[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5141-H5148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4078, RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL
BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
6082, CONGRESSIONAL REPLACEMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ENERGY-RESTRICTING
AND JOB-LIMITING OFFSHORE DRILLING PLAN
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 738 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 738
Resolved, That 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. 4078) to provide that no agency may take any
significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is
equal to or less than 6.0 percent. 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 two hours equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. 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 Oversight and
Government Reform now printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 112-28, modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of
further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the
bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such
further 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 further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
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. 6082) to officially replace, within the 60-day
Congressional review period under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental
Shelf Oil; Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a
congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and
natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy
development, job creation, and increased domestic energy
production to ensure a more secure energy future in the
United States, 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 equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources
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 Rules Committee Print 112-29. 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 C 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.
{time} 1320
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, 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
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 738 is a structured rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President
Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan,
from the Natural Resources Committee and Chairman Hastings, and seven
other bills that will be considered as a single package, including
mine, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act;
H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act by Mr. Griffin; H.R.
4607, the Midnight Rule Relief Act by Mr. Ribble; H.R. 3862, the
Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act by Mr. Quayle; H.R.
4377, the RAPID ACT by Mr. Ross of Florida; H.R. 2308, the SEC
Regulatory Accountability Act by Mr. Garrett; and H.R. 1840, which is a
bill by Mr. Conaway to improve consideration by the
[[Page H5142]]
Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the cost and benefits of its
regulations and orders.
H.R. 6082 is a bill to replace the Obama administration's final
offshore drilling plan announced on June 28, which keeps 85 percent of
America's offshore areas off limits to energy production, with one that
would establish a timeline for 29 specific leases, some of which are
not open for drilling under the Obama plan.
The legislation would also require the Interior Department to prepare
a multilease environmental impact statement for any leases required
under the bill not in the June 2012 plan.
The remaining bills are rolled into one package; and while each has
its own unique virtues, they're all intended to provide for Federal
regulatory relief.
H.R. 373 is the culmination of nearly 5 years of work to build on the
success of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, which is a
bipartisan initiative that has not been modernized since its inception
in 1995.
Given his express support for regulatory reform, my hope is that
President Obama will support my bill, which incorporates many of his
ideas, including those embodied in Executive Order 13563.
Mr. Speaker, so often we thank people for working on our legislation
and for working in the Congress only at the time that they retire, but
I want to give some thanks today for the hard work that's been done,
particularly on H.R. 373. There's an enormous amount of work that has
gone into bringing this bill to the floor.
I'd first like to thank Brandon Renz, my legislative director, who
has worked with this for over 5 years. I thank Kristin Nelson and Peter
Warren with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for
providing the diligence and creative thinking needed to shape the
product we're considering today.
I also thank Ryan Little, Austin Smythe, Daniel Flores, and Hugh
Halpern for their help shepherding this bill through the various
committees of jurisdiction. It's this kind of cooperation that's
necessary to ensure the proper functioning of this legislative body.
I thank Chairman Darrell Issa for bringing this bill to the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee. He is providing extraordinary
leadership for that committee and our country. But it's my colleague
and good friend, Congressman James Lankford, the chairman of the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology,
Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform,
who is deserving of my most sincere appreciation and praise.
Mr. Lankford's dogged work and determination to build upon and
improve on my initiative is only one demonstration of his keen
intellect and exceptional legislative acumen. For a freshman with no
prior legislative experience to have received such immense respect by
peers of both parties further underscores his professionalism and
amiable personality. Undoubtably, this House would be better off if it
were filled with legislators as serious about seeking tangible
solutions to problems as Mr. Lankford and Mr. Issa.
Mr. Speaker, it's on that note that I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I'd like to address process just very briefly, and that is that, when
we began this session of Congress, we were advised by our Republican
colleagues that we were going to bring up each measure individually and
discuss them. This is a structured rule that does contemplate the
opportunity for many Members to participate, but it isn't an open rule.
What it is is it's a measure as the base bill that has cobbled to it
six distinctly different measures--evidenced by the number of thank-
yous that had to come from Dr. Foxx to the various committees.
I do agree with the one, Dr. Foxx, where you thank the young man for
creative thinking. This is out of the box when it comes to us as far as
process is concerned being creative. Cobbling six pieces of
legislation--with another to make seven--is a bit much.
This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape
Reduction and Small Business Act of 2012, and H.R. 6082, which has such
a long and convoluted name that the cost to the government to simply
print the bill may require the Republican majority to raise the debt
ceiling.
What the red tape bill should be called, Mr. Speaker, is the
``Eliminate the Government's Ability to Protect Its Own Citizens Act of
2012,'' because that is what the radical legislation--creative, though
one may think it is--aims to do.
Under this legislation, Federal agencies would be prohibited from
issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate falls below 6
percent.
{time} 1330
And I defy any economist or anybody else in the world to tell me when
that's going to be in an economy such as the one that we have. So too,
would new regulations be prohibited between Election Day in early
November and Inauguration Day in late January.
For the past 2 years, the Republican majority has been spending its
time doing everything, it seems to me, to crash the economy by
defaulting on our debt, eliminating the greatest health care
protections made in decades, and turning sensible decisions about
women's health care into a fantasy of religious persecution.
But now it appears that perhaps struggling Americans have finally
managed to capture the Republicans' attention, except that the
majority's response is not to make the kind of investments that will
actually create jobs, but, instead, to gut the Federal Government's
efforts to protect the health and safety of American citizens.
I realize that in the fantasy world inhabited by some far-right
ideologues allowing polluters to run amok is tantamount to creating
jobs, allowing corporations to pursue fantastic profits at the expense
of public health and safety is somehow good governance, and enabling
the middle class to fall farther and farther behind the ultra-wealthy
is somehow a shining example of the American spirit.
But I have to ask, under this legislation, where will these new jobs
come from?
I suppose we'll need more doctors to care for sick children, since
the FDA will be prohibited from monitoring the safety of baby formula.
We will need caregivers, I'm sure, willing to provide free care for
older Americans, as Medicare will be unable to change its payments to
providers. And we'll need new water treatment plant workers, as
corporate polluters will have increased freedom to dump harmful
chemicals into our drinking water, as they have for years.
If I sound extreme, Mr. Speaker, it's because this bill is extreme. A
blanket prohibition on new regulations is not any kind of solution to
grow our economy. The FDA, the EPA, and the Veterans Administration,
these agencies are not responsible for the failure of our jobless
recovery.
What is irresponsible is the failure to address the real needs of the
American people. Rather than preventing the Federal Government from
ensuring clean drinking water, we ought to be investing in the
infrastructure that makes clean drinking water possible and that
desalinates salt water.
We ought to be investing in economic development projects, in the
national infrastructure, in clean energy technology, in education, and
in the kinds of programs that support those Americans who are
struggling the hardest. Rich CEOs of big polluters aren't one of those
that are in need.
But speaking of rich CEOs out of touch with everyday Americans, it
was Mitt Romney who said in 2009 that, ``You have to have regulation.''
He said that regulations need to be modernized, reviewed, and
effective, and that Republicans ``misspeak'' when they say they don't
like regulation.
I guess what Mitt Romney calls ``misspeak'' other people might call
``outright ridiculous'' because that is what the ideology behind this
bill is. It is as ridiculous a notion that yet more drilling for oil
will somehow--drilling in these places where companies like BP can
cause the kind of incidents that we saw in the gulf--that somehow this
is going to benefit the country. It won't.
[[Page H5143]]
The other bill to be considered under this rule is just the latest
manifestation of the Republican energy doctrine: ``Only drilling, all
the time, and everywhere.'' This legislation does exactly two things.
It tears up environmental protections, and it further enriches oil
company executives.
The House, under the Republican majority, has taken 142 pro-oil-and-
gas drilling votes this Congress. Using the hourly cost of voting in
the House, as calculated by the Congressional Research Service, the
more than 90 hours we have spent debating these measures that everybody
in this House knew were going nowhere when they left this House, we've
spent $54 million of the taxpayers' money debating, and these are the
people that would tell me they want to cut costs.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there's always a chance that the
Republicans will achieve success the 143rd time and additional hours
that they try something. But once again, the majority's efforts reflect
a dogged determination to rely on an outdated ideology that seeks only
to reward the wealthiest corporations.
We are already drilling at historic levels in this country. The
United States is home to more offshore drilling rigs than the entire
rest of the world combined. Seventy percent of offshore areas currently
leased are not even active yet.
This legislation isn't going to change the price of fuel for the
average American. It does not mandate that oil drilled in the United
States--Mr. Markey brought an amendment that allowed that if it's going
to be drilled here, it ought to stay here. But this legislation doesn't
allow for it to even be sold in the United States.
In fact, oil will simply be shipped out to the highest bidder,
similar to what's going to happen with Keystone when it's completed, on
the world market, generating enormous profits for the oil companies
while sticking the American public with the bill.
I recently saw an editorial cartoon by Joel Pett. And in the cartoon,
a man stands up at a climate change summit and asks, what happens if
climate change is, indeed, a hoax, but we achieve energy independence
anyway, that we preserve the environment anyway, that we create green
jobs anyway, and livable cities, and have cleaner air and water. The
answer, of course, is that we will all be better off.
Republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands all they want, but
pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and into the atmosphere
will not sustain the American economy, nor provide the kind of economic
prosperity that will benefit all Americans. And as I've said before,
and I repeat again, I'll be the last person standing against drilling
offshore of Florida.
At the same time, preventing the Federal Government from acting on
behalf of public health and safety will not create new jobs. It won't
return the unemployment rate to 6 percent, and it won't send a signal
to the American public that their elected Representatives are ably
minding public resources.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out to my colleague
from Florida that we certainly agree on our side of the aisle with
Governor Romney that we need regulations. These bills don't do away
with all regulations. Republicans know you need government. We just
want some common sense brought into our government. We want a cost-
benefit analysis done to rules and regulations.
After all, we're here, we're breathing the air, we're drinking the
water, we're eating the food. Our children, our grandchildren are, too.
It doesn't make any sense these tired old accusations against
Republicans that we don't care anything about our environment or our
food because we're here living with them, also.
{time} 1340
I don't think the American people are going to buy the arguments that
my colleague made.
I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. I thank Ms. Foxx, my colleague, for her kind
introduction on that.
All aspects of this bill, each part of it, has gone through the
committee process. Multiple of them have had multiple hearings related
to them. There has been plenty of opportunity to be able to allow for
input and for votes through the traditional committee process on this.
The reality is that red tape is strangling our businesses. Each day,
they wake up, and they are worried about what the Federal Government is
going to do to them rather than what the Federal Government is going to
do for them. There is an appropriate role for the Federal Government
for regulations, but it seems like there is a never-ending acceleration
of regulations--and not just small--they get larger and larger and
larger and more and more expensive and more and more nonsensical at
times.
Let me just give you one quick example of this: community bankers
that are facing hundreds of new regulations.
When the problem seemed to be the largest investment banks, the one
who got hit the hardest with the regulations were the community banks.
Now community banks have to step aside. A bank that may have 14 to 20
employees and $50 million or less in total assets, which is a very
small rural bank, has to go and prove that these rules don't apply to
them. That involves their hiring outside attorneys. That involves
setting aside staff that should be doing loans. That involves setting
aside additional time to prove these hundreds of rules don't apply to
them and that they're not a big bank. Regulations passed on to them--
death by a thousand paper cuts is how they explain it to me.
Simplicity and common sense need to be applied to how we do
regulations. When there is no check and balance in the regulatory
environment, it needs to have that.
Now, the other side seems to assume that, occasionally, Americans are
in need of daily oversight by the Federal Government, that unless some
Federal bureaucrat or some Federal regulator is not standing next to
their beds when they get up that they won't know how to get to work and
that, when they get to work, they're going to cheat a neighbor and
that, on the way home, they're going to cheat another neighbor, so we'd
better have a Federal regulator standing right next to them because
American citizens can't be trusted to do the right thing without
Federal control.
I would say the neighbors that I live around, in the cities that I
visit all over America, have great citizens who want to do the right
thing and are doing the right thing and are serving their neighbors. We
have great city and State governments. They're doing very good
regulatory schemes. We should trust them more to engage in what they're
doing in the communities that they live in, where they eat the food,
where they drink the water. They are the first line of defense on that,
rather than taking all those things to Washington, D.C., and assuming
all Americans can't function without someone from Washington, D.C.,
checking on them each and every day. Let me just give you a couple
things on that.
During the first hearing that I participated in here in this
Congress, someone from the other side extolled the benefits of adding
more regulations because companies were sitting on money and were not
spending it. This was a way to force companies to hire additional
people by hiring compliance officers--people to oversee regulations--
and that, if we couldn't increase employment in America through
producing more goods and services, we would increase employment in
America by creating more bureaucrats just in the private business.
That's not how I see that you should grow an economy. Let me just
highlight one area, one title of this great bill.
Title IV of this is the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2011. This was a bill that started in the previous
Congress with Ms. Virginia Foxx as the author. That bill went through
multiple processes in the previous Congress. We picked it up in the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and we did three hearings on
it at the beginning of last year. We had city leaders, we had State and
county leaders, we had private business leaders, and we had
administration individuals from this administration and from the
previous administration come and testify.
[[Page H5144]]
In 1995, the House and the Senate and the President signed a bill
called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It was a wide bipartisan act--
394 votes in the House and 91 votes in the Senate--to give information
to the House and to the Senate before decisions were made about what is
an unfunded mandate, and what effect will that have.
There are large loopholes that have been exploited in the last 17
years. This bill aims to fix those loopholes:
It takes in all the independent agencies, and it also puts them under
those same requirements;
It puts in the language that President Clinton put in in Executive
Order 12866 in order to clarify this, that the administration's
functioned under. It puts that language and codifies it from President
Clinton into this bill. It also takes a clarification of President
Obama's that he has for this bill and also adds it into the language;
It redefines ``direct costs'' with how the CBO already defines
``direct costs,'' and it actually codifies that language and provides
ability;
It allows for a ranking member or a chairman of a committee to do an
analysis of a rule to make sure that it is not exceeding our unfunded
mandates requirements. It is very bipartisan. It's not just the
chairman. A chairman or a ranking member can get in on that.
It is the intent of this, in this modern regulatory environment, to
clean this up and to make sure Congress has the information to make
their decisions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my good friend from Florida on the
Rules Committee for yielding time.
I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying bills, particularly H.R.
6082, because that bill unreasonably expands offshore drilling without
the corresponding and necessary safety standards.
The Republicans are ignoring the lessons that we learned after the BP
Deepwater Horizon blowout. Again, they are putting the profits of the
oil companies ahead of the safety and larger economic concerns of
families and businesses all across our great country.
Certainly, memories cannot be so short that we don't remember the
devastation caused by the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout and disaster.
That oil spewed for months and months, and they could not cap the well.
In the meantime, it caused serious economic damage, not just to my home
State of Florida and to the tourism industry and fishing and to the
hotels and motels and restaurants, but all across the gulf coast and
all across the country.
I recall very well, prior to the blowout, they said it was safe. They
said drilling in deep water and offshore was safe and that there hadn't
been very many accidents. But they were wrong. I remember Tony Hayward
came in front of our committee, and he said, We were wrong. We didn't
anticipate this would happen.
You've got to anticipate that it will happen.
Unfortunately, in the aftermath, we appointed a blue ribbon
commission, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon
blowout. They issued their report in January of 2011. They had many
recommendations from experts in how you make offshore drilling safe.
The Congress has not acted on any of those recommendations to make it
safe. Yet, in this bill, they press ahead to open even more areas for
oil drilling. That's not right. You're putting our economy and our
environment at risk when you do so.
This was a great commission, by the way, because they didn't just
stop there. They've issued progress reports along the way. I know
people oftentimes don't like report cards, and the Congress is not
going to like this report card. They've broken it down into safety and
environmental protection, spill response and containment, and ensuring
adequate resources.
Under safety and environmental protection, they say Congress has done
nothing to make permanent the improvements that have been made by
industry and the Obama administration. We've got to enact these into
law before we go forward with more offshore drilling in new and
pristine areas.
They say Congress has provided little support for spill response and
containment. If we're going to expand drilling--and it certainly has to
be part of our energy portfolio--we have to be able to respond to a
disaster, and yet Congress has done nothing there.
It says, although the administration has provided increases in
funding to oversight, Congress has taken little action to adjust the
unrealistic limits on liability. Who is going to pay? It shouldn't be
the taxpayers who pay for these disasters. Right now, they have not
adjusted the outrageous liability limits that these oil companies have
when there are accidents.
What you're doing is really thumbing your nose at--you're turning a
blind eye to--the hard work done by the commission, the commission that
proposed to protect us if we were going to rely on offshore oil. I
think it's going to be part of our portfolio, so why not adopt
reasonable safety standards?
I know some of my colleagues say, Well, we don't like red tape. I
don't like red tape either, but this isn't red tape. These are vital
environmental and economic safety standards to ensure that the $60
billion tourism industry in Florida is maintained. Those are
hardworking folks and good jobs back home. For the hotels and motels,
even though the oil was coming out of the ocean 350 miles away, their
businesses fell off. All we ask is that simple safety standards be
adopted.
Mr. Markey and Mr. Holt have proposed some of those as amendments.
The Republicans rejected other ones. We need to adopt these. Otherwise,
it is irresponsible to press ahead with expansive, new deepwater
drilling in deeper areas, in pristine areas.
{time} 1350
These recommendations are reasonable. And if the Republican Congress
cannot take up reasonable safety standards in the wake of one of the
worst economic and environmental disasters in our history, then I'd
hate to say what's at risk for this great country.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Florida (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, recent economic indicators show that another recession
is a real danger. Consumer confidence is plummeting, businesses aren't
hiring, and recovery continues to slow. Real unemployment is at 14.9
percent, and millions of Americans have given up hope. The World Bank
reports that the U.S. is now 13th in the world when measuring the ease
of starting a new business. In 2007, we were ranked third. Last month,
American manufacturing shrank for the first time in nearly 2 years.
Economists are revising their growth projections downward. Inflation
looms on the horizon, and Europe's sovereign debt crisis continues
unabated.
Some of the circumstances that led to this crisis are out of
anybody's control, but many of these circumstances are not.
Policymakers in Washington have an obligation to our constituents and
to this country to work together to create an environment where the
American people prosper. We have such an opportunity today. The Red
Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act takes a balanced
approach towards regulatory reforms that are desperately needed in
today's market.
For 25 years, before I was elected, I was a small businessman. I
started a business not because of a government program or because of
government lending; in fact, I couldn't even get a bank to loan me
money. I borrowed money from a friend and grew that business over 20-
some years to 27 employees. I didn't do it because there were good
bridges and roads next door to me. I saw a need, I took a risk, and
worked harder than the next guy. I also knew the rules and understood
that government was the referee, not the player.
Today, the regulatory climate and litigious nature of many government
agencies create uncertainty. Some falsely claim that certainty has
nothing to do with our current economic crisis. Mr. Speaker, economics
is as much a behavioral science as anything. When businesses don't know
what the next regulatory hurdle will be, they won't invest.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce has recently done a study of small
[[Page H5145]]
businesses in Florida. The results were clear: uncertainty is the
number one issue facing job creators and entrepreneurs. Right now there
are projects waiting on the sidelines that have the potential to create
1.9 million jobs annually in this country. Talk about a shot in the arm
to the economy.
The only thing certain about this President has been the uncertainty
that he has provided and the regulatory reform and tax reform for small
business. Take my home State of Florida for example. According to
research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there is potential for
121,000 jobs there if we have regulatory certainty. In the first year
of operations, businesses could generate over $2 billion in employment
earnings. This bill is not about generating profits for fat cats and
Big Oil. How do I know? Because I have seen firsthand a project in my
area come to a halt because of a litigious activist group that affected
200 blue color jobs: secretaries, machinists, and more. There were 14
Federal agencies, State and local agencies, 7 years of permits and
review, only to have a lawsuit 1 month later kill the dreams of a
better life for my neighbors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one thing I know about government
is that before it gives to someone, it must take from someone else.
This legislation presents solutions that are sensible and immediately
effective. My neighbors are tired of the regulatory burden. I'm tired
of the regulatory burden.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend
and colleague from Florida that when he speaks about 120,000 jobs that
may have been created, Governor Rick Scott categorically rejected money
for light rail between the I-4 corridor of Orlando and Tampa that would
definitely have produced 18,000 jobs.
You can't have it both ways. You can't one minute say that you don't
want something, and then the next minute say that some fictional number
is going to take place that's a magic bullet. We worked hard to get
that money appropriated. The last statement that he made was that you
can't give something unless you get something. Well, they got from
Florida, and that money went to the east coast corridor, to California,
to Illinois. I'm not certain about whether any of it went to Kentucky,
but I'm sure that the next speaker would be prepared to address that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the rule which, if enacted, will block United States
servicemembers and veterans from getting the best care and services we
can offer.
In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to exempt from the
proposed moratorium any regulation that is related to the health and
safety of United States servicemembers and veterans. I did so because I
believe, as I'm certain all my colleagues do, that servicemembers and
veterans are best served when the agencies that serve them can provide
critical treatment and assistance in a timely and responsive manner.
Doing so often requires writing new rules and regulations. We should
not, for example, block a new regulation that allows the VA to provide
medical or other benefits to caregivers of veterans and servicemembers
in exchange for a new talking point about the economy.
My colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
agreed. My amendment was unanimously approved in a bipartisan fashion.
Yet, inexplicably, Republicans are now blocking it from a full vote.
Suddenly, they're ready to let our commitments to our heroes lapse. And
for what, a new talking point? Over the next 5 years, more than 1
million veterans will return home from war. Part of our commitment to
them must be to ensure that they have the best services available,
whether that's in health care, job training, or educational benefits.
Mr. Speaker, most legislation has unanticipated consequences. This
legislation has a consequence that is easily anticipated, and that is
that we will be tying the hands of the agencies that serve our brave
men and women in the armed services. I ask any one of my Republican
colleagues from the Rules Committee to explain why this amendment
wasn't made in order and why this rule is sending a message to our
military and veterans that they aren't entitled to the best we have.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as I often do when I'm handling a rule, I have
to make sure that the public understands the facts.
It's my understanding that the amendment that the gentleman spoke of
that was adopted in the committee and then presented in the way that it
was presented for this bill was not germane. I need to point out to the
public that it was not the majority, it wasn't the Republicans, who
decided the amendment wasn't germane. It is our Parliamentarians, who
are nonpartisan.
I would now like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas,
Representative Canseco.
Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina,
and I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 4078.
The Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act is an important piece of
legislation that will ensure the government does not stand in the way
of America's job creators.
I have the honor of representing a district that reaches from San
Antonio, Texas, to El Paso, Texas, including nearly 800 miles of U.S.-
Mexico border. When I head home for a work period, my days are spent on
the road meeting with diverse groups of small businessmen,
entrepreneurs, community bankers, farmers, energy producers, teachers,
and law enforcement agents.
The most common theme that I hear from my constituents, whether
they're Democrat or Republican, conservatives or liberals, to the left
or to the right, is that the Federal Government is intrusive and
standing in the way of job creation by issuing job-killing regulations.
One constituent even sent a letter to my office on how regulations and
high energy costs are impacting his family. He writes:
Our family is on a fixed income. It has become a hardship
to buy gasoline. Now, with the coal mines being shut down,
our electric bills are going to go through the roof. I guess
the wife and I will have to get a block of ice and a box fan
to stay cool this summer.
{time} 1400
Since President Obama took office, we have seen a 52 percent increase
in regulations deemed economically significant, which means a
regulation costs the economy at least $100 million annually. And
according to a September 2010 report from the Small Business
Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion
annually, enough money for business to provide 35 million private
sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. In the midst of an
economic downturn in which the unemployment rate has been above 8
percent for 41 consecutive months, 35 million private sector jobs is a
very significant amount of jobs.
The legislation we begin to consider today is an important step in
the right direction to provide certainty to our Nation's job creators
so they can start hiring again and get our economy back on track.
It is amazing that this year alone, the Federal Register, where rules
and regulations are published for the public to view, has seen more
than 41,000 pages alone devoted to this regulatory explosion. These
regulations would cost $56 billion and result in paperwork burdens that
would take 114 million hours to complete. That is 13,000 years working
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Imagine how many jobs we could create in
America if those 114 million paperwork hours were spent on building
roads, issuing loans, expanding small businesses, and selling products
instead of pushing paperwork across a desk to please a government
regulator.
From regulating farm dust, stock tanks, and streams on private
property, keeping young people off the farm, and imposing the most
expensive rule ever on the energy sector, nothing is off limits for the
out-of-control regulators in this administration. Even
[[Page H5146]]
though the House of Representatives has had some success in reining in
job-killing regulations, right now it is still a good time to go to
work for the Federal Government as a regulator in Washington, DC,
because they are hiring.
If we want more jobs on Main Street, we need less red tape from
bureaucrats and other regulators in Washington, DC.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell
both sides how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Florida has
12 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased
to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney),
whose State did benefit from that money that was to go to Florida, as
appropriated.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on the
so-called regulatory freeze bill which will act as a chain saw, going
through parts of the government that have absolutely nothing to do with
small business or small business job creation. And I say that as a
former small employer.
One of the regulations which will be butchered under this law is the
income-based repayment program which the Department of Education is now
in the middle of fashioning, which will provide loan payment relief for
people paying title IV student loans. For a teacher making $25,000 a
year with maybe about $20,000 in student loan debt, that program will
reduce monthly payments by $100 a month. That is real help for people
who are contributing to the U.S. economy. Allowing that regulation to
go forward will not hurt the U.S. economy. In fact, it will provide
more basis for that teacher to go out and survive and spend money on
housing, car loans, et cetera.
Yet this bill, in the name of job creation, will knock down the
income-based repayment program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. COURTNEY. The income-based repayment program is trying to provide
student loan relief at a time when student loan debt in this country
now exceeds $1 trillion--higher than credit card debt, higher than car
loan debt. It is a commonsense program, fully paid for.
The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law in
2010, offset every nickel of cost in the income-based repayment
program; and yet here we are, debating a bill at a time of crisis for
middle class families because of student loan debt, denying them the
needed relief which will help the U.S. economy.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The rule before us today provides for consideration of my bill, H.R.
373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, as I
mentioned before. While working on this legislation over the years, I
have come to appreciate that the subject matter is not one of the most
thrilling ever to be considered by this House. In fact, I'm confident
that reading a summary of my bill would provide an effective remedy for
even the most stubborn case of insomnia.
Some have compared observing the legislative process with that of
making sausage. Admittedly, in the case of my bill, it more closely
resembles watching paint dry. Nor do I expect many in the media will
sell many advertisements dissecting legislation entitled the Unfunded
Mandates Information and Transparency Act. However, this certainly does
not diminish the meaning or value of this important work.
By collaborating with the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, we've worked to create a comprehensive legislative package
that promotes the principles of good government, accountability, and
transparency that my constituents sent me to Congress to represent.
These principles have been a top priority of mine throughout my
legislative career, starting in the North Carolina State Senate.
Very simply, H.R. 373 advances these priorities by drawing upon
bipartisan initiatives to expand access to information. The legislative
text, itself, identifies the stated purpose of H.R. 373 as improving:
the quality of the deliberations of Congress with respect to
proposed Federal mandates by providing Congress and the
public with more complete information about the effects of
such mandates, ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates
only after focused deliberation on their effects while
enhancing the ability of Congress and the public to identify
Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on consumers,
workers, employers, small businesses, and State, local, and
tribal governments.
But it does so much more than that. The strength of the bill is that
it serves to inform more fully decision-makers engaged in the
policymaking process while letting affected State and local governments
and those in the private sector who must put Washington dictates into
practice know what's coming and better participate in the process.
Many provisions of the bill simply codify, clarify, and streamline
existing practice. Others enhance the purpose of UMRA by applying its
disclosure requirements to more circumstances while initiating more
complete, detailed, useful, and accurate cost estimates to expose
otherwise hidden costs. Yet others still protect legislative intent by
closing loopholes in current law, allowing enterprising rule-makers to
circumvent disclosure requirements while imposing costly mandates.
All of these provisions are harmonized in a way that provides
something for everyone--which, unfortunately, is a rare legislative
virtue--yet underscores the unique opportunity Members of both parties
have to vote for a modest, yet effective legislative solution.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlelady
that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I am prepared to close.
Ms. FOXX. That would be fine with me, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman
is prepared to close. I will have some more comments to make, and then
I will close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
We could go back to the days when government was helpless against the
robber barons who abused our public resources. We could go back to the
days when citizens had no recourse against corporations who valued
profit above individual health and safety. And we could go back to the
days when unelected oligarchs drove this Nation's destiny, rather than
democratically elected governments representing the interests of the
American public.
Prohibiting Federal agencies from carrying out necessary and
essential public protections will not create new jobs. It will not
boost our economy. It will not protect the most vulnerable and
disadvantaged Americans in a time of extraordinary uncertainty.
Drilling for oil everywhere and anywhere is not a solution. It won't
even provide much benefit, unless you consider further enriching oil
executives to be a benefit for millions of struggling Americans.
{time} 1410
What Americans need is government that is willing to invest in its
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which proposes
that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class
tax cuts into law.
We have an opportunity to extend the middle class tax cuts for 98
percent of Americans who make less than $250,000. This should not be a
partisan fight; this is what we were elected to do. We should not
adjourn into August recess while American families across this country
are trying to make ends meet. It is imperative that Congress act on
behalf of families across this Nation and bring them the certainty and
security that their taxes will not go up in 6 months.
I don't know about all of my colleagues here, but I have had the
misfortune of having been involved in lame duck sessions; and the one
that is coming up where we are about to go off the cliff is going to be
brutal for some of the newcomers in this institution who do not
understand that it seems to be a methodology to wait until the last
[[Page H5147]]
minute before we do something. We can do it in August. We can give 98
percent of the American people certainty about their taxes and be
assured that if they make less than $250,000 their taxes will not go up
in December, or that their taxes will not be leveraged so we can avoid
seeing to it that the Bush tax cuts on the 2 percent of Americans that
are even concerned about the little bit of money that each one of them
would have to provide in order for us to ensure safety for children,
education for children, safety for old people, and understanding that
the middle class has this great need.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the various elements of the comprehensive
reform contained in title IV of the underlying bill can be
overwhelming, which is why it may be helpful to elaborate on the
purpose of some of the most prominent individual provisions within the
package.
In that light, it is important for the American people to understand
the oppressive nature and full scope of the costs associated with
complying with Federal mandates.
As a former small business owner, I experienced a myriad of costly,
overly burdensome Federal mandates, and I hear from my constituents
every day about the challenges that they face in dealing with them.
In my position as chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training, I have become familiar with an
example of a ridiculous rule that will unnecessarily complicate student
access to higher education. As we all know, in recent months, students
and families have urged Congress to act to stem the ever-increasing
cost of higher education. In response, the Obama administration has
offered several proposals claiming to reduce student loan debt and rein
in tuition. However, these initiatives only further entrench the
Federal Government in the affairs of States and institutions.
In response, higher education officials are crying foul over a 2010
Department of Education rule establishing a Federal definition of a
credit hour. Higher education personnel believe this regulation will
restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional
Federal overreach into higher education. As we've seen many times
before, onerous Federal regulation always come with a price, which in
this case is paid by students or their families.
It's time to take a comprehensive view of the problems facing our
Nation's higher education system and eliminate burdensome Federal
regulations that pile unnecessary costs on institutions and students.
Rather than getting the Federal Government further entrenched in higher
education, we should be working together to remove costly mandates that
pile unnecessary financial burdens on colleges and universities.
Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a statement from the 2012
edition of ``Ten Thousand Commandments'' issued by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute relative to the explosive growth of regulations by
Federal agencies in the past 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that Republicans, contrary to what
our colleagues have said across the aisle, are not opposed to all
regulations and rules. We are not opposed to government. We understand
that we have to have government in order to have a civil society. We
understand that we have to have regulations to protect us in some cases
from each other and to make sure that we have an orderly society.
We live in the greatest country in the world, Mr. Speaker; and we got
here not because of the government, but we got here because of the
hardworking Americans who have good values, who love this country and
want to see it continue to thrive. We can count on those hardworking
Americans to do the right things in almost every case. What Republicans
want are commonsense regulations, and we want to stop the flood of
regulations that have come particularly from this administration. And
the materials that I have submitted to the Record, Mr. Speaker, will
document the unnecessary rules and regulations that have come,
particularly in this administration.
We have heard today many reasons for Congress and President Obama to
pursue Federal regulatory reform as a cost-free way in which the
Federal Government can promote economic growth. We have the worst
deficit, the worst debt we've ever had in this country. We have an
unemployment rate that is stifling economic growth. What we're
proposing here today will help our economy, will help revive our
economy, and will bring jobs to this country.
This legislative package, with the passage of this rule, represents a
variety of ways we can move towards these ends. As Americans look to
Congress for innovative solutions to spur private sector job growth, I
call on my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
The 2011 Federal Register stands at 81,247 pages. That
number is just shy of 2010's all-time record-high 81,405
pages. These years are the only two in which the number of
Federal Register pages topped 81,000.
In 2011, agencies issued 3,807 final rules, compared with
3,573 in 2010, a 6.5-percent increase.
Proposed rules appearing in the Federal Register increased
even more than the number of final rules, from 2,439 to
2,898, an 18.8-percent increase that signals a likely future
rise in final rules.
Although regulatory agencies issued 3,807 final rules in
2011, Congress passed and the president signed into law a
comparatively few 81 bills. Substantial lawmaking power is
delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies.
Of the 4,128 regulations now in the pipeline, 822 affect
small businesses and 212 are `economically significant' rules
wielding at least $100 million in economic impact. That
number represents a 32.5-percent jump over the 160 rules five
years ago, in 2006, and a higher level than any year of the
past decade except for the 224 rules in 2010.
The number of final `major rule' reports issued by agencies
and reviewed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
has grown. The 99 rules of 2010 represented the highest
number since this tabulation began. Five years ago, there
were 56 such reports.
The five most active rule-producing agencies--the
departments of the Treasury, Commerce, the Interior, and
Agriculture, along with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)--account for 1,733 rules, or 42 percent of all rules in
the Unified Agenda pipeline.
The government's reach extends well beyond the taxes
Washington collects and its deficit spending and borrowing.
Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic
regulations cost hundreds of billions--perhaps trillions--of
dollars every year over and above the costs of the official
federal outlays that dominate the policy debate.
Economics 101 on tax incidence explains how and why firms
generally pass along to consumers the costs of some taxes.
Likewise, some regulatory compliance costs that businesses
face will find their way into the prices consumers pay and
into wages earned.
Taxation and regulation can substitute for each other
because regulation can advance government initiatives without
using tax dollars. Rather than pay directly and book expenses
for new programs, the government can require the private
sector--as well as state and local governments--to pay for
federal initiatives through compliance costs.
Because such regulatory costs are not budgeted and lack the
formal public disclosure of federal spending, they may
generate comparatively little public outcry. Regulation thus
becomes a form of off-budget or hidden taxation.
As the mounting federal debt causes concern, the impulse to
regulate instead can also mount. Deficit spending, in a
manner of speaking, can manifest itself as regulatory
compliance costs that go largely unacknowledged by the
federal government. Worse, if regulatory compliance costs
prove burdensome, Congress can escape accountability by
blaming the agencies that issue the unpopular rules.
Openness about regulatory facts and figures is critical,
just as disclosure of program costs is critical in the
federal budget . . .
[But] Disclosure of and accountability for regulatory costs
are spotty. This allows policy makers to be reckless about
imposing regulatory costs relative to undertaking ordinary--
but more publicly visible--government spending.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 738 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3
It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die
unless the
[[Page H5148]]
House has been notified that the President has signed a bill
to extend for one year certain expired or expiring tax
provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers with income
below $250,000 for married couples filing jointly, and below
$200,000 for single filers, including, but not limited to,
marginal rate reductions, capital gains and dividend rate
preferences, alternative minimum tax relief, marriage penalty
relief, and expanded tax relief for working families with
children and college students.
____
(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.
Ms. FOXX. 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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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.
____________________