[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5225-H5264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on H.R. 4078.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4078.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1500
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 2
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.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Job creation is, rightfully, at the top of Americans' agenda.
Americans know that as long as the unemployment rate stays high, wages
are stagnant and more than 12.7 million Americans seek jobs they cannot
find. More than 42 percent, or nearly 6 million, of those Americans
have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
Madam Chair, the verdict is in: the President's stimulus plan has
failed. While costing over $1 trillion and still counting, those jobs
that were created were short, and they too are disappearing.
Ultimately, small business will create the engine going forward.
[[Page H5226]]
Today's bill, in fact, is designed specifically to give confidence to
America's business creators, ones that we have heard from on the
committee for more than 18 months, the opportunity to take a breath,
evaluate what is the lay of the land, and go forward with the business
plan, no longer worrying that out of the blue will come major
regulatory changes, ones that were unforeseen just a little while ago,
that ultimately change their plans, change their ability to make a
profit.
Whether it's the President's ACA or ObamaCare or smaller $100
million, $200 million, $1 billion new regulations, this uncertainty has
put dollars on the sidelines. Today, through more than seven different
elements of the titles of the bill, our effort will be to ensure that
we do not propose without serious consideration new regulations.
The President himself, while producing more than 106 major rules
costing more than $46 billion, has said, We may be overregulated. His
own chief spokesperson, Mr. Sunstein, has said that, in fact,
regulations can cost jobs.
So, Madam Chairwoman, it is extremely important that we understand
that we must have regulatory certainty, something we will only have by
the passage of today's bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Whether serving as a staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee years ago or as chairman of the Board of Supervisors in
Fairfax County or now, as a Member of Congress, a constant principle of
my own public service career has been a deep suspicion of political
legislation that employs arbitrary across-the-board mechanisms that
make for good talking points but terrible policy. Such messaging bills
make a mockery of the legislative process, and, unfortunately, H.R.
4078 is just such a bill.
To understand the absurdity of this bill, consider the proposal to
ban any new regulations based on the Nation's unemployment rate.
Actually with the typo in the bill, it's the ``employment'' rate. But
for starters, there is little or no evidence correlating regulation to
private sector hiring. However, there is considerable evidence showing
that blocking important health and safety regulations will have a
negative effect on all seniors, children, veterans, consumers--not to
mention the private sector itself.
As written, the legislation prohibits any new regulatory actions
until the ``employment'' rate falls to 6 percent, meaning unemployment
would have to reach 94 percent before agencies could issue new
regulations. The effect of that language, coming from a crowd that was
just a few years ago talking about ``read the bill,'' means we would
never update Medicare payment rates for doctors, bank lending
protections for families, or food safety protections for consumers. No
doubt, our Republican colleagues intended for this moratorium to apply
until ``unemployment'' falls to 6 percent, which would still block
regulation for the foreseeable future.
What is absurd about their premise is that the Department of Labor,
for example, would be able to update the exposure safety standards to
adequately protect the health of workers exposed to beryllium, a toxic
substance linked to lung cancer and other chronic and fatal diseases,
based on a 0.1 percent swing in the unemployment rate.
The same would be true for implementation of the Veterans' Benefits
Act, bipartisan legislation that passed in the last Congress with no
opposition. Under this bill, when the unemployment rate is 6 percent,
the Department of Veterans Affairs would be able to take ``significant
regulatory action,'' meaning implementation of the enhanced disability
compensation benefits provisions for veterans experiencing difficulty
using prostheses, for example, after the loss of limbs, or veterans in
need of extensive care because of post-traumatic stress syndrome.
However, if the unemployment rate is 0.1 percent higher, just 6.1
percent instead of 6 percent, H.R. 4078--the bill we're debating right
now--would prohibit the Veterans Administration from improving care for
those veterans.
Think about that: in voting for this bill, Members are endorsing a
world view that a 0.1 percent swing in unemployment ought to determine
whether the Federal Government can issue rules that benefit veterans
with catastrophic injuries, updating Medicare payments for doctors,
assisting students with loan debt, or providing families peace of mind
that the peanut butter in their pantry will not poison their children.
Any law that results in such absurd outcomes is deeply flawed and
misguided far beyond the typo. In fact, the bill, as written, would
even prevent those rules that would save money from being implemented.
Whether one advocates for smart regulation or passionately hates all
regulations, surely we can all agree that the bizarre, capricious, and
unjust outcomes that H.R. 4078--this bill--would lead to are the
hallmarks of careless policy based on ideology, not on good public
policy, not on good governance. Indeed, as former Republican
Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York stated in a recent op-ed
piece in The New York Times, I believe, on H.R. 4078, he said, it is
``difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the House
bill.'' That was from a Republican former colleague in this body.
I would remind my Republican colleagues that one of the first
executive orders issued by President Obama requires agencies to ensure
that their regulations are, indeed, cost-effective. Of course that
doesn't fit their narrative. Neither does it fit the fact that the
Obama administration has actually issued fewer final rule regulations
than the Bush administration did in its first term.
I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring sanity to the
policymaking process in this House by opposing this extreme measure.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I trust the gentleman from Virginia is well
aware that the typographical error in the bill under consideration was,
in fact, a mistake done by professional staff. And although unanimous
consents are not permitted in the Committee of the Whole, I would ask
the gentleman from Virginia if he would be willing--or let me rephrase
that--if he would not object to a unanimous consent in the House to
make a correction in what was clearly a typographical error made by
nonpartisan professional staff at the Leg Counsel's office.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Is the gentleman yielding to me for an
answer?
Mr. ISSA. Yes, I am.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, this Member will reserve
the right to object at the appropriate time.
Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, nothing could be more insincere than to
pick on professional staff on a typographical error.
If we have to go to the Rules Committee, I guess we will. But I am
really sorry to see that kind of an attitude on what the gentleman and
all of us know was simply a typographical error.
{time} 1510
With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ribble).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, matter of personal
privilege.
Did this Member hear the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, characterize a Member as
insincere?
The CHAIR. The Chair cannot interpret as a matter of personal
privilege remarks that were made in debate.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I'm not asking for interpretation, Madam
Chairman. I'm asking whether he in fact said it.
The CHAIR. That is a matter for debate between Members.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would ask the Chair to caution all
Members about personal characterizations of Members on the floor of the
House.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. ISSA. I thank the Chair. I meant nothing other than I was shocked
that the gentleman would say that he would reserve time on what was
clearly a typographical error.
With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ribble).
Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this legislation
which includes the Midnight Rule Relief Act that I authored earlier
this year.
[[Page H5227]]
I would like to take just a moment as a former small business owner
to talk a little bit about the impact of regulations because we will
hear from our colleagues on the other side that there is no evidence
that regulations affect hiring, it doesn't affect start-ups, that if we
do these things that the whole environment is going to go down the
hill, the whole country is going to end here because of the fact that
the Federal Government can't control every minutia of our lives.
Now I would say this, Madam Chair, that I believe rather than a big
government, I believe in a big, free individual. I think a little bit,
as I tell my story today about my father who started our roofing
company in 1958, there were fewer rules of the road then. There were
rules of the road, for sure. There were certainly rules put in place.
Since that time, there have been thousands and thousands and thousands.
There has been a lot of discussion in this Chamber about the gap
between the rich and the poor and how the middle class is getting
squeezed. I just wonder if we ever think that the middle class is
getting squeezed, but they're getting squeezed by their government.
They're not getting squeezed by rich people; they're not getting
squeezed out of it by opportunity. They're getting squeezed out of it
by a government that no longer lets them pursue the American Dream.
Sometimes I feel that the other side wants them to pursue their dream,
that our government wants to dictate what the dream ought to be for
American citizens.
My father had his own dream. He was a milkman in the 1950s after he
came home from World War II as a U.S. marine. He had six sons and later
adopted two girls. I'm the youngest of eight. There were many, many
times in my life, when my father, as he tried to not just make a better
dream for himself, not just to live out his hopes and dreams and
aspirations, but to build a better future for me and my family, for my
children and for my grandchildren as he started our family business. I
wonder if today he could even do it. He had no money. He was delivering
milk at the time, one of the lowest paid jobs out there at the time in
1956.
He put an ad in the paper and tried to find work, and he decided that
he would go into the roofing business. And through pure grit and
determination and hard work, he started his own company. He was able to
do that because all of the barriers that had been put in place by this
overreaching government weren't there. He had a customer of ours--his,
actually, because I was just a child--tell him he ought to name the
company Security Roofing because they felt secure in his hands. That
customer was well aware of the fact that my father was providing a
service for them that they were willing to transact money for. And it
was a fair transaction of goods. And if my father had cheated them, his
reputation would have went down, and he wouldn't have been able to
sustain himself. He built his company on fairness. He built his company
on honesty and integrity, and the government wasn't in the way.
And now today, imagine some unemployed worker thinking about starting
his own landscaping business, his own roofing company, a young college
graduate, a young woman who wants to be a beautician and start her own
beauty shop. We have this complex maze of rules and regulations and
licensures and all these things that we think have made life better,
but have taken freedom and have crossed the American Dream.
That's what this bill is about. It's about for a moment in time, it's
about incentivizing this government to remove the barriers and
obstacles, to get them out of the way and say to the American people,
there will be no more for a period of time until unemployment reaches
this level, 6 percent. We're not taking away rules. We're just saying
you can rely that there won't be new ones for a time.
Also, this bill will stop the President of the United States, both
Republicans and Democrats, from doing a lame duck session, whether they
have been fired or extended in their careers, to not promulgate a bunch
of rules and regulations during a lame duck session. We've seen a
massive increase of rules and regulations during that period of time--
17 percent in the 3 months following an election where parties change
hands.
The number of major rules issued during Bill Clinton's midnight
period totaled 3\1/2\ times more than the average number issued during
the same calendar period in the other years in President Clinton's
second term. President Bush wasn't much better. His was 2\1/2\ times
more.
So to solve this problem, this bill would simply say to the President
of the United States, for 90 days you can't do it. I support this bill,
Madam Chairman.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I wish my friend's
characterization of the bill were accurate; but, sadly, I think what
this bill does is cripple the ability of the government to protect the
American public across a broad swath of policy areas that certainly
matter to the average American.
I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York
(Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership.
Madam Chair, this is a terrible bill. This shortsighted legislation
affects every corner of our government and keeps Federal agencies from
issuing rules critical to our economy and health and safety of
Americans. It sets a ridiculous arbitrary benchmark of a 6 percent
unemployment rate before an agency can issue rules.
For example, I think it goes in the opposite direction of making the
Securities and Exchange Commission more efficient and more effective
for the American people. The bill could place extremely high procedural
barriers in the agency's way as it seeks to enact all of the rules as
directed in financial reform with a limited budget.
With this bill, my colleagues across the aisle seem to somehow
believe that the final years of the prior administration were just a
rousing success, that the near collapse of our financial system never
happened, that the outrageous abuses that we saw in the mortgage
lending industry never occurred, and that the abuses in consumer
lending that the Federal Reserve labeled as unfair and deceptive were
just business as usual. But we know that those things actually happened
and that they crippled our economy.
It was in response to events of 2008 that we gave agencies like the
SEC tools that they had been lacking to monitor the financial system
and to protect our overall economy. And now, right in the middle of
implementation of these critical reforms, my friends on the other side
of the aisle want to forget that all of this happened and want to put
barriers in front of implementing the reforms.
I believe that the language in this bill would basically cripple the
SEC. Even as SEC budgets are being slashed, their bill requires the
Commission to expend more in the way of resources on economic analysis
and places additional procedural barriers in the Agency's way.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge everyone to vote ``no.'' It
is a death knell of commonsense reform. It would stop reform.
{time} 1520
Mr. ISSA. It is amazing that we are hearing that the world will come
to an end if we slow down new regulations.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California for yielding time.
I rise today in support of the regulatory reform package before us
today and in particular title IV of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction
and Small Business Job Creation Act, which embodies my bill, H.R. 373,
the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.
My bill represents the first comprehensive reform modernizing the
bipartisan Unfunded Mandates Reform Act since its inception in 1995.
This bill is supported by State government advocates, including the
National Council of State Legislatures, which, in a letter to
Subcommittee Chairman Lankford, stated that:
UMRA has enduring shortcomings that your amendment
corrects. In particular, expanding the scope of reporting
requirements to include new conditions of grant aid is
essential. NCSL's members repeatedly point to this exclusion
in the underlying statute as one of the law's major flaws.
This bill responds to those concerns by allowing a committee chairman
or
[[Page H5228]]
ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office perform
an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or
resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes to a
condition of Federal assistance being imposed on any respective
participating State, local or tribal government.
The purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the Federal
Government is passing along to State and local governments that would
otherwise remain hidden but are borne by taxpayers regardless of which
governmental entity is taxing them. This provision represents just one
of the many reasons I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri, my friend, Mr. Clay.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The majority's plan to stop national safeguards will harm real
Americans. Regulations affect real people, not just balance sheets.
When we look at the cost of regulations, we have to examine more than
cold dollar amounts. We also have to look at the benefits. We have to
look at the real lives saved and at the real catastrophic injuries
prevented. We have to look at the real American families who live
healthier, happier, and safer lives because of Federal regulations,
regulations that protect them in their homes, regulations that protect
them at their jobs, and regulations that protect them in their
communities, places of worship, the roads they drive on, the stores
where they shop, the schools where their children learn, and the parks
where they play.
The majority's plan will have real negative consequences on the
economy and on the health and safety of all Americans, especially those
among us who need the most help. The majority's plan would prevent HUD
from updating their housing subsidy rates, and more families would be
without a place to live. Worker safety will be jeopardized because the
majority's plan would block workplace regulations. Children will be put
at greater risk because the majority's plan would prevent the Federal
Government from protecting them.
Madam Chair, we need to work together to create jobs and protect
American families, and we don't have to choose between the two.
Mr. ISSA. I trust the gentleman from Missouri is aware that last
year, out of over 3,000 regulations coming out of the administration,
no more than 66 would have even qualified for this moratorium.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R.
4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act.
I applaud the work of my colleagues to combat the growing
stranglehold that needless government regulation is having on job
creation and on economic growth. Today's bill will put an end to the
``regulate first'' attitude that pervades the Obama administration.
Contrary to popular belief, this legislation does not prohibit
regulators from moving forward with new regulations, but it does
require a Presidential or congressional waiver to do so. This simple,
prudent check on the power of bureaucrats will ensure that regulations
must be justified before they are enacted and that less burdensome
alternatives are considered first.
Beyond just slowing the pace of regulations, H.R. 4078 also contains
language that will substantially reform the way two of our independent
agencies develop rules for financial institutions. I am pleased that
the Red Tape Reduction and Regulatory Reform Act would finally require
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to perform a comprehensive
cost-benefit analysis for each rule that they propose.
One of the most important steps in any regulatory process must be an
effort to accurately quantify the costs and the benefits of a proposed
action. This is the foundation of good rulemaking. Despite this, the
CFTC has consistently stated that their obligation under the law is to
only ``consider'' the cost and benefits of proposals. I believe that we
can do better, and they must do better. Today's legislation is simple
and straightforward. It would extend the same requirements for cost-
benefit analysis to the CFTC that the President has already asked every
other executive branch agency to fall under.
During the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process, the CFTC has rarely tried
to estimate the cost of compliance. At times, ``consideration''
included vague statements like ``the costs could be significant.'' At
other times, costs were dramatically underestimated. In one particular
instance, industry groups calculated that the cost of compliance with a
proposed rule was 63 times greater than the CFTC's guess.
Accurately assessing compliance costs is one-half of the equation.
The other half, of equal importance, is capturing the benefits of a new
rule. Regulators must quantify what good the rule does. It is not
simply good enough to regulate because the authority exists. There must
also be tangible benefits for market participants that outweigh the
costs of the imposed rules.
Requiring cost-benefit analysis is a bipartisan step toward better
governance. Exact language now contained in H.R. 4078 passed out of the
Agriculture Committee unanimously in January. Last year, President
Obama was right to demand that the executive agencies be held to a
higher standard of analysis. Today, there's no reason why we should not
require the same from the CFTC.
H.R. 4078 will strengthen the rulemaking process at CFTC and it will
result in better rules and a safer marketplace. This small mandate on
the economists and lawyers at the CFTC will ensure that the burdens
placed on large businesses and small are justified in the real world,
not just in the pages of the Federal Register.
It's also important to note that the bill is prospective--it will not
hinder or delay the current proposed rules already making their way
through the process. As well, title VII of H.R. 4078 is consistent and
complementary to previously House-passed cost-benefit analysis.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 4078.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains on
each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 22 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and extreme piece of
legislation. This bill would prevent federal agencies from issuing
regulations that protect the health and safety of all Americans. Do not
be fooled. This bill will not create jobs, and this bill will not make
the government better. This bill is intended to stop the Federal
Government from issuing regulations until the unemployment rate reaches
6 percent or less.
The standard is indeed arbitrary, and it absolutely makes no sense.
But the bill itself is so poorly drafted that, in fact, the moratorium
would be in effect until unemployment actually reaches 94 percent. The
bill accidentally refers to the ``employment'' rate instead of the
``unemployment'' rate.
Even if this bill were drafted properly, it would be extremely
misguided. For example, the Food and Drug Administration would be
prevented from issuing a rule ensuring that infant formula is safe for
babies to drink. Why should the safety of baby formula depend on the
national unemployment rate? Of course, it should not. But the FDA would
be banned from issuing a rule it now is considering to protect babies
like 10-day-old Avery Cornett, who died last year after he drank infant
formula contaminated with a dangerous bacteria.
I offered an amendment to this bill that would have allowed agencies
to protect the health and safety of children, but the House Republicans
refused to allow it.
{time} 1530
Under this bill, the Department of Health and Human Services would be
blocked from issuing routine updates to payment rates for doctors who
treat seniors under the Medicare program. This would result in
hospitals having to lay off workers--not creating jobs.
I offered an amendment that would have allowed the Department to
protect the health and safety of seniors.
[[Page H5229]]
The House Republicans refused to allow that one, too.
Under this bill, the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs would be blocked from issuing regulations to protect
the health and safety of our troops serving overseas and our Nation's
veterans. For example, the VA could be blocked from issuing a rule it
is now considering to help veterans suffering from traumatic brain
injuries. And we have seen so much pain with regard to our veterans.
When we considered this bill during the Oversight Committee's markup,
Congressman Yarmuth offered an amendment to allow the VA to protect the
health and safety of veterans. This amendment was adopted on a
bipartisan vote. Even our chairman, Mr. Issa, supported it in
committee, yet mysteriously it was stripped from the bill before it
came to the floor. Representative Yarmuth tried to offer that same
amendment at the Rules Committee, but the House Republicans refused to
allow it.
The House Republicans have refused to allow debate on amendments to
protect children, to protect seniors, and to protect our Nation's
servicemembers and veterans. They even removed the language that was
adopted on a bipartisan basis.
This bill is based on a false premise. The proponents argue that
regulations kill jobs. This myth has been widely discredited by
economists on both sides of the aisle.
Congress should be taking a balanced approach to reviewing
regulations, just as President Obama has done. The President has
focused on helping small businesses by identifying regulations that are
inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome. The bill takes the opposite
approach by freezing all significant regulations regardless of how
critical they are to the health and safety of our people.
Former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican, wrote an op-ed
last week, titled, ``GOP Right Wing Is Serious About Disabling
Government.'' Congressman Boehlert cut right to the heart of the bill.
Keep in mind, this is one of our Republican colleagues, former
colleagues. Here's what he wrote:
If one wants to fully appreciate the stranglehold the right
wing has on the Republican congressional agenda and its
intended dangers, one need look no further than the bill the
House plans to consider next week--talking about this bill--
which would shut down the entire regulatory system.
I wish that that description was hyperbole, but sadly it is not.
Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the sweeping
destructiveness of this House bill.
I agree with Congressman Boehlert; this is an extremely irresponsible
bill. I urge all our Members to vote against it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. There you go again. We're shutting down the entire
regulatory system because 66 out of 3,000 regulations would be affected
by this bill before us today. In just last year, 66 out of 3,000,
that's shutting it down.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Madam Speaker, I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 4078,
the Regulatory Freeze for Job Acts of 2012, which seeks to eliminate
needless red tape and puts Americans back to work. I also thank and am
proud of Darrell Issa and Lamar Smith for the handling of this bill.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has explored
regulatory hurdles being put up by a number of agencies, and we've seen
a massive expansion of red tape under this administration. Much of it
has come from the Environmental Protection Agency, where too many of
the environmental regulations put forward have been based on secret
science, hidden data, and predetermined outcomes--and some just
outright phony.
EPA appears to be hostile toward economic growth and job creation.
For example, EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule added Texas in at the
last minute and threatened hundreds of jobs in my district and electric
reliability across my State.
One amendment to be offered to H.R. 4078, while well-intentioned, may
have the unintended effect of driving agencies to make policy decisions
without considering scientific information.
While science almost never provides one specific answer to a policy
decision, sound science should be used to inform the ultimate decision-
maker. Science can tell you how the world is, not how the world should
be.
Eliminating other considerations, whether they be moral or ethical,
leaves some scientists and unelected bureaucrats in charge.
At a time, Madam Speaker, when many American families are struggling,
H.R. 4078 eliminates red tape, reduces costs, and improves the
environment for small businesses and job creators by getting Washington
out of the way.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his great work on
this bill.
Despite the best efforts of Republicans in Congress, our Nation has
actually made significant progress over the last several years
protecting the health and the well-being of Americans.
Democrats have passed legislation ensuring that Wall Street plays by
the rules. They can't continue to turn it into a casino where the rich
clean up on the way up and the poor get cleaned out on the way down.
Democrats modernized food safety laws so that Americans can feel
secure in the knowledge that the food we put on the dinner table won't
make our families sick.
Democrats passed legislation to protect the privacy of Americans'
sensitive health information.
But all of these laws are still in the process of being implemented.
That's what's bothering the Republicans here today and all of their
supporters across the country. They cannot go fully into effect to work
for the American people until those regulations are finalized.
Republicans are determined to keep these vital health, safety, and
consumer protections from reaching the finish line to offer protection
for ordinary families.
GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now GOP stands for ``Gut
Our Protections.''
I released a report today, called, ``Protection Rejection: GOP
Abandons Consumer, Health, and Safety Measures''--across the board. It
describes the safeguards that would be jeopardized under this misguided
legislation.
If you're a wounded veteran needing home care, it will be harder for
your family to take time off work to care for you. Family members were
going--finally--to be able to take up to 26 weeks of job-protected
leave to care for a wounded veteran back from Iraq and Afghanistan, but
the implementation of this new law will be stopped cold by this
coldhearted Republican bill.
The bill prevents new fuel economy standards, increasing our
dangerous dependence on foreign oil, forcing families to pay more at
the pump, rather than a law that backs out 4.3 million barrels of oil a
day from OPEC, telling them that we don't need their oil any more than
we need their sand. They're saying stop those regulations from going
into effect.
And as we approach the 2-year anniversary of the worst environmental
disaster in the history of our country, the BP oil spill, this
misguided Republican bill would stop new safety standards for the
blowout preventers on drilling rigs that could prevent future spills.
This makes no sense. The safety of the American people should be put
above the special interests that want to stop all of these regulations.
The Republicans say this is about cutting red tape, but it's really
nothing more than a red herring, a desperate attempt to distract from
the GOP's abject failure to spur job creation in this country. There
are so many red herrings out here we might as well put an aquarium here
to deal with all of them that the Republican Party is throwing out here
on this bill.
We must not allow this Republican regulatory freeze bill to set
consumer protections back to the ice age. There's simply too much
progress at stake.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. MARKEY. Hundreds of regulations are going to be taken off the
books right now. And over the life of this bill, thousands of
regulations that would have protected the health, the
[[Page H5230]]
safety, the consumer interests across our country will be wiped off the
books.
{time} 1540
This is a wholesale destruction of the protections that ordinary
people need against wealthy corporations taking advantage of them in
their homes, in their neighborhoods. And so, ladies and gentlemen,
there has not been a more important bill that comes out this year of
this Congress onto the House floor.
All of you have access to this report I'm putting out here today,
``Protection Rejection: GOP Abandons Consumer Health and Safety
Measures.'' It's on my Web site. If you want to understand the full
damage that's going to be done across all of these areas, from Dodd-
Frank to health care, to food safety, to privacy protections for
families across our country, vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, apparently the other side assumes most
Americans are corrupt; they're corrupt people who cannot be trusted,
and they must be babysat at each moment. Company leaders, company
owners, many company employees, city and State leaders have to be
supervised at every single moment, because if we don't have a Federal
bureaucrat standing over the top of them, goodness knows what they'll
do.
Well, I happen to trust the American people. The people that I live
around and that I work around and that I meet as Americans are great
people who drink that water, who eat that food, who interact with their
neighbors in an honorable way. And when someone violates and does
something criminal, they should be treated in a criminal way.
Most Americans are greathearted people that just want to do what's
right, and they're just trying to figure out every day what the Federal
Government is doing to them, rather than what the Federal Government is
doing for them.
This bill begins to deal with limiting the regulations so each and
every day Americans don't have to wake up and worry about what the
Federal Government did to them last night while they were sleeping.
Let me give you an example of that. In Oklahoma, we're asking the
question, What authority does a special interest group have over our
State government?
In January of 2009, several environmental groups sued the EPA to
force them to review the regional haze standards. The EPA had wide
latitude in its response, but it chose to settle with the environmental
groups in a private agreement, just the environmental groups and some
individuals from the EPA. That private agreement created a way for the
Federal Government to take from the States the right to enforce
regional haze requirements. The original law clearly gave the authority
to the States, not the EPA and the Federal Government to realize
regional haze.
Let me give you an example. This is in my own State in Oklahoma.
Regional haze is not a health issue. It is not a health issue. The way
the law is written, it's only a visibility issue. It has nothing to do
with health issues. So our own State has a State implementation plan.
On one side of this is the picture of our State implementation plan,
what it would look like with our restrictions. The other side is the
Federal implementation plan, well over $1 billion additional in costs.
No one could step up here with confidence and tell me which one's
which.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LANKFORD. This is what happens when the EPA makes a private
agreement, overshoots a State agreement, and says we're going to go in
and step in and take over: over $1 billion of additional costs to the
ratepayers in Oklahoma, with no difference in the two, other than who
controls it.
This is an issue where there is no public-comment period, no
stakeholder involvement, nothing. It is time to resolve how we do our
regulations and to make sure stakeholders that are affected are also at
the table helping make the decisions on how things will be affected for
the good of our country as a whole.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, this is an example of the
Republican majority's taste for legislative exotica.
We have a very strange bill that no one expects to go anywhere. They
do expect to make some people happy by pretending that they're going to
be making oil here. This is in lieu of real legislation.
This is the group that could not have this House pass a
transportation bill. The House passed the transportation bill by a
legislative maneuver of the kind they used to denounce. It was made
part of an overall omnibus package. There was never any chance to amend
it, and it came out of a conference committee.
This is a group that can't pass an agriculture bill. We face problems
in the agricultural area; and because they are so split over what to
do, that committee's brought out a bill, and it's not coming forward.
They are unable to do the regular legislative business, so we get this.
Now, what this says is that no rules that have been promulgated of
any significance are going to be going forward.
I will not debate the gentleman from Oklahoma about haze. I am no
expert about it. But that's the problem. This is not a bill that deals
with rules in one area and one area of expertise. It does everything.
So let me talk about one area I am familiar with.
The gentleman from Oklahoma says we're saying that you need a Federal
regulator looking over the shoulders of every American. No, not every
American; but I'm close to thinking of every American who runs a large
financial institution, yeah. Of the people who lied about Libor, of the
people at Capitol One who cheated consumers.
Now, I am glad we have a consumer bureau that stepped in to protect
the Americans there. It's not every American who's corrupt; it is too
many in the financial area.
We passed financial reform. I know some of the Republicans don't like
it. I read in the paper today, well, Mr. Romney says he's going to
repeal it, but the House Republicans say, oh, no, we can't. So instead
of repealing it in a head-on way or amending it in a head-on way, they
want to stop the rules.
What this bill would do, if it ever became law, would be to say
``no'' to the Volcker rule. No, let's not differentiate as to what kind
of activities are legitimate for a bank to do or not. If an American
bank that's got deposit insurance wants to speculate and lose billions
of dollars in derivative trades, let them be.
This bill will stop us in a number of other areas with regard to
derivatives, speculation where we want to put limits on what the
nonusers of oil can buy so we can drive up the price.
The notion that the American people are crying out for an end to
regulation is not congruent with anything I have read or heard about
the financial area. And I am on the Financial Services Committee. I've
worked on that.
This bill would fully apply here. It would prevent us from going
forward with any of the pending rules in the financial reform bill.
Now, they've taken awhile. They're complicated. Many of them are
done. Most of them will be done soon. This is an effort to re-
deregulate derivatives, re-deregulate financial irresponsibility
without standing up and saying so.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
This is an effort to do re-deregulation by stealth. If they don't
want to regulate derivatives, if they think speculation's a good thing,
then let's bring up a bill. After all, this isn't the agriculture bill.
You don't have to be afraid of splitting your membership by trying to
do it.
This ought to be straightforward. Instead, they want to do it by
stealth. They want to end our effort to bring regulation to the
financial industry.
And, yes, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, when it comes
[[Page H5231]]
to the people who have been running the large financial institutions,
we do need more regulation, not less; and I believe the American people
understand that and do not want to see the people who brought this
terrible recession of 2008 from that financial irresponsibility set
free of any restraint.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, pursuant to the unanimous consent made in the
House, I will insert the staff report from the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform entitled, ``Continued Oversight of Regulatory
Impediment to Job Creation,'' the result of over 30 separate field
hearings and hearings by the committee, and the work of countless
hundreds of job creators around the country who have participated.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman
STAFF REPORT
July 19, 2012
Continuing Oversight of Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation: Job
Creators Still Buried by Red Tape
Summary
Rules and red tape imposed by the federal government choke
economic expansion and job growth, according to job creators
themselves. Despite hearing this message loud and clear,
regulations implemented during the Obama Administration have
moved aggressively in the opposite direction--the regulatory
state continues to grow, adding billions of dollars in
compliance costs to businesses and job creators. These costs
will ultimately be paid by consumers.
Although Obama Administration officials frequently proclaim
it has issued fewer regulations than its predecessors,
analysis by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
reaches a far different conclusion: the Obama Administration
has issued far more of the most expensive group of
regulations with a higher overall economic cost.
The aggressive march of the regulatory state has been the
subject of an ongoing, multiyear examination by the
Committee. This staff report expands on earlier Committee
work and documents how the regulatory state is proliferating
with dire consequences for the economy, and how federal
regulations continue to impede job growth and business
expansion.
From 2010 to 2011, the number of final rules issued by
federal agencies rose from 3,573 to 3,807--a 6.5 percent
increase. During that same time frame, the number of proposed
rules that will be finalized increased 18.8 percent. The
published regulatory burden for 2012 could exceed $105
billion, according to the American Action Forum, headed by a
former director of the Congressional Budget Office. Since
January 1, the federal government has imposed $56.6 billion
in compliance costs and more than 114 million annual
paperwork burden hours.
Beyond this ``routine'' rulemaking, the number of rules
with significant costs is on the rise. Analysis from the
Heritage Foundation indicates that the Obama Administration
issued 106 new rules in its first three years that
collectively cost taxpayers more than $46 billion annually--
four times the number of ``major'' regulations and five times
the cost of rules issued in the prior administration's first
three years.
Workers and job creators confirm that the oppressive
regulatory red tape environment continues to hinder
improvement. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly half of
small businesses are not hiring because they are worried
about new government regulations. Forty-four percent of
likely voters say they believe regulations from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hurt the economy.
Research conducted by The Winston Group found that 53
percent of voters say federal regulations are one of the
major reasons the economy is struggling; 59 percent think
that cutting regulations is vital to improving the economy,
and 52 percent indicate that stopping new regulations would
free employers to begin hiring. According to the National
Federation of Independent Business, the issue of regulation
and red tape is one of the single most important problems for
small businesses.
These views are held not just by poll respondents or
business group members--senior Obama Administration officials
have spoken out on the need to actively address regulatory
impacts on job creation and economic growth.
The White House has praised the Committee for pointing out
deficiencies in its approach to regulations. Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass
Sunstein said ``I'm especially grateful to you Mr. Chairman
and to the committee as a whole for its constructive and
important work on this issue over the past months. It's very
significant to try to get regulation in a place where it's
helpful to the economic recovery.''
The OIRA Administrator has also said that expensive
regulations can ``increase prices, reduce wages, and increase
unemployment (and hence poverty).''
OIRA's 2012 Draft Report to Congress on Federal Regulations
concedes that ``regulations . . . can place undue burdens on
companies, consumers, and workers, and may cause growth and
overall productivity to slow.'' It also notes that ``evidence
suggests that domestic environmental regulation has led some
U.S. based multinationals to invest in other nations
(especially in the domain of manufacturing), and in that
sense, such regulation may have an adverse effect on domestic
growth.''
Finally, OIRA agrees that ``regulations can also impose
significant costs on businesses, potentially damaging
economic competition and capital investment,'' if not
carefully designed.
This staff report examines three types of regulations
(energy and environmental, labor, and financial services),
and looks at both current and new/proposed rules, their costs
and impacts on job creators. It concludes that until the
government addresses the overwhelming cost, scope and impact
of the ever-expanding regulatory state, it is not in a
position to aid job creators and spur economic recovery.
Moreover, the staff report suggests that until these
regulations are addressed, high unemployment and slow
economic growth will persist.
Key Findings
From 2010 to 2011, the number of final rules issued by
federal agencies rose from 3,573 to 3,807--a 6.5 percent
increase. During that same time frame, the number of proposed
rules increased 18.8 percent.
The published regulatory burden for 2012 could exceed $105
billion, according to the American Action Forum, headed by a
former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Analysis from the Heritage Foundation indicates that the
Obama Administration issued 106 new rules in its first three
years that collectively cost taxpayers more than $46 billion
annually--four times the number of ``major'' regulations and
five times the cost of rules issued in the prior
administration's first three years.
In the past decade, the number of economically significant
rules in the pipeline--those that could cost $100 million or
more annually--has increased by more than 137 percent.
Over 40 EPA regulations cited by job creators as barriers
to growth and expansion in the Committee's February 2011
staff report remain a problem.
The Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
rule proposed in 2010 will cost job creators up to $15
billion in regulatory compliance costs. A similar ``Utility''
MACT rule would cost providers $9.6 billion annually and
result in the shutdown of 25 percent of U.S. power generating
units.
EPA's proposal to regulate coal combustion residuals
(``coal ash'') usurps states' previous role and exerts
unprecedented federal control over the utility industry. More
than half of the complaints received from business and
industry groups expressed concern last year, while half of
the complaints are new. Compliance costs range from $78-110
billion over the next 20 years while job loss estimates range
from 39,000, under a low estimate, to 316,000, under a high
estimate.
EPA's E15 ethanol rule ``places consumers and vehicle
manufacturers at significant risk'' but is proceeding despite
these concerns. EPA estimates industry compliance at $3.64
million per year but also notes that half of existing retail
outlets are incompatible with the fuel, and would need to
purchase and install new equipment.
Proposed fuel economy standards will increase the cost of
new vehicles by at least $4,000 per vehicle while delivering
less than half that amount in fuel savings and could result
in the loss of as many as 220,000 automotive jobs.
Tier 3 gasoline standards proposed by EPA would impose a
total economic cost of approximately $8 billion on the
industry and raise the cost of gasoline by six to nine cents
per gallon for consumers.
Rules attributed to the Dodd-Frank Act will grow from 36
implemented today to roughly 400 required under the act.
Rules governing ``conflict minerals'' such as gold, tin,
tantalum and tungsten will cost the industry $71 million per
year and impact as many as 5,000 companies. The National
Association of Manufacturers estimates true compliance costs
for the rule to be $9-16 billion.
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable survey notes
that those impacted by a proposed ``end user'' rule effecting
derivatives would have to sideline up to $6.7 billion in
working capital and cost 100,000 jobs.
The National Labor Relations Board's ``notice posting
rule'' promoting unionization in the workplace will cost
employers an estimated $386.4 million and in the words of one
industry organization, ``could set a disturbing precedent and
chill job creation.''
The Committee is publishing this staff report to tell the
American people directly what job creators say is the true
cost and impact of the Obama Administration's regulatory
agenda.
For additional information please visit: http://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/staff-Report-
FINAL.pdf.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. Madam Chair, I stand here today in strong support of
H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Creation Act,
which takes important steps and strides to provide our businesses and
our small businesses throughout this country with some certainty, the
certainty that they so desperately need.
[[Page H5232]]
Every time I'm home in my district, I hear from my constituents, my
small business owners. They want to know when is this deluge of
regulations out of Washington going to end. And that's what this bill
addresses today.
{time} 1550
It's such a harsh reminder that this administration's policies are
not working.
Rather than looking ahead, our small businesses and our job creators
are ducking and hiding behind the myriad, the deluge of mandates and
regulations that so restrict their growth. This uncertainty that these
regulations create is the enemy of growth, and it's why our economy
does not move forward, and it's why it is so stagnant.
This year, the Federal Register has reached nearly 42,000 pages with
regulations that cost our American businesses $56.6 billion and that
result in 114 million hours of paperwork. That's why our economy is not
growing. They cannot even deal with the deluge of regulations coming
out of Washington.
Why should an owner of a supermarket in upstate New York spend his
time dealing with the 15,000 pages of regulations from the Affordable
Care Act rather than paying attention to the inventory in his grocery
store?
Simply put, Madam Chair, Washington's attitude toward the private
sector is discouraging. It's time for Congress to reverse the trend and
to let America's job creators know that we stand beside them rather
than in front of them, blocking their progress and their growth.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.
All year, the House Republicans have brought extreme bills to this
floor to repeal commonsense safeguards. In fact, we have voted over 280
times this Congress to repeal or undermine landmark environmental laws
like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That's not what the
American people want.
The legislation we are debating today takes this assault to a new
level. It halts virtually all regulation until unemployment drops below
6 percent. I don't see it. We are going to have an unprecedented attack
on critical public health, safety and economic protections? We are
going to let the marketplace solve all problems?
This bill would undermine Medicare by preventing the issuance of
updated reimbursement rates and by denying hospitals and clinics
hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare payments--because these are
regulations as well. It would jeopardize the food supply by blocking
produce safety rules that would prevent contaminated food from showing
up on our local grocery store shelves. It would stop broadly supported
tailpipe rules for cars and trucks that will save consumers money,
slash pollution, and cut our dependence on oil. It would block rules to
ensure health care quality and raise the bar for provider performance.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation could
even delay incentive auctions of spectrum by the FCC. These auctions
would raise billions of dollars to build out the public safety
communications system. This is a clear example of how this bill will
kill jobs, not create them, and increase, not reduce, the deficit.
Madam Chair, a lot of regulations are important and a lot of
regulations create jobs, but we hear over and over again, Oh, we can't
burden the job creators with regulations. When we put regulations in
place, it's for a reason. There is a reason that we ought to let the
regulations go forward and not stop them all as this bill would do. The
reasons are to protect public health and safety. The reasons are to
have a Medicare system that is up to date. The reasons are to make sure
that our financial institutions have rules that apply to them and that
we don't let them make the decisions on their own. They may be job
creators, but they were job destroyers in 2008.
Republicans say they want to cut red tape, but this legislation does
not cut red tape. It makes the rest of the government just like the
House of Representatives--dysfunctional and unresponsive to the
Nation's pressing problems. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill. I urge the American people to watch carefully who votes for it.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, as a business owner, this is what I get when
I hear, The government is here to help us. Look at this red tape. Wow.
That's what a small business has to put up with just to create a
business. That's why I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape
Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act of 2012.
A recent report released from Gallup suggests that 46 percent of all
small business owners have put a freeze on new hiring because they are
worried about regulations and costs. Clearly, sensible solutions and
reforms are needed. This bill will allow small businesses to be free of
the burdensome yoke of government regulation. For far too long,
stifling bureaucracy and meddlesome mandates have stagnated job growth.
Red tape has tied the hands and the feet of employers and entrepreneurs
alike.
Look at the maze. These binds which constrict the free flow of labor
and capital will be cut by this bill, which simply states that any new
major Federal regulations costing over $100 million may not be
implemented until the unemployment rate falls to 6 percent. This will
save an estimated $22.1 billion.
Just as important, the upside down roller coaster that our small
businesses and entrepreneurs have been on for the past few years can
finally stop. Americans looking to start businesses, expand their
business facilities, or hire more workers can plan for the future and
put our economy back on a path to prosperity.
As a small business owner for 25 years, I am acutely aware of the way
in which restrictive regulations and rules can hold a business owner
hostage. Let's free the private sector from this captivity. I urge a
``yes'' vote on the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation
Act.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time both
sides have.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Issa, and
Members of the House.
I've read this bill. There is something about it that we really need
to understand, and that is that we just got through having a debate
about the Federal Reserve. One of the reasons the Fed should be audited
is that it is not fulfilling its responsibility for bringing about
employment in this country.
Now, this bill exempts the Federal Reserve. Think about it. We say we
want to bring unemployment down to 6 percent. The Fed, if you look at
the Board of Governors' report, has basically jettisoned the whole idea
about bringing unemployment down. Right now, they're establishing what
I would call a new threshold of 5 to 6 percent unemployment. So, if our
friends are successful with their bill, we won't have jobs, and we
won't have regulations either.
Hello? Read the report.
I mean, we ought to be investigating why has the Fed stepped back
from its job creation, and why are we exempting them from a bill in
which we are actually taking the pressure off them for job creation.
Now, look, we should be creating jobs. No question about it. I have a
bill, H.R. 2990, that puts the Fed under Treasury and that let's the
government spend money into circulation and create millions of jobs.
Put America back to work. Prime the pump of the economy, a full
employment economy. It goes way past Humphrey-Hawkins. Get America back
to work. America needs to get back to work.
If that's what my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying,
we're together on that. America has to get back to work--but we're
going to get back to work while having water that's not safe to drink?
air that's not safe to breathe? We're going to get back to work by
having products that you don't know your pets can consume?
[[Page H5233]]
Are we going to get back to work by having to worry about, when we go
to various salad bars, if it's something we can consume and whether or
not there are proper food inspections? Are we going to get America back
to work by not checking on airplane safety?
Is that how we get America back to work?
Come on. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, there are certain
regulations that are absolutely fundamental to running an organized
society. I understand wedge issues--this is a political climate--but
let's not mix up this mutual concern that we have about creating jobs
in this country by trying to score some points by saying, well, there
are regulations that are bad.
I'm sure there are regulations that don't work. I'm not somebody who
believes that government has the solution to everything. I know better
than that. I've been here for 16 years. I understand that much. Yet I
know one other thing, which is, when you take a broad approach in
trying to knock out regulations, you're looking for trouble. You're
going to create trouble. That's what this does. So I am urging a ``no''
vote, and I'll have more to say on an amendment that I have.
{time} 1600
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it's now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
Mr. GUINTA. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I add my voice to calling for the passage of H.R. 4078,
the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act.
One of the key provisions of this bill is title III, the Sunshine for
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Certain environmental advocacy
groups sue Federal agencies to issue regulations, and then agencies
settle these lawsuits behind closed doors, which is also known as ``sue
and settle.'' Only after a settlement has been agreed to does the
public have any chance to provide any comment. This is a pointless
exercise because the damage has already been done. More troubling,
these settlements often allow advocacy groups and agencies to
effectively dictate major policy on their own by circumventing the
protections that exist for public participation in a regulatory system.
This provision, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements
Act of 2012, promotes openness and transparency in the regulatory
process, and it does that by requiring agencies to notify the public of
these lawsuits before they're settled and giving the public meaningful
voice in the process.
As Chairman Issa knows from the field hearing he held on Great Bay in
my district in the State of New Hampshire, my constituents and small
businesses are facing this very issue. Communities, small businesses,
and New Hampshire families are facing massive tax increases because
outside organizations with political agendas are forcing the EPA into a
sue or settle situation, costing Granite Staters on the seacoast
hundreds of millions of dollars. This has been done behind closed doors
without the community being at the table as a full negotiating partner,
and this is wrong.
We all want the Great Bay to be clean and to be protected, but sue
and settle is not the way. In the end, the actions of a few politically
driven organizations are costing small businesses and hurting New
Hampshire families in an already difficult economy.
Chairman Issa, I want to thank you for coming to New Hampshire to
shed light on this problem. For these reasons, I urge all Members to
support this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Maryland has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to clear up something. It has been said that this would
affect matters that would likely have an annual cost to the economy of
over $100,000 or more, in other words, those that would be subject to
the bill. But the piece that is left out on page 8 of the bill--and
this is very crucial. It says:
Or if OMB determines--or adversely affect--that is,
legislation rules, proposed rules--that would adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, small entities or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities.
And, of course, the bill goes on to say that OMB may make a
determination, but if there is an entity that is agreed, they can
always go to court. It's not accurate to say that it's just limited to
those types of regulations that would affect the economy to the tune of
$100 million. It actually affects a whole lot more than that.
With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, hopefully the gentleman would note that the
language he just quoted is from the President's executive order. It's
not some sort of pocket information, but, in fact, something the
President of the United States felt was a reasonable set of language.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Farenthold).
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Chairman Issa.
Most Congressmen call their district staff workers caseworkers. I
call my district workers red tape cutters, because that's what they do.
Unfortunately, we have to have a job like that because government red
tape is so thick. A lot of what our caseworkers do is for veterans and
Social Security recipients, but they also help our small businesses.
When I'm back home, I hear time and time again from businesses about
how the government is getting in the way of creating jobs, and if we
would just tell them what to do and let them do it and quit changing
the rules midstream, they would do it. That's what this bill does, it
tells the government: Stop. Don't change the rules midstream until our
economy is back on track. It's a jobs bill, and it's an opportunity to
give our businesses the opportunity to get people hired.
This Congress has been tireless in our pursuit of creating jobs by
eliminating senseless and expensive government regulation. I'm
confident this bill will pass the House, and I hope it has better luck
than some of the other bills that we've passed, like the REINS Act,
that also deals with regulation, when it gets across the Capitol and to
the Senate.
We have got to get these bipartisan jobs bills passed and signed into
law. Americans know we have to cut the unemployment rate. To do that,
we're going to have to cut the red tape.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Hurt).
Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his
leadership on this issue.
I rise today in support of this legislation that will save this
country billions of dollars and create thousands of much-needed jobs.
Mr. Chairman, ``red tape'' is a word we hear all too often in
Washington, but when you get back to places like Danville, Virginia,
and talk with the people who are stuck in it, you gain a new
perspective on what Federal regulations mean to everyone outside of the
beltway.
As the Federal Government continues to grow in size and scope, our
Main Street businesses continue to struggle. The President tells us
that the private sector is doing just fine. The President tells us that
if you've got a business, you didn't build it. But the President has
not told us how he plans to help our small business owners grow and
create the jobs our local communities need.
Our Nation has faced over 8 percent unemployment for more than 3
years. We're being crushed under a rapidly accumulating $16 trillion
debt, and both of these things have everything to do with the policies
set forth in Washington that grow the Federal Government and strangle
our Main Street businesses.
Where others will not lead, the House will. That's why we remain
focused on adopting legislation like the bill we consider today,
legislation that will remove the Federal Government as a barrier to job
creation. This package of bills will lead us to responsible regulations
and ensure that the economic impacts of Federal regulations are
accounted for. Most importantly, it will
[[Page H5234]]
give our small business owners across central and south Virginia the
ability to hire and expand their businesses at a time when many are
closing their doors.
This legislation is the kind this country needs to turn the corner
from a struggling economy to the America that we have known for
generations, a country of limited government and unlimited opportunity.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to whether or not the
gentleman has other speakers?
Mr. ISSA. I am prepared to close.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in closing, that the debate
today proves that this bill is an extreme attack on the regulatory
system.
Republicans have put critical protections on the line by proposing to
shut down the regulatory process with a bill that was ill-conceived
from the start and that was cobbled together so quickly it is riddled
with flaws that render it unworkable.
I might also say that one of the things that I've said over and over
again, and I think the position has been--I know it's the position of
the President--that we must have balance with regard to regulations. I
think that Mr. Waxman and certainly Mr. Frank were absolutely right.
It's not a question of distrust. It's a question of making sure that we
have regulations in place to protect the safety and welfare of our
citizens, and we don't need to look too far.
When I look at my district and I see the many people who lost so much
because of what happened on Wall Street and what happened just recently
with regard to the banks, the fact is that regulation is needed. If any
committee has had evidence of it, it is our committee, Oversight and
Government Reform.
We've heard no evidence today that regulations kill jobs. We've heard
no evidence that regulations hurt our economy. We've heard countless
examples of how regulations can improve the health and safety of
Americans and save lives. It is so very important that we keep in mind
that balance that I talked about.
It's also important that we keep in mind what this President has
done. President Obama has made sure that he has taken a careful look at
those rules, those regulations that were unnecessary. He has put forth
less regulations than either former President Bush. He has slowed down
the process of approving regulations. I think, clearly, he is headed in
the right direction as to what I just said about a balanced approach.
{time} 1610
So I hope the American people understand that this legislation is not
advancing their interests. I repeatedly said that the majority is
forcing a false choice. We do not have to choose between creating jobs
and protecting the health and safety of American families. We can and
must do both. This legislation does neither, and I urge all our Members
to vote against it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I never thought I would hear former Chairman Waxman speak in terms of
how dysfunctional Congress is, how we just don't operate and can't be
trusted; but, clearly, I heard him say that today.
I still believe in the institution that all of us belong to. In
living up to our responsibility, Congress has the responsibility to
pass laws; and it has an absolute obligation to oversee the
administration of those laws. The executive branch, or administrative
branch, actually, only has the right to create regulations and
executive orders to support the laws that have been created.
For too long, we have abrogated our responsibility. Former Chairman
Waxman apparently would like to continue doing that, in what he said of
our low rating and essentially repeating it.
Until the unemployment rate reaches 6 percent, taking back just less
than 66 out of 3,000 regulations last year and making them accountable
either to fall into emergency requirements into specific categories of
essential harm or to come to Congress would seem to be a small task.
I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot and President
Bush was still in office and the Democrats were still in charge, that
this bill would look more favorable to them. But that's not what we
should be here deciding, who it favors or disfavors. When this bill
becomes law, it will, in fact, become law for the future for Democrats
and Republican Members alike.
The elimination of the ``midnight regulations'' that for so long have
been abused by Presidents of both parties, H.R. 4607 absolutely is long
overdue. President George W. Bush rushed excess amounts to close before
he left. President Obama will, undoubtedly, do the same. That's wrong.
It's simply wrong. And we know is. And we know that often, as this bill
says, these are regulations that aren't heard before the election and
are concluded in those 75 days before departure.
It's wrong. We know we need to stop it. We shouldn't abrogate our
responsibility. And the Members on the other side will suddenly decide,
I'm sure, this is a better idea, should Mitt Romney be elected in the
fall.
This bill is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, Associated
Builders & Contractors, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council,
and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
The fact is, this is about simply saying not that we're going to stop
3,000 regulations, but that we're going to slow and evaluate more
carefully the 66 largest of them by this administration last year.
During debate, the administration was essentially lauded for having
passed fewer regulations in numbers than President George W. Bush. I
checked that during debate. That's true. But that's because President
George W. Bush did regulatory changes to eliminate regulations, and
those scored. When you actually look at the cost of regulations under
this administration, the cost is dramatically higher.
I will share with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
cost is not just dollars and cents, that you have to look at all the
benefits. But for too long, we've had ``sue and settle.'' We've had the
ability for these determinations to be made without that due process of
looking at both sides.
So today, as we move this bill, I clearly appreciate the fact that
the men and women of my committee--the staff, the hardworking people
who never get seen in front of the camera, who, in fact, have worked
through 30 hearings, through countless interviews with job creators--
have made sure that the right things are in this bill for the right
reason.
I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the
national unemployment rate above 8 percent for over 40 months. The
President promised that his $800 billion spending bill would keep
unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, the spending bill only added to
the deficit, which has doubled under this administration.
More than 12 million Americans are out of work, 700,000 more than
when President Obama took office; and the median income of American
families has dropped too.
The President's economic policies have failed, and his regulatory
policies have made the economy worse. A recent Gallup poll found that
among the 85 percent of U.S. small businesses that are not hiring,
nearly half cited ``being worried about new government regulations'' as
the reason.
President Obama has turned America into a regulation Nation. A
Heritage Foundation study found that in his first 3 years in office,
President Obama implemented 106 major rules that imposed $46 billion in
additional annual regulatory costs on the private sector. That's a new
record.
The President promised in his 2011 State of the Union address to fix
``rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses,'' but he has gone
in the opposite direction. We need to encourage businesses to expand,
not tie them up with red tape.
[[Page H5235]]
Today, Congress continues to fight the constricting red tape that
comes from Washington by offering commonsense solutions that deserve
bipartisan support. And that's what we do today.
Members of the Judiciary Committee introduced three of the titles in
the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Mr.
Griffin's Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act gives small businesses a much-
needed break from new regulations that cost the economy $100 million or
more until the unemployment rate stabilizes at 6 percent.
The Freeze Act is narrowly tailored to stop unnecessary economically
significant regulations. It contains reasonable exceptions, such as
health and safety, criminal or civil rights laws, trade agreements, and
national security. The Freeze Act gives job creators confidence about
future regulatory conditions, which will encourage them to make the
investments that will jump-start our economy.
The RAPID Act, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross),
helps to create jobs as it streamlines the Federal environmental review
and permitting process. It draws upon established definitions and
concepts from existing regulations and even from the administration's
own recommendations.
Employers and investors can't move forward without necessary permits
and without confidence in the process. The RAPID Act establishes
reasonable, predictable deadlines for agencies to complete the permit
review process and for lawsuits to be filed afterwards.
The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, introduced
by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), ends the abuse of consent
decrees and settlements to require more regulations.
For many years, regulatory advocates and agencies have used consent
decrees and settlements to establish new rules in secrecy, outside the
regular rule-making procedures that provide for transparency and public
participation. The ``sue and settle'' approach has enabled agencies to
impose higher costs and avoid accountability since they can claim ``the
court made us do it.''
Mr. Quayle's legislation makes sure that the public and those
affected by regulations have a say in these decrees and settlements. It
also requires greater judicial scrutiny and helps to prevent an
outgoing administration from unfairly setting its successor's agenda
through consent decrees. These and all of the titles of the Red Tape
Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act provide needed relief to
small businesses.
Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. This
legislation frees up businesses to spend more, invest more, and produce
more in order to create more jobs for American workers. I urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1620
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Could I begin by asking the distinguished chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee this following inquiry: Is it not true that the
United States of America has less regulation than almost any other
industrialized country in the Western Hemisphere?
I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas to respond.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I have no idea whether we have more or fewer
regulations than other countries. I do know this: we have far more
regulations today than we had 3 years ago. And I also know that the
Obama administration has set a new record in the number of expensive,
unnecessary regulations that it has suggested and implemented.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, the gentleman is welcome. His answer is no, he
doesn't know. And I'm going to, in the course of this debate, try to
share with him the fact that other industrialized nations have far more
regulations than us, just to put things into some kind of relative
proportion.
Members of the House of Representatives, Joseph Stiglitz has talked
about the subject of regulation. Here is something that he had to say
about it that I think will set us in the right frame of mind to examine
dispassionately the principle that is under examination this afternoon.
He said this:
The subject of regulation has been one of the most
contentious, with critics arguing that regulations interfere
with the efficiency of the market, and advocates arguing that
well-designed regulation not only makes markets more
efficient, but also helps to ensure the market outcome is
more equitable. Interestingly, as the economy plunges into a
slowdown, if not a recession, with more than 2 million
Americans expected to lose their homes, there is a growing
consensus there was a need for more government regulation. If
it is the case that better regulations could have prevented
or even mitigated the downturn, the country and the world
will be paying a heavy price for the failure to regulate
adequately, and the social costs are no less grave, as
hundreds of thousands of Americans will not only have lost
their homes, but their lifetime savings as well.
And so the measure before us, H.R. 4078, by stopping or delaying
rules from going into effect, seriously jeopardizes the safety and the
soundness of our Nation's economy and our society generally.
Another fundamental problem with this proposal is that it myopically
focuses on the cost of regulations while largely ignoring their
overwhelming benefits. So this measure, with its misleadingly short
title, will not result in creating jobs for one simple reason: there is
no credible evidence establishing that regulations have any substantive
impact on job creation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee and the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative
Law Subcommittee.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman from
Texas for having yielded, and I rise in support of H.R. 4078.
I have the honor and privilege of serving as the chairman of the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law,
which among other things has jurisdiction over the Administrative
Procedures Act. Our subcommittee has spent an enormous amount of time
and energy reviewing proposals to refine the manner in which our
Federal Government formulates and implements regulations. I have
encountered two philosophies on improving our regulatory system. One
philosophy is we routinely review and improve regulations, while others
advocate that the Federal Government should issue yet more regulations.
It appears to me that the Obama administration has embraced the
latter philosophy because red tape has been flying fast and furious
during his tenure. His administration has proposed regulations that are
expected to exceed $100 million at the rate of 125 every 2 years.
Currently, there are 24 major rules in the pipeline for review by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The results have been
telling. During the first 26 months of the Obama administration, our
Federal Government has added $40 billion of annual regulatory cost to
our economy, and this year the Federal Register already exceeds 40,000
pages.
In the transportation arena, new DOT passenger protection regulations
are estimated by the American Aviation Institute to cost $1.7 billion
annually. In total, there are 10 new Federal aviation regulations that
will cost $4 billion annually. Although they will produce no
significant benefit to the traveling public, they certainly and
inevitably will be passed along in the form of fees, reduced services,
or increased prices.
Since 2008, the combined budget of regulatory agencies has ballooned
16 percent, topping $54 billion. During the same time, employment at
the agencies grew 13 percent while our economy only grew by 5 percent
and the number of private sector jobs shrunk by 5.6 percent.
The scene is ominous, and I think it reflects what has happened to
our economy, but I also do not believe that the situation is hopeless.
The need for regulatory reform has been emulated by every
administration since President Ronald Reagan, but efforts have not been
successful. Enacting H.R. 4078 will be a step in the right direction.
Several titles of this legislation which were approved by the
Judiciary Committee will implement immediate relief.
[[Page H5236]]
The original provisions of H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze Act,
could reportedly save our economy $22.1 billion and save thousands of
jobs without jeopardizing our safety.
H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,
will end the practice of special interests using consent decrees to
bypass the regulatory process and imposing their will and priorities on
affected communities.
H.R. 4377, the RAPID Act, will help end the permitting logjam that
has stifled development investment without diminishing a single
environmental standard or protection.
Regulations that are narrowly tailored, effective, and routinely
reviewed can make our society safer and our economy stronger, but when
they are ineffective or inefficient, our security is jeopardized, and
so is our economy.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I direct an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) to ask him if he is aware of the fact that the
Obama administration has accomplished and accumulated net benefits of
regulations in the last 3 fiscal years that exceed $91 billion?
{time} 1630
This comes from the Office of Management and Budget, and it's more
than 25 times the net benefits of regulations issued by the Bush
administration for a comparable period of time.
I would yield to the distinguished gentleman for a response.
Mr. COBLE. No, I was not aware of that. But job creators need some
certainty about the regulatory forecast to make the kind of investments
that will create jobs. The Freeze Act is carefully drafted to only
freeze those regulations that cost the economy $100 million or more.
Thus, a regulation that has $100 million in benefits would not be
frozen by the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Are you telling me that the freeze will be helpful to
creating jobs? Are you telling me in response to my question that the
freeze will be helpful to create jobs?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. COBLE. Yes, I am telling you that.
Mr. CONYERS. But do you accept the Office of Management and Budget's
findings that the benefits of regulations by the current administration
in the last 3 fiscal years exceeded $91 billion?
Mr. COBLE. Well, I don't know that, but if you will permit me, I will
yield to the chairman for that.
Mr. CONYERS. You may not. You're not able to yield because I yielded
to you. So you don't know?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would yield to me, I would be
happy to try to respond.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, I just wanted to ask the gentleman. I didn't mean
to make this as prolonged as it has become, but I don't think his
response of a freeze was an adequate response to my question.
Mr. COBLE. I was not aware of the questions you put to me. I can
neither embrace nor reject that.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his attempted response.
I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from upstate
New York, Ms. Kathy Hochul, who serves with great distinction on the
Armed Services Committee.
Ms. HOCHUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
On February 12, 2009, Flight 3407 crashed into a house in my
district, killing all the passengers and an individual in his home. Out
of that devastation arose a spirit that actually united this Congress
in enacting flight safety and pilot training rules that would have
prevented the crash. The families never gave up, coming to talk to
Members of Congress over 50 times over 3 years, and they are eagerly
awaiting the final implementation of potentially lifesaving rules. It
sounds like a happy ending, doesn't it?
Yet, this week, because the House Rules Committee refused to allow my
amendment to protect those specific rules, we are at risk of losing all
those hard-fought, bipartisan safety reforms. With the so-called
Regulatory Freeze Act, these reforms would simply die. So those who
voted for them in the past are now calling them job killing? Well, I
call them people saving.
Listen, I know we need to end overburdensome regulations, and I voted
against many of them, the ones that hurt our farmers and small
businesses. I hear about that in upstate New York. But there's a
commonsense way to do it. But to freeze all government regulations, all
of them, regardless of the health and safety of our citizens is over
the top, even for this town.
Flight safety rules are just one example. The bill would also block
benefits for disabled and homeless veterans, it would hurt seniors, and
it would eliminate rules that ensured taxpayer dollars are used for
goods made in America. This only proves that Washington is broken and
we need to fix it.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this senseless regulation and
this rule.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to
respond to a question that the gentleman from Michigan posed a few
minutes ago.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to include for the Record an article from
earlier this year that appeared in The Economist magazine. This is a
magazine that is one of the oldest, most respected sources of news and
analysis, and it is favorably disposed toward the Obama administration.
But it published an article detailing how the Obama administration
systematically manipulates the cost-benefit analysis in agency
rulemaking.
This manipulation deliberately inflates benefits and minimizes the
cost, the article says. The Economist goes so far as to call the
administration's cost-benefit analysis ``highly suspect'' and ``subject
to the whims of the people in power.''
[From the Economist, Feb. 18, 2012]
Measuring the Impact of Regulation
The rule of more--Rule-making is being made to look more beneficial
under Barack Obama
Washington, DC: In December Barack Obama trumpeted a new
standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule,
he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths,
heart attacks and asthma cases. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up to $90
billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr.
Obama took a swipe at past administrations for not
implementing this ``common-sense, cost-effective standard''.
A casual listener would have assumed that all these
benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury
explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths,
heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary
benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from
concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the
principal target of the rule: namely, fine particles.
The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem
arcane, but matters a lot. When businesses complain that Mr.
Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers
respond that those costs are more than justified by even
higher benefits. His Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out of the
federal apparatus, reckons the ``net benefit'' of the rules
passed in 2009-10 is greater than in the first two years of
the administrations of either George Bush junior or Bill
Clinton.
But those calculations have been criticised for resting on
assumptions that yield higher benefits and lower costs. One
of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary
benefits, or ``co-benefits'', such as reductions in fine
particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury.
Mr. Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been
included in regulatory cost-benefit analysis. The logic is
sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to
save money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get
more exercise. Both sorts of benefit should be counted.
The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-
benefits play in assessing Mr. Obama's rule-making. Fully
two-thirds of the benefits of economically significant final
rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to reductions in
fine particles brought about by regulations that were
actually aimed at something else, according to Susan Dudley
of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under
George Bush (see chart). That is double the share of co-
benefits reported in Mr. Bush's last year in office in 2008.
If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it would
surely be more transparent and efficient to target them
directly. As it happens, federal standards for fine-particle
concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely claims
additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well
below levels the current law considers safe. That is dubious:
a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of
such low concentrations.
Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is
its heavy reliance on ``private benefits''. Economists
typically justify regulation when private market
participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity,
generate costs--such as pollution--
[[Page H5237]]
that the rest of society has to bear. But fuel and energy-
efficiency regulations are now being justified not by such
social benefits, but by private benefits like reduced
spending on fuel and electricity.
Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit
analysis but Ms. Dudley's data show that, like co-benefits,
their importance has grown dramatically under Mr. Obama. Ted
Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes that private
benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and shorter
refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in
lifetime benefits claimed for last year's new fuel-economy
standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for
92% and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency
standards for washing machines and refrigerators
respectively.
The values placed on such private benefits are highly
suspect. If consumers were really better off with more
efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a
prod from government. The fact that they don't means they put
little value on money saved in the future, or simply prefer
other features more. Mr. Obama's OIRA notes that a growing
body of research argues that consumers don't always make
rational choices; Mr. Gayer counters that regulators do not
make appropriate use of that research in their calculations.
Under Mr. Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance
the benefits of rules but also reduce the costs. John Graham
of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr. Bush, cites the
new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that
electric cars have no carbon emissions, although the
electricity they use probably came from coal. They also
assume less of a ``rebound effect''--the tendency of people
to drive more when their cars get better mileage--than was
the case under Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the
opposite bias: understating benefits and overstating costs.
At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to
reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had
fewer years left to live; it eventually backed down. Mr.
Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the
risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more
horrifying way to die than others.
More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such
controversies. Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a
liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done
through the creation of a non-partisan congressional
oversight body using the best evidence available to vet
regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets
fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to
see if the original analysis behind them was still valid.
Rule-making would still require judgment, but it would be
less subject to the whims of the people in power.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Griffin), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of the
legislation we consider today.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to
say that the idea that this bill will stop good, reasonable,
commonsense, and much-needed regulations is nonsense. It simply
requires Congress to have a role. And after all, Congress is the body
that authorizes laws and regulations in the first place. That just
makes sense. The complications that so many complain about, I call
checks and balances.
I rise in support of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small
Business Job Creation Act. This bill would freeze significant
regulations, those costing the economy $100 million or more, until
nationwide unemployment falls to 6 percent or below.
Many of my friends on the other side say there's no connection
between excessive and overly burdensome regulation and job creation.
They must have been asking their favorite economist and not talking to
actual job creators. Even President Obama disagrees.
In a January 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, President Obama wrote:
Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing
unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled
innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.
He has at least given lip service to the problem.
Small businesses like Razor Chemical, a manufacturer of
environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in North Little Rock,
Arkansas, bear the brunt of regulatory compliance costs. According to
the government's Small Business Administration, complying with current
Federal regulations already costs at least $1.75 trillion every year,
adding more than $10,000 in overhead per small business employee--which
is 30 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing large firms.
Half of all private sector employees in the United States are
employed by a small business job creator--exactly the type of folks who
are getting hammered by the Obama administration's aggressive
regulatory agenda. In its first 3 years, the Obama administration
created 120 new major regulations, costing Americans more than $46
billion each year. That's more than four times the number and five
times the cost of major regulations created by the Bush administration
in its first 3 years.
As the lead sponsor of this bill, I made sure it carefully targets
the most harmful regulations while making exceptions for Federal rules
necessary for national security, trade agreements, enforcement of
criminal and civil rights laws, and imminent threats to health or
safety.
It also includes a provision allowing the President to seek
congressional approval for other regulations that he thinks are
absolutely critical. And, in fact, with that waiver, you can pretty
much pass any regulation as long as Congress agrees.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama admitted,
``There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary
or too costly.''
If there's no question about the problem, he should embrace the
House's solution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume to ask the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Tim Griffin of Arkansas, if he is aware that the President, as he's
correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle but that
he opposes very strongly H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act
of 2012?
I would yield to the gentleman for a response.
{time} 1640
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Well, I thank the gentleman.
First of all, I don't know anyone who's antiregulation. It's the
excessive and overly burdensome regulations that are the problems.
I have a 2-year-old baby, John, and a 4-year-old, Mary Katherine. I
want clean air and clean water for them.
I understand the need for reasonable, commonsense regulations, but
that's not what we're talking about here, with all due respect.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, if I could interrupt the gentleman, this is not
about what your opinion is or mine. I'm asking you about the
President's opinion.
The President, as you quite accurately said, is supportive of
regulation, but he is specifically opposed to this regulation, and I
would like to quote to you exactly what he said about H.R. 4078:
The bill would undermine critical public health and safety
protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in
agency decisionmaking, and interfere with agency performance
of statutory mandates.
Now, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Miller), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the astronomical
estimates we hear on the cost of regulation assume that no business
would ever do anything that any regulation requires unless there was a
regulation requiring them to do it.
The truth is that most businesses really want to do the right thing.
Most businesses try to have a safe workplace. Most businesses try not
to pollute the air and pollute the water and release toxic chemicals
that are going to affect public health. Most businesses want to have
safe products. They don't want to produce baby formulas that are going
to hurt infants. Those folks do the right things.
The other folks who don't want to do that and would save a little bit
of money by not doing anything that common decency requires, in
addition to regulations, they hire lobbyists and they make campaign
contributions. Those are the folks that we need regulations for.
Mr. Chairman, most Americans don't know what this bill really does.
They don't know what a ``freeze on significant regulations'' really
means without a long explanation, and a reporter who's trying to get
air time to talk about this bill or print space is not going to have
much luck. This bill is just too in the weeds, and Republicans
obviously think that there is public safety in the weeds.
If Republicans were to try to bring a bill to the floor that openly
repealed
[[Page H5238]]
the Wall Street Reform Act, the Clean Water Act, the Food and Safety
Act, and on and on, that bill would get some attention. This bill does
much the same thing as repealing those acts but without being honest
about it. They would have to explain themselves to their constituents
if they just up and repealed those laws. Instead, Republicans are
speaking in political gobbledygook. They don't tell folks what this
bill is really doing. It's like adults who spell out words so their
children won't know what they're talking about. Their constituents,
Republicans hope, will not know what ``red tape reduction'' means,
really. It sounds good, but the effect is to undo all of the
protections that we depend upon from our government.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and
a sponsor of the RAPID Act, which is a part of this legislation.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, our country is in the midst of the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Much of the blame
lies here in Washington where living beyond our means and micromanaging
the economy is, to quote some in this town, ``just the way Washington
works.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, Washington doesn't work. Any business that has
tried to break ground and build something knows what I'm talking about:
dozens of Federal agencies representing varied interests competing
against each other while special interest groups wait in the wings to
hold projects hostage for ransom.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to sum up what our permitting process should
be.
Our Federal permitting and review processes must provide a
transparent, consistent, and predictable path for both
project sponsors and affected communities. They must ensure
that agencies set and adhere to timelines and schedules for
completion of reviews, set clear permitting performance
goals, and track progress against those goals. They must
encourage early collaboration among agencies, project
sponsors, and affected stakeholders in order to incorporate
and address their interests and minimize delays.
What I just read is verbatim from a March 2012 executive order by
President Barack Obama, and I agree with the President 100 percent.
Mr. Chairman, we achieve these goals of the President in H.R. 4078,
and it could not come soon enough for those looking for work. A March
2011 study conducted by the United States Chamber of Commerce
identified some 351 projects that are being stymied by the current
regulatory review process; 1.9 million jobs are on hold, $1.1 trillion
economic impact to this country.
These jobs are not CEOs or jet-setters. These jobs are miners.
They're machinists. They're blue collar workers. I know because I've
watched this happen in my community where 200 jobs were lost because,
after 7 years and 14 Federal, State, and local agencies went through a
permitting process, a company then, 1 month later, was shut down in
their project because some environmental group went to a very lenient
judge and shut them down, moms and dads wondering where their mortgage
payment and supper would come from. They wondered why an environmental
activist group--that I can tell you does not represent the interest of
my district--could put them out of work.
Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, these projects are halted because
businesses that will invest billions in a project cannot do so without
some idea of certainty.
Some say this legislation will allow corporations to harm our clean
air and clean water. I say to that: Nonsense. This part of my
legislation merely says that all parties, from environmental groups to
government agencies, must be at the table sharing concerns and offering
remedies from the start. It says that the process has a time limit and
that government must meet those time limits. It says that, if you don't
get in at the beginning, you can't come in after years of hard work and
remediation and use a sympathetic judge to shut it down.
This is not an academic exercise either. This same process was used
in 2005 when the House voted 412-8 to impose the SAFETEA-LU program,
which provided the same detailed streamlining procedures that have now
reduced the permitting process under NEPA in transportation highway
construction from 73 months to 37 months.
Mr. Chairman, the process is broken. This legislation presents
solutions that are eminently sensible and immediately effective. For
these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and give
millions of our fellow citizens a hope for a better future.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'd just like the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) to
know that later on I'm going to introduce over 60 outstanding leaders,
economists, and organizational heads that take a completely different
view from the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I'd like him to
examine those documents.
I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee from California, George
Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is nothing more than a cynical
attempt to put the profits of well-connected special interests above
the interests of working families and middle class Americans. But this
is nothing new. In this House, ideology prevails over bipartisanship,
the powerful over the middle class families, politics over job
creation, and brinksmanship over cooperation.
Congress has paid the price in its approval ratings, but low approval
ratings do not compare to the damage that this sort of politics
inflicts upon the American people and our economy. Indeed, our Nation's
working families are paying the price.
There was a chance for the House to put working people first by
allowing the full debate and vote on a number of amendments filed by
Democrats that would have put people first. Unfortunately, the House
Republican leadership blocked many of these amendments from being
considered for this legislation.
One amendment would have ensured that ``Buy America'' provisions
could be implemented. Another amendment would have facilitated job
protection and family leave for military families.
{time} 1650
Another would have insured that Federal contractors recruit and
employ veterans.
Another amendment would have allowed health and safety officials to
continue their efforts to better protect the Nation's miners from black
lung disease. The facts are indisputable. Black lung is on the rise
again, and some mine operators are exploiting loopholes and obsolete
rules to evade compliance. The present system is badly broken, and the
improvements are desperately needed.
It's time to move forward with modern protections based upon years of
careful scientific study. Blocking efforts by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration to modernize miner protections will only cost the
lives, careers, and family income of those who go underground every day
to provide the energy that this country needs.
Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the lives and the well-being of working
people in serious peril. It threatens the effort to protect American
jobs. It's not what the American people sent us here to do.
It is well past time to put these transparently political efforts
behind us and work together to re-energize the economy, to grow and to
strengthen the middle class. And I urge my colleagues to vote against
this very special interest bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the
sponsor of the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,
which is a part of this legislation.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Red Tape Reduction
and Small Business Jobs Creation Act.
Now, time and time again, when I talk to small business owners in my
district, they say that the number one challenge holding them back from
expanding their business and hiring more workers is uncertainty in
regulation and taxation.
The current pro-regulatory administration has issued nearly four
times the number of regulations as the previous administration. The
administration's own numbers show that U.S.
[[Page H5239]]
businesses spent over 8.8 billion hours complying with Federal
paperwork requirements. To put this into perspective, this is equal to
1 million years of filling out government paperwork.
Mr. Chairman, one of these costly regulations that the EPA is
currently imposing is the Regional Haze Rule that could close down
power plants across the country, all for aesthetics. This regulation
affects the Navajo generating station in Arizona, which could cost $1.1
billion in initial compliance costs, hundreds of Arizona jobs, and cost
$90 million a year, increasing the cost of electricity and water across
the State of Arizona.
And what does $90 million a year get us?
Well, according to the administration's own study, they found
inconclusive evidence that these regulations would improve visibility
at all.
Across the country, pro-regulatory environment groups are suing the
EPA and forcing these haze requirements through settlement and consent
decrees. In my home State of Arizona, the EPA entered into a consent
decree with nine environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and
the Environmental Defense Fund, which will affect the emission control
technology at coal-fired power plants throughout the State.
Regulations have costly and job-killing implications, and it is
important that the rulemaking process is not written behind closed
doors by activist groups and regulatory agencies.
I am pleased that a bill that I have sponsored is included in this
package, H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements
Act. This legislation provides transparency to these sue-and-settle
agreements and consent decrees, which are used by activist groups to
dictate regulations behind closed doors, and often contrary to
congressional intent, if an agency misses a statutory deadline.
My bill ensures that interested parties will have an opportunity to
provide comments and requires courts to consider the impact on States
and tribes. Additionally, my bill makes it easier for future
administrations to modify consent decrees as circumstances and facts
dictate.
This legislation is increasingly necessary as more statutory
deadlines slip due to the large number of rulemakings that were
mandated during the previous Congress, notably in ObamaCare and Dodd-
Frank.
I urge my colleagues to support this pro-growth bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business
Committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived measure which will do
nothing to promote small business growth. Small businesses everywhere
need help. They require affordable credit and greater demand for their
services. Yet today we are focused on legislation that does nothing to
address these challenges and, instead, pushes an extreme agenda.
Despite what some assert, regulation is not among entrepreneurs' top
concerns. In fact, surveys note that 85 percent of small business
owners believe regulation is necessary. And I have with me a survey
that was conducted last February by the American Sustainable Business
Council, and I will enter this survey into the Record.
Opinion Polling: The Economic State of Small Business
[Feb. 2012]
(By the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance,
and Small Business Majority)
Summary
In January and February 2012, the American Sustainable
Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business
Majority released polling that asked small employers across
the country about key issues impacting the small business
community. These included access to credit; proposals in the
American Jobs Act to boost the economy; regulations; taxes;
and money in politics. Respondents were politically diverse:
50% identified as Republican, 32% as Democrat and 15% as
independent.
The poll found nine in 10 small business owners have a
negative view of the role money plays in politics. The
results showed 90% of small business owners see the
availability of credit as a problem for small business and
they strongly favor increasing the lending authority of
community banks and credit unions. We also learned that
entrepreneurs support current proposals being debated in
Congress that aim to boost the economy and create jobs,
particularly investments in infrastructure.
The polling revealed that consumer demand--not regulation--
is small business owners' greatest concern. In fact, 86% see
regulation as a necessary part of a modern economy and three-
quarters believe it is necessary to level the playing field
between small and large businesses. Lastly, 90% of small
business owners believe large corporations use loopholes to
avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay, and three-
quarters say their own business suffers because of it.
Below are the extended main findings of the poll.
Methodology
The poll reflects an Internet survey of 500 small business
owners across the country, conducted by Lake Research. It has
a margin of error of +/-4.4%. The survey was conducted
between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. Researchers
used a random sample of small business owners obtained from
Harris Interactive, with additional samples from InfoUSA.
Money in Politics
Polling results that revealed small business owners'
attitudes toward money in politics and the Citizens United
decision were released on Jan. 18.
Small business owners view the Citizens United decision as
bad for small business: 66% of those surveyed said the two-
year-old ruling that gives corporations unlimited spending
power in elections is bad for small businesses. Only 9% said
it was good for small business.
Small business owners have a negative view of the role
money plays in politics overall: 88% of respondents view the
role money plays in politics negatively; 68% view it very
negatively.
Access to Credit and Proposals to Boost the Economy
Poll results that revealed small business owners' attitudes
toward credit availability were released on Jan. 26, 2012 in
conjunction with results showing their views on proposals in
the American Jobs Act.
Small business owners say access to credit is a problem:
90% of respondents agree the availability of small business
loans is a problem, and 60% have faced difficulty themselves
when trying to obtain loans that would grow their businesses.
Small business owners agree it is harder now to obtain
loans: 61% of respondents say it is harder now than it was
four years ago to get a loan.
Small business owners support making it easier for
community banks and credit unions to lend more: 90% of owners
support making it easier for community banks and credit
unions to lend to small businesses, and more than three-
quarters, or 77%, support creating incentives for community
banks to lend more. By more than a 2:1 ratio, respondents
support increasing credit unions' lending cap from 12.25% to
27.5% of a credit union's assets.
Support for reforming and regulating credit cards is
extremely high among small business owners: 82% support
tighter credit card regulations, such as clearer disclosure
of terms and caps on interest rates, including 47% who
strongly support these regulations; 52% of entrepreneurs have
used credit cards to help finance their own business.
Respondents favor reducing collateral requirements: 60% of
small business owners support reducing collateral
requirements so loans can become more accessible.
The housing and mortgage crisis has harmed consumer demand
for small businesses: Almost three-quarters of small business
owners, or 73%, feel their business has been hurt by a drop
in consumer demand stemming from the housing and mortgage
meltdown.
Small business owners believe reducing the principal on
underwater mortgages will boost spending: 57% of respondents
agree reducing the principal on underwater mortgages to the
current market value would boost consumer spending, helping
small businesses regain their vigor through increased
profits.
Small business owners strongly support investment in
infrastructure: 69% favor investing $50 billion in
infrastructure projects that would create jobs.
Entrepreneurs favor creating a nationwide wireless network:
59% of those surveyed are in support of creating this kind of
network and expanding access to high-speed wireless services.
Regulations
Polling results that revealed small business owners'
attitudes toward government regulations were released on Feb.
1, 2012.
Weak demand is small business owners' biggest problem: 34%
of respondents said weak demand is their biggest problem,
while 15% cited the cost of health coverage and other
benefits. Only 14% said it is the level of government
regulation. The level of taxes came in fourth place with 12%
and competition with larger companies garnered 10%.
Small business owners believe eliminating incentives to
move jobs overseas would do the most to create jobs: 24% of
small business owners said eliminating incentives for
employers to move jobs overseas would do the most to create
jobs, and 14% called for tax cuts. Thirteen percent of
respondents said increasing consumer purchasing would be the
biggest job creator and 12% believe
[[Page H5240]]
jobs lie in improving infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Only 10% of respondents said reducing regulation would do the
most to create jobs.
Small business owners see regulations as a necessary part
of a modern economy and believe they can live with them if
they're fair and reasonable: 86% of small business owners
agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern
economy, and 93% of them agree their business can live with
some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable.
Small businesses believe some regulations are needed to
level the playing field with big business and that
enforcement should be just as tough on large corporations as
it is on small businesses: 78% of respondents said some
regulations are important to protect small businesses from
unfair competition and to level the playing field with big
businesses. Additionally, 95% believe the enforcement of
regulations should be at least as tough on large corporations
as it is on small businesses. Another 76% of respondents
believe regulations on the books should be enforced.
Respondents feel strongly that specific regulations play an
important role: 78% believe policies are needed to hold
health insurance companies accountable so they don't increase
insurance rates by excessive amounts; 84% support policies
that ensure food safety for businesses and customers that buy
or sell food products and 80% support disclosure and
regulation of toxic materials.
Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79% of
small business owners support having clean air and water in
their community in order to keep their family, employees and
customers healthy, and 61% support standards that move the
country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.
Small business owners believe in streamlining the process
for regulatory compliance and documentation: 73% of
respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic
filing of government paperwork.
Taxes
Polling results that revealed small business owners'
attitudes toward taxes were released on Feb. 6.
Small business owners overwhelmingly believe big
corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small
businesses have to pay: a sweeping 90% believe this to be
true; 92% say big corporations' use of such loopholes is a
problem.
Nine out of 10 small business owners say U.S. multinational
corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S.
profits to offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem:
91% of respondents agreed it is a problem, with 55% saying it
is a very serious problem.
Majority of small business owners say their business is
harmed when big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes:
Three-quarters of respondents agree that their small business
is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid
taxes. More than one-third say it harms their business a lot.
Small business owners say big corporations are not paying
their fair share of taxes: 67% believe big corporations pay
less than their fair share of taxes. An even bigger majority,
73%, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair
share.
Small business owners say households making more than $1
million a year pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58%
of owners say households whose annual income exceeds $1
million pay less than their fair share.
Small business owners support a higher tax rate for
individuals earning more than $1 million a year: 57% of
respondents agree that individuals earning more than $1
million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income
over $1 million. Only one small business owner out of 500
polled reported their annual household income to be more than
$1 million.
Four out of five small business owners disapprove of the
``carried interest'' loophole that gives hedge fund managers
a big break on their taxes: 81% of small business owners
favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income
tax rate, with a top bracket rate currently set at 35%,
rather than the 15% capital gains rate--with 61% strongly
supporting this change.
A majority of small business owners believe Congress should
let tax cuts expire on taxable household income exceeding
$250,000 a year: 51% of respondents believe Congress should
let tax cuts on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a
year expire (40% said they should be extended).
About the Organizations
American Sustainable Business Council
The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of
business organizations representing over 100,000 companies
and 200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for public
policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global
economy including strategic investments in workforce and
infrastructure; standards and safeguards that promote
innovation, prevent abuse and protect critical resources; and
a new sustainable economic model that fosters a growing,
economically-secure middle class. www.asbcouncil.org
Main Street Alliance
The Main Street Alliance is a national network of small
business coalitions. MSA creates opportunities for small
business owners to speak for themselves to advance public
policies that benefit business owners, their employees, and
the communities they serve. Making health reform work for
small businesses is a top priority of the MSA network and its
state coalitions. www.Mainstreetalliance.org
Small Business Majority
Small Business Majority is a national nonpartisan small
business advocacy organization, founded and run by small
business owners, and focused on solving the biggest problems
facing America's 28 million small businesses. We conduct
extensive opinion and economic research and work with small
business owners, policy experts and elected officials
nationwide to bring small business voices to the public
policy table. www.smallbusinessinajority.org
This survey says that eight out of 10 think regulations have a role
to play in leveling the playing field between small businesses and
larger competitors that seek an unfair advantage.
Even surveys by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Federation of Independent Businesses, who, themselves are vehemently
against regulation, they find that small businesses rank economic
uncertainty and poor sales, respectively, as the most important
concerns, not regulation.
There are a number of proposals that this House could pass to
generate demand for small company services and empower them to hire.
Tax credits for new employees, expanding payroll tax cuts, and
extending tax cuts for working families all come to mind.
Let's reject this legislation and move on to a real small business
jobs act.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority
leader.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of legislation before us that will
cut red tape and spur small business job creation. Small businesses
create the majority of new jobs in this country; but over the last 3
years, there's been a 23 percent decline in new business start-ups.
The President says he wants to help grow small businesses; but,
frankly, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. Recently, the
President attacked hard-earned success, telling small businessmen and -
women and entrepreneurs that if you've got a business, you didn't build
it. Well, it's pretty clear that the President doesn't get it.
Since the President took office, his administration has had under
review more than 400 regulations that cost the economy $100 million;
and small businesses are facing annual regulatory costs that add up to
$10,000 per employee.
If you're a small business owner, this is just part of the maze of
the regulatory red tape you're facing today. And where do we get the
information for this chart? From President Obama's administration's own
Web sites at SBA and the IRS.
The president of a trucking company in Ashland, Virginia, in my
district, says that constant regulatory changes by the EPA have caused
the prices for his operation to go up. These rising costs have,
frankly, made it more difficult for him to plan for the future,
difficult for him to operate in the present and, frankly, have just
made it plain too hard.
We are voting today on cuts to red tape so we can empower small
business owners like the one in Ashland to start growing again. Our
legislation freezes costly new regulations until national unemployment
drops to 6 percent or lower.
Further, we give small businesses the ability to intervene before
government agencies agree to legal settlements that result in more
onerous regulation.
{time} 1700
The bill also increases the transparency for Federal agencies that
have been operating outside the purview of regulatory review, such as
the Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board.
Mr. Chairman, we know that, just this year, thousands of pages of red
tape have been published, imposing billions in new compliance costs on
businesses. Under this bill, we will require all agencies to perform
the thorough cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations. In other
words, agencies must finally ask the question of whether and how their
proposed actions will affect job creation and our economy. Federal
regulation must become smarter and less harmful to our economy.
Mr. Chairman, we know small businesses are built because of the men
and
[[Page H5241]]
women who take risks, work hard, and invest capital in new ideas.
Because it's just too hard for these small business owners to operate,
we've brought this bill forward, and that is why I urge my colleagues
to support the passage of this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to just remark on the words of the distinguished speaker
on the Republican side by saying that another Republican has a
completely different point of view, who was the former chairman of the
House Committee on Science, and was so for over 5 years. He is Sherwood
Boehlert, and many of us remember him fondly.
He says that it would be ``difficult to exaggerate the sweep and
destructiveness of the House bill.'' He is referring to H.R. 4078.
The legislation might as well just directly order the
agencies that were created to protect the public to close up
shop.
Then he goes on to say:
There is no indication that this bill would aid job growth.
Indeed, by blocking rules needed to make the economy run more
smoothly, the bill could harm our economic prospects for
years to come.
So I present to you a point of view of the Republican leader of the
House of Representatives, a distinguished Republican and former
chairman of the Committee on Science in 2001 and 2006.
I now yield such time as she may desire to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. To the distinguished ranking member and my good friend,
thank you for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am very troubled about this bill. Instead of
considering legislation that would create jobs and stimulate economic
growth, the House is going to take up and vote on a bill that does the
exact opposite. In fact, it has the enormous potential of delaying the
implementation of new spectrum and public safety law.
Now, I don't know if you vetted your own effort, so to speak, but it
was not all that long ago--it was earlier this year--that Congress
passed and the President signed into law landmark legislation that
implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. The legislation
also made more spectrum available for mobile broadband services. This
was the last recommendation that the 9/11 Commission had made.
Congress finally made good on that recommendation, which was to
establish a nationwide interoperable public safety network. Why?
Because on that fateful day in New York, when police and fire went into
those Twin Towers, their communications systems did not allow them to
communicate with each other, to talk to each other. We finally, on a
bipartisan basis, resolved that.
Also, at the time of the passage of that legislation, Mr. Chairman,
we all praised it. We described the billions of dollars in new
investment as well as the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be
created as a result of the legislation, calling it an economic game
changer.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the bill
that you dragged to the floor today, H.R. 4078, which is what we are
considering, suggests that this legislation could delay this critical
investment and the job creation that comes with it.
My rhetorical question to the majority is: Do you even know what
you're doing? I don't think the left hand knows what the right hand is
doing.
Now, I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee, which was not
made in order, that would have exempted the legislation I'm referring
to: that any agency rulemaking that creates jobs or protects public
safety, including the provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 that pay for the creation of a nationwide public
safety broadband network through voluntary spectrum incentive auctions,
be exempt. That was not made in order.
So all I can do is come to the floor and use the voice that my
constituents have entrusted to me to stand up for things that really
make sense for our country, bipartisan legislation, which your
legislation today really screws up--in plain English. With the auction
of this prime spectrum expected to raise over $25 billion, the passage
of this legislation, H.R. 4078, will not only delay access to this
critical revenue, but on top of that, you've brought to the floor
really bad policy.
That's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the final passage
of this legislation, because it messes up the good work that we were
able to bring forward with, really, I think, a political advertising
message. This is not serious legislation. What is serious about it is
the damage that it will do to legislation that, on a bipartisan basis,
we worked so hard on to make law. This essentially comes behind it as
the wrecking crew.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
I find it interesting that we are sitting here having a discussion
about regulations in this context. I believe that it is the regulations
that are the by-product of this process that we engage in here. It's
called ``legislation.''
The regulatory process is not the fourth branch of government that
has no accountability to anyone and that can basically do whatever the
heck it darn well pleases. The agencies that we are talking about here
today, none of which exist in the Constitution, were created by this
Congress, which means, if we created you, we can darn well talk about
the regulations that you provided.
When I hear words like ``ideology,'' ``cynicism,'' ``really bad
policy,'' what is the danger in predictability, for instance, in the
timing of the regulatory process?
There is nothing in this legislation which changes the substance of
agency discretion in how they go about their business. What we are
talking about here is the process, the process by which you go to
provide some predictability and stability to those people who are
trying to talk about investing capital, hiring workers and things like
that.
I urge your support. I thank Mr. Griffin and Mr. Ross for their
efforts in this area.
Mr. CONYERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), who is a member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, my former chairman on Judiciary, for
yielding the time to me.
I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, Mr. Chairman, and I am standing
behind 2-weeks' worth of regulatory material produced in the Federal
Register, which is the official record keeper of regulations here in
Washington, D.C.
{time} 1710
This represents the issue that we are talking about, Mr. Chairman. We
need to stop sending this regulatory burden to our job creators back in
the districts, back on the frontline that are creating the jobs of
today and tomorrow.
I believe there is a clear distinction between the two philosophies
that are on display this afternoon in this Chamber. The other side is
standing up for regulation, standing up for Big Government. I've come
here as a firm believer in the private sector and small business
America. We will stand for them day in and day out. Mr. Chairman, this
pile of material, this pile of regulations is not good for our job
creators. We can do better. We must do better for our children and
grandchildren.
With that, I ask support for H.R. 4078 and the corresponding long-
term fix, the REINS Act, which will go a long way to taking care of
this problem in perpetuity.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is the vice chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, the Regulatory
Freeze for Jobs Act. At a time when new regulation after new regulation
is being proposed by the Obama administration, it is critical that we
restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure
that our Nation's small businesses do not continue down in a sea of red
tape.
[[Page H5242]]
I thank Congressman Griffin, Chairman Smith, Chairman Issa, Leader
Cantor, and the Rules Committee for including the SEC Regulatory
Accountability Act as part of title VI of this legislation. This
legislation subjects the SEC to the President's executive order. What
that does is require enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirements, as
well as require a review of existing regulations.
Title VI will enhance the SEC existing cost-benefit analysis
requirements by requiring the commission to first clearly identify a
problem that would be addressed before issuing any new rules and to
require that the cost-benefit analysis be performed by the SEC's chief
economist.
While the SEC already has certain cost-benefit requirements relative
to rulemaking, recent court decisions have simply vacated or remanded
several of these rules and have specifically pointed out deficiencies
in the Commission's use of cost-benefit analysis. For example, recently
the SEC Inspector General issued a report that expressed several
concerns he had about the quality of the SEC's cost-benefit analysis.
It found absolutely none of the rulemaking it examined attempted to
quantify either benefits or costs, other than information and
collection costs. This bill now will ensure that the benefits of any
rulemaking outweigh the costs, and that both new and existing
regulations are accountable, consistent, written in plain language, and
simply easy to understand.
Title VI also will require the SEC to assess the costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of
simply not regulating, and choose the approach that maximizes the
benefits.
Under the bill, the SEC shall also evaluate whether a proposed
regulation is inconsistent, whether it is incompatible, or duplicates
other Federal regulation, as well. Because some regulations have been
politicized in the past, this bill will require that the examinations
be done by the Commission's chief economist.
These are really just commonsense reforms and are appropriate,
especially given the fact that the Commission continues to struggle
with this issue. For instance, the D.C. Court of Appeals, which vacated
the Commission's proxy access rule, stated: ``The commission acted
arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again to adequately
assess the economic effects of a new rule'' and also ``inconsistently
and opportunistically framed costs and benefits of the rule.''
Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes a new section adopted by the
subcommittee to provide a clearer post-implementation assessment of all
new regulations so that these post-implementation cost-benefit
analyses, in addition to pre-implementation, will be done correctly.
Finally, it's a commonsense approach, and it's a pragmatic approach
to a rulemaking process. I support the underlying legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 5\1/2\ minutes, and
the gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. At this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, a
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 4078, the so-called Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job
Creation Act.
This mother of all anti-regulation bills is actually a repackaging of
a noxious potpourri of previously introduced bills that would make it
virtually impossible for the executive branch and its agencies to
protect the American public. This bill would block the issuance of
regulations regardless of how vital they are to safeguarding the
public's health. They want to eliminate regulations that keep our
workers safe and which would rein in the excesses of Wall Street.
Why? So that they can please their crony capitalist brothers, the
Koch brothers, and also their crony capitalist friends in the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. They want to keep them happy.
Instead of creating jobs, the Tea Party Republicans are assaulting
the very regulations that ensure that we have clean air to breathe and
clean water to drink; regulations that protect our children from unsafe
products like toys, like clothing and bedding, baby food, regulations
that protect seniors from adulterated medicines and unsafe substances
that they use.
They essentially want to create so many barriers and obstacles to the
promulgation of regulations that it's virtually impossible to do so.
They want to keep these Federal agencies from doing their job, which is
to protect the health, safety, and well-being of this country.
This isn't red tape reduction, folks. This is a philosophy of putting
profits over people. The House is in session for 6 more days prior to
our August break. After that, we have maybe about 10 legislative days
left before the end of the year. What have we accomplished in this
Congress? Bills like this. And we've voted to rescind and repeal
ObamaCare over and over again. We're now up to number 34 votes on that.
What do we have pending here? We have the Bush tax cuts, which we all
agree that we should keep in place for the middle class; but because we
don't agree to extend them for the Koch brothers and the other crony
capitalists that this party represents, they're not willing to get that
done. They don't want to do the payroll tax cuts, the tax extenders,
the AMT patch, unemployment benefits, the doc fix, and sequestration.
All of this remains to be wrapped up within the next 10 days or so,
plus 6, the next 2 weeks of legislative activity.
So to think that this legislation would be effective in bringing
reasonable regulations through this Congress, is absurd.
{time} 1720
We should be creating jobs legislatively. We should be helping
veterans adjust to civilian life. We should be taking measures to
impact the ongoing taking of homes of individuals in foreclosure. There
is so much that we should be doing instead of appeasing our crony
capitalist friends. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this
fundamentally flawed bill.
Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I am pleased to come to the floor after my colleague from Georgia. He
and I share a common border and we share a lot of common ground, but I
have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, he could not be more wrong today.
Because this bill does one thing, and it does one thing only, and that
is to say that whatever it is that the people's House decides, whatever
it is that the people's Congress decides and sends to the executive
branch for implementation, that it come right back here at the end, if
it's that big. If it's over $100 million, if it's that big, it come
right back here so that we confirm that they got it right.
Now, as I listened to my friend's words, Mr. Chairman, I might
believe this is something a Republican Congress was doing to a
Democratic administration. But I daresay, what is so important about
the work the chairman is doing is this isn't about a Republican House
and a Democratic administration. This is about good oversight for a
Republican House and a Republican administration, and this is about
good oversight for a Democratic House and a Democratic administration.
I will say to my friend, Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely right about
all the work we have left to get done this year, but the oversight that
we do, the oversight is so important. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, I
believe my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle fell short in
that respect over a Democratic administration, and I am certain that my
friends on the Republican side of the aisle fell short on that during a
Republican administration.
The chairman is giving us an opportunity to change that, and change
that in statute, and I hope that my friend from Georgia is going to
join me in that effort.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
I really enjoy the fact that we share a common border, and we have
worked
[[Page H5243]]
together to try to traverse that border and come to a consensus on
issues that affect the people of our districts. And I think that's
exactly what this Congress should be about but, unfortunately, due to
an obstructionist strategy, we've not been successful.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no way, with the many regulations
that need to be promulgated and put into effect, that we would be able
to do that here in Congress instead of letting the stakeholders, the
business community, and the regulatory agencies work things out.
There's no way that we're going to be able to handle that in Congress.
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I say to my friend that the children we share across our
common border, there is not one regulation that this Congress would
send to the executive branch that you and I would not come together and
pass for the benefit of those children.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, what about Wall Street
regulations? We would not be able to come to an agreement on that.
The Acting CHAIR. All time controlled by the gentleman from Michigan
has expired.
The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is a member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this act. This legislation would provide
important regulatory reforms, and it couldn't come at a better time for
the economy. In particular, I am pleased to support my colleague from
Arizona, Congressman Quayle's Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and
Settlements Act that is included in this legislation.
In the West, we have seen the EPA adopt what appears to be a
contemplated strategy with respect to the implementation of the Clean
Air Act regional haze requirements that includes ignoring submitted
State plans addressing air quality issues, inviting lawsuits from
nongovernmental organizations, and then agreeing to consent decrees
that result in Federal intervention.
While this ``sue and settle'' strategy raises a host of issues, in
this instance, it tramples on States' prerogatives, and it flies in the
face of Congress' explicit intent to let the States lead when it comes
to air quality decisions.
In Arizona, for example, EPA has previously flatly ignored the
State's plan for dealing with regional haze. They have instead agreed
to a consent decree without even consulting ADEQ, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, that would result in a federally
driven and needlessly costly outcome that will not be beneficial to
Arizona's residents. While Arizona has sued to be allowed to intervene
and is appealing the consent decree, it is likely this scenario would
have been more beneficial to Arizonans had this legislation been in
place.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and, in doing so,
support Congress' intent that the States lead when it comes to air
quality planning.
Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, job creation is the key to economic recovery. But
overregulation kills jobs and burdens small businesses, which are
America's main job generators.
The Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act offers
many commonsense, bipartisan solutions to the problem of
overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the
Regulatory Accountability Act, and the REINS Act, the bill before us
today offers more commonsense, bipartisan solutions to protect small
businesses from even more wasteful job-killing regulations and red
tape.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I
look forward to its passage and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4078 would help to rein in the
nontransparent and undemocratic activities of this Administration.
There is one agency that personifies runaway regulations: the EPA.
I'd like to highlight a backdoor power grab being pursued by EPA that
demonstrates the need for this bill. As a member of the Science
Committee, I'm concerned that this Agency is trying to expand its power
under the guise of ``sustainability.'' Without any legal authority or
input from Congress, EPA has committed to ``incorporate sustainability
principles into [their] policies, regulations, and actions,'' has
signed MOUs with DOD and the Army on sustainability, and has spent
untold taxpayer dollars on UN conferences in Brazil and multiple
National Academy of Sciences reports on this topic.
What is sustainability? That's a good question, and apparently it
means whatever EPA wants it to mean. For example, one EPA website on
this topic lists 16 different definitions of ``sustainability.'' Based
on the track record of this Agency and this Administration, I fear that
this new policy is designed to expand federal power to enact more
billion dollar regulations without the consent of Congress.
This bill will help control arbitrary and cumbersome federal
regulations on job creators in my district in south Mississippi.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4078, which
would prohibit agencies from issuing significant rules until the
unemployment rate falls below 6%.
Similar to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I
support a comprehensive review of federal regulations to make them more
effective and efficient. I am, however, strongly opposed to any measure
which will prevent the government from exercising its rule making power
and in turn jeopardize the health and safety of the American people.
H.R. 4078 is based on the falsehood that regulations kill jobs. The
Oversight Committee has held 28 hearings this Congress, touting this
absurd theory in spite of an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
Regulations have been found to have little overall impact on job
creation. In many cases, regulations have had a positive impact on job
growth.
To continue to tie regulations to job growth is arbitrary and
misleading to the American people. This bill asks the public to choose
between saving their lives through the enactment of regulations that
will protect their health and safety--and saving a job which may or may
not be created because of the regulation.
In other words, people are being asked to choose a job over their
very lives. It is wrong to ask anyone to do this. It is worse than
wrong--in fact, it is criminal--to ask people to make this choice when
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that the probability
of losing a job because of regulation is just an illusion.
H.R. 4078 puts the interests of business before the interests of
people. The Chairman of this Committee sent hundreds of letters to
groups representing industry, asking them which regulations they would
like to see repealed. Many of the corporations that submitted responses
to the Committee have had skyrocketing profits over the past several
years, and they are looking to this Congress to put even more profits
into their pockets by passage of this bill.
These are the same companies that are cutting jobs and sending
American jobs overseas--not because of any regulation, but simply
because they want cheaper labor to increase their profit margin. The
presence or absence of a regulation will not stop them from outsourcing
American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I refuse to take part in any measure that places profits
before people. I refuse to sanction any legislation that requires the
government to consult with business interests before a rule reaches the
public for debate. Industry has shown that it will always choose a
pathway to higher profit regardless of the impact of a measure on the
health and well-being of people.
It is not difficult to imagine the destruction H.R. 4078 will bring
on important safeguards to the public health and safety if it is
passed.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any curtailment of the
government's ability to regulate the health and safety of the American
People by voting no on H.R. 4078.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-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,
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 House Report 112-616, is adopted and the
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for
[[Page H5244]]
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4078
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Red Tape Reduction and Small
Business Job Creation Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--REGULATORY FREEZE FOR JOBS
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Moratorium on significant regulatory actions.
Sec. 103. Waivers and exceptions.
Sec. 104. Judicial review.
Sec. 105. Definitions.
TITLE II--MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Moratorium on midnight rules.
Sec. 203. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial
deadlines.
Sec. 204. Exception.
Sec. 205. Definitions.
TITLE III--REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Consent decree and settlement reform.
Sec. 303. Motions to modify consent decrees.
Sec. 304. Effective date.
TITLE IV--UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Purpose.
Sec. 403. Providing for Congressional Budget Office studies on policies
involving changes in conditions of grant aid.
Sec. 404. Clarifying the definition of direct costs to reflect
Congressional Budget Office practice.
Sec. 405. Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include
regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies.
Sec. 406. Amendments to replace Office of Management and Budget with
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sec. 407. Applying substantive point of order to private sector
mandates.
Sec. 408. Regulatory process and principles.
Sec. 409. Expanding the scope of statements to accompany significant
regulatory actions.
Sec. 410. Enhanced stakeholder consultation.
Sec. 411. New authorities and responsibilities for Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sec. 412. Retrospective analysis of existing Federal regulations.
Sec. 413. Expansion of judicial review.
TITLE V--IMPROVED COORDINATION OF AGENCY ACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS
Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Coordination of agency administrative operations for
efficient decisionmaking.
TITLE VI--SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of
the costs and benefits of its regulations and certain
other agency actions.
Sec. 603. Sense of Congress Realting to Other Regulatory Entities.
TITLE VII--CONSIDERATION BY COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF
CERTAIN COSTS AND BENEFITS
Sec. 701. Consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of
the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.
TITLE I--REGULATORY FREEZE FOR JOBS
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Regulatory Freeze for Jobs
Act of 2012''.
SEC. 102. MORATORIUM ON SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.
(a) Moratorium.--An agency may not take any significant
regulatory action during the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending on the date that the
Secretary of Labor submits the report under subsection (b).
(b) Determination.--The Secretary of Labor shall submit a
report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
when the Secretary determines that the Bureau of Labor
Statistics average of monthly employment rates for any
quarter beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act
is equal to or less than 6.0 percent.
SEC. 103. WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, an agency may take a significant regulatory
action only in accordance with subsection (b), (c), or (d)
during the period described in section 102(a).
(b) Presidential Waiver.--An agency may take a significant
regulatory action if the President determines by Executive
Order that the significant regulatory action is--
(1) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
(2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal or civil
rights laws;
(3) necessary for the national security of the United
States; or
(4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
(c) Deregulatory Exception.--An agency may take a
significant regulatory action if the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget certifies in writing that the
significant regulatory action is limited to repealing an
existing rule.
(d) Congressional Waivers.--
(1) Submission.--For any significant regulatory action not
eligible for a Presidential waiver pursuant to subsection
(b), the President may submit a written request to Congress
for a waiver of the application of section 102 for such
action.
(2) Contents.--A submission by the President under this
subsection shall--
(A) identify the significant regulatory action and the
scope of the requested waiver;
(B) describe all the reasons the significant regulatory
action is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or
welfare; and
(C) include an explanation of why the significant
regulatory action is ineligible for a Presidential waiver
under subsection (b).
(3) Congressional action.--Congress shall give expeditious
consideration and take appropriate legislative action with
respect to any submission by the President under this
subsection.
SEC. 104. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Review.--Any party adversely affected or aggrieved by
any rule or guidance resulting from a regulatory action taken
in violation of this title is entitled to judicial review in
accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Any
determination by either the President or the Secretary of
Labor under this title shall be subject to judicial review
under such chapter.
(b) Jurisdiction.--Each court having jurisdiction to review
any rule or guidance resulting from a significant regulatory
action for compliance with any other provision of law shall
have jurisdiction to review all claims under this title.
(c) Relief.--In granting any relief in any civil action
under this section, the court shall order the agency to take
corrective action consistent with this title and chapter 7 of
title 5, United States Code, including remanding the rule or
guidance resulting from the significant regulatory action to
the agency and enjoining the application or enforcement of
that rule or guidance, unless the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that application or enforcement
is required to protect against an imminent and serious threat
to the national security of the United States.
(d) Reasonable Attorney's Fees for Small Businesses.--The
court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a
substantially prevailing small business in any civil action
arising under this title. A small business may qualify as
substantially prevailing even without obtaining a final
judgment in its favor if the agency that took the significant
regulatory action changes its position after the civil action
is filed.
(e) Limitation on Commencing Civil Action.--A party may
seek and obtain judicial review during the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the challenged agency action or
within 90 days after an enforcement action or notice thereof,
except that where another provision of law requires that a
civil action be commenced before the expiration of that 1-
year period, such lesser period shall apply.
(f) Small Business Defined.--In this section, the term
``small business'' means any business, including an
unincorporated business or a sole proprietorship, that
employs not more than 500 employees or that has a net worth
of less than $7,000,000 on the date a civil action arising
under this title is filed.
SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except
that such term does not include--
(A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
(B) the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(C) the United States Postal Service.
(2) Regulatory action.--The term ``regulatory action''
means any substantive action by an agency that promulgates or
is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including a notice of inquiry, an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking, and a notice of proposed rulemaking.
(3) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that
term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Significant regulatory action.--The term ``significant
regulatory action'' means any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule or guidance that the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the
Office of Management and Budget finds is likely to have an
annual cost to the economy of $100,000,000 or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, small entities, or
State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(5) Small entity.--The term ``small entity'' has the
meaning given that term under section 601(6) of title 5,
United States Code.
TITLE II--MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Midnight Rule Relief Act
of 2012''.
SEC. 202. MORATORIUM ON MIDNIGHT RULES.
Except as provided under sections 203 and 204, during the
moratorium period, an agency may not propose or finalize any
midnight rule that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget finds is likely to result in an
[[Page H5245]]
annual cost to the economy of $100,000,000 or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, small entities, or
State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
SEC. 203. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND JUDICIAL
DEADLINES.
(a) In General.--Section 202 shall not apply with respect
to any deadline--
(1) for, relating to, or involving any midnight rule;
(2) that was established before the beginning of the
moratorium period; and
(3) that is required to be taken during the moratorium
period.
(b) Publication of Deadlines.--Not later than 30 days after
the beginning of a moratorium period, the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the
Office of Management and Budget shall identify and publish in
the Federal Register a list of deadlines covered by
subsection (a).
SEC. 204. EXCEPTION.
(a) Emergency Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to a
midnight rule if the President determines that the midnight
rule is--
(1) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
(2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal or civil
rights laws;
(3) necessary for the national security of the United
States; or
(4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
(b) Deregulatory Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to
a midnight rule that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of
Management and Budget certifies in writing is limited to
repealing an existing rule.
(c) Notice of Exceptions.--Not later than 30 days after a
determination under subsection (a) or a certification is made
under subsection (b), the head of the relevant agency shall
publish in the Federal Register any midnight rule excluded
from the moratorium period due to an exception under this
section.
SEC. 205. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except
that such term does not include--
(A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
(B) the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(C) the United States Postal Service.
(2) Deadline.--The term ``deadline'' means any date certain
for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any authority
established by or under any Federal statute or rule, or by or
under any court order implementing any Federal statute,
regulation, or rule.
(3) Moratorium period.--The term ``moratorium period''
means the day after the day referred to in section 1 of title
3, United States Code, through January 20 of the following
year, in which a President is not serving a consecutive term.
(4) Midnight rule.--The term ``midnight rule'' means an
agency statement of general applicability and future effect,
issued during the moratorium period, that is intended to have
the force and effect of law and is designed--
(A) to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy; or
(B) to describe the procedure or practice requirements of
an agency.
(5) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that
term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(6) Small entity.--The term ``small entity'' has the
meaning given that term under section 601(6) of title 5,
United States Code.
TITLE III--REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Sunshine for Regulatory
Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012''.
SEC. 302. CONSENT DECREE AND SETTLEMENT REFORM.
(a) Application.--The provisions of this section apply in
the case of--
(1) a consent decree or settlement agreement in an action
to compel agency action alleged to be unlawfully withheld or
unreasonably delayed that pertains to a regulatory action
that affects the rights of private parties other than the
plaintiff or the rights of State, local or Tribal government
entities--
(A) brought under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code;
or
(B) brought under any other statute authorizing such an
action; and
(2) any other consent decree or settlement agreement that
requires agency action that pertains to a regulatory action
that affects the rights of private parties other than the
plaintiff or the rights of State, local or Tribal government
entities.
(b) In General.--In the case of an action to be resolved by
a consent decree or a settlement agreement described in
paragraph (1), the following shall apply:
(1) The complaint in the action, the consent decree or
settlement agreement, the statutory basis for the consent
decree or settlement agreement and its terms, and any award
of attorneys' fees or costs shall be published, including
electronically, in a readily accessible manner by the
defendant agency.
(2) Until the conclusion of an opportunity for affected
parties to intervene in the action, a party may not file with
the court a motion for a consent decree or to dismiss the
case pursuant to a settlement agreement.
(3) In considering a motion to intervene by any party that
would be affected by the agency action in dispute, the court
shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that the interests of
that party would not be represented adequately by the current
parties to the action. In considering a motion to intervene
filed by a State, local or Tribal government entity, the
court shall take due account of whether the movant--
(A) administers jointly with the defendant agency the
statutory provisions that give rise to the regulatory duty
alleged in the complaint; or
(B) administers State, local or Tribal regulatory authority
that would be preempted by the defendant agency's discharge
of the regulatory duty alleged in the complaint.
(4) If the court grants a motion to intervene in the
action, the court shall include the plaintiff, the defendant
agency, and the intervenors in settlement discussions.
Settlement efforts conducted shall be pursuant to a court's
mediation or alternative dispute resolution program, or by a
district judge, magistrate judge, or special master, as
determined by the assigned judge.
(5) The defendant agency shall publish in the Federal
Register and by electronic means any proposed consent decree
or settlement agreement for no fewer than 60 days of public
comment before filing it with the court, including a
statement of the statutory basis for the proposed consent
decree or settlement agreement and its terms, allowing
comment on any issue related to the matters alleged in the
complaint or addressed or affected by the consent decree or
settlement agreement.
(6) The defendant agency shall--
(A) respond to public comments received under paragraph
(5); and
(B) when moving that the court enter the consent decree or
for dismissal pursuant to the settlement agreement--
(i) inform the court of the statutory basis for the
proposed consent decree or settlement agreement and its
terms;
(ii) submit to the court a summary of the public comments
and agency responses;
(iii) certify the index to the administrative record of the
notice and comment proceeding to the court; and
(iv) make that record fully accessible to the court.
(7) The court shall include in the judicial record the full
administrative record, the index to which was certified by
the agency under paragraph (6).
(8) If the consent decree or settlement agreement requires
an agency action by a date certain, the agency shall, when
moving for entry of the consent decree or dismissal based on
the settlement agreement--
(A) inform the court of any uncompleted mandatory duties to
take regulatory action that the decree or agreement does not
address;
(B) how the decree or agreement, if approved, would affect
the discharge of those duties; and
(C) why the decree's or agreement's effects on the order in
which the agency discharges its mandatory duties is in the
public interest.
(9) The court shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that it
is proper to allow amicus participation by any party who
filed public comments on the consent decree or settlement
agreement during the court's consideration of a motion to
enter the decree or dismiss the case on the basis of the
agreement.
(10) The court shall ensure that the proposed consent
decree or settlement agreement allows sufficient time and
procedure for the agency to comply with chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code, and other applicable statutes that govern
rule making and, unless contrary to the public interest, the
provisions of any executive orders that govern rule making.
(11) The defendant agency may, at its discretion, hold a
public hearing pursuant to notice in the Federal Register and
by electronic means, on whether to enter into the consent
decree or settlement agreement. If such a hearing is held,
then, in accordance with paragraph (6), the agency shall
submit to the court a summary of the proceedings and the
certified index to the hearing record, full access to the
hearing record shall be given to the court, and the full
hearing record shall be included in the judicial record.
(12) The Attorney General, in cases litigated by the
Department of Justice, or the head of the defendant Federal
agency, in cases litigated independently by that agency,
shall certify to the court his or her approval of any
proposed consent decree or settlement agreement that contains
any of the following terms--
(A) in the case of a consent decree, terms that--
(i) convert into mandatory duties the otherwise
discretionary authorities of an agency to propose,
promulgate, revise or amend regulations;
(ii) commit the agency to expend funds that Congress has
not appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the
action in question, or commit an agency to seek a particular
appropriation or budget authorization;
(iii) divest the agency of discretion committed to it by
Congress or the Constitution, whether such discretionary
power was granted to respond to changing circumstances, to
make policy or managerial choices, or to protect the rights
of third parties; or
(iv) otherwise afford relief that the court could not enter
on its own authority upon a final judgment in the litigation;
or
(B) in the case of a settlement agreement, terms that--
(i) interfere with the agency's authority to revise, amend,
or issue rules through the procedures set forth in chapter 5
of title 5, United States Code, or any other statute or
executive order prescribing rule making procedures for rule
makings that are the subject of the settlement agreement;
(ii) commit the agency to expend funds that Congress has
not appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the
action in question; or
[[Page H5246]]
(iii) provide a remedy for the agency's failure to comply
with the terms of the settlement agreement other than the
revival of the action resolved by the settlement agreement,
if the agreement commits the agency to exercise its
discretion in a particular way and such discretionary power
was committed to the agency by Congress or the Constitution
to respond to changing circumstances, to make policy or
managerial choices, or to protect the rights of third
parties.
(c) Annual Reports.--Each agency shall submit an annual
report to Congress on the number, identity, and content of
complaints, consent decrees, and settlement agreements
described in paragraph (1) for that year, the statutory basis
for each consent decree or settlement agreement and its
terms, and any awards of attorneys fees or costs in actions
resolved by such decrees or agreements.
SEC. 303. MOTIONS TO MODIFY CONSENT DECREES.
When a defendant agency moves the court to modify a
previously entered consent decree described under section 302
and the basis of the motion is that the terms of the decree
are no longer fully in the public interest due to the
agency's obligations to fulfill other duties or due to
changed facts and circumstances, the court shall review the
motion and the consent decree de novo.
SEC. 304. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this title apply to any covered consent
decree or settlement agreement proposed to a court after the
date of enactment of this title.
TITLE IV--UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2012''.
SEC. 402. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is--
(1) to improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress
with respect to proposed Federal mandates by--
(A) providing Congress and the public with more complete
information about the effects of such mandates; and
(B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after
focused deliberation on their effects; and
(2) to enhance 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.
SEC. 403. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES
ON POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF
GRANT AID.
Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional studies.--At the request of any Chairman
or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director shall
conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of
funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of
carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance
being imposed on State, local, or tribal governments
participating in the Federal assistance program concerned or,
in the case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes
such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated
level of funding compared to such costs.''.
SEC. 404. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO
REFLECT CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE.
Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``incur or''
before ``be required''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``to spend''
the following: ``or could forgo in profits, including costs
passed on to consumers or other entities taking into account,
to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,''.
SEC. 405. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT
REGULATORY AGENCIES.
Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is amended by striking ``, but
does not include independent regulatory agencies'' and
inserting ``, except it does not include the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee''.
SEC. 406. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Office of
Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs'';
(2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``OMB''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking ``Director
of the Office of Management and Budget'' and inserting
``Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs''.
SEC. 407. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE
SECTOR MANDATES.
Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(2) by inserting ``or 424(b)(1)'' after ``section
424(a)(1)''.
SEC. 408. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.
``(a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise
expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector (other than to the extent that such
regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
``(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it
intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of
private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action) as well as assess the significance of that
problem.
``(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing
regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to,
the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and
whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified
to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
``(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such
as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information
upon which choices can be made by the public.
``(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best
available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it
shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective
manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each
agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency,
predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to
the government, regulated entities, and the public),
flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
``(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the
benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that
some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or
adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only
upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
``(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best
reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and
other information concerning the need for, and consequences
of, the intended regulation.
``(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative
forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible,
specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt.
``(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are
inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other
regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
``(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize
the costs of the cumulative impact of regulations.
``(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple
and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the
potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such
uncertainty.
``(b) Regulatory Action Defined.--In this section, the term
`regulatory action' means any substantive action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking
and notices of proposed rulemaking.''.
SEC. 409. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY
SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by
law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed
rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after
promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a
general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed
rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may
result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of
$100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare
a written statement containing the following:
``(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final
rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the
need for the proposed rulemaking or final rule and an
explanation of how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will
meet that need.
``(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of
the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an
explanation of the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or
final rule is consistent with a statutory requirement and
avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
``(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of
the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets,
the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the
natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of
discrimination or bias).
``(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking
[[Page H5247]]
or final rule (such as the direct costs both to the
Government in administering the final rule and to businesses
and others in complying with the final rule, and any adverse
effects on the efficient functioning of the economy, private
markets (including productivity, employment, and
international competitiveness), health, safety, and the
natural environment);
``(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that
the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible, of--
``(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate;
and
``(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal
mandate upon any particular regions of the nation or
particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or
rural or other types of communities, or particular segments
of the private sector.
``(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the
agency's prior consultation with the private sector and
elected representatives (under section 204) of the affected
State, local, and tribal governments.
``(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that
were presented by the private sector and State, local, or
tribal governments either orally or in writing to the agency.
``(C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of
those comments and concerns.
``(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with
each of the regulatory principles described in section
201.''.
(b) Requirement for Detailed Summary.--Subsection (b) of
section 202 of such Act is amended by inserting ``detailed''
before ``summary''.
SEC. 410. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.
Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1534) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND PRIVATE
SECTOR'' before ``INPUT'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small business),'' after ``on their
behalf)'';
(B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of
subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible,
before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue
through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly
into the rulemaking process.
``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State,
local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small businesses). Geographic,
political, and other factors that may differentiate varying
points of view should be considered.
``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist
with these consultations. The scope of the consultation
should reflect the cost and significance of the Federal
mandate being considered.
``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and tribal
governments, and impacted parties within the private sector
(including small business), on costs, benefits, and risks;
and
``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of compliance
and potential flexibilities, and input on whether the Federal
regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws
in other levels of government.
``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of
regulations on the affected entities.
``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of
comments by relevant parties but may not use those comments
as the sole method of satisfying the guidelines in this
subsection.''.
SEC. 411. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
RESPONSIBILITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide meaningful
guidance and oversight so that each agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 are
consistent with the principles and requirements of this
title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict
with the policies or actions of another agency. If the
Administrator determines that an agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 do
not comply with such principles and requirements, are not
consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the
policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator
shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify the agency,
and request that the agency comply before the agency
finalizes the regulation concerned.
``(b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--
The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, a written report
detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of
this title that relate to regulations for which a written
statement is required by section 202, including activities
undertaken at the request of the Director to improve
compliance, during the preceding reporting period. The report
shall also contain an appendix detailing compliance by each
agency with section 204.''.
SEC. 412. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and
(2) by inserting after section 208 the following new
section 209:
``SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
``(a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or
ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of
the House of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall
conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal
regulation promulgated by an agency.
``(b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective
analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to
subsection (a) shall submit to the chairman of the relevant
committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report
containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered
by the analysis--
``(1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
``(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
``(3) the nature of comments or complaints received
concerning the Federal regulation from the public since the
Federal regulation was promulgated;
``(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and,
to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental
rules;
``(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions,
or other factors have changed in the area affected by the
Federal regulation;
``(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs
and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies
done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such
costs or benefits; and
``(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal
regulation.''.
SEC. 413. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1)
and (2), and 205(a) and (b)''; and
(B) by striking ``only'' each place it appears;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section 202'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
the following: ``section 202, prepare the written plan under
section 203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 205(a) and
(b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such written
statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with such
section.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``written statement or
plan is required'' and all that follows through ``shall not''
and inserting the following: ``written statement under
section 202, a written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2),
or compliance with sections 201 and 205(a) and (b) is
required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare such statement
(including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate,
analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written
plan, or to comply with such section may''.
TITLE V--IMPROVED COORDINATION OF AGENCY ACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Responsibly And
Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2012'' or as
the ``RAPID Act''.
SEC. 502. COORDINATION OF AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS
FOR EFFICIENT DECISIONMAKING.
(a) In General.--Part I of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter II the
following:
``SUBCHAPTER IIA--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING PERMITTING
``Sec. 560. Coordination of agency administrative operations
for efficient decisionmaking
``(a) Congressional Declaration of Purpose.--The purpose of
this subchapter is to establish a framework and procedures to
streamline, increase the efficiency of, and enhance
coordination of agency administration of the regulatory
review, environmental decisionmaking, and permitting process
for projects undertaken, reviewed, or funded by Federal
agencies. This subchapter will ensure that agencies
administer the regulatory process in a manner that is
efficient so that citizens are not burdened with regulatory
excuses and time delays.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter, the
term--
``(1) `agency' means any agency, department, or other unit
of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal government;
``(2) `category of projects' means 2 or more projects
related by project type, potential environmental impacts,
geographic location, or another similar project feature or
characteristic;
``(3) `environmental assessment' means a concise public
document for which a Federal agency is responsible that
serves to--
``(A) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a finding of no significant impact;
``(B) aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no
environmental impact statement is necessary; and
``(C) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact
statement when one is necessary;
``(4) `environmental impact statement' means the detailed
statement of significant environmental impacts required to be
prepared under NEPA;
``(5) `environmental review' means the Federal agency
procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement,
environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other
document under NEPA;
[[Page H5248]]
``(6) `environmental decisionmaking process' means the
Federal agency procedures for undertaking and completion of
any environmental permit, decision, approval, review, or
study under any Federal law other than NEPA for a project
subject to an environmental review;
``(7) `environmental document' means an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, and includes
any supplemental document or document prepared pursuant to a
court order;
``(8) `finding of no significant impact' means a document
by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why a
project, not otherwise subject to a categorical exclusion,
will not have a significant effect on the human environment
and for which an environmental impact statement therefore
will not be prepared;
``(9) `lead agency' means the Federal agency preparing or
responsible for preparing the environmental document;
``(10) `NEPA' means the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
``(11) `project' means major Federal actions that are
construction activities undertaken with Federal funds or that
are construction activities that require approval by a permit
or regulatory decision issued by a Federal agency;
``(12) `project sponsor' means the agency or other entity,
including any private or public-private entity, that seeks
approval for a project or is otherwise responsible for
undertaking a project; and
``(13) `record of decision' means a document prepared by a
lead agency under NEPA following an environmental impact
statement that states the lead agency's decision, identifies
the alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its
decision and states whether all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected
have been adopted, and if not, why they were not adopted.
``(c) Preparation of Environmental Documents.--Upon the
request of the lead agency, the project sponsor shall be
authorized to prepare any document for purposes of an
environmental review required in support of any project or
approval by the lead agency if the lead agency furnishes
oversight in such preparation and independently evaluates
such document and the document is approved and adopted by the
lead agency prior to taking any action or making any approval
based on such document.
``(d) Adoption and Use of Documents.--
``(1) Documents prepared under nepa.--
``(A) Not more than 1 environmental impact statement and 1
environmental assessment shall be prepared under NEPA for a
project (except for supplemental environmental documents
prepared under NEPA or environmental documents prepared
pursuant to a court order), and, except as otherwise provided
by law, the lead agency shall prepare the environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment. After the lead
agency issues a record of decision, no Federal agency
responsible for making any approval for that project may rely
on a document other than the environmental document prepared
by the lead agency.
``(B) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency
may adopt, use, or rely upon secondary and cumulative impact
analyses included in any environmental document prepared
under NEPA for projects in the same geographic area where the
secondary and cumulative impact analyses provide information
and data that pertains to the NEPA decision for the project
under review.
``(2) State environmental documents; supplemental
documents.--
``(A) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency
may adopt a document that has been prepared for a project
under State laws and procedures as the environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment for the project,
provided that the State laws and procedures under which the
document was prepared provide environmental protection and
opportunities for public involvement that are substantially
equivalent to NEPA.
``(B) An environmental document adopted under subparagraph
(A) is deemed to satisfy the lead agency's obligation under
NEPA to prepare an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment.
``(C) In the case of a document described in subparagraph
(A), during the period after preparation of the document but
before its adoption by the lead agency, the lead agency shall
prepare and publish a supplement to that document if the lead
agency determines that--
``(i) a significant change has been made to the project
that is relevant for purposes of environmental review of the
project; or
``(ii) there have been significant changes in circumstances
or availability of information relevant to the environmental
review for the project.
``(D) If the agency prepares and publishes a supplemental
document under subparagraph (C), the lead agency may solicit
comments from agencies and the public on the supplemental
document for a period of not more than 45 days beginning on
the date of the publication of the supplement.
``(E) A lead agency shall issue its record of decision or
finding of no significant impact, as appropriate, based upon
the document adopted under subparagraph (A), and any
supplements thereto.
``(3) Contemporaneous projects.--If the lead agency
determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
project will have similar environmental impacts as a similar
project in geographical proximity to the project, and that
similar project was subject to environmental review or
similar State procedures within the 5 year period immediately
preceding the date that the lead agency makes that
determination, the lead agency may adopt the environmental
document that resulted from that environmental review or
similar State procedure. The lead agency may adopt such an
environmental document, if it is prepared under State laws
and procedures only upon making a favorable determination on
such environmental document pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
``(e) Participating Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--The lead agency shall be responsible for
inviting and designating participating agencies in accordance
with this subsection. The lead agency shall provide the
invitation or notice of the designation in writing.
``(2) Federal participating agencies.--Any Federal agency
that is required to adopt the environmental document of the
lead agency for a project shall be designated as a
participating agency and shall collaborate on the preparation
of the environmental document, unless the Federal agency
informs the lead agency, in writing, by a time specified by
the lead agency in the designation of the Federal agency that
the Federal agency--
``(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
project;
``(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the
project; and
``(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
``(3) Invitation.--The lead agency shall identify, as early
as practicable in the environmental review for a project, any
agencies other than an agency described in paragraph (2) that
may have an interest in the project, including, where
appropriate, Governors of affected States, and heads of
appropriate tribal and local (including county) governments,
and shall invite such identified agencies and officials to
become participating agencies in the environmental review for
the project. The invitation shall set a deadline of 30 days
for responses to be submitted, which may only be extended by
the lead agency for good cause shown. Any agency that fails
to respond prior to the deadline shall be deemed to have
declined the invitation.
``(4) Effect of declining participating agency
invitation.--Any agency that declines a designation or
invitation by the lead agency to be a participating agency
shall be precluded from submitting comments on any document
prepared under NEPA for that project or taking any measures
to oppose, based on the environmental review, any permit,
license, or approval related to that project.
``(5) Effect of designation.--Designation as a
participating agency under this subsection does not imply
that the participating agency--
``(A) supports a proposed project; or
``(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with
respect to evaluation of, the project.
``(6) Cooperating agency.--A participating agency may also
be designated by a lead agency as a `cooperating agency'
under the regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2011.
Designation as a cooperating agency shall have no effect on
designation as participating agency. No agency that is not a
participating agency may be designated as a cooperating
agency.
``(7) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal agency shall--
``(A) carry out obligations of the Federal agency under
other applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the
review required under NEPA; and
``(B) in accordance with the rules made by the Council on
Environmental Quality pursuant to subsection (n)(1), make and
carry out such rules, policies, and procedures as may be
reasonably necessary to enable the agency to ensure
completion of the environmental review and environmental
decisionmaking process in a timely, coordinated, and
environmentally responsible manner.
``(8) Comments.--Each participating agency shall limit its
comments on a project to areas that are within the authority
and expertise of such participating agency. Each
participating agency shall identify in such comments the
statutory authority of the participating agency pertaining to
the subject matter of its comments. The lead agency shall not
act upon, respond to or include in any document prepared
under NEPA, any comment submitted by a participating agency
that concerns matters that are outside of the authority and
expertise of the commenting participating agency.
``(f) Project Initiation Request.--
``(1) Notice.--A project sponsor shall provide the Federal
agency responsible for undertaking a project with notice of
the initiation of the project by providing a description of
the proposed project, the general location of the proposed
project, and a statement of any Federal approvals anticipated
to be necessary for the proposed project, for the purpose of
informing the Federal agency that the environmental review
should be initiated.
``(2) Lead agency initiation.--The agency receiving a
project initiation notice under paragraph (1) shall promptly
identify the lead agency for the project, and the lead agency
shall initiate the environmental review within a period of 45
days after receiving the notice required by paragraph (1) by
inviting or designating agencies to become participating
agencies, or, where the lead agency determines that no
participating agencies are required for the project, by
taking such other actions that are reasonable and necessary
to initiate the environmental review.
``(g) Alternatives Analysis.--
``(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the
environmental review, but no later than during scoping for a
project requiring the preparation of an environmental impact
statement, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for
involvement by cooperating agencies in determining the range
of alternatives to be considered for a project.
``(2) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under
paragraph (1), the lead agency shall determine the range of
alternatives for
[[Page H5249]]
consideration in any document which the lead agency is
responsible for preparing for the project, subject to the
following limitations:
``(A) No evaluation of certain alternatives.--No Federal
agency shall evaluate any alternative that was identified but
not carried forward for detailed evaluation in an
environmental document or evaluated and not selected in any
environmental document prepared under NEPA for the same
project.
``(B) Only feasible alternatives evaluated.--Where a
project is being constructed, managed, funded, or undertaken
by a project sponsor that is not a Federal agency, Federal
agencies shall only be required to evaluate alternatives that
the project sponsor could feasibly undertake, consistent with
the purpose of and the need for the project, including
alternatives that can be undertaken by the project sponsor
and that are technically and economically feasible.
``(3) Methodologies.--
``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall determine, in
collaboration with cooperating agencies at appropriate times
during the environmental review, the methodologies to be used
and the level of detail required in the analysis of each
alternative for a project. The lead agency shall include in
the environmental document a description of the methodologies
used and how the methodologies were selected.
``(B) No evaluation of inappropriate alternatives.--When a
lead agency determines that an alternative does not meet the
purpose and need for a project, that alternative is not
required to be evaluated in detail in an environmental
document.
``(4) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead
agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being
identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than
other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of
mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other
applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the
development of such higher level of detail will not prevent
the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to
whether to accept another alternative which is being
considered in the environmental review.
``(5) Employment analysis.--The evaluation of each
alternative in an environmental impact statement or an
environmental assessment shall identify the potential effects
of the alternative on employment, including potential short-
term and long-term employment increases and reductions and
shifts in employment.
``(h) Coordination and Scheduling.--
``(1) Coordination plan.--
``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall establish and
implement a plan for coordinating public and agency
participation in and comment on the environmental review for
a project or category of projects to facilitate the
expeditious resolution of the environmental review.
``(B) Schedule.--
``(i) In general.--The lead agency shall establish as part
of the coordination plan for a project, after consultation
with each participating agency and, where applicable, the
project sponsor, a schedule for completion of the
environmental review. The schedule shall include deadlines,
consistent with subsection (i), for decisions under any other
Federal laws (including the issuance or denial of a permit or
license) relating to the project that is covered by the
schedule.
``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing the
schedule, the lead agency shall consider factors such as--
``(I) the responsibilities of participating agencies under
applicable laws;
``(II) resources available to the participating agencies;
``(III) overall size and complexity of the project;
``(IV) overall schedule for and cost of the project;
``(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources
that could be affected by the project; and
``(VI) the extent to which similar projects in geographic
proximity were recently subject to environmental review or
similar State procedures.
``(iii) Compliance with the schedule.--
``(I) All participating agencies shall comply with the time
periods established in the schedule or with any modified time
periods, where the lead agency modifies the schedule pursuant
to subparagraph (D).
``(II) The lead agency shall disregard and shall not
respond to or include in any document prepared under NEPA,
any comment or information submitted or any finding made by a
participating agency that is outside of the time period
established in the schedule or modification pursuant to
subparagraph (D) for that agency's comment, submission or
finding.
``(III) If a participating agency fails to object in
writing to a lead agency decision, finding or request for
concurrence within the time period established under law or
by the lead agency, the agency shall be deemed to have
concurred in the decision, finding or request.
``(C) Consistency with other time periods.--A schedule
under subparagraph (B) shall be consistent with any other
relevant time periods established under Federal law.
``(D) Modification.--The lead agency may--
``(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph
(B) for good cause; and
``(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the
cooperating agencies.
``(E) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule under
subparagraph (B), and of any modifications to the schedule,
shall be--
``(i) provided within 15 days of completion or modification
of such schedule to all participating agencies and to the
project sponsor; and
``(ii) made available to the public.
``(F) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With
respect to the environmental review for any project, the lead
agency shall have authority and responsibility to take such
actions as are necessary and proper, within the authority of
the lead agency, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of
the environmental review for the project.
``(i) Deadlines.--The following deadlines shall apply to
any project subject to review under NEPA and any decision
under any Federal law relating to such project (including the
issuance or denial of a permit or license or any required
finding):
``(1) Environmental review deadlines.--The lead agency
shall complete the environmental review within the following
deadlines:
``(A) Environmental impact statement projects.--For
projects requiring preparation of an environmental impact
statement--
``(i) the lead agency shall issue an environmental impact
statement within 2 years after the earlier of the date the
lead agency receives the project initiation request or a
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
is published in the Federal Register; and
``(ii) in circumstances where the lead agency has prepared
an environmental assessment and determined that an
environmental impact statement will be required, the lead
agency shall issue the environmental impact statement within
2 years after the date of publication of the Notice of Intent
to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal
Register.
``(B) Environmental assessment projects.--For projects
requiring preparation of an environmental assessment, the
lead agency shall issue a finding of no significant impact or
publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement in the Federal Register within 1 year after the
earlier of the date the lead agency receives the project
initiation request, makes a decision to prepare an
environmental assessment, or sends out participating agency
invitations.
``(2) Extensions.--
``(A) Requirements.--The environmental review deadlines may
be extended only if--
``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of
the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating
agencies; or
``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good
cause.
``(B) Limitation.--The environmental review shall not be
extended by more than 1 year for a project requiring
preparation of an environmental impact statement or by more
than 180 days for a project requiring preparation of an
environmental assessment.
``(3) Environmental review comments.--
``(A) Comments on draft environmental impact statement.--
For comments by agencies and the public on a draft
environmental impact statement, the lead agency shall
establish a comment period of not more than 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register of notice of the date of
public availability of such document, unless--
``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of
the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating
agencies; or
``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good
cause.
``(B) Other comments.--For all other comment periods for
agency or public comments in the environmental review
process, the lead agency shall establish a comment period of
no more than 30 days from availability of the materials on
which comment is requested, unless--
``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of
the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating
agencies; or
``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good
cause.
``(4) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any case in
which a decision under any other Federal law relating to the
undertaking of a project being reviewed under NEPA (including
the issuance or denial of a permit or license) is required to
be made, the following deadlines shall apply:
``(A) Decisions prior to record of decision or finding of
no significant impact.--If a Federal agency is required to
approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, license, or
other similar application for approval related to a project
prior to the record of decision or finding of no significant
impact, such Federal agency shall approve or otherwise act
not later than the end of a 90 day period beginning--
``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the
project is complete; and
``(ii) after the lead agency publishes a notice of the
availability of the final environmental impact statement or
issuance of other final environmental documents, or no later
than such other date that is otherwise required by law,
whichever event occurs first.
``(B) Other decisions.--With regard to any approval or
other action related to a project by a Federal agency that is
not subject to subparagraph (A), each Federal agency shall
approve or otherwise act not later than the end of a period
of 180 days beginning--
``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the
project is complete; and
``(ii) after the lead agency issues the record of decision
or finding of no significant impact, unless a different
deadline is established by agreement of the Federal agency,
lead agency, and the project sponsor, where applicable, or
the deadline is extended by the Federal agency for good
cause, provided that such extension shall not extend beyond a
period that is 1 year after the lead agency issues the record
of decision or finding of no significant impact.
``(C) Failure to act.--In the event that any Federal agency
fails to approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit,
license, or other similar application for approval related to
a project within the applicable deadline described in
subparagraph (A) or (B), the permit, license, or other
[[Page H5250]]
similar application shall be deemed approved by such agency
and the agency shall take action in accordance with such
approval within 30 days of the applicable deadline described
in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(D) Final agency action.--Any approval under subparagraph
(C) is deemed to be final agency action, and may not be
reversed by any agency. In any action under chapter 7 seeking
review of such a final agency action, the court may not set
aside such agency action by reason of that agency action
having occurred under this paragraph.
``(j) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
``(1) Cooperation.--The lead agency and the participating
agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this
section to identify and resolve issues that could delay
completion of the environmental review or could result in
denial of any approvals required for the project under
applicable laws.
``(2) Lead agency responsibilities.--The lead agency shall
make information available to the participating agencies as
early as practicable in the environmental review regarding
the environmental, historic, and socioeconomic resources
located within the project area and the general locations of
the alternatives under consideration. Such information may be
based on existing data sources, including geographic
information systems mapping.
``(3) Participating agency responsibilities.--Based on
information received from the lead agency, participating
agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues
of concern regarding the project's potential environmental,
historic, or socioeconomic impacts. In this paragraph, issues
of concern include any issues that could substantially delay
or prevent an agency from granting a permit or other approval
that is needed for the project.
``(4) Issue resolution.--
``(A) Meeting of participating agencies.--At any time upon
request of a project sponsor, the lead agency shall promptly
convene a meeting with the relevant participating agencies
and the project sponsor, to resolve issues that could delay
completion of the environmental review or could result in
denial of any approvals required for the project under
applicable laws.
``(B) Notice that resolution cannot be achieved.--If a
resolution cannot be achieved within 30 days following such a
meeting and a determination by the lead agency that all
information necessary to resolve the issue has been obtained,
the lead agency shall notify the heads of all participating
agencies, the project sponsor, and the Council on
Environmental Quality for further proceedings in accordance
with section 204 of NEPA, and shall publish such notification
in the Federal Register.
``(k) Report to Congress.--The head of each Federal agency
shall report annually to Congress--
``(1) the projects for which the agency initiated
preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment;
``(2) the projects for which the agency issued a record of
decision or finding of no significant impact and the length
of time it took the agency to complete the environmental
review for each such project;
``(3) the filing of any lawsuits against the agency seeking
judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by
the agency for an action subject to NEPA, including the date
the complaint was filed, the court in which the complaint was
filed, and a summary of the claims for which judicial review
was sought; and
``(4) the resolution of any lawsuits against the agency
that sought judicial review of a permit, license, or approval
issued by the agency for an action subject to NEPA.
``(l) Limitations on Claims.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial
review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal
agency for an action subject to NEPA shall be barred unless--
``(A) in the case of a claim pertaining to a project for
which an environmental review was conducted and an
opportunity for comment was provided, the claim is filed by a
party that submitted a comment during the environmental
review on the issue on which the party seeks judicial review,
and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the lead
agency on notice of the issue upon which the party seeks
judicial review; and
``(B) filed within 180 days after publication of a notice
in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license,
or approval is final pursuant to the law under which the
agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in
the Federal law pursuant to which judicial review is allowed.
``(2) New information.--The preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement, when required, is deemed a
separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a
claim for judicial review of such action shall be 180 days
after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the record of decision for such action.
Any claim challenging agency action on the basis of
information in a supplemental environmental impact statement
shall be limited to challenges on the basis of that
information.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to create a right to judicial review or
place any limit on filing a claim that a person has violated
the terms of a permit, license, or approval.
``(m) Categories of Projects.--The authorities granted
under this subchapter may be exercised for an individual
project or a category of projects.
``(n) Effective Date.--The requirements of this subchapter
shall apply only to environmental reviews and environmental
decisionmaking processes initiated after the date of
enactment of this subchapter.
``(o) Applicability.--Except as provided in subsection (p),
this subchapter applies, according to the provisions thereof,
to all projects for which a Federal agency is required to
undertake an environmental review or make a decision under an
environmental law for a project for which a Federal agency is
undertaking an environmental review.
``(p) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to supersede, amend, or modify sections 134, 135,
139, 325, 326, and 327 of title 23, United States Code,
sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, United States Code, or
subtitle C of title I of division A of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act and the amendments made by
such subtitle (Public Law 112-141).''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to subchapter II the following:
``SUBCHAPTER IIA--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING
PERMITTING
``560. Coordination of agency administrative operations for
efficient decisionmaking.''.
(c) Regulations.--
(1) Council on environmental quality.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this title, the Council
on Environmental Quality shall amend the regulations
contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, to implement the provisions of this title and
the amendments made by this title, and shall by rule
designate States with laws and procedures that satisfy the
criteria under section 560(d)(2)(A) of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) Federal agencies.--Not later than 120 days after the
date that the Council on Environmental Quality amends the
regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, to implement the provisions of this
title and the amendments made by this title, each Federal
agency with regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
shall amend such regulations to implement the provisions of
this subchapter.
TITLE VI--SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``SEC Regulatory
Accountability Act''.
SEC. 602. CONSIDERATION BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ITS
REGULATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS.
Section 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78w) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Consideration of Costs and Benefits.--
``(1) In general.--Before issuing a regulation under the
securities laws, as defined in section 3(a), the Commission
shall--
``(A) clearly identify the nature and source of the problem
that the proposed regulation is designed to address, as well
as assess the significance of that problem, to enable
assessment of whether any new regulation is warranted;
``(B) utilize the Chief Economist to assess the costs and
benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the intended
regulation and propose or adopt a regulation only on a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify the costs of the regulation;
``(C) identify and assess available alternatives to the
regulation that were considered, including modification of an
existing regulation, together with an explanation of why the
regulation meets the regulatory objectives more effectively
than the alternatives; and
``(D) ensure that any regulation is accessible, consistent,
written in plain language, and easy to understand and shall
measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of
regulatory requirements.
``(2) Considerations and actions.--
``(A) Required actions.--In deciding whether and how to
regulate, the Commission shall assess the costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives, including the
alternative of not regulating, and choose the approach that
maximizes net benefits. Specifically, the Commission shall--
``(i) consistent with the requirements of section 3(f) (15
U.S.C. 78c(f)), section 2(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77b(b)), section 202(c) of the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(c)), and section 2(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c)), consider
whether the rulemaking will promote efficiency, competition,
and capital formation;
``(ii) evaluate whether, consistent with obtaining
regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose
the least burden on society, including market participants,
individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other
entities (including State and local governmental entities),
taking into account, to the extent practicable, the
cumulative costs of regulations; and
``(iii) evaluate whether the regulation is inconsistent,
incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations.
``(B) Additional considerations.--In addition, in making a
reasoned determination of the costs and benefits of a
potential regulation, the Commission shall, to the extent
that each is relevant to the particular proposed regulation,
take into consideration the impact of the regulation on--
``(i) investor choice;
``(ii) market liquidity in the securities markets; and
``(iii) small businesses
``(3) Explanation and comments.--The Commission shall
explain in its final rule the nature of comments that it
received, including those from the industry or consumer
groups concerning the potential costs or benefits of the
proposed rule or proposed rule change, and shall
[[Page H5251]]
provide a response to those comments in its final rule,
including an explanation of any changes that were made in
response to those comments and the reasons that the
Commission did not incorporate those industry group concerns
related to the potential costs or benefits in the final rule.
``(4) Review of existing regulations.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of the SEC Regulatory
Accountability Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Commission shall review its regulations to determine whether
any such regulations are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient,
or excessively burdensome, and shall modify, streamline,
expand, or repeal them in accordance with such review.
``(5) Post-adoption impact assessment.--
``(A) In general.--Whenever the Commission adopts or amends
a regulation designated as a `major rule' within the meaning
of section 804(2) of title 5, United States Code, it shall
state, in its adopting release, the following:
``(i) The purposes and intended consequences of the
regulation.
``(ii) Appropriate post-implementation quantitative and
qualitative metrics to measure the economic impact of the
regulation and to measure the extent to which the regulation
has accomplished the stated purposes.
``(iii) The assessment plan that will be used, consistent
with the requirements of subparagraph (B) and under the
supervision of the Chief Economist of the Commission, to
assess whether the regulation has achieved the stated
purposes.
``(iv) Any unintended or negative consequences that the
Commission foresees may result from the regulation.
``(B) Requirements of assessment plan and report.--
``(i) Requirements of plan.--The assessment plan required
under this paragraph shall consider the costs, benefits, and
intended and unintended consequences of the regulation. The
plan shall specify the data to be collected, the methods for
collection and analysis of the data and a date for completion
of the assessment.
``(ii) Submission and publication of report.--The Chief
Economist shall submit the completed assessment report to the
Commission no later than 2 years after the publication of the
adopting release, unless the Commission, at the request of
the Chief Economist, has published at least 90 days before
such date a notice in the Federal Register extending the date
and providing specific reasons why an extension is necessary.
Within 7 days after submission to the Commission of the final
assessment report, it shall be published in the Federal
Register for notice and comment. Any material modification of
the plan, as necessary to assess unforeseen aspects or
consequences of the regulation, shall be promptly published
in the Federal Register for notice and comment.
``(iii) Data collection not subject to notice and comment
requirements.--If the Commission has published its assessment
plan for notice and comment, specifying the data to be
collected and method of collection, at least 30 days prior to
adoption of a final regulation or amendment, such collection
of data shall not be subject to the notice and comment
requirements in section 3506(c) of title 44, United States
Code (commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act).
Any material modifications of the plan that require
collection of data not previously published for notice and
comment shall also be exempt from such requirements if the
Commission has published notice for comment in the Federal
Register of the additional data to be collected, at least 30
days prior to initiation of data collection.
``(iv) Final action.--Not later than 180 days after
publication of the assessment report in the Federal Register,
the Commission shall issue for notice and comment a proposal
to amend or rescind the regulation, or publish a notice that
the Commission has determined that no action will be taken on
the regulation. Such a notice will be deemed a final agency
action.
``(6) Covered regulations and other agency actions.--Solely
as used in this subsection, the term `regulation'--
``(A) means an agency statement of general applicability
and future effect that is designed to implement, interpret,
or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or
practice requirements of an agency, including rules, orders
of general applicability, interpretive releases, and other
statements of general applicability that the agency intends
to have the force and effect of law; and
``(B) does not include--
``(i) a regulation issued in accordance with the formal
rulemaking provisions of section 556 or 557 of title 5,
United States Code;
``(ii) a regulation that is limited to agency organization,
management, or personnel matters;
``(iii) a regulation promulgated pursuant to statutory
authority that expressly prohibits compliance with this
provision; and
``(iv) a regulation that is certified by the agency to be
an emergency action, if such certification is published in
the Federal Register.''.
SEC. 603. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO OTHER REGULATORY
ENTITIES
It is the sense of the Congress that other regulatory
entities, including the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and any
national securities association registered under section 15A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3)
should also follow the requirements of section 23(e) of such
Act, as added by this title.
TITLE VII--CONSIDERATION BY COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF
CERTAIN COSTS AND BENEFITS
SEC. 701. CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ITS
REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.
Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
19(a)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Before promulgating a regulation under
this Act or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph
(3)), the Commission, through the Office of the Chief
Economist, shall assess the costs and benefits, both
qualitative and quantitative, of the intended regulation and
propose or adopt a regulation only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify the costs of the intended regulation (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify). It
must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of
regulatory requirements.
``(2) Considerations.--In making a reasoned determination
of the costs and the benefits, the Commission shall
evaluate--
``(A) considerations of protection of market participants
and the public;
``(B) considerations of the efficiency, competitiveness,
and financial integrity of futures and swaps markets;
``(C) considerations of the impact on market liquidity in
the futures and swaps markets;
``(D) considerations of price discovery;
``(E) considerations of sound risk management practices;
``(F) available alternatives to direct regulation;
``(G) the degree and nature of the risks posed by various
activities within the scope of its jurisdiction;
``(H) whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose the least
burden on society, including market participants,
individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other
entities (including small communities and governmental
entities), taking into account, to the extent practicable,
the cumulative costs of regulations;
``(I) whether the regulation is inconsistent, incompatible,
or duplicative of other Federal regulations;
``(J) whether, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, and other benefits,
distributive impacts, and equity); and
``(K) other public interest considerations.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert the
following: ``(d), or (e)''.
Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
(e) Significant Regulatory Actions Ensuring Safe Drinking
Water.--The moratorium in section 102(a) shall not apply to
any significant regulatory action that is intended to ensure
that drinking water is safe to drink.
Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate
provisions accordingly:
(c) Safe Drinking Water Exception.--Section 202 shall not
apply to a midnight rule that is intended to ensure that
drinking water is safe to drink.
Page 20, insert after line 12 the following:
SEC. 305. EXCEPTION FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER.
The provisions of this title do not apply to any consent
decree or settlement agreement pertaining to a regulatory
action that is intended to ensure that drinking water is safe
to drink.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this
amendment to help ensure clean drinking water. This measure amends H.R.
4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, by exempting from the
moratorium regulations that ensure drinking water is safe.
Safe drinking water is essential to public health. There is a long
and terrible history of polluters dumping all matter of toxins into
rivers, streams, and other sources of drinking water. Aside from the
environmental destruction, it costs an enormous amount to effectively
clean such sources once they have been polluted. It costs even more to
provide the necessary medical care for persons made sick by exposure to
polluted water.
[[Page H5252]]
We cannot afford to weaken or delay critical agency actions designed
to ensure the continued enforcement and regulation of clean water
rules.
{time} 1730
This is not about creating jobs. Polluting water doesn't create more
jobs, but it does negatively impact public health. We must remain
vigilant in protecting our water supplies, and I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I oppose this amendment because it is
unnecessary and weakens the important reforms made by the bill. This
administration has been issuing a torrent of the most expensive
regulations, each of which cost the economy over $100 million.
According to a study by The Heritage Foundation, President Obama
already has adopted 106 regulations that add $46 billion in annual
regulatory costs to the private sector, and nearly $11 billion in one-
time implementation cost.
By contrast, in his first 3 years in office, President Bush adopted
28 major regulations costing the private sector $8 billion annually.
The bill is designed only to prevent unnecessary regulations. Titles
I and II have reasonable exceptions for the President to allow
regulations necessary because of an ``imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency.'' And the congressional waiver provision of
title I allows the President to authorize regulations during the
moratorium period with the permission of Congress. Regulations that the
President wants enacted simply have to go through Congress. Balance of
power.
Title III prevents agencies from using litigation with special
interest groups to force more regulations on the economy without
sufficient transparency, public participation, and judicial scrutiny.
For too long, agencies have used consent decrees and settlement
agreements as cover to promulgate regulations with less time for review
of cost and benefits, alternatives, and public comment. This is yet
another way that agencies impose unnecessary and ill-considered
regulations on the public. It should be stopped.
For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time in light of the fact that I don't think anyone else is going to
speak on this amendment.
I clearly understand my colleague's position as set forth. One thing
I cannot abide and offer by way of constructive criticism is the fact
that all over this Nation too often we find that polluters cause our
streams, rivers, and waters to be damaged. I'm a fifth-generation
Floridian, and I heard the gentleman in the Rules Committee and on the
floor today speaking pridefully, and rightfully, about his children.
I've seen the damage in Florida, and I have seen much of the damage
that has been done around the Nation. While it is true that the
legislation as offered would allow for the President to come to
Congress for approval, by the time Congress gets through doing
anything, the pollution that we are trying to avoid may very well have
overtaken us.
We have a very fragile ecosystem in our country and, as it pertains
to water, it would just be absurd for us not to be able to address it
immediately.
I'm pleased to yield such time as he will consume to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the author of this amendment because it
highlights the dangers of this bill. And surely if there is anything
that we prioritize in our whole ecosystem is the value and importance
of clean water over profits, and I am astounded that anyone would
oppose the amendment, frankly.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would just like to make it clear, again, that any regulations that
are needed, that the gentleman from Florida feels are needed, that the
President feels are needed, those can be enacted under this law. It
simply requires Congress to play a role. I have no doubt that the
President opposes this bill. I understand that he doesn't want to share
his regulatory power with this body. I'm sure a lot of Presidents might
feel that way. But it is all about separation of powers and sharing
power and allowing this body to have a say.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of
Congressman Conyers on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert the
following: ``(d), or (e)''.
Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
(e) Exception for Regulatory Actions Pertaining to
Privacy.--An agency may take a significant regulatory action
if the significant regulatory action pertains to privacy.
Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate
provisions accordingly:
(c) Privacy Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to a
midnight rule if the midnight rule pertains to privacy.
Page 19, insert after line 25 the following:
(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply in the case of
any consent decree or settlement agreement in an action to
compel agency action pertaining to privacy.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would amend the
bill's definition of ``significant regulatory action'' to exclude any
regulation or guidance that is intended to protect the privacy of
Americans.
With the increasing opportunities for governmental and private
organizations to obtain, maintain, and disseminate sensitive, private
information on citizens, it is critical that we not prevent or delay
the implementation of government regulations designed to protect the
privacy of this information for several reasons.
First, the government routinely collects almost every type of
personal information about individuals and stores it in its databases.
It may maintain this information for stated periods of time or
permanently, and the government may share it with State agencies under
certain circumstances.
The concern, Mr. Chairman, is that such information has itself become
a commodity with financial value, subject to abuse by those who seek to
sell it for financial gain or for criminal purposes, such as identity
theft.
Unfortunately, several Federal agencies, such as the Veterans
Administration, have lost the personal information of millions of
Americans. For example, in 2006, the personal information for more than
26 million veterans and 2.2 million current military servicemembers was
stolen from a Department of Veterans Affairs employee's home after he
had taken the data home without authorization.
Second, thanks to the largely unfettered use of Social Security
numbers and the availability of other personally identifiable
information through technological advances, data security breaches
appear to be occurring with greater frequency, in government and the
private sector. In both of those arenas, we see these data breaches
occurring. In turn, identity theft has swiftly evolved into one of the
most prolific crimes in the United States. Unregulated, those who have
it would seek to sell it and abuse it. And there are businesses which
exist for the purpose of collecting as much personal information as
possible about individuals so
[[Page H5253]]
that they can put together profiles that they can then sell.
Finally, the protection of Americans' privacy is not a Democratic or
Republican issue. Indeed, it is one of the few that those on opposite
ends of the political spectrum have long embraced.
{time} 1740
Who can dispute the need to protect the privacy of patients' health
information? The Department of Health and Human Services has been
tasked by Congress to implement new regulations to give patients more
control over their own health records. In addition, HHS is proposing
new rules to protect Americans from discrimination based on their
genetic information. Yet, H.R. 4078 would stop these regulations from
going into effect because the bill has only limited exceptions that
would be generally inapplicable to privacy protection regulations.
Likewise, the bill's waiver provisions are generally unworkable. My
amendment corrects this shortcoming by including in the bill an
exception for regulations that protect the privacy of Americans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Bono Mack).
Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered relating to
privacy regulations, midnight privacy rules, and consent decrees. At a
time when many of us are fighting attempts by the United Nations to
regulate the Internet, lo and behold, some in Congress would have us do
the exact opposite. The Conyers amendment would open the door for new,
burdensome, and potentially job-killing regulations on the Internet. We
don't need the United States stifling Internet freedom any more than
Russia, China, or India.
As chairman of the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over this
issue, I've convened multiple hearings on online privacy and had
countless conversations with stakeholders. And there is one thing that
absolutely everyone agrees on: don't mess up a great thing.
E-commerce continues to flourish, creating jobs for millions of
Americans and providing a tremendous boost to an otherwise stagnant
economy. This amendment could put all of that success in jeopardy,
stifling future innovation and growth.
I'd like to remind my colleagues that an agency could still
promulgate rules on privacy so long as they are not considered
``significant'' as defined in the bill. But what we don't need is a
system where dueling bureaucrats, the FTC and the FCC, impose
conflicting and confusing rules for consumers.
While the amendment sounds as if it is narrowly tailored to exempt
privacy regulations from the interim prohibitions on new regulations
and midnight rules, the term ``privacy'' is nonetheless undefined.
That's the very definition of ``loophole'' and opens the back door to
government intervention and regulation.
Soon, the House will consider my legislation telling the United
Nations, Russia, China and others to keep their hands off the Internet.
Today, let's tell the United States that very same thing.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not designed
to pave the way for any specific regulation. It is intended generally
to prevent the delay in issuing regulations that will protect the
privacy of our citizens. Privacy considerations should be at the
forefront of our concerns, not treated as secondary inconvenience.
Whether or not a specific issue is one ripe for regulation is properly
considered as part of the regulatory process, which carefully considers
all interests.
To delay privacy regulations, as this bill would do, is to short-
circuit the appropriately careful issuance of regulations needed to
keep the personal behavior and personal information of our citizens
safe from unwanted surveillance or exploitation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman,
because it is unnecessary. Titles I and II of the bill, the regulatory
freeze and midnight rules titles, apply only to those regulations that
are most costly to the economy, costing $100 million or more.
Unfortunately, these are the kinds of rules that the Obama
administration is issuing at a much faster rate than the previous
administration.
Under President Bush, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs' biannual regulatory agenda on average reported 77 economically
significant regulations in the proposed and final stages of the
rulemaking process. By comparison, President Obama's biannual average
is 124.
I would also note that President Obama's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not yet issued the spring 2012 regulatory
agenda, although judging by the weather alone, I would say that spring
is well behind us.
This can only add to the regulatory uncertainty that discourages job
creation. It is no wonder, then, that a Gallup Poll found that small
businessowners cite complying with government regulations as their most
important problem. The Federal Government needs to slow down on issuing
the most costly regulations until the economy has a chance to recover
or until this body approves regulations forwarded to it. Even if a
regulation related to privacy met the $100 million threshold for titles
I and II, I am confident that the bill's reasonable waiver procedures
would allow any necessary privacy regulation to move forward. There is
no reason that regulations related to privacy should be exempt from the
reforms to consent decree abuse contained in title III. For these
reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert ``(d), or
(e)''.
Page 5, after line 7, insert the following new subsection:
(e) Exception for Limiting Oil Speculation.--The
prohibition in section 102(a) shall not apply to any
significant regulatory action specifically aimed at limiting
oil speculation.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer a sensible amendment to improve
this bill.
My amendment exempts from the moratorium any significant regulatory
action that is specifically aimed at limiting speculation in the oil
markets. Now, think of a gas pump this way: if you look at a gas pump,
it's got that nozzle like that--it is actually a holdup device. Every
time our constituents pull up to the pump and say ``fill it up,'' the
oil companies are saying ``stick 'em up.'' That's what's happening.
So, do we really want to tell these speculators in oil markets that
we don't have any interest in stopping their speculation? Do we really
want this bill to do that? Because if we do that, what we are, in
effect, causing is, we're giving the oil companies carte blanche to
steal from our constituents. I am sure my friends on the other side of
the aisle don't want that to happen, which is why I brought this
amendment forward to help you.
Today, financial speculators have overwhelmed commodity markets and
[[Page H5254]]
have driven out bona fide market participants who seek to reduce the
risk of their investment by making offsetting investments. Excessive
speculation in oil markets has come about as a result of the
financialization of commodity markets. Financialization means that the
prices of a commodity like oil are being set not by supply and demand
but by financial concerns and by manipulation. Financialization has
increased volatility, increased prices in the futures market and
needlessly inflated the price all of our constituents pay at the pump--
stick 'em up--and pay for products like heating oil.
Now, let's not forget that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused,
in part, by commodity swaps, most of which are oil swaps. In July of
2008, traders pushed the price of a barrel of oil to a record $145. The
wild price fluctuation was not caused simply by changes in supply or
demand or by events in the Middle East. There was a worldwide recession
in 2008. Weak economies usually mean weaker demand for oil. But thanks
to Wall Street, that's not the case. They find a way to make a profit
at the expense of consumers and businesses.
For decades, bona fide commercial hedgers made up about 70 percent of
the commodities market activity, with speculators making up the other
30 percent. Now the speculators make up about 70 percent of the
activity, and commercial hedgers are 30 percent.
{time} 1750
Do we really want to provide an opportunity for these speculators to
cause our constituents to have to stick 'em up again?
Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes and 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. I will yield 45 seconds to my friend.
Mr. CONYERS. I may not need that much time.
But this is the most important provision in this bill--if we can
persuade our colleagues to accept it--because we've all been victims of
this rising gas price and then they miraculously come down a little
bit, and then they start going back up again and then they come down.
I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for introducing
the amendment, and I'm proud, along with him, to support consumers
across this country.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. How much more time would you
like? I thank you sincerely.
The New England Fuel Institute published a list of 100 studies--100
studies, my friends--showing the impact of commodity speculation. This
is entitled, ``Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation
by Academics, Analysts and Public Institutions.'' These studies show
the harms of unchecked financial speculation on all commodity markets,
not just oil. And though my amendment is focused on retaining the power
of our regulatory agencies to address oil speculation, the fact is that
excessive speculation hampers the proper function of all derivative
markets, not just energy markets.
Today, the average price of gas in America is about $3.50 a gallon--
higher than it ought to be--and that's because of excessive
speculation.
[June 14, 2012]
Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation by Academics,
Analysts and Public Institutions
(Compiled by Markus Henn)
1) Adammer, Philipp/Bohl, Martin T./Stephan, Patrick M.
(University of Munster) (2011): Speculative Bubbles in
Agricultural Prices: ``The empirical evidence is favorable
for speculative bubbles in the corn and wheat price over the
last decade.''
2) Agriculture and food policy centre (Texas University)
(2008): The effects of ethanol on Texas food and feed:
``Speculative fund activities in futures markets have led to
more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased
price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end
result has been the loss of the ability to use futures
markets for price risk management due to the inability to
finance margin requirements.''
3) Algieri, Bernardina (Zentrum fur Entwicklungsforschung
Bonn) (2012): Price Volatility. Speculation and Excessive
Speculation in Commodity Markets: Sheep or Shepherd
Behaviour?: . . . this study shows that excessive speculation
drives price volatility, and that often bilateral
relationships exist between price volatility and speculation.
(. . .) excessive speculation has driven price volatility for
maize, rice, soybeans, and wheat in particular time frames,
but the relationships are not always overlapping for all the
considered commodities.''
4) Aliber, Robert Z. (University of Chicago) (2008): Oil
Rally Topped Dot-Com Craze in Speculators' Mania (Bloomberg
article): ``You've got speculation in a lot of commodities
and that seems to be driving up the price. (. . .) Movements
are dominated by momentum players who predict price changes
from Wednesday to Friday on the basis of the price change
from Monday to Wednesday.''
5) Baffes, John (The World Bank)/Haniotis. Tassos (European
Commission) (2010): Placing the 2006/08 Commodities Boom into
Perspective. World Bank Research Working Paper 5371: ``We
conjecture that index fund activity (one type of
``speculative'' activity among the many that the literature
refers to) played a key role during the 2008 price spike.
Biofuels played some role too, but much less than initially
thought. And we find no evidence that alleged stronger demand
by emerging economies had any effect on world prices.''
6) Bass, Hans H. (Univ. Bremen) (2011): Finanzmsrkte als
Hungerverursacher? Studie fur Welthungerhilfe e.V.: ``Das
Engagement der Kapitalanleger auf den Getreidemarkten fuhrte
nach unseren Berechnungen in den Jahren 2007 bis 2009 im
Jahresdurchschnitt zu einem Spielraum fur
Preisniveauerhohungen von bis zu 15 Prozent.''
7) Basu, Parantap/Gavin. William T. (Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Loius) (2011): What explains the Growth in Commodity
Derivatives? ``Banks argue that they need to use commodity
derivatives to help customers manage risks. This may be true,
but the recent experience in commodity futures did not reduce
risks but exacerbated them just at the wrong time.''
8) Berg, Ann (former CME trader and director, now FAO
advisor) (2010): Agricultural Futures: Strengthening market
signals for global price discover. Paper to the FAO's
Committee on Commodity Problems Extraordinary meeting: ``. .
. over 150 years of futures trading history demonstrates that
position limits are necessary in commodities of finite supply
to curb excessive speculation and hoarding.''
9) Berg, Ann (former CME trader and director. now FAO
advisor) (2011): The rise of commodity speculation: from
villainous to venerable: ``Structural changes in global
commodity markets have greatly contributed to rising prices
and increased price variability. These fundamental trends
toward higher prices have been a key lure for increased
speculative activity on the major futures exchanges.''
10) Bicchetti, David/Maystre, Nicolas (2012) (UNCTAD): The
synchronized and long-lasting structural change on commodity
markets: evidence from high frequency data: ``we document a
synchronized structural break, characterized by a departure
from zero, which starts in the course of 2008 and continues
thereafter. This is consistent with the idea that recent
financial innovations on commodity futures exchanges, in
particular the high frequency trading activities and
algorithm strategies have an impact on these correlations.''
11) Buyuksahin, Bahattin (IEA)/Robe, Michel A. (American
University) (2010): Speculators, Commodities and Cross-Market
Linkages: ``We then show that the correlations between the
returns on investable commodity and equity indices increase
amid greater participation by speculators generally and hedge
funds especially.''
12) Chevalier, Jean-Marie (ed.) (Ministere de l'Economie.
de l'Industrie et de l'Emoloi) (2010): RaDDOrt du groupe de
travail sur la volatilite des prix du petrole: ``On peut
raisonnablement avancer en conclusion que le jeu de certains
acteurs financiers a pu amplifier les mouvements a la hausse
ou a la baisse des cours, augmentant a volatilite naturelle
des prix du petrole...''
13) Cooke, Bryce/Robles. Miguel (IFPRI) (2009): Recent Food
Prices Movements. A Time Series Analysis: ``Overall, our
empirical analysis mainly provides evidence that financial
activity in futures markets and proxies for speculation can
help explain the observed change in food prices; any other
explanation is not well supported by our time series
analysis.''
14) Cooper, Marc (Consumer Federation of America) (2011):
Excessive Speculation and Oil Price Shock Recessions: A Case
of Wall Street ``Deja vu all over again'': ``the paper shows
that excessive speculation, not market fundamentals caused
the spike in oil prices. The movement of trading and prices
in the three years since the speculative bubble in oil burst
in 2008 provides even stronger evidence that excessive
speculation is a major problem that afflicts the oil market
and the economy.''
15) Deutsche Bank Research (2009): Do speculators drive
crude oil prices? Dispersion in beliefs as price
determinants. Research Notes 32: ``The econometric estimates
can reject the null hypotheses that the dispersion in beliefs
of speculators has no influence on the crude oil price and
its volatility. Both the Granger causality tests and the
distributed lag models, which also include lagged regressors
that measure the dispersion in beliefs of speculators,
confirm moreover the
[[Page H5255]]
role of speculation as a precursor to price movements.''
16) Dicker, Dan (former NYMEX trader) (2011): ``I wrote
Oil's Endless Bid to show how the treatment of oil as a stock
by investors, far more than any number of globally
significant competing factors, causes the dramatically higher
prices that we've seen in recent years. I've witnessed
seismic changes to the oil markets during my many years as a
trader, and it's the everyday consumer who shoulders the
burden.''
17) Du, Xiaodong/Yu, Cindy L./Hayes. Dermott J. (Iowa State
University) (2009). Speculation and Volatility Spillover in
the Crude Oil and Agricultural Commodity Markets: A Bayesian.
Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation by
Academics, Analysts and Public Institutions--14 June 2012_
[email protected] Analysis. Working Paper No. 09-WP
491, 2009: ``Speculation, scalping, and petroleum
inventories are found to be important in explaining oil
price variation.''
18) Eckaus. R.S. (MIT) (2008): The Oil Price Really Is A
Speculative Bubble. ``Since there is no reason based on
current and expected supply and demand that justifies the
current price of oil, what is left? The oil price is a
speculative bubble.''
19) Einloth. James T. (FDIC) (2009): Speculation and Recent
Volatility in the Price of Oil: ``The paper finds the
evidence inconsistent with speculation having played a major
role in the rise of price to $100 per barrel in March 2008.
However, the evidence suggests that speculation did play a
role in its subsequent rise to $140.''
20) Evans, Tim (Citigroup energy analyst) (2008): The
Official Demise of the Oil Bubble (Wall Street Article):
``This is a market that is basically returning to the price
level of a year ago which it arguably should never have left.
(...) We pumped up a big bubble, expanded it to an impressive
dimension, and now it is popped and we have bubble gum in our
hair.''
21) Frenk, David (Better Markets Inc.) (2010): Review of
Irwin and Sanders 2010 OECD report: 1) The statistical
methods applied are completely inappropriate for the data
used. 2) The study is contradicted by the findings of other
studies that apply more appropriate statistical methods to
the same data. 3) The overall analysis is superficial and
easily refuted by looking at some basic facts.''
22) Frenk, David/Turbeville, Wallace C. (Better Markets
Inc.) (2011): Commodity Index Traders and the Boom/Bust Cycle
in Commodities Prices: ``We find strong evidence that the CIT
Roll Cycle systematically distorts forward commodities
futures price curves towards a contango state, which is
likely to contribute to speculative ``boom/bust'' cycles by
changing the incentives of producers and consumers of
storable commodities, and also by sending misleading and non-
fundamental, price signals to the market.''
23) Gheit, Fadel/Katzenberg, Daniel (2008) (Oppenheimer &
Co.): Surviving lower oil prices: ``The investment banks that
hyped oil prices using voodoo economics have suddenly
reversed their position and now expect much lower oil prices.
They helped cause excessive speculation, create the oil
bubble, and contributed to the global financial crisis. They
have changed their tune in exchange for a government bailout,
not because of changes in market fundamentals.''
24) Gilbert, Christopher (Trento University) (2010): How to
understand high food prices: ``By investing across the entire
range of commodity futures, index-based investors appear to
have inflated food commodity prices.''
25) Gilbert, Christopher (Trento University) (2010):
Speculative Influences on Commodity Futures Prices: ``The
results ... indicate that index-based investment in commodity
futures may have been responsible for a significant and
bubblelike increase of energy and non-ferrous metals prices,
although the estimated impact on agricultural prices is
smaller.''
26) Ghosh, Jayati (Jawaharlal Nehru University) (2010):
Commodity speculation and the food crisis: ``Thus
international commodity markets increasingly began to develop
many of the features of financial markets, in that they
became prone to information asymmetries and associated
tendencies to be led by a small number of large players. Far
from being `efficient markets' in the sense hoped for by
mainstream theory, they allowed for inherently `wrong'
signalling devices to become very effective in determining
and manipulating market behaviour. The result was the
excessive price volatility that has been displayed by
important commodities over the recent period--not only the
food grains and crops mentioned here, but also minerals and
oil.''
27) Global Hunger Index 2011 (IFPRI, Welthungerhilfe,
Concern Worldwide) (2011): ``Price increases and volatility
have arisen for three main reasons: increasing use of food
crops for biofuels, extreme weather events and climate
change, and increased volume of trading in commodity futures
markets.''
28) Goldman Sachs (2011): Global Energy Weekly March 2011:
``We estimate that each million barrels of net speculative
length tends to add 8-10 cents to the price of a barrel of
oil.''
29) Greenberger, Michael (University of Maryland) (2010):
The Relationship of Unregulated Excessive Speculation to Oil
Market Price Volatility. Paper for the International Energy
Forum: ``When speculators make up too large a share of the
futures market, they have the potential to upset the healthy
tension between consumers and producers and resulting
adherence of prices to market fundamentals. The resulting
volatility makes it more difficult for commercial consumers
and producers to successfully hedge risk, because prices do
not reflect market fundamentals, and so they abandon the
futures market and risk shifting--thereby further
destabilizing the price discovery influence of these
markets.''
30) Hamilton, James (Department of Economics, UC San Diego)
(2009) Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08:
``With hindsight, it is hard to deny that the price rose too
high in July 2008, and that this miscalculation was
influenced in part by the flow of investment dollars into
commodity futures contracts.''
31) Henderson, Brian J. (George Washington University)/
Pearson, Neil D./Wang, Li (2012) (University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign): New Evidence on the Financialization of
Commodity Markets: ``this paper examines the price impact of
commodity investments on the commodities futures markets
using a novel dataset of Commodity-Linked Notes (CLNs). CLN
issuers hedge their liabilities by taking long positions in
the underlying commodity futures on the pricing dates. These
hedging trades are plausibly exogenous to the contemporaneous
and subsequent price movements, allowing us to identify the
price impact of the hedging trades. We find that these
hedging trades cause significant price changes in the
underlying futures markets, and therefore provide direct
evidence of the impact of ``financial'' trades on commodity
futures prices.''
32) House of Commons Select Committee on Science &
Technology of the United Kingdom (2011). ``While the debate
on the relative importance of the multiple factors
influencing commodities prices is still open, it is clear
that price movements across different commodity markets have
become more closely related and that commodities markets have
become more closely linked to financial markets.''
33) Hunt, Simon (Simon Hunt Strategic Services) (2011):
``Slowly, the truth on whether the global copper market is
really tight is coming out. It illustrates just how large an
involvement the financial institutions have become to the
copper industry. It shows, too, that by throwing money at a
market, prices can be driven higher. In the process, however,
the delicate balance between supply and the industry's
requirements for a basic material used to produce a range of
essential products is destroyed. In short, copper is becoming
a financial asset in place of its historic role as an
industrial metal.''
34) Inamura, Yasunari/Kimata, Tomonori/Takeshi, Kimura/
Muto, Takashi (Bank of Japan) (2011): Recent Surge in Global
Commodity Prices--Impact of financialization of commodities
and globally accommodative monetary conditions. Bank of Japan
Review March 2011: ``While the strong increase in commodity
prices has been driven by global economic growth propelled by
emerging economies, speculative investment flows into
commodity markets have amplified the intensity of the price
surge. (...) global commodity markets have become more
sensitive to portfolio rebalancing by financial investors,
which has made commodity markets more correlated with other
asset markets, including major equity markets.''
35) institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2009):
Betting Against Food Security: Futures Market Speculation.
Trade and Global Governance Programme Paper: ``A large share
of the commodity exchange price volatility resides not
so much in supply and demand of the commodity traded as in
the fund formulas for buying and selling the bundled
futures contracts.''
36) International Monetary Fund (2008): Regional Economic
Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia: ``In summary, it
appears that speculation has played a significant role in the
run-up in oil prices as the U.S. dollar has weakened and
investors have looked for a hedge in oil futures (and
gold).''
37) Jalali-Naini. Ali bin Ibrahim (Economic Research Forum
Cairo) (2009): The Impact of Financial Markets on the Price
of Oil and Volatility: Developments since 2007: ``Causality
tests indicate that changes in speculative positions--
resulting from the entry and exit of non-commercials--can
generate price volatility. When used in conjunction with a
number of other variables, including commercial stocks and
product prices to explain variations in the price of oil, the
speculative length in the futures market has a positive and
significant coefficient.''
38) Jickling, Mark/Austin, Andrew D. (Congressional
Research Service) (2011): Hedge Funds Speculation and Oil
Prices: ``A statistically significant correlation is evident
between changes in positions held by ``money managers'' (a
category of speculators that includes hedge funds) and the
price of oil. In other words, during weeks when money
managers have been net buyers of oil futures and options (or
increased the size of their long positions), the price has
tended to rise. Price falls, conversely, have tended to
coincide with reductions in money managers' long positions.''
39) Jouyet, Jean-Pierre (President de l'Autorite des
marches financiers)/de Boissieu, Christian (President du
Conseil d'analyse economique)/Guillon. Serge (Controleur
general economigue et financier)
[[Page H5256]]
(2010): Rapport d'etape--Prevenir et gerer l'instabilite des
marches agricoles: ``Les marches agricoles sont confrontes a
une mondialisation et a une financiarisation qui influencent
leur fonctionnement. La volatilite naturelles des prix qui
caracterise ces marches est amplifiee par de nouveaux
facteurs et notamment par une speculation excessive.''
40) Juvenal, Luciana/Ivan, Petrella (Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis) (2011): Speculation in the Oil Market: ``We
find that the increase in oil prices in the last decade is
mainly due to the strength of global demand, consistent with
previous studies. However, financial speculation
significantly contributed to the oil price increase between
2004 and 2008.''
41) Kaufmann, Robert (Boston University) (2010): The role
of market fundamentals and speculation in recent price
changes for crude oil: ``I hypothesize that the price spike
and collapse of 2007-2008 are driven by both changes in both
market fundamentals and speculative pressures.''
42) Kawamoto, Takuji/Kimura, Takeshi/Morishita, Kentaro/
Higashi, Masato (Bank of Japan (2011): What has caused the
surge in global commodity prices and strengthened cross-
market linkage?: ``Moreover, we find quantitative evidence
that an increase in cross-market linkage between commodity
and stock markets was caused by the markets' increased
comovements due to large fluctuations in the global economy
during the financial crisis as well as by the
``financialization of commodities,'' that is, financial
investors are increasingly treating commodities as an
investment asset class.''
43) Kemp, John (Reuters) (2008): Crisis remakes the
commodity business: ``It does not alter the fact most of the
upsurge in futures and options turnover on commodity
exchanges and in OTC markets over the last five years has
come from investment-related rather than trade-related
business.''
44) Khan, Mohsin S. (Petersen Institute) (2009): The 2008
Oil Price ``Bubble'': ``While market fundamentals obviously
played a role in the general run-up in the oil prices from
2003 on, it is fair to conclude by looking at a variety of
indicators that speculation drove an oil price bubble in the
first half of 2008. Absent speculative activities, the oil
price would probably have been in the $80 to $90 a barrel
range.''
45) Korzenik, Jeffrey (CIO. Caturano Wealth Management)
(2009): Fundamental Misconceptions in the Speculation Debate:
`` `Overspeculation' or `excessive speculation' exists when
speculators become primary drivers of price. When this
happens, commodities are no longer efficiently allocated--if
prices are driven below the point where commercial supply and
demand meet, shortages result.''
46) Krugman, Paul (Columbia University) (2009): Oil
speculation: ``Last year I was skeptical about claims that
speculation was central to the price rise, because what I
considered the essential signature of a speculative price
rise . . . just wasn't showing. This time, however, oil
inventories are bulging, with huge amounts held in offshore
tankers as well as in conventional storage. So this time
there's no question: speculation has been driving prices
up.''
47) Lagi, Marco/Bar-Yam, Yavni/Bertrand, Karla Z./Bar-Yam,
Yaneer (New England Complex Systems Insitute, Cambridge MA)
(2011): The Food Crises A Quantitative Model of Food Prices
Including Speculators and Ethanol Conversion: ``The two sharp
peaks in 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 are specifically due to
investor speculation, while an underlying upward trend is due
to increasing demand from ethanol conversion. The model
includes investor trend following as well as shifting between
commodities, equities and bonds to take advantage of
increased expected returns. Claims that speculators cannot
influence grain prices are shown to be invalid by direct
analysis of price setting practices of granaries.'' and the
UPDATE from February 2012: ``we extend the food prices model
to January 2012, without modifying the model but simply
continuing its dynamics. The agreement is still precise,
validating both the descriptive and predictive abilities of
the analysis.''
48) Lines, Thomas (commodity consultant) (2010):
Speculation in food commodity markets: ``These are the main
problems that are caused by long-only index trading: It
pushes prices up, irrespective of the market situation. It
disrupts the rolling over of futures contracts when the
nearest month expires.''
49) Lombardi, Marco J./Van Robays, Ine (ECB) (2011): Do
financial investors destablize the oil price?: ``We find that
financial investors in the futures market can destabilize oil
spot prices, although only in the short run. Moreover,
financial activity appears to have exacerbated the volatility
in the oil market over the past decade, particularly in 2007-
2008. However, shocks to oil demand and supply remain the
main drivers of oil price swings.''
50) Luciani, Giacomo (Gulf Research Center Foundation)
(2009): From Price Taker to Price Maker? Saudi Arabia and the
World Oil Market: ``The inflow of liquidity, the increasing
role played by the futures market (paper barrels) over the
spot (wet barrels), and the proliferation of derivatives
which encourage betting on price changes rather than on the
absolute level of prices all contribute to worsen the
situation, amplifying price oscillations.''
51) Masters, Michael W. (Masters Capital) (2009): Testimony
before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission: ``In
summary, passive investors compete with physical commodity
consumers and make it much more difficult for them to hedge.
(. . .) They provide no benefits whatsoever to the markets
because they consume liquidity. And most importantly, they
drive up commodity prices, which hurts everybody on the
planet.''
52) Masters, Michael W. (Masters Capital)/White, Adam K.
(White Knight Research) (2008): How institutional investors
are driving up food and energy prices: ``Unfortunately, this
price discovery function of the commodities futures markets
is breaking down. With the advent of financial futures, the
important distinctions between commodities futures and
financial futures were lost to regulators. Excessive
speculation gradually became synonymous with manipulation,
and speculative position limits were raised or effectively
eliminated because they were not deemed necessary to
prevent manipulation.''
53) Mayer, Jorg (2009): The Growing Interdependence between
Financial and Commodity Markets. UNCTAD Discussion Paper 195:
``The increasing importance of financial investment in
commodity trading appears to have caused commodity futures
exchanges to function in such a way that prices may deviate,
at least in the short run, quite far from levels that would
reliably reflect fundamental supply and demand factors.
Financial investment weakens the traditional mechanisms that
would prevent prices from moving away from levels determined
by fundamental supply and demand factors--efficient
absorption of information and physical adjustment of markets.
This weakening increases the proneness of commodity prices to
overshooting and heightens the risk of speculative bubbles
occurring.''
54) Medlock, Kenneth B./Jaffe, Amy M. (Rice University)
(2009): Who is in the Oil Futures Market and How Has It
Changed?: ``. . . trading strategies of some financial
players in oil appears to be influencing the correlation
between the value of the U.S. dollar and the price of oil. (.
. .) We also find that the correlation between movements in
oil prices and the value of the dollar against the trade-
weighted index of the currencies of foreign countries has
increased to 0.82 (a significant measure) for the period
between 2001 and the present day, compared to a previously
insignificant correlation of only 0.08 between 1986 and
2000.''
55) Miller, Marcus (University of Warwick) (2011) Interview
with Al-Jazeera. ``A disturbing amount of price increases, I
fear, is being driven by speculative activity. Bets [on
future price rises or declines] can become self-fulfilling if
you are big enough to affect the market.''
56) Morse, E. (former Lehman Brothers chief energy
economist) (2008): Oil Dotcom. Research Note: ``Fundamental
changes cannot explain sudden, severe price or curve
movements. (. . .) Our conclusion from this study is that we
are seeing the classic ingredients of an asset bubble.''
57) Mou, Yiqun (Columbia University) (2010): Limits to
Arbitrage and Commodity Index Investment: Frontrunning the
Goldman Roll: ``This paper focuses on the unique rolling
activity of commodity index investors in the commodity
futures markets and shows that the price impact due to this
rolling activity is both statistically and economically
significant.''
58) Muller, Dirk (Finanzethos) (2011): Unschuldsmythen, Wie
die Nahrungsmittelspekulation den Hunger anheizt: ``Wie die
folgende Analyse zeigt, ist der zentrale Einfluss der
Spekulation auf die Preisentwicklung bei Grundnahrungsmittel
in Entwicklungslandern kaum zu leugnen.''
59) Naylor, Rosamund L./Falcon. Walter P. (Stanford)
(2010). Food Security in an Era of Economic Volatility:
``Uncertainty surrounding exchange rates and macro policies
added to price misperceptions, as did flurries of speculative
activity in organized futures markets. Events since 2005--
including the most recent period of price variability in
2010--underscore the point that uncertainty and expectations
can be as important as or even more important than actual
changes in grain demand and supply in driving price
variability.''
60) Newell, J. (Probability Analytics Research) (2008):
Commodity Speculation's ``Smoking Gun'': ``Real market forces
in these diverse markets are largely independent of one
another, and therefore price changes should be essentially
uncorrelated. This was clearly true historically; from 1984
through 1999 average correlation between all commodities was
only 7%. In the last 12 months this average rose to 64%.
Correlation with the GSCI was 23% historically, and rose to
76% in the last year. Index speculation has swamped real
market forces.''
61) Nissanke, Machiko (University of London) (2010):
Commodity Markets and Excess Volatility. Sources and
Strategies to Reduce Adverse Development Impacts. Paper
presented at the CFC Conference in Brussels December 2010:
``It can be argued that asset prices, including commodity
prices, traded globally are largely influenced by market
liquidity cycles in global finance. From this particular
perspective, we can have a plausible narrative of the recent
episode of commodity pricey cycle. (. . .) Clearly, trading
activities in world commodity markets have undergone some
fundamental change, as the links between activities in
commodity and financial markets has further intensified.''
62) Ortiz, Isabel/Chai, Jingqaing/Cummins. Matthew (2011):
Escalating Food Prices--the threat to poor households and
policies to
[[Page H5257]]
safeguard a Recovery for All. Unicef Social and Economic
working paper. ``Such activities [trading futures contracts
for speculative gains] have contributed to excessive
fluctuations in food commodity futures prices and distorted
signals for expected prices. By doing to, speculation impedes
practical hedging strategies and imposes significant
unanticipated costs and undue burden on food farmers,
processors and distributors, potentially contributing to
unwarranted changes in local food costs.''
63) Petzel, Todd E. (Offit Capital Advisors) (2009):
Testimony before the CFTC: ``I believe these investors in
aggregate have had a material impact on price levels, price
spreads and the level of inventories being held.''
64) Phillips, Peter C. B. (Yale University)/Yu, Jun
(Singapore University) (2010): Dating the Timeline of
Financial Bubbles During the Subprime Crisis: ``a bubble
first emerged in the equity market during mid-1995 lasting to
the end of 2000, followed by a bubble in the real estate
market between September 2000 and June 2007 and in the
mortgage market between August 2005 and July 2007. After the
subprime crisis erupted, the phenomenon migrated selectively
into the commodity market and the foreign exchange market,
creating bubbles which subsequently burst at the end of 2008,
just as the effects on the real economy and economic growth
became manifest.''
65) Pollin, Robert/Heintz. James (University of
Massachusetts)(2011): How Wall Street Speculation is Driving
Up Gasoline Prices Today: ``A major additional factor is the
rapid growth in large-scale speculative trading around oil
prices through the oil commodities futures market. Indeed, we
estimate that, without the influence of large-scale
speculative trading on oil in the commodities futures market,
the average price of gasoline at the pump in May would have
been $3.13 rather than $3.96.''
66) Ray, Darryl E/Schaffer, Harwood D. (University of
Tennessee) (2010): Index funds and the 2006-2008 run-up in
agricultural commodity prices: ``the fundamentals and/or
expectations in the energy and mineral markets rein supreme--
grains are along for the ride with little-to-no regard to
what is happening in the grain sector. Worries during the
period about the availability of oil drove up the price of
crude, which caused index funds to rebalance their portfolios
by making additional purchases of the other commodities to
maintain the specified balance. Since the resulting price
increases in agricultural commodities had virtually nothing
to do with their market conditions, the record level of
activity in the futures market by index funds would seem to
make index funds a logical source of possible price
overshooting.''
67) Robles, Miguel/Torero, Maximo/Braun. Joachim von
(IFPRI) (2009): When speculation matters. IFPRI Issue Brief
57: ``Changes in supply and demand fundamentals cannot fully
explain the recent drastic increase in food prices. Rising
expectations, speculation, hoarding, and hysteria also played
a role in the increasing level and volatility of food
prices.''
68) Roubini, Nouriel (New York University) (2009): The risk
of a double-dip recession is rising (Financial Times
Article): ``Another reason to fear a double-dip recession is
that oil, energy and food prices are now rising faster than
economic fundamentals warrant, and could be driven higher by
excessive liquidity chasing assets and by speculative
demand.''
69) Sachs, Jeffrey D. (Columbia University) (2008): Corn
Futures Spark Riots as Speculators Take Trading to Limit
(Bloomberg article): ``The fact that prices soared and then
they came down so much really does suggest that there was a
speculative element to it.''
70) Schulmeister, Stephan (Vienna University) (2009):
Trading Practices and Price Dynamics in Commodity Markets.
Study commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Finance and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and
Labour: ``Based on the ``bullishness'' in commodity
derivatives markets, short-term oriented speculators reacted
much stronger to news in line with the expectation of rising
prices than to news which contradicted the ``market mood''.
Hence, they put more money into long positions than into
short positions and held long positions longer than short
positions. Due to this trading behavior, upward commodity
price runs lasted longer in recent years than downward runs
causing prices to rise in a stepwise process. Commodity price
runs were lengthened by the use of trend-following trading
systems of technical analysis. These systems try to exploit
price runs by producing buy (sell) signals in the early stage
of an upward (downward) run. The aggregate trading signals
then feed back upon commodity prices.''
71) Schumann, Harald (2011): Die Hungermacher. Wie Deutsche
Bank, Goldman Sachs & Co. auf Kosten der Armsten mit
Lebensmitteln spekulieren. ``Die verantwortlichen Manager der
Finanzbranche argumentieren, es gebe keine Beweise dafur,
dass Finanzinvestoren auf den Rohstoffmarkten einen mehr als
nur kurzfristigen Einfluss auf das Preisniveau haben. Diese
Behauptung ist nicht haltbar. Fur den Roholmarkt 1st dieser
Zusammenhang sogar unter den Fachleuten der Finanzbranche
selbst nicht mehr umstritten.''
72) Schutter, Olivier de (UN Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food) (2010): Food commodities speculation and food
price crises: Regulation to reduce the risks of financial
volatility: ``The global food price crisis that occurred
between 2007 and 2008, and which affects many developing
countries to this day, had a number of causes. The initial
causes related to market fundamentals, including the supply
and demand for food commodities, transportation and storage
costs, and an increase in the price of agricultural inputs.
However, a significant portion of the increases in price and
volatility of essential food commodities can only be
explained by the emergence of a speculative bubble.''
73) Shiller, Robert J. (Yale University) (2008): Commodity
Prices Tumble (New York Times article): ``Commodities
followed the euphoria cycle that we had along with housing.''
74) Silvennoinen Annastiina (Queensland University) /
Thorp, Susan (Sydney University) (2010): Financialization
crisis and commodity correlation dynamics: We observe higher
and more variable correlations between commodity futures and
stock returns from mid-sample, with many series showing a
structural break in the conditional correlation processes
from the late 1990s.''
75) Singleton, Kenneth J. (Stanford University) (2010): The
2008 Boom/Bust in Oil Prices: ``In my view, while spot-market
supply and demand pressures were influential factors in the
behavior of oil prices, so were participation in oil futures
markets by hedge funds, long-term passive investors, and
other traders in energy derivatives.''
76) Singleton, Kenneth J. (Stanford University) (2011):
Investor Flows And The 2008 Boom/Bust in Oil Prices: ``I
present new evidence that there was an economically and
statistically significant effect of investor flows on futures
prices . . . The intermediate-term growth rates of index
positions and managed-money spread positions had the largest
impacts on futures prices.''
77) Soros, George (2008): Interview with Stem:
``Speculators create the bubble that lies above everything.
Their expectations, their gambling on futures help drive up
prices, and their business distorts prices, which is
especially true for commodities. It is like hoarding food in
the midst of a famine, only to make profits on rising prices.
That should not be possible.''
78) Tanaka, Nobuo (head International Energy Agency)
(2009): IEA says speculation amplifying oil prices moves
(Reuters article): ``Our analysis shows that the fundamentals
are deciding the direction of the price while these funds or
speculations . . . are amplifying the movement.''
79) Tang, Ke (Princeton University) / Xiong. Wei (Renmin
University) (2011): Index Investment and The Financialization
of Commodities. ``This paper finds that concurrent with the
rapid growing index investment in commodities markets since
early 2000s, futures prices of different commodities in the
U.S. became increasingly correlated with each other and this
trend was significantly more pronounced for commodities in
the two popular GSCI and DJUBS commodity indices. This
finding reflects a financialization process of commodities
markets and helps explain the synchronized price boom and
bust of a broad set of seemingly unrelated commodities in the
U.S. in 2006-2008. In contrast, such commodity price
comovements were absent in China, which refutes growing
commodity demands from emerging economies as the driver.''
80) Timmer, C. Peter (FAO) (2009): Peter Timmer: Peter
Timmer: Did Speculation Affect World Rice Prices?
``Speculative money seems to surge in and out of commodity
markets, strongly linking financial variables with commodity
prices during some time periods. But these periods are often
short and the relationships disappear entirely for long
periods of time.''
81) Trostle, Ronald (2008): Global Agricultural Supply and
Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent Increase in Food
Commodity Prices. USDA Economic Research Service: ``It is
unclear to what extent the effect these new investor
interests had on prices and the underlying supply and demand
relationships for agricultural products. However,
computerized trend-following trading practices employed by
many of these funds may have increased the short-term
volatility of agricultural prices.''
82) Tudor Jones, Paul (Tudor Investment Corporation)
(2010): Price Limits: A Return to Patience and Rationality in
U.S. Markets. Speech to the CME Global Financial Leadership
Conference. October 18, 2010: ``Every exchange traded
instrument including all securities, futures, options and any
other form of derivatives should have some form of a price
limit. And this is all the more urgently needed now that
electronic execution dominates trading.''
83) Turbeville, Wallace C. (former Goldman Sachs vice-
president) Critique of Irwin and Sanders 2010 OECD report
(2010): ``The issue is so important that scepticism of
conventional beliefs, not faith in the perfection of free
markets, is appropriate for any study of the issue.''
84) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) (2009): Trade and Development Report. Chapter II--
The Financialization of Commodity Markets: ``The
financialization of commodity futures trading has made
commodity markets even more prone to behavioural
overshooting. There are an increasing number of market
participants, sometimes with very large positions, that do
not trade based on fundamental supply and demand
relationships in commodity markets, but, who nonetheless,
influence commodity price developments.''
85) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) (2009): The global economic crisis: Systemic
failures and
[[Page H5258]]
multilateral remedies. ``The evidence to support the view
that the recent wide fluctuations of commodity prices have
been driven by the financialization of commodity markets far
beyond the equilibrium prices is credible. Various studies
find that financial investors have accelerated and amplified
price movements at least for some commodities and some
periods of time. (. . .) The strongest evidence is found in
the high correlation between commodity prices and the
prices on other markets that are clearly dominated by
speculative activity.''
86) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) (2011): Price Formation in Financialized Commodity
Markets: the Role of Information. ``Due to the increased
participation of financial players in those markets, the
nature of information that drives commodity price formation
has changed. Contrary to the assumptions of the efficient
market hypothesis (EMH), the majority of market participants
do not base their trading decisions purely on the
fundamentals of supply and demand; they also consider aspects
which are related to other markets or to portfolio
diversification. This introduces spurious price signals to
the market.''
87) United Nations Commission of Experts on Reforms of the
International and Monetary System (2009): Reoort: ``In the
period before the outbreak of the crisis, inflation spread
from financial asset prices to petroleum, food, and other
commodities, partly as a result of their becoming financial
asset classes subject to financial investment and
speculation.''
88) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)
(2010): Final report of the committee on commodity problems:
Extraordinary joint intersessional meeting of the
intergovernmental group (IGG) on grains and the
intergovernmental group on rice: ``Unexpected crop failure in
some major exporting countries followed by national responses
and speculative behaviour rather than global market
fundamentals, have been amongst the main factors behind the
recent escalation of world prices and the prevailing high
price volatility.''
89) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)
(2010). Price Volatility in Agricultural Markets. Economic
and Social Perspectives Policy Brief 12. December 2010.
``Financial firms are progressively investing in commodity
derivatives as a portfolio hedge since returns in the
commodity sector seem uncorrelated with returns to other
assets. While this `financialisation of commodities' is
generally not viewed as the source of price turbulence,
evidence suggests that trading in futures markets may have
amplified volatility in the short term.
90) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation
(FAO), IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP. The World Bank, The WTO,
IFPRI, UN HLTF (2011): Price Volatility in Food and
Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses: ``While analysts
argue about whether financial speculation has been a major
factor, most agree that increased participation by non-
commercial actors such as index funds, swap dealers and money
managers in financial markets probably acted to amplify short
term price swings and could have contributed to the formation
of price bubbles in some situations.''
91) United Nations High Level Task Force on the global food
security crisis (2008): ``The impact of speculation in
futures and commodity markets on food prices has also
highlighted the importance of appropriate regulatory measures
to ensure that on-going integration of financial markets
provides the basis for increased benefits, rather than risks,
for the poor.''
92) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations (2007): Excessive Speculation in the Natural
Gas Market: ``Amaranth's 2006 positions in the natural gas
market constituted excessive speculation. (. . .) Purchasers
of natural gas during the summer of 2006 for delivery in the
following winter months paid inflated prices due to
Amaranth's speculative trading.''
93) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations (2009): Excessive Speculation in the Wheat
Market ``This Report concludes there is significant and
persuasive evidence that one of the major reasons for the
recent market problems is the unusually high level of
speculation in the Chicago wheat futures market due to
purchases of futures contracts by index traders offsetting
sales of commodity index instruments.''
94) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations (2006): The Role of Market Speculation in
Rising Oil and Gas Prices: ``The large purchases of crude oil
futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an
additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil to be
delivered in the future in the same manner that additional
demand for the immediate delivery of a physical barrel of oil
drives up the price on the spot market.''
95) Urbanchuk, John M. (Cardno ENTRIX) (2011): Speculation
and the Commodity Markets: ``A careful examination of
activity by non-commercial and index traders (i.e.
speculators) in the corn futures market in the context of
supply and demand fundamentals strongly suggests that
speculation is a major factor behind the sharp increase in
both the level and volatility of corn prices this year.''
96) Van der Molen, Maarten (University of Utrecht) (2009):
Speculators invading the commodity markets: a case study of
coffee: ``Various analyses were performed to investigate
these effects [i.e. effects that index speculators have on
the futures market]. The results indicate that index
speculators frustrated the futures market in the period
between 2005 and 2008. This conclusion is based on the
following indications: fundamentals have a lower impact on
the price, the volume of index speculators has increased and
their ability to influence the futures market has
increased.''
97) Vansteenkiste, Isabel (ECB) (2011): What is driving oil
price futures? Fundamentals versus Speculation: ``We find
that for the earlier part of our sample (up to 2004) that
fundamentals have been the key driving force behind oil price
movements. Thereafter, trend chasing patterns appear to be
better in capturing the developments in oil futures
markets.''
98) Von Braun, Joachim (Bonn University) (2010). Time to
regulate volatile food markets (Financial Times article):
``The setting of prices at the main international commodity
exchanges was significantly influenced by speculation that
boosted prices. Not only are food and energy markets linked,
but also food and financial markets have become intertwined--
in short, the ``financialisation'' of food trade. There are
increasing indications that some financial capital is
shifting from speculation on housing and complex derivatives
to commodities, including food.''
99) Woolley, Paul (former fund manager. York University/
London School of Economics) (2010). Why are financial markets
so inefficient and exploitative--and a suggested remedy.
``Before the middle of the last decade the prices of
individual commodities could be explained by the supply and
demand from producers and consumers. With the flood of
passive and active investment funds going into commodities
from 2005 onwards, prices have been increasingly driven by
fund inflows rather than fundamental factors. Prices no
longer provide a reliable signal to producers or consumers.
More damagingly, commodity prices have a direct impact on
consumer price indices and the role of central banks in
controlling inflation is made doubly difficult now that
commodity prices are subject to volatile fund flows from
investors.''
100) Wray, Randall L. (University of Missouri-Kansas City)
(2008) The Commodities Market Bubble--Money Manager
Capitalism and the Financialization of Commodities. Public
Policy Brief No 96. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard
College: ``There is adequate evidence that financialization
is a big part of the problem, and there is sufficient cause
for policymakers to intervene with sensible constraints and
oversight to reduce the influence of managed money in these
markets.''
So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. I rise today to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
This amendment, which exempts any regulation aimed at limiting oil
speculation from the provisions of this bill, is no doubt well-
intentioned. No one in this body should be willing to settle for any
market manipulation or illegal trading activities. Indeed, the Federal
Government already has a robust and effective enforcement effort. In an
April 2011 letter to Senator Maria Cantwell, the Federal Trade
Commission wrote:
The Commission established a number of processes to
identify, investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute illegal
behavior in the energy industry using our full array of
enforcement tools. After review, Bureau of Competition staff
determined that none of the complaints involved conduct that
violated the market manipulation rules.
In fact, CFTC Chairman Mike Dunn summarized it in a January 13, 2011,
statement during the open meeting on the proposed rule. He said:
To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable
economic analysis to support either the conclusion that
excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or
that position limits will prevent excessive speculation.
Indeed, study after study has shown that excessive speculation has
not been the problem that my colleague would argue. Instead, almost
every instance of high prices can be traced back to market fundamentals
and an imbalance in supply and demand.
But today's amendment, though, isn't really about excessive
speculation. If it were, we would also be talking about the speculators
who have brought the natural gas markets to an all-time low, betting
that our newfound abundance of natural gas cannot all be used. Instead,
today's amendment is about finding fault. It's about finding a
scapegoat for the problem of high gas prices that have been plaguing
all of our constituents.
While I can sympathize with the gentleman's desire to know who is
responsible, the truth is the high price of oil is a problem of our own
making. Policy
[[Page H5259]]
decisions that were made years ago--failing to open new areas of
production, boutique fuel mandates, and slow-walking new
infrastructure--all contribute to today's pain at the pump.
Compounding these regulatory burdens is a growing long-term supply
problem. While we have experienced recent production gains, that may
not be enough to offset the demands of an expanding global economy. As
China, India, and others continue to industrialize, and as the United
States shakes off its economic downturn, we will again see pressure on
production to keep pace with demand.
Over the past 3 years, oil producers in America have invested in new
drilling technology and set off a production boom in places like North
Dakota, Pennsylvania, and in my home State, my hometown in the Permian
Basin area. This investment has led to 3 straight years of increasing
domestic production on private lands, adding an additional 120,000
barrels of oil a day in production last year alone.
If prices are too high, we should not castigate producers and/or
investors; we should open access to more supplies. If it is worth it,
Americans will produce more oil and bring down prices.
Efforts to blunt market signals by introducing regulations that make
it harder to trade commodities may provide a temporary reprieve from
high prices, but it will come at a cost. In the long term, artificially
lowered prices like this may lead to less investment and ultimate
supply shortages. The better way to fight high prices is to increase
supply. Just as the natural gas markets have plummeted to 10-year lows,
oil prices will respond to increasing production.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and not to waste any
more taxpayer dollars on finding blame for Congress' failure to act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to say to my friend that if the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission isn't really sure of the impact of
speculation, I have 100 different studies here--100. And if you would
like, if you have a budget for copy, we'll be glad to bring it over to
the CFTC so they can see that speculation is undermining markets and
undermining consumers.
Also, none other than Goldman Sachs did a study on the impact of
speculation. If you translate their study, our constituents are paying
a 56-cent-per-gallon increase on the price at the pump for speculation.
Stick `em up? No. We have to make sure that we hold the speculators to
an accountability, and particularly in oil markets.
I ask everyone to support this amendment, something we should be able
to agree on on a bipartisan basis.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman a designee of Mr. Lipinski of
Illinois?
Mr. WELCH. Yes.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert the
following: ``(d), or (e)''.
Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
(e) Significant Regulatory Actions Promoting Energy
Efficiency.--An agency may take any significant regulatory
action that is intended to promote energy efficiency.
Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate
provisions accordingly:
(c) Promotion of Energy Efficiency Exception.--Section 202
shall not apply to a midnight rule that is intended to
promote energy efficiency.
Page 20, insert after line 12 the following:
SEC. 305. EXCEPTION FOR PROMOTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
The provisions of this title do not apply to any consent
decree or settlement agreement pertaining to a regulatory
action that is intended to promote energy efficiency.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks by two things:
number one, not all regulations are good. It's a fair and appropriate
question to examine whether regulations are useful or harmful. But
second, not all regulations are bad. They can be useful, particularly
in the area of energy efficiency.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we're having a very contentious debate about
energy policy, but we've found one area where there is common
agreement, and that's less is more. Any time, whatever your fuel choice
is--whether it's coal, nuclear, oil, solar, wind--using less means you
save money. That's a good thing.
Regulations can play a very constructive role in helping those of us
who participate in the economy as individuals and as businesses to save
money. My amendment would exempt from this overbroad bill rules that
would prohibit energy efficiency-saving regulations.
Let me give a very good example of something that would happen
detrimental to the economy if this bill is not amended.
Fuel standards were established in November. They have not yet gone
into effect and would be prohibited from going into effect. The fuel
economy standards for model years 2017 to 2025 will carry our vehicle
fleet to an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon. The
consumers support this and, my friends, the industry supports this. The
car industry supports this. And one of the reasons they do is, if you
have a rule that applies to all our manufacturers, that's the rule that
they will manufacture their cars to.
{time} 1800
So you won't have gaming of this to try to get some short-term
advantage at the expense of the consumer, at the expense of a
competitor.
So energy efficiency is something that can help us save money. It can
help the economy be more efficient. And in order to achieve the goal of
energy efficiency, regulations, reasonably enacted, are absolutely
essential to achieving that goal.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to adopt the amendment and improve
this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I've
been saying repeatedly when the other amendments were debated I will
repeat: the bill that we have before us has ample exceptions for
regulatory action. And, in fact, it has a catch-all waiver that will
allow the President of the United States to seek approval of
regulations, but he'll have to work with Congress on them. After all,
we're the ones that authorize the laws, the bills; and we should be
authorizing and approving regulations.
There's no limit to which ones. The regulations addressed by this
amendment would certainly be fertile ground for the President to
forward to Congress for approval. So there are ample exceptions and
waivers.
And I would also point out that, as I indicated earlier, I'm not
anti-regulation. It's the excessive and overly burdensome regulations
that we are concerned with. We need reasonable regulation, commonsense
regulation. But the problem is the system, the regulatory system, has
gotten out of control.
So there are ample ways to deal with the issue addressed here under
the bill, and I believe this amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH. May I inquire as to how much time I have.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, two things: number one, we can't have a
comprehensive, one-size-fits-all bill that applies to regulations. It
requires some judgment. That means that there are some regulations that
are good, some are bad.
[[Page H5260]]
The gentleman, I think, is defending a bill that essentially has, as
its proposition, all regulations, by definition, are detrimental to the
economy, when that's not even close to accurate.
Second, I appreciate the gentleman's description of a waiver process
that gives, unfortunately, a theoretical way to resolve a situation,
but it's not a practical remedy. It requires congressional action.
And here's, Mr. Chairman, where I think we've got to get real with
ourselves, and we've got to get real with the American people. The idea
that we can agree on a disputed regulation would suggest that we could
have agreed on student loan interest rates, that we could have agreed
on the debt ceiling, that we could have agreed on a grand bargain. All
of these issues that are enormously contentious and consequential for
the American people, we have sharp divisions.
And I'm not asserting who's right or wrong in this. I'm saying that
all of us have to acknowledge the obvious and, that is, that Congress
is pretty close to dysfunctional. Things that have to be addressed are
being neglected.
So this notion that when it comes to the car mileage standard, we'll
be able to come into Congress and do a Kumbaya and all of us get
together and reach agreement on one thing when, on everything else, the
simplest of things we can't reach agreement, is not being direct and
straightforward with ourselves or with the American people.
Let's carve out an exception to this bill so that when this economy
and our consumers and businesses can benefit by energy efficiency,
which our industry supports, which our people and consumers support, we
allow them to do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert ``(d), or
(e)''.
Page 5, after line 7, insert the following new subsection:
(e) Additional Exception.--An agency may take a significant
regulatory action if such action would protect the public
from extreme weather events, including drought, flooding, and
catastrophic wildfire.
Page 10, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) necessary to protect the public from extreme weather
events, including drought, flooding, and catastrophic
wildfire;
Page 10, line 5, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 10, line 7, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself, at this point, 2 minutes,
and it's just to lay out how simple this amendment is.
It would ensure that the government could act to protect the public
from extreme weather, including drought, flooding, and catastrophic
wildfire.
The Republican bill on the floor today is so broadly and badly
written, who knows what could fall through the holes it blasts in
America's safety net.
Given the record-breaking extreme weather events our country has
experienced in the last few years, it cannot risk tying the helping
hands of government when it comes to dealing with droughts and floods
and wildfires and extreme events.
Mr. Welch was just talking about these fuel economy standards that
lift our fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year
2026. Well, that's a message to OPEC that we don't need their oil
anymore than we need their sand. But it's also a message that we can
reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we're sending up into the
atmosphere in a dramatic way.
And do you know who's complying with that? Do you know who said they
support it? The auto industry of the United States of America.
So it's not that we're doing anything that's radical. The radical
activity is coming from the majority, from the Republican Party, that
just has an aversion to anything that is put on the books as
regulation, even if it helps America's safety, helps America's climate,
helps America's foreign policy to back out imported oil. And that's
really what's very troubling here today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is, like the
others, unnecessary. And as it is drafted, it seems to suggest that the
Federal Government can somehow regulate the weather.
Titles I and II of this bill were carefully drafted to block only
those unnecessary, most costly regulations, those that cost the economy
$100 million or more. The bill contains reasonable exceptions for the
President to issue a regulation, for example, that is ``necessary
because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency''
or one that is ``necessary for the national security of the United
States.''
The bill also contains a congressional waiver exception whereby the
President can make any other necessary regulation with the permission
of Congress.
King Canute famously demonstrated many centuries ago that the weather
does not respect executive fiat. Although the Federal Government cannot
control the weather by regulation, it can issue regulations to help
Americans cope with the effects of extreme weather.
I believe the exceptions already in this bill would cover regulations
related to the extreme weather events suggested by the gentleman from
Massachusetts' amendment. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
So is the question this, that we're supposed to do literally nothing
about extreme weather? Are we supposed to pretend that we don't have
extreme weather?
We've had the worst drought, the hottest 12-month period in the
history of keeping records since 1895. You can go throughout the entire
country and see almost everywhere now the effects of extreme weather.
In our State of Vermont, Mr. Chair, last August 28, Tropical Storm
Irene dumped an immense amount of water and did the worst damage since
1927. We didn't used to have storms like that.
We also are starting to have a threat to our maple trees, from which
come the best maple syrup in the country, in the world.
Mr. Chairman, extreme weather is real. It's serious. And our response
is to put our heads in the sand.
I support this amendment.
{time} 1810
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would advise the gentleman from Vermont
that the best maple syrup comes from Chardon, Ohio.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair be able to give a recapitulation of the
time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes and
15 seconds remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Corn is shriveling. Pastures are dying. More than 1,000
counties in 29 States are eligible for drought disaster assistance.
Increased food prices from droughts act like an extreme weather food
tax on every single American. Even if the drought is not in your
neighborhood, you will feel the pain at the checkout counter. Even if
the heat wave has broken in your State, your cupboard may be emptier as
you have to make hard choices at
[[Page H5261]]
the grocery store. Even if the storm skips your town, the disruptions
will be felt all the way to your dinner plate. Many of our Western
forests are also extremely dry. Wildfire has already burned millions of
acres this summer. Tens of thousand of people have had to evacuate.
Hundreds of homes have been destroyed. Lives have been lost.
We also know that increasing carbon pollution increases the risk of
extreme weather. We all buy flood and fire insurance for our homes.
This amendment is the flood and fire insurance for America from the
disaster, the disaster that is this Republican legislation.
On the other side of this spectrum, parts of Minnesota and Florida
experienced devastating flooding in June. The rain from Tropical Storm
Debby caused Florida to have its wettest June ever. All of this
occurred during the hottest 12-month period for the lower 48 States
since record-keeping began in 1895, and it follows 2011, when America
experienced a record 14 extreme weather disasters that each caused $1
billion or more of damage.
Clearly, extreme weather is a threat to the safety and the security
of the American people and the economy, but this Republican bill could
smother the government's ability to prepare for a response to extreme
weather events. This amendment would make sure that the government's
regulatory fire blanket is ready for emergencies. The risk of extreme
weather is not going away. In fact, it is increasing. Mark Twain once
complained that everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does
anything about it. Well, now we are with this amendment.
By pumping carbon into the air, we are changing the climate, raising
the temperature, increasing the risk of extreme weather. The
Republicans just don't accept science. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in Part B of House Report
112-616 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 514]
AYES--188
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--231
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Culberson
Dicks
Garamendi
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lewis (CA)
Noem
Reyes
Richmond
Stivers
Sutton
{time} 1839
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, CAMPBELL, COBLE, FLAKE, GRIFFITH of
Virginia, BARTLETT, and SMITH of Nebraska changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
[[Page H5262]]
Messrs. TIPTON, TOWNS, BISHOP of Georgia, McDERMOTT, PLATTS, and
MEEHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 259, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 515]
AYES--159
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--259
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop (NY)
Culberson
Dicks
Garamendi
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lewis (CA)
Reyes
Richmond
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1843
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 515 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 245, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
[[Page H5263]]
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop (NY)
Culberson
Dicks
Garamendi
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lewis (CA)
Lynch
Reyes
Richmond
Stivers
Sutton
{time} 1847
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 242, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 517]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--242
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Bishop (NY)
Culberson
Dicks
Garamendi
Herrera Beutler
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lewis (CA)
Meeks
Reyes
Richmond
Stivers
Sutton
{time} 1851
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings
[[Page H5264]]
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 240, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 518]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Bishop (NY)
Culberson
Dicks
Garamendi
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Meeks
Reyes
Richmond
Stivers
Sutton
{time} 1855
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gingrey of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________