill Clinton left office. It was after 
that that everything got out of whack, and it was because of these tax 
cuts, which were mostly for the wealthy, and it was because of a 
prescription drug bill and two wars, all of which were not paid for. So 
I hope my friends on the other side have finally gotten religion on 
this issue in that it is important to try to pay for things as you go 
along and to embrace PAYGO as Democrats have done.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Hahn).
  Ms. HAHN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just don't think Americans can wait, but here we are 
again today debating legislation that will do nothing to create jobs or 
to help families during these tough economic times.
  I agree with my colleague from New Jersey that we think that there 
just needs to be a vote on the House floor on this payroll tax cut, 
which, so far, my friends on the other side are not agreeing to. There 
were 120 million American families that had $1,000 more in their 
pockets this past year because of the payroll tax holiday that we 
passed. I believe we need to pass a new middle class tax cut, one that 
will save the typical family $1,500.
  Now, I do agree with my friend from Georgia about job creators. I 
love job creators, but I think I have a different point of view on what 
helps our job creators and what helps our small businesses. I spent 
Saturday, November 26, Small Business Saturday, shopping in small 
businesses.
  I went into every one of them, and I talked to them about what would 
help them: What can we do in Congress to help you as a small business? 
Almost every single one of them said, Do you know what we need? We need 
customers. We need Americans to have jobs, and we need them to have 
money in their pockets that they will spend in our small businesses. 
That will help us. I guarantee, if we were to get more customers, we 
would expand and we would hire more people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. HAHN. We know that it's our small businesses that have hired 
almost 60 percent of the new jobs that we've had in this country. We 
know that $1,500 would go back into the economy, and we know that that 
$1,500, through this middle class tax cut, would help businesses in 
this country.
  I know we've been called the do-nothing Congress; but in this 
instance, if we do nothing, Americans who can least afford it will see 
a tax increase come right after the holidays. I dare say, Americans who 
will see that kind of a tax increase in January might worry about how 
they're spending their money this December, and it may just affect 
their generosity, not only to their own families, but to those who are 
in need in this country.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker, 
to say I'm always happy to find things that I agree on with those 
across the aisle.
  I'll say to my friend from California that we're both new in this 
House and that I spent my Saturday doing those very same things. My 
small business owners told me that very same thing, though they told me 
one more thing.
  They said, Do get the foot of government off the throat of my small 
business. They did say, Rob, you cannot help me by doing more, but you 
can help me by doing less. You can help me by getting out of the way 
and by letting me do what I do.
  The question then becomes how we get those customers in that store, 
and there are absolutely two visions for making that happen. We can 
either try to dispense more favors from Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker. We 
can try to pump more money that we don't have out of Washington, DC, 
money that we're borrowing from our children and grandchildren; or we 
can try to get folks higher- and better-paying jobs--more jobs--which 
is what this rule is about today.
  We are running jobs out of this country. We are forcing jobs out of 
this country. The new report came out of over 150 nations, Mr. Speaker. 
We are number 69 in how easy it is for businesses to comply with their 
tax burdens, for example. Number 69. We should be the best place on 
Earth to do business.
  What is it that raises salaries?
  Sometimes my friend on the left suggests that we could just raise the 
minimum wage and just guarantee everybody money, but I don't believe we 
can. What we can do is give folks an opportunity to increase their 
productivity. No worker on the planet works harder than the American 
worker. No worker on the planet has more productivity than the American 
worker, and regulation after regulation after regulation slows the 
American worker down. If you want to put more money in the American 
worker's pocket, you let the American worker be more productive by 
providing some balance.
  Again, nothing we're talking about today, Mr. Speaker, says thou 
shalt not regulate. We know we're going to regulate. What we're saying 
is, let's regulate with balance. Then my friend's small businesses and 
my small businesses will have those customers that they need to get 
this economy moving again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want my colleagues to understand that, if we were to extend 
the payroll tax cut, according to Mark Zandi, who is a Republican 
economist who advised John McCain in his Presidential campaign, it 
would create 750,000 jobs. He also says that we're likely to go into a 
recession if the payroll tax cut expires, if my Republican friends 
don't allow us to have a vote up or down on it. I am going to ask 
people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an 
up-or-down vote on this and so that people will have an opportunity to 
make their views on this issue known.
  The other thing is we've heard all this talk about what the cost of 
regulation is. Again, some of the numbers that have been touted here I 
question very seriously. OMB's calculations demonstrate that regulation 
has a positive net effect on the economy and not by a little. In 2008, 
the Bush administration's OMB estimated that regulatory costs for major 
rules were between $46 billion and $54 billion and that the benefits of 
those regulations were between $122 billion and $656 billion.
  So it goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is what we 
should be doing on this floor today--debating a bill to put people back 
to work. We should be extending the payroll tax cut. We should also be 
talking about initiatives that the President put forward, these 
bipartisan initiatives. We should be doing things that will make a real 
difference in people's lives.
  My friend talks about the American worker. There is no Congress, no 
Republican leadership in my lifetime that has been more hostile to the 
American worker than the leadership that runs this House right now, 
bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor to take away the 
rights of workers at every single level.
  Do you want to know what one of the problems is with jobs moving 
overseas? It's that some of the incentives in our

[[Page H7955]]

tax laws have made it easier and even attractive for companies to pack 
up and go overseas and hire cheaper labor.
  One of the problems with these series of bills that we're dealing 
with here today is that it will result in a rush to the bottom in terms 
of regulation--the lowest common denominator in terms of clean water 
and clean air standards--because, among other things, this legislation 
says that we should take into consideration the standards in other 
countries.
  So China is going to now set our clean water and our clean air 
standards? Give me a break. Let's get real. Let's bring something to 
the floor that will make a difference in the lives of the American 
people, especially those who are unemployed. Let's bring a real jobs 
bill to the floor. Let's do something meaningful.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I could likely go back and forth all day long with my friend from 
Massachusetts believing that he loves workers more, with my believing 
that I love workers more and with his believing that to define ``loving 
of workers'' means we have to regulate them differently from 
Washington, D.C. For me, ``loving workers'' means we're going to free 
them to do those things that they do best, which is to produce.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee whose amendment was not 
made in order by the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson).

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and the underlying bills. Instead of creating jobs, the Grover 
Norquist/Tea Party Republicans are assaulting the very regulations that 
ensure we have clean air, safe water and food, along with safe 
prescription drugs and other products that Americans consume. They want 
us to create so many barriers and obstacles that it would essentially 
make it impossible for Federal agencies to do their jobs, all in the 
name of simply increasing the profits of big business.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act would require agencies to perform 
60 additional analyses and other procedural actions within the 
rulemaking process, further slowing down an already burdensome process. 
I am talking about bureaucratic red tape. They want to take it to the 
next level. They want to duct tape and blindfold and put a straitjacket 
on Federal agencies issuing regulations that help Americans. This would 
also make it much easier for large corporations to evade their 
obligations to protect the public by giving special interests multiple 
points in the process to tie up the process in knots.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is no better. It's a wolf 
in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled. This is not about helping small 
businesses. It's about halting regulations and increasing the profits 
of big business. Under the guise of small business protection, it would 
subject any regulation that could conceivably have any direct impact on 
small businesses to a more lengthy process, thereby delaying the 
implementation of virtually any action any agency proposes and wasting 
agency time while doing so.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy, which is opposed to this legislation.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


            H.R. 3010--Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011

     (Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 36 cosponsors, Nov. 29, 2011)

       The Administration is committed to ensuring that 
     regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored 
     to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and 
     efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty. 
     Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House 
     passage of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. The 
     Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unprecedented 
     procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them 
     from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would 
     also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and 
     increase costs for businesses, as well as state, tribal, and 
     local governments, and further impede the implementation of 
     commonsense protections for the American public.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unnecessary 
     new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation. 
     When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, it must 
     already adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is 
     implementing. In many cases, the Congress has mandated that 
     the agency issue the particular rule or regulation, and it 
     often prescribes the process the agency must follow. Agencies 
     must also adhere to the robust and well understood procedural 
     requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and major 
     rules are subject to the requirements of other Federal 
     statutes such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. In 
     addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by 
     Executive Orders issued and followed by administrations of 
     both political parties. These require regulatory agencies to 
     promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
     that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs, to 
     consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory 
     flexibility. Lastly, final regulations are subject to review 
     by the Federal courts to ensure that agencies satisfy the 
     substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable 
     statutes and consider input from the relevant stakeholders.
       Passage of H.R. 3010 would replace this time-honored 
     framework with layers of additional procedural requirements 
     that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to 
     execute their statutory mandates. It would require cumbersome 
     ``formal'' rulemaking for a new category of rules, for which 
     agencies would have to conduct quasi-adjudicatory 
     proceedings. It would impose unnecessary new evidentiary 
     standards as a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the 
     regulatory process to unneeded rounds of litigation. Finally, 
     the Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine the 
     Executive Branch's ability to adapt regulatory review to 
     changing circumstances.
       In these ways and others, the Regulatory Accountability Act 
     would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public 
     with basic protections, and create needless confusion and 
     delay that would prove disruptive for businesses, as well as 
     for state, tribal and local governments.
       If the President were presented with the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act, his senior advisors would recommend that 
     he veto the bill.

  Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we should be focusing on 
today--not guns, not abortion, not reaffirming our national motto--
jobs. We need to put people back to work. But that doesn't seem to be 
part of the Republican agenda, and it's hurting our country.
  At the end of this year, as you have already heard during this 
debate, the payroll tax cuts signed into law by President Obama will 
expire. Without action, middle class Americans will see their taxes go 
up by a thousand dollars next year. Without action, GDP growth will 
fall by half a percent and will cost the economy 400,000 jobs according 
to the economic forecasting group Macroeconomic Advisers. Extending 
this tax cut is not just good for American families, it's good for the 
American economy. According to Ameriprise Financial, extending the 
payroll tax cut could add more than 1 million jobs to the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation that we need to be 
debating, not right-wing, hot-button social issues or bills that, when 
you add it all up, don't mean anything to anybody in this country.
  But where is this extension of the payroll tax? It's not in this 
rule? It's not in the majority leader's schedule. In fact, the 
Republicans seem to be ignoring this issue.
  It's sad. It's sad that the Republican leadership would rather raise 
taxes on middle class Americans basically to protect tax breaks of 
millionaires. If there was a vote right now on a bill that was going to 
cut one penny, it was going to cost Donald Trump one penny more in 
taxes, the other side would be overfilled with speakers. But we're 
talking about middle-income Americans, struggling Americans, that if we 
don't act by the end of this year they will see a $1,000 increase in 
their taxes.
  Now, we can change all that here today. We can change that here today 
and actually bring to the floor something that is meaningful. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
require that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year. 
If we don't pass an extension, all working Americans will get a little 
less in their paychecks beginning in January.

[[Page H7956]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
and defeat the previous question so we can make sure that working 
families do not see their payroll taxes go up while we're still 
struggling to recover from a recession. This is exactly the type of 
action that people all over the country are hoping this Congress will 
move on.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I'm proud to be here with you today, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about 
jobs, jobs, jobs, that's why I came to Congress, and that is exactly 
what we're talking about in this rule today. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, 
you have seen with great concern what I have seen here today, and that 
is a complete disconnect, it appears, with my colleagues on the other 
side with the understanding that increasing regulation, needlessly 
increasing regulation, burdens the American worker, undermines the 
American economy, thwarts jobs. And I say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of 
those things on which if we disagree we're just going to have to agree 
to disagree, because it is as clear to me as it is that the sky is blue 
that when you increase the regulatory burden you make the American 
family poorer for it.
  I know I can't ask for a show of hands here, Mr. Speaker, but if I 
did and said, Who is it, who wants dirtier drinking water back home in 
their district? Who is it that doesn't drink from the same spigot as 
the rest of us? Who is it that doesn't shop at the same grocery stores 
as the rest of us? Who is it who doesn't drive on the same roads as the 
rest of us? We're all in this boat together. We're all this boat 
together, Mr. Speaker.
  I come from the Deep South, and whenever we start talking about 
environmental issues, it always gets me so pumped up, because, dad gum 
it, nobody spends more time outside than I do. Nobody cares more about 
the environment than I do. And yet time and time again you hear that 
characterization that somehow asking for a balanced regulatory 
environment, a balanced regulatory environment, is somehow anti-
environment or anti-American.
  I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, these bills before us today, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability 
Act, that's why I came to Congress. That is why I came to Congress.
  We cannot make everybody rich, but we can make everybody poor. And 
when we regulate without regard to the benefits of that regulation, 
without regard to the burdens of that regulation, that's exactly what 
we do.
  My friend quoted the OMB, talking about the values of regulations. I 
don't dispute that at all. I'm absolutely certain there are some 
regulatory initiatives that do, in fact, produce a benefit. All I'm 
asking for is that we balance that benefit with whatever burden it 
causes, because--and this is a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, but do 
folks honestly believe that the regulatory burden should exist 
irrespective of the benefits that it provides. That's what we do. In 
these two pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we ask regulatory 
agencies to examine those benefits and burdens.
  Now, as my friend from Massachusetts talks about partisan politics, I 
come from a district that was a proud ``no'' vote on both the 
ridiculous stimulus bill from the Bush administration and the 
ridiculous stimulus bill from the Obama administration.

                              {time}  1420

  We are equal opportunity ``no'' votes on ridiculousness. And that is 
what we have here as we try to reclaim some regulatory authority from 
the executive branch agencies.
  I'll be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Congress went 
a little light on President Bush. And I certainly believe the last 2 
years of the Democratic Congress went a little light on President 
Obama. I think we have a constitutional duty to defend our legislative 
prerogative to make the rules that this Nation abides by, not an 
unelected bureaucrat downtown, but elected officials right here in 
Washington, D.C., here in the people's House, those of us who have to 
go home and subject ourselves to voters every 2 years. This is where 
that authority belongs. And we should have those votes. Yes and no, we 
should have those votes on whether or not that's our shared vision of 
America.
  Now I'm going to get a little off topic, Mr. Speaker. It's clear to 
me that we're going to be talking about the payroll tax over the next 
week or 10 days. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to understand 
that's not a free discussion. Every penny that you choose not to 
deposit in the Social Security trust fund is a penny closer to 
bankruptcy the Social Security trust fund comes.
  It's easy to say you're going to get something for nothing, but we're 
not. $15 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker; $15 trillion. We've already 
been giving away something for nothing for far too long. The question 
is how can we both help the middle class taxpayer with their tax burden 
and preserve Social Security for generations to come. It's not a 
freebie, Mr. Speaker. These are tough questions that require serious 
answers, not on a motion to recommit, not on a motion to instruct, but 
in thoughtful committee consideration.
  I'll get back to the rule now because this has had thoughtful 
committee consideration. Both the underlying provision and the rule 
itself have gone through regular order. Mr. Speaker, there's no need to 
rush these bills to the floor. We can take them through the process to 
make sure that they are thoughtfully examined line by line by line. And 
these bills have been.
  Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, that's all these bills are asking 
of our administrative branch agencies--that the regulations that 
they're promulgating be examined line by line by line to make certain 
that the benefits outweigh the burdens.
  It's a surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's even something that 
we're arguing about today. I would have thought that this is common 
sense. Certainly in my district it's common sense. Perhaps other 
constituencies feel differently--balancing the benefits with the 
burdens. Don't let folks tell you, Mr. Speaker, that regulations come 
without a burden. I'll give you an example. I have a cardboard box 
manufacturer in my district, manufactures cardboard boxes. It may not 
be glamorous work, but it's important work. I was visiting the plant 
the other day. They said: Rob, when they were talking about the ethanol 
regulations, did they ever talk about the impact the ethanol 
regulations would have on cardboard box manufacturers?
  I said I wasn't in Congress then, but I never heard about it.
  They said when you decided that you were going to insert ethanol in 
every gallon of gasoline, you also decided you were going to raise the 
price of corn. And we use corn starch in the glue that holds our boxes 
together, and we use corn starch with our fiber to make our boxes 
stronger. And every time you pass a regulation that increases the use 
of ethanol and decreases the availability of corn to other sources, you 
raise the price of our boxes. You can produce boxes anywhere in the 
world; and if we can't stay competitive, we're going to lose this 
business overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, there are unintended consequences to the work of this 
body every single day, and the arrogance to believe we can foresee them 
all astonishes me. We must understand our fallibility. We must 
understand that we cannot foresee all of those consequences.
  So every time we have an opportunity to measure, Mr. Speaker, every 
time we have an opportunity to look at the pros and the cons to ensure 
that we're getting it right, Mr. Speaker, every time we pass a 
regulation, we steal freedom from someone somewhere. Understand that. 
Every time we pass a regulation, we steal freedom from somebody 
somewhere.
  Our government is a social contract where we agree to give up 
individual liberty so we can exist collectively. We have public 
services for safety and fire, on and on and on. But every single one of 
those comes at the expense of personal liberty. But we have decided 
that the expense is worth it.

[[Page H7957]]

  Mr. Speaker, these bills do that today: balance benefits and burdens, 
provide that information to the American voter, and let's make sure 
that what we're doing is worth it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an example of how one ought to do a rule, how 
one ought to open up the process, how one ought to encourage debate on 
all of the ideas that are brought to this House floor. I encourage 
strong support for this rule. I encourage strong support for the 
underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:


  An amendment to H. Res. 477 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 5. Not later than December 16, 2011, the House of 
     Representatives shall vote on passage of a bill to extend the 
     payroll tax holiday beyond 2011, the title of which is as 
     follows: `Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011.'.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________