[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1568-1597]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    DIRECTING COMMITTEES TO REVIEW REGULATIONS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to clause 1(c) of 
rule XIX, proceedings will now resume on the resolution (H. Res. 72) 
directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, 
pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the 
Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs 
and economic growth.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When consideration was postponed on 
Thursday, February 10, 2011, 4 hours of debate remained on the 
resolution, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairs 
and ranking minority members of the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Agriculture, and Oversight and Government Reform, and 1 hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the majority leader and 
minority leader or their designees.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, and 2 years into the current 
administration, Washington policies have not rescued our economy from 
crisis. In fact, they have entrenched the crisis. American workers and 
American companies pay the price as Washington regulations stifle job 
creation and slow economic recovery.
  The Judiciary Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over sweeping 
economic regulations, but it does have jurisdiction over something that 
sweeps with just as much force. That is the administrative law that 
governs how agencies must respond to Congress and what agencies must 
consider before they regulate at all.
  The REINS Act enables us to reassert Congress' authority over the 
most burdensome regulations that our agencies churn out. These are 
major regulations--those that impose a burden of $100 million or more 
on our economy.
  The REINS Act requires Congress, not an unelected agency head, to 
decide whether regulations with massive costs become the law of the 
land. The Judiciary Committee has already begun hearings on the REINS 
Act and intends to move quickly to mark up this legislation.
  Small businesses are the heart of job creation. Rather than bend to 
small business' needs, Washington too often rigidly demands that small 
businesses bend to Washington.
  Overbearing one-size-fits-all Federal regulations have long been the 
order of the day. Small businesses cannot bear their weight. Since 
small businesses

[[Page 1569]]

are the engine of job creation, it is clear what suffers--that is, 
jobs.
  This week, I introduced the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act 
of 2011 to force Federal agencies to accommodate the needs of small 
businesses. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the 
bill, and it intends to mark up that bill soon.
  Let's reform the Administrative Procedure Act, the fundamental 
charter for all agency rulemaking. While it is not time to retire the 
APA, it is past time to strengthen it with commonsense reforms. We 
should make permanent cost benefit analysis requirements that 
Presidents have developed through Executive orders. Practice has proved 
that cost benefit analysis improves regulatory effectiveness and lowers 
regulatory cost. But an Executive order, no matter how wise, can be 
revoked by the next resident of the White House.
  Other vital reforms also must take place. Agencies' favorite and 
almost universal course under the APA is informal notice-and-comment 
rulemaking. This procedure is certainly convenient and it does have its 
place, but under its shelter, it has long been too easy for Big 
Government to impose hard-hitting rules without sufficiently vetting 
them. This should change. We should consider tougher requirements that 
agencies must demonstrate a need for regulations.
  Congress and the courts provide daily proof that evidence tested with 
witnesses at hearings produces the best judgments. Why shouldn't 
agencies use formal rulemaking hearings to evaluate the need for major 
regulations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars?
  We also should make sure the public has earlier opportunities to 
comment on potential agency action. Public input should come well 
before agency positions harden into settled, but often underinformed, 
judgments. Under traditional one-time notice-and-comment procedures, 
agency decisions are too often made before public comment even happens.
  President Obama has embraced a number of these principles with both 
spoken and written words. So I hope we will have bipartisan support for 
our efforts to pass meaningful legislation that will help create jobs.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am curious about the reference and surprised that my friend, the 
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would come to the floor in 
this discussion and lift up the REINS Act as a way that we may prevent 
the regulations for inhibiting jobs.

                              {time}  0920

  Dear friends, under the REINS Act we would be violating the 
separation of powers doctrine that I am sure that Members of the 
Judiciary Committee, particularly my friend the chairman and ranking 
member for many years, would be familiar with.
  The REINS Act, which we have under consideration in our committee, 
would be the last thing we would want to enact in this Congress to 
create more jobs--the last thing. I am surprised that the separations 
of powers doctrine is now required for me to explain on the House 
floor, about a 1988 case entitled Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, that 
the REINS Act would be constitutionally infirm and that the REINS Act 
would be a terrible thing for us to do if you are serious about jobs.
  Supporters of the REINS Act argue that Congress, and the chairman has 
said this, that Congress has delegated too much authority over the 
years to what they call ``unelected bureaucrats'' in the executive 
branch--of course, they are appointed--creating thereby a lack of 
accountability among Federal agencies and resulting in burdensome 
regulations.
  The REINS Act does not address even the problem that they are arguing 
about. Some might argue that there is a need to strike a balance 
between protecting the safety and health of all Americans and fostering 
economic growth and job creation. But the President of the United 
States has already anticipated this need with his issuance just days 
ago of the executive order improving regulation and regulatory review. 
I intend to put this in the Record at the appropriate time. This 
directs agencies to consider these concerns in promulgating rules.
  But the bill that the chairman of the committee refers to would not 
achieve this balance. Rather, it will distort the rulemaking process 
and will hamper implementation of every single law on the books by 
changing the presumption in the Congressional Review Act and requiring 
affirmative congressional approval for all major rules. This act will 
serve as a chokehold and stifle regulatory review, which may in fact be 
the real intent of REINS legislation.
  So I must respectfully hope that all of the Members of this House 
will carefully review the REINS Act, which will be coming up for a vote 
in the committee. We have had the hearings. I would like you to all 
weigh in on this, because nothing could be more seriously destructive 
to trying to create jobs than doing what is proposed in that bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who is chairman of the Administrative 
Law Subcommittee.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the distinguished chairman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong support, Madam Speaker, of this resolution. It has 
been far too long since the Congress conducted a comprehensive review 
of our regulatory policies and procedures. I am not here today to be a 
demagogue or accuser, but it appears that many of our regulations have 
simply become another cost of doing business in America.
  My district is no different than many others. We are suffering from 
the recession; and while we once claimed many manufacturing and 
producing distinctions, a significant number of directly related jobs 
have either disappeared or gone elsewhere. This situation has grown so 
dire that the general feeling in many places in America is that if the 
government wants to hold you in violation, the chances are trouble is 
imminent.
  I support public safety, public health, safe work conditions, and 
other areas covered by Federal regulations; but I simply do not agree 
with those who feel that the only problem with our regulations is that 
there are not enough. This mentality, Madam Speaker, is exactly what 
has gone wrong with many of our regulations.
  I have no doubt that if we clean up our regulatory system, new 
business and investment will be forthcoming in America, and I believe 
we can do this in such a way as to reinforce good, sound regulations. 
The Judiciary Committee, Madam Speaker, has jurisdiction over the 
Administrative Procedures Act and many other areas of the Commercial 
Code which can be improved without compromising consumer interests.
  A lot is at stake here. And this is not a fight between businesses 
and their regulators. It is a fight, Madam Speaker, for the American 
Dream, that a business, an entrepreneur or innovator can have an idea, 
perhaps a dream, and then fully pursue it.
  I am not implying that the sky is falling, but the reality is 
disappointing indeed. Our country is becoming less conducive for 
economic growth; and a major contributing factor, in my opinion, is the 
failure of our regulatory system. I hope we can change this very soon, 
Madam Speaker.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Administration.
  Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the ranking member for the time.
  Madam Speaker, my subcommittee, Courts, Commercial and Administrative 
Law, has had hearings on these bills, the REINS Act, as well as the 
regulatory reform bills that have been proposed. The REINS Act would 
require all measures that have a cost of $100 million or more, before 
their regulations go into effect, within 70 days of

[[Page 1570]]

the promulgation of those regulations, they would have to be approved 
by a positive vote of this House and our equal House, the Senate, and 
signed by the President before they go into effect.
  The reality, Madam Speaker, is this would stifle government and 
stifle growth, because, as we have seen, the Senate has difficulty 
doing much of anything within 70 days. In fact, it had difficulty doing 
much in 2 years. And to ask the Senate, where any one Senator can put 
down a slip on a judicial nomination or hold up legislation if they so 
choose unless they get what they desire and want, the last vestige in 
reality that we have in this county of ``don't ask, don't tell''--don't 
ask the Senator what they want and don't tell what they got--all of 
these regulations would be at the whim and caprice of any one 
individual Senator.
  That is not what the American public wants. The American public wants 
the government to work. They want the House and Senate to work. They 
don't want the system in the Senate where one Senator can kill almost 
anything, to where ``Senator No'' can stop the government from actively 
promoting the general health, welfare, and safety of the American 
public.
  Now, the REINS Act wasn't needed, apparently, during the time that 
George Bush was President, and yet there were more regulations and 
rules during that time than there have been during President Obama's 
time as President. It is interesting to note that my colleagues on the 
other side understood the separation of powers doctrine and the fact 
that article II allows the executive to carry out and administer the 
laws, and they should be able to do so.

                              {time}  0930

  But once President Obama came into office and there was financial 
services reform--the financial services reform we needed, because 
without regulations the financial services sector almost took this 
country into another Great Depression. They did take us into a Great 
Recession, costing us jobs and jobs and jobs and jobs.
  The high unemployment rate is the result of the lack of regulation in 
the housing industry, in the financial service industry, where those 
two worked together to almost bring down this Nation's economy and the 
world's economy to where we had a day when President Bush brought us 
the TARP to save our economy. And in a bipartisan fashion we passed the 
TARP that Secretary Paulson told us we had to pass because we were on 
the brink, as President Bush also said, of financial collapse. Yes, 
financial collapse because of the lack of regulation. And yet in this 
Congress, the 112th, we're being asked to say that no regulations would 
take effect unless the House, and the Senate--that body known not for 
its alacrity but for its ``deliberateness''--would have to act and 
possibly pass something within 70 days.
  Health care legislation; regulations couldn't go into effect to keep 
young people on their parents' insurance until they're 26 unless the 
Senate acted within 70 days. Preexisting conditions would continue to 
be an impediment for children to get insurance and to be treated. 
Lifetime caps would continue to exist because we couldn't get 
regulations approved within 70 days.
  The fact is, it's the executive's responsibility to carry out the 
laws that the Congress passes, that Congress is not the Executive. And 
because Barack Obama is President is no reason to change what the 
Founding Fathers set up as a great document, with three separate and 
equal branches of government being challenged now. The REINS Act would 
go back to what the Founding Fathers wanted. It would go back on the 
Constitution, which we spent time reading on this floor--the entire 
Constitution--that included article II, the powers of the executive, an 
equal branch of government to the legislature. And the REINS Act would 
say that the Constitution doesn't matter; that the Congress, the 
legislative branch that is supposed to pass the laws, will also be a 
part of executing the laws.
  I hold the Constitution in high regard and don't believe we should 
shred it because we want to have an opportunity to slow up financial 
regulations passed as part of the Dodd-Frank bill and health care for 
the American public. The whole idea of this review of regulations that 
we've gotten and this discussion on this floor of the House has taken 
this House to a place where the American public doesn't watch the 
Congress make laws and make improvements to create jobs and to improve 
the welfare of the American public, but it makes it a debating society, 
because we already have the power to review rules, and we do it in the 
Judiciary Committee and we do it in all committees. But now we're going 
to have reality television; and C-SPAN, instead of watching us pass 
laws, is going to watch us discuss what we already have been doing, 
always do, and are supposed to do, which is review regulations and have 
oversight but not veto over the executive.
  So, Madam Speaker, it is with great regret that I participate in this 
debate because this debate is not a part of a law and an action and a 
bill to improve the American public but simply a political show. And 
with all due respect to the chairman of the committee and the members 
who have brought this legislation, it violates the Constitution, which 
we read. That shouldn't have been a show. That should have been 
something we held deeply to our hearts. This violates the Constitution 
and the powers of article II.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle and to those who are watching this debate that both 
Supreme Court Justice Breyer and well-known and well-regarded Professor 
Larry Tribe have written supporting the constitutional basis of the 
REINS Act. It is clearly constitutional. It is clearly going to create 
jobs. By the way, that's as opposed to the new health care bill, which 
the CBO said yesterday was actually going to cost 800,000 jobs.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the Nation is overregulated. You talk to any business 
owner, small or big, one of the first things they will talk to you 
about is the massive amount of Federal regulations that are imposed on 
them, many of them making no sense but costing them money. Of course, 
that cost is always transferred down to the consumer, the American 
citizen.
  I have tried to find out in the last few days how many regulations 
there are. Nobody knows. We can't find anybody in Washington that can 
give us an exact number of how many. One person that I trust said that 
there are over 300,000 Federal regulations that have punitive fines for 
failure to abide by that regulation. That's a lot of regulations.
  It seems to me--and this is just my opinion--that down the street 
where the bureaucrats work in those offices--and we don't know who 
those people are--they get up every morning; they go into a room; they 
sit around a big conference table, drink coffee, and they say, ``Who 
can we regulate today?'' And they write out another regulation and pass 
it down to the fruited plain and make the American citizen comply with 
that regulation.
  Some regulations are probably pretty good. Some probably are not so 
good. And it's our duty as representatives of the people to control and 
regulate the regulators. That is our job. I believe that is our 
constitutional requirement since we allow these agencies to exist in 
the administration.
  It seems to me the Federal Government should help business, not get 
in the way of business. And we should start our job of doing away with 
burdensome regulations that don't help the country.
  This law allows Congress to review, by means of an expedited 
legislative process, Federal regulations issued by the government 
agencies and by passage of a joint resolution to overrule a regulation. 
We should have oversight over those regulations.
  The health care bill is probably a pretty good example of this 
overregulation. Regardless of where we are on

[[Page 1571]]

that issue, it brings about new massive, expensive regulations. Section 
906 of H.R. 3590 will require business owners to submit a separate 1099 
form for every single business transaction that they have with another 
business that totals more than $600 a year. What that means, you've got 
a business and they deal with other businesses. If they deal with them 
more than $600 a year, which many businesses do, they've got to file a 
1099 form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. It's expensive regulation that makes no sense. Why 
should all this paperwork be sent up to Washington so bureaucrats can 
review it? I don't understand the logic. It makes no sense. It costs 
money.
  But the bill also requires 16,000 new IRS agents to oversee the 
individual mandate requirement that every person must comply with. I 
think that mandate is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will 
eventually decide. But why do we need 16,000 new IRS regulation agents 
under the health care bill? I think that's overregulation. And, in 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office, as my friend, the chairman from 
Texas, said, Director Elmendorf yesterday testified that the health 
care bill will cost 800,000 jobs for Americans. He said that yesterday. 
So the bill is not going to help the economy. It's not going to help 
get jobs. It's going to cost us 800,000 jobs.
  These are some reasons why I think Congress has the obligation to 
review the regulatory process and to get our house in order and 
probably eliminate a few of those 300,000 expensive regulations that 
are imposed upon businesses and on citizens.
  And that's just the way it is.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In the time allotted to the Judiciary Committee, Judge Poe, if he is 
still here, has raised two specific grievances about overregulation 
diminishing job opportunity. One was on the 1099 form, which I am going 
to examine more carefully; and the other was about the fact that the 
Health Care Reform Act frequently, derogatorily, is referred to as the 
ObamaCare Act, but which I call the ObamaCare Act because I think it's 
going to go down in history as a major accomplishment of the 
President's within the first 2 years of his office.
  He said it would cost 800,000 jobs. I would like to ask him or anyone 
in the House for any evidence that there is an 800,000 jobs expense. 
The health care bill that both sides refer to as ObamaCare now creates 
jobs because we're adding many more people to the health care system, 
which, ladies and gentlemen, is going to require more doctors, more 
nurses, more clinics, more hospitals.
  How on Earth can we expand the provisions of health care, which 
incidentally should apply to every American in this country, and then 
say that it's going to reduce the number of jobs?
  I think that logic defies explanation, but I would yield to anybody 
who would like to explain it to me.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank my friend, the ranking member, for 
yielding.
  The source of the information that I have used and that Judge Poe has 
used in saying that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs 
is from a report released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office, 
saying that the health care bill would cost 800,000 jobs.
  The CBO, as we all know, is an independent, credible, outside agency 
upon whom we rely for information on a regular basis. For them to come 
out and say that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is, 
quite frankly, believable and the reason, I think, we can cite them as 
a credible source.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I frequently cite them as a credible 
source myself; but would the chairman of the committee explain how we 
insure millions more people and then have fewer and fewer jobs?
  Did the CBO explain anything about this job loss and about how the 
health care system would be considerably expanded but would at the same 
time lose jobs and would do it with fewer people? Would the chairman of 
the committee assist me in understanding that apparent disconnect?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I can't explain the disconnect because I don't 
think there is a disconnect.
  We can certainly supply you with the testimony that was offered by 
the CBO yesterday in which they said it would cost 800,000 jobs. We'll 
look for a copy of that testimony, or the other Judiciary staff members 
might be able to supply us with a copy of that as well.
  I don't think there is a disconnect. I believe the CBO. I do believe 
that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as 
she may consume to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas, 
Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank Mr. Conyers for yielding as I 
think it is important that we explain to our colleagues what we're 
doing here.
  Madam Speaker, this is part of a 7- or 9-hour marathon for committees 
of jurisdiction to come to the floor to respond to how important it is 
to, in essence, clog up the government. It sounds pretty, and it sounds 
attractive to be able to suggest that we have not been exercising due 
diligence as relates to the regulatory process of the executive branch.
  My colleague from Tennessee was right: when we cite the Constitution, 
what we are saying is that the Founding Fathers recognized the 
importance of three distinct branches:
  The legislative writes legislation. It has the right to oversight, 
and those who are part of this body are elected to represent certain 
perspectives.
  The executive is elected by all of the people, electing the President 
of the United States.
  The third branch, the judiciary, has oversight.
  So what we have taken to the floor to do is to spend 9 hours in 
redundancy, talking about what this body should be doing anyhow. We 
have the responsibility of oversight. We have the ability to question 
regulations in regular order; but what we will be doing is ignoring the 
people's business of creating jobs and, frankly, putting ourselves in 
the role of a clogged toilet, meaning that we are doing nothing, that 
we are stuffed up.
  I would make the argument that the REINS Act, maybe through good 
intentions, is a dilatory tactic that keeps us from doing our work. As 
a member of the House Judiciary Committee, let me give you a few 
examples.
  One of the subcommittees I have the privilege of sitting on--and I 
thank Chairman Smith for designing this committee again--is a committee 
dealing with competitiveness. What could be more important than 
assessing whether or not this country is losing its competitiveness to 
countries around the world or that corporations are doing 
noncompetitive acts that cause us to lose jobs?
  I am not happy with the United-Continental merger. We've just lost 
jobs in Houston--500 of them. I would prefer our continuing to have 
oversight over whether these large-type mergers cause us to lose jobs. 
There are any number of merging industries that believe that's the best 
way to go, and therefore I would welcome that opportunity.
  Mr. Conyers, I understand that the mayor of New York is suggesting 
that Germany should take over Wall Street. I'm offended. I'm hurt. Not 
that I have anything against Germany, but I know that there is a type 
of intellectual property that is possessed: if nothing else, the pride 
of Wall Street as it relates to the body politic of finance in this 
country and around the world. I would like to have a hearing as to 
whether or not that is detrimental to the loss of jobs or whether, in 
fact, it

[[Page 1572]]

diminishes the competitiveness of this Nation. That is what the 
Judiciary Committee has powers to do.
  If you put this bill in place--and I don't mind conceding that 
something is going to pass--I hope that there is a thought process that 
recognizes that staff has indicated to us that last year, under this 
rule, there were 94 major regulations that this body would have to 
attend to. So we would have had to eliminate our work on food safety; 
we would have had to eliminate our work on Wall Street reform; we would 
have had to eliminate our work on ensuring that Americans get good 
health care, all in order to stop the work of this body to address a 
regulation that we would have every right in an oversight process to 
handle.
  Then, as a member of the Crime Subcommittee, I want you to be aware 
of the fact that I've been told by representatives of the Federal 
Bureau of Prison that our Federal prisons now house more convicted 
international and domestic terrorists than Guantanamo Bay. Yet we are 
at a hiring freeze. We don't have enough Federal Bureau of Prisons 
corrections officers. As the rising inmate population--nothing that I'm 
proud of--continues to grow, the ratio of Federal prisons correction 
officers diminishes.

                              {time}  0950

  You can see it in a tragedy in Washington State: Not enough officers 
in a State prison, and a prison officer is killed. We need to have 
hearings on how we can address the crisis in the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons. I might say, they would add jobs. We need more individuals 
there to protect those who are serving their country as being part of 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, creating jobs. Why are we not 
attending to that?
  When you have to address major regulation and stop the business of 
this House to either hold a hearing in committee or in 15 days 
discharge to the floor, we have to debate it on the floor, that's what 
we will be doing, rather than engaging in the legislative process. We 
write the laws, and I might say that I have a great deal of respect for 
the CBO, but I also know that they are not without vulnerabilities, and 
they are not without imperfection. If there's 800,000 jobs being lost, 
are they being lost throughout industry because of certain requirements 
and then, on the other hand, some 3 million-plus jobs may be created 
because of the access to health care and the increase in resources for 
more doctors and nurses, health technicians, providing scholarship 
dollars, more community health clinics that will employ people--it 
doesn't make sense. It's an oxymoron to suggest that you're going to 
have a finite loss of 800,000 but you're not going to be able to 
increase.
  Let me add, I'm on Judiciary, and this is what we're here for. I've 
already cited to that I'd like the Competition Subcommittee to be 
addressing the questions of whether mergers are still good for America 
and the working people; whether or not our intellectual property that 
is being hacked and stolen is diminishing the ability for American 
workers to work; whether or not even entertaining selling Wall Street 
is a rational approach to take.
  And then let me get on a more controversial subject. Someone would 
make the argument now this couldn't be a job creator, but we have been 
frustrated by the immigration system for now the lifetime of my tenure 
in Congress. We have had the pros and cons, or we have been mad at the 
1996 reform and the 1980s reform. Some of us have continued to press 
one refrain: That we must do security, border security, and also a 
comprehensive approach to immigration. Some would argue that that 
absolutely cannot create jobs, but I will tell you, why are we not 
fully addressing the broken immigration system in this Nation? If we 
pull at the heartstrings of many Members of Congress, who will proudly 
speak of their German heritage, their Irish heritage, their Hispanic, 
Latino heritage, African American heritage, Asian heritage, heritage 
from all around the world, they will point to the fact that they came 
from somewhere.
  We understand that if we can regularize this broken immigration 
system, not only do we have individuals legitimately investing in 
America through Social Security and taxes, but immigrants, new 
immigrants also create jobs for others, and it builds an economy. The 
agricultural economy, for example, that is playing hide and seek with 
workers who they have to hire--hide and seek, because they don't have a 
regularized system. Our agricultural industry, one of the greatest in 
the world, in fact the greatest--we can feed the world. I applaud our 
family farmers and the industry that has grown. I've always admired 
being able to do something with the land.
  We could be addressing an immigration reform system that puts people 
to work, that allows the agricultural industry to grow and thrive and 
build jobs. In fact, I was listening to a colleague from the other side 
of the aisle who indicated he had come out of the agricultural 
industry, has a farm or land that is doing agricultural work, and he 
said that we have not been hampered by the economy; we are thriving, we 
could grow. So if we put an immigration system in place, the work of 
the Judiciary Committee, we create jobs. Isn't that what we're supposed 
to be doing?
  So I ask my colleagues, as my ranking member has said, to 
thoughtfully think of this particular resolution, the REINS Act. It is 
truly that. I would add that it will strangle with the reins the work 
of this body and the work of the Judiciary Committee, and it will not 
create any jobs. We will be stifled, dead in our tracks, working with 
one regulation after another.
  What I'd like to say: If you have got a bad regulation, send it to 
the Judiciary Committee. We can handle it, but I don't want to see 
corporations getting away with criminal activity, which we could 
address in the Subcommittee on Crime. I don't want to see us getting 
away with food safety problems because we're not addressing it.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say, this is a lot of great intentions, 
and I have a great respect for my colleagues. This institution is one 
that I love, but I frankly believe we can do better in this House, and 
the President of the United States and the administration don't deserve 
this. What we do deserve is a hard fight to reduce the deficit and to 
build on jobs and to serve the people back home who are struggling with 
their own problems and need this government to respond to the needs of 
education, health care and science, and many other issues.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my Texas colleague who just 
spoke that I know and appreciate how strongly she feels about saving 
jobs in Houston, creating jobs in Houston, as I do, too, but we heard 
yesterday from the CBO that this new health care bill is going to cost 
America 800,000 jobs. And it just so happens if you prorate that out, 
that would mean that the new health care bill will cost Houston, Texas, 
around 600 jobs, and of course, it will cost other communities around 
the country jobs as well. So the best way to try to save jobs in 
Houston, the best way to try to prevent jobs from being lost in 
Houston, would be to vote to repeal the health care bill.
  Now, the gentlewoman from Texas also raised the subject of 
immigration. I wasn't aware that that was connected to this bill, but 
I'm also happy to reply to her comments about that subject as well. 
Today in America, there are roughly 7 million people who are working 
illegally in this country. They are taking jobs that should go to the 
26 million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed. So, 
once again, if we want to create jobs for Americans in this country, 
one way to do so would be to make sure that only legal workers are 
employed in this country, and we have ways to accomplish that end.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), who is the vice chairman of the Administrative 
Law Subcommittee.
  Mr. GOWDY. I rise in support of H. Res. 72, but I also want to 
commend the distinguished gentleman from

[[Page 1573]]

Texas (Mr. Smith) for not only his leadership on this issue but also 
the judicious way in which he leads our Committee on the Judiciary.
  The Constitution gives Congress limited but critical functions. The 
very same Constitution that we all swore an allegiance to when we took 
the oath, the very same Constitution that we read when we started the 
112th Congress, gives important, limited, critical functions to 
Congress, and one of those functions is to pass laws that are easily 
understood and reasonably enforced. It is not the function of this body 
to merely pass broad ideas and leave it up to someone else, an 
unelected official in the executive branch, to fill in the details.
  And make no mistake, I do not blame those in the executive branch. I 
blame the Congress of the United States for abdicating its 
responsibility. Nature abhors a vacuum, and one look at our code of 
Federal regulations--and I encourage anyone, anyone who challenges this 
or doubts it, go to your local library and look at the code of Federal 
regulations, and you will see that that vacuum created by this body has 
been more than filled by the executive branch.
  The labyrinth that has become this Nation's regulatory scheme has 
exported jobs, imported litigation, all the while eroding the very 
limited amount of public trust that is left in the institutions of 
government.
  We had a witness, Madam Speaker, in Judiciary yesterday, and I asked 
him a very simple question: When you get a call from a member of the 
executive branch who works with a regulatory agency, is your first 
impression that he or she is there to help or to accuse? And this 
representative of middle America, a businessman from Kentucky, without 
hesitation said, They are there to accuse. It is an adversarial 
relationship between the regulators and our business creators.

                              {time}  1000

  We do not and should not leave it to the FBI to decide what is bank 
robbery. We do not and should not leave it to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to decide which controlled substances under title 21 
should be criminalized or not. That is a function of this body. The 
executive branch does not write laws, at least not yet, in this 
Republic. Yet we let other regulatory agencies decide the very details 
that either create or destroy the environment that is conducive to 
creating jobs.
  While other Congresses may have delegated and abdicated, we must 
reclaim the responsibility to govern and legislate, and the 
accountability that is attendant thereto. H. Res. 72 does exactly that, 
and I am pleased to rise in its support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the 
chairman as well.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and I have worked together on 
the immigration issue. And I would beg to differ. It is well documented 
that regularized individuals in certain industries would, in fact, 
create jobs and create investment into this country as well. But as you 
have one person working, that person generates the opportunity for 
another. In construction jobs, for example, when you are involved in 
construction and have the right trained person, it creates expanded 
jobs.
  But I also want to make mention that as it may have been cited, the 
600 jobs lost because, allegedly, of a CBO report, I know that 500 jobs 
have been lost because of a merger between two major giants in the 
aviation industry. And, frankly, I am hopeful that we could focus on 
whether that is one of the diminishing aspects of mergers, that 
individuals do lose jobs.
  But I will also say to you that we have documentation here that 1.1 
million private sector jobs have been created since the enactment of 
health care reform. I mentioned 3 million jobs in my statement; 1.1 
million private sector jobs have already been created; 207,000 jobs in 
the health care industry have been created since the enactment of the 
health care reform.
  Under the past administration, President Bush, 673,000 private sector 
jobs were lost, and this was the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The claim 
that the health care reform law would cost 800,000 jobs, or has, is 
misconstrued because last year's debate showed that the health care 
bill will save taxpayers billions of dollars and give consumers more 
better access to health care. In fact, private sector job growth has 
been strong since the enactment of health care. Again, 1.1 million jobs 
have been created.
  So we will have a constant debate about numbers, but I think there is 
a vigorous debate on how these jobs could be lost. The real issue is, 
this is the Judiciary Committee, to protect the rights of the American 
people. And I have cited, and the ranking member has cited, and Mr. 
Cohen has cited ways that we can be constructive to create jobs in 
America, to protect the consumer, and to ensure that competition is 
fair and healthy. And I would, Madam Speaker, simply ask my colleagues 
to engage in that kind of work as opposed to work that will take up the 
time of this body and delay us from doing the people's work and 
providing justice for all.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Ross), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. I thank the chairman for this opportunity.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Resolution 72. 
Now more than ever, regulatory reform is needed. Agencies have expanded 
their authority to levels far beyond what was ever intended, in 
circumvention of the legislative process.
  At a time of record unemployment, the last thing businesses, and in 
particular, our small businesses, need are burdensome regulations and 
added compliance costs. Why would we make it harder for our job 
creators to expand and grow? Shouldn't we create an environment that 
fosters prosperity, innovation, and global marketplace competitiveness?
  For example, in my home State of Florida, we have what's known as 
Numeric Nutrient Water Criteria that is being thrust upon us by EPA, a 
regulatory law that is supported by nothing but junk science, not 
accepted principles of science. And yet what it's going to do is cost 
my citrus industry $325 million in initial compliance costs. It is 
going to cost my agricultural industry anywhere from $855 million to $3 
billion in initial costs, with an annual impact of $1.1 billion to 
Florida's overall economy and over 14,000 jobs lost. Those jobs, lost 
in an economy like this. In Florida, water is our livelihood. We can 
regulate our own control of water. We believe in clean water. But we 
need to have a voice in what is happening to us with these regulatory 
controls.
  Is it fair for an unelected regulatory agency like the EPA to have 
unchecked rulemaking authority and prevent Florida's job creators from 
employing hardworking citizens in need of jobs? We are regulating jobs 
out of existence. Would those who promote more regulatory control not 
be satisfied until we have choked the last breath out of our American 
economy and our American job market because of too much regulatory 
control?
  Massive oversight is needed, and I applaud congressional efforts to 
reform the current out-of-control regulatory process. The REINS Act, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, and the Administrative 
Procedure Act reforms are necessary. They will provide transparency to 
a rulemaking process and give businesses, large and small, proper due 
process in agency decisions that greatly affect them. They are the 
important first steps that will allow businesses the ability to grow, 
our citizens to work, and our economy to flourish.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes of 
the time that I have remaining to the gentleman from Michigan.

[[Page 1574]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith. I 
appreciate that very much.
  I wanted to suggest that the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, a 
distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, raised the criticism 
about the new 1099 rule being a job-killer. And apparently, he and the 
President are in agreement on the rule expanding reporting requirements 
to include transactions of $600 or more. President Obama has stated 
that he is open to reconsidering these rules in light of the burden 
that it brings on small business. So I would like to suggest that there 
is at least one point of accord. There may be others between the 
members of the Judiciary Committee in the consideration of the matter 
before us.
  Now I return to the assertion that the health care bill, proudly 
referred to by some on this side of the aisle as ObamaCare, that this 
bill will cost 800,000 jobs. And I would like to suggest that this 
misleading figure has been floating around since last summer. This is 
why The Hill article on the CBO today said, ``GOP jumps on old job 
numbers.'' What CBO said last summer was that if health insurance is 
affordable, a person who is working a bad job just to keep health care 
might be able to leave the job.
  Surely we wouldn't want a person who is suffering from a preexisting 
disability, who would be covered under this expanded health care law, 
to keep on working when the only reason he was working in the first 
place was to get the health care that was otherwise, until now, 
unavailable.

                              {time}  1010

  If people can get health insurance despite preexisting conditions, 
then such folks might be able to leave their work. I'm sure that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle wouldn't have any objection 
to that. Yes, it might reduce the number of people working, but it 
would save lives. That's what health care is about. A person who is not 
eligible for Medicare because he or she was under 65 might choose to 
retire and get private insurance instead of staying on the job until 
Medicare becomes available. Others who needed to work a second job just 
to afford health care may not now need to do it because we have made 
health care more affordable.
  For goodness sake, I can't imagine that anybody under the example 
that I have used would be opposed to a person leaving a job under that 
circumstance. That does not mean that that is costing jobs in America. 
It's saving lives.

   [From the Healthwatch--The Hill's Healthcare Blog, Feb. 10, 2011]

                    GOP Jumps on Old CBO Job Numbers

                           (By Jason Millman)

       Eager to exploit an opening to attack the healthcare reform 
     law, Republicans on Thursday touted testimony by Congress' 
     budget scorekeeper that the law would result in 800,000 fewer 
     people working.
       Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf first 
     made the projection last summer, but it didn't stop 
     Republicans from circulating his Thursday comments during a 
     House Budget Committee hearing as fresh proof that the reform 
     law ``destroys'' jobs.
       ``The Verdict Is In: CBO Confirms New Health Care Law Will 
     Cost Jobs,'' was the title of a Senate Republican Conference 
     press release.
       ``CBO: ObamaCare Will Destroy 800,000 Jobs,'' was the 
     headline from the National Republican Congressional 
     Committee.
       However, the CBO prediction is a little more nuanced. Last 
     summer's CBO report said the projected labor reduction is 
     ``largely'' the result of more people voluntarily staying out 
     of the workforce because the healthcare reform law gives them 
     better healthcare options through an expansion of Medicaid 
     and new state-run health insurance exchanges.
       From the report:
       ``The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of 
     subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase 
     beneficiaries' financial resources. Those additional 
     resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or 
     to withdraw from the labor market.''
       Further, a ban on discriminating against preexisting 
     conditions will likely ``increase the appeal'' of health 
     insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older 
     workers.
       ``As a result,'' CBO said, ``some older workers will choose 
     to retire earlier than they otherwise would.''
       Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member on the 
     Budget Committee asked Elmendorf to explain the report on 
     Thursday.
       ``One of the impacts you said was that there will be some 
     individuals who, because they can get their health care 
     through the exchange . . . would now have the freedom to 
     choose to not get a job simply because they needed the health 
     care,'' Van Hollen said, according to a transcript from CQ. 
     ``Isn't that correct?''
       ``Yes, that's right,'' Elmendorf replied.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I just want to point out that the figure we have been using that the 
health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is not necessarily an 
old figure. Or maybe I should concede it's a day old, because that 
figure came from yesterday's testimony by the Budget Director in front 
of the Budget Committee. I said Budget Director. Let me read the 
statement:
  ``Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional 
Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that ObamaCare is 
expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an 
estimated 800,000 people.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here are excerpts from the exchange. In response to a couple of 
questions by Members of Congress, the last question was from 
Representative John Campbell of California, the Director of the CBO 
said in response to a question, ``Is it going to cost 800,000 jobs?'' 
his one-word answer was ``yes.''
  So those are fresh figures, they are accurate figures, and I think we 
need to be very acutely aware of just how many jobs the new health care 
plan is going to cost.
  Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), who is also a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 72 because I 
believe that a number of regulations issued by Federal agencies are 
stifling job creation. And, from the sound of it, President Obama 
agrees. On January 18 of this year, President Obama issued an executive 
order stating that, quote, our regulatory system must promote economic 
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. I agree with the 
President on all those points.
  Some regulations are critical to protect our health and provide a 
safe place to live and work, but there are a number of regulations 
affecting job creators, including small businesses and community banks. 
These regulations are overly burdensome, repetitive, and just plain 
don't make sense. Not a day goes by without one of my constituents 
complaining over the EPA's overreaching policies. The administration is 
trying to do through regulations what it couldn't get passed into law. 
As a result, job creators spend their money complying with these 
burdensome regulations--money that should be used to create jobs, money 
that should be used to invest in research, in capital improvements, and 
money that should be used to spur innovation. For example, job creators 
are spending money planning for more burdensome EPA regulations on 
boilers; boilers used every day to heat schools and businesses. And now 
the EPA wants to apply the oil spill law to force dairy farmers to 
spend millions of dollars preparing for spilled milk, because of the 
amount of fat in it. What if it's skim milk? If it wasn't so troubling, 
it might be funny.
  On top of this, regulations yet to be written inject uncertainty into 
the economy, further stifling job creation. Uncertainty over renewable 
tax credits, for example, is forcing a Little Rock company back home in 
my district to stop building wind turbines because they don't know if 
they can sell them.
  I've heard concerns back home over the lack of transparency from 
unelected Federal workers that have never met the folks in Arkansas and 
they've never held a town hall. They don't hold town halls before they 
write these regulations, yet they pass the equivalent of laws every 
day.

[[Page 1575]]

  We can do better. Let's seek commonsense solutions to our problems 
and stop the Federal Government from killing jobs.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, the American people and American employers know what 
Washington has not learned: too many regulations impose too many costs 
and cost too many jobs. The Judiciary Committee is working hard on the 
reforms we need to tame Washington and unleash American businesses to 
create jobs. We should pass the REINS Act, pass the Regulatory 
Flexibility Improvements Act, reform the Administrative Procedure Act 
and the practice of too many regulations with too many costs for too 
few benefits.
  Madam Speaker, I think this debate really comes down to a very simple 
question. There are those who favor a government of regulations and 
there are those of us who feel that Congress should oversee and approve 
the most burdensome regulations. Any Member of Congress who feels that 
Congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations, I 
believe, will support this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today's effort is driven by a simple goal: to ensure every area of 
the Federal Government is dedicated to job creation. If we are to get 
the Nation back to work, we all must work together to remove barriers 
to economic growth and prosperity.
  Every job matters, and every effort to help create a new job matters. 
The American people have demonstrated a relentless determination to 
make the difficult choices necessary to get through these tough times. 
We should do no less.
  Employers need certainty, flexibility, and freedom to expand their 
businesses and hire new workers. Red tape should not tie down economic 
growth, and onerous regulations should not be roadblocks to job 
creation. Congress can no longer accept sweeping changes that affect 
the lives of students and workers without first determining whether it 
is good for our long-term competitiveness, good for job creators, and 
good for our economy.
  We were sent here to focus on getting the economy back on track and 
the American people back to work. Today we are moving forward with our 
commitment to do just that. In my conversations with constituents, I 
have seen the desperation that follows months of searching in vain for 
work. I also have witnessed the hope that is renewed at the prospect of 
future employment.
  Everyone agrees you need rules of the road and commonsense 
protections; bad actors will always exist, and they must be held 
accountable for breaking the law. But we shouldn't accept lost wages, 
lost jobs, and lost opportunities as inevitable consequences to 
advancing fairness, accountability, and responsibility.

                              {time}  1020

  The Education and Workforce Committee oversees a broad range of 
policies that affect the Nation's workplaces and classrooms. A number 
of those policies will be discussed by other leaders of the committee 
in a few moments.
  In the time remaining for myself, I would like to discuss one area in 
particular that deserves closer examination. Is the Federal Government 
using its authority fairly and on behalf of American workers, or is it 
pursuing a partisan agenda that makes our workplaces less competitive?
  The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency 
created by Congress more than 75 years ago. The NLRB is charged with 
preventing and remedying unfair labor practices and establishing 
whether employees desire union representation. Its responsibility is to 
fairly protect the rights of workers against unlawful encroachments by 
employers and unions.
  Unfortunately, the board has recently shown an eagerness to tilt the 
playing field in favor of powerful special interests. A culture of 
union favoritism has seized the board, with consequences that reach 
into virtually every workplace. Stripping workers of their right to a 
secret ballot through a backdoor card check scheme is just one looming 
threat. The board also has threatened legal action against States 
seeking to protect the secret ballot, and it has diminished safeguards 
for employers. We cannot allow the board to rewrite the rules of the 
game to circumvent the will of Congress in pursuit of its own job-
destroying agenda.
  This same culture of union favoritism has also swept across the 
administration, expanding protections for big labor at the expense of 
rank-and-file workers. Project labor agreements and high road 
contracting sound innocent enough, but they put small businesses and 
the vast majority of their workers at a disadvantage--at the expense of 
the taxpayers, I might add.
  These are the kinds of policies that should be examined to determine 
whether they undermine economic growth. Our efforts will not be blinded 
by partisanship. If we learn of a rule or regulation that stands in the 
way of a strong workforce, regardless of the Congress or administration 
that put it in place, we will take a look at it. This is a critically 
important responsibility, and I look forward working with every Member 
of Congress to get it done.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as we meet this morning, there are 15 
million unemployed people in our country. And what I'm hearing from our 
constituents is they want us to work together to find ways to help the 
job generators of this country, small businesses and entrepreneurs, to 
put Americans back to work.
  Here we are again, really, just having a political discussion that 
doesn't hire a person, help a company, or really go anywhere. Frankly, 
the majority has gone from ignoring the unemployment problem to 
worsening it in the last couple of days. In the 5 weeks that they've 
been in the majority, there has not been one bill, not one word, not 1 
hour of debate on a bill that would create jobs in the American 
economy. Instead, what we've had is a series of political exercises 
that have ignored their promise to ``focus like a laser beam on job 
creation.''
  Now, the problem has gotten worse this week, and it will get worse as 
the day goes on with the announcement of the majority's plan to finish 
out the budget year with massive cuts in the budget.
  Now, let me say from the outset, we agree completely that sensible 
spending restraint is necessary to reverse our trend of deficit and 
debt and help the American people and the American economy, and we look 
forward to working with our friends in the Republican Party to make 
this a reality. But one of the areas that is being considered for up to 
a 30 percent cut is education.
  Now, the Federal Government spends education money on essentially 
five things: We help the most disadvantaged children in the country 
learn how to read and do mathematics through Title I; we help children 
confronted with a learning disability, with Downs Syndrome or autism, 
get special education services through the IDEA; there are scholarships 
and student loans for people of all descriptions to get a higher 
education at a college or a tech school; there are programs for someone 
who's lost his job at an oil refinery or her job at a bank to be 
retrained for their next job; and there's a small but crucial amount of 
money that helps our teachers become better instigators of science 
education or math education and instill in the next generations the 
hunger to learn and the power to achieve.
  You need not listen to Members of Congress about the consequences of 
these kinds of cuts. Listen to the job generators of our country. 
Listen to Andrew Liveris, the leader of the Dow Chemical Company, who, 
as part of the business roundtable report in December, said the 
following, and I quote. ``I

[[Page 1576]]

think if you had to go to the easy ones, education is a sweet spot for 
the government, for Congress and for all of us. If we don't get a well-
educated workforce back in this country, if we don't invest in science, 
technology, engineering and math, if we don't pull it all together,'' 
he goes on to say, ``there will be trouble.'' And he further says, so 
what we've got to do is ``have a sustained investment, government and 
public companies together, private partnerships in education.''
  This is not the Democratic leader of the House. This is not President 
Obama's administration. This is the leader of Dow Chemical Company 
saying that to grow jobs in America and win global economic 
competition, we need to invest in education.
  The majority's taking us in exactly the wrong direction. Proposing 
cuts of up to 30 percent in education programs will be on the floor 
next week. So, sadly, they've moved from ignoring the jobs problem to 
worsening it.
  We want to work together with the Republican Party and with 
Independents to find ways to empower small businesses and entrepreneurs 
to put our country back to work. We've spent 9\1/2\ hours in this 
debate talking about something else. Let's get on with this debate, get 
on to business, put the American people back to work.
  Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from North 
Carolina, I feel compelled to respond for just a minute to the remarks 
of my good friend from New Jersey that underscores the fundamental 
difference here.
  We believe that the issues that we have been talking about and are 
talking about today and will be talking about next week strike directly 
to the problem of unemployment and the lack of jobs in this country. 
Without fiscal responsibility, without addressing the exploding debt, 
without addressing the job-killing health care plan, which we've done, 
and without addressing the blizzard of regulations that are coming out 
of this administration and every industry, we're not going to be able 
to create those jobs. It's a fundamental difference.
  The debate will go on, but clearly we believe, and I believe, that we 
are directly addressing jobs because we found out over the last few 
years, certainly the last 2 years, that spending billions and hundreds 
of billions and trillions of dollars does not, in fact, put America 
back to work.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 72, which 
directs certain House committees to review the effect of Federal 
regulations on job creation and economic growth.
  Last year, the Department of Education published a proposed 
regulation that sets a Federal definition of ``gainful employment'' and 
requires certain institutions of higher education to seek the 
Department's approval before creating new educational programs. This 
regulation will likely eliminate hundreds of course offerings and 
degree-granting programs at proprietary and nonprofit institutions of 
higher education, preventing students from having access to these 
programs and, often, to careers that will ensure that the United States 
remains competitive.
  Access and affordability remain important pieces of the higher 
education discussion. As voters resoundingly underscored in November, 
the Federal Government should be focused on accountability for taxpayer 
money, but that responsibility should not come at the expense of 
educational opportunities for students.

                              {time}  1030

  Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, in a recent speech on the ``State of American Business,'' 
listed the gainful employment regulation as a prime example of Federal 
overreach. He pointed out that, if permitted to become final, the 
regulation would deny students access to colleges and universities 
across the country.
  Fewer students receiving the education and gaining the skills 
necessary to get a high-skilled, high-paying job means fewer people 
entering the workforce. While the proprietary school sector is a 
diverse group of institutions, many of these colleges and universities 
serve individuals who are looking for short-term education or seeking 
certifications that can be obtained in a year or less. These are 
exactly the types of educational programs that provide individuals with 
new skills that can immediately be put to use in today's dynamic 
workplace.
  One of the many benefits of the proprietary school sector is its 
ability to create quickly new programs to train students to help the 
local population meet the labor shortages of a particular area. Many of 
these institutions have advisory boards composed of key business 
leaders in the program areas offered by the institution. The proposed 
gainful employment regulation will take away that flexibility by 
requiring the Federal Government's approval for every new program 
created at a proprietary institution.
  While we can all agree that we do not want bad programs to exist, 
this regulation paints an entire sector of higher education with the 
same brush and does nothing to give incentives to institutions to 
improve their student outcomes. This regulation could also have a 
disproportionate impact on programs that serve low-income students who 
may need to borrow more funding under Federal student loan programs to 
pay for their education.
  In either case, colleges and universities will have difficulty 
enrolling students into educational courses that prepare them for 
careers. The gainful employment regulation is the exact opposite of 
what the Federal Government needs to be pushing during an economic 
downturn.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, instead of working to rebuild our country and create 
jobs, this House of Representatives is engaged in a debate on a measure 
that offers neither. For 10 hours and 2 days, the House of 
Representatives' time is tied up on a motion telling our committees to 
perform their constitutional duties.
  We understand that vigorous oversight and rooting out inefficiencies 
and waste are absolutely essential, and they are our duties and we must 
perform them on behalf of the taxpayer. That's not a question. We know 
that. In fact, on January 15, the Education and Workforce Committees 
unanimously approved an oversight plan. That plan calls for review of 
regulations. This resolution calls for review of regulations.
  Today's debate is duplicative. It is duplicative of our oversight 
plans. It is unnecessary and a total waste of taxpayers' dollars. Worse 
yet, we are taking away valuable time when we could be rolling up our 
sleeves, getting the number one priority of the American people in 
front of us: creating jobs.
  For instance, the Education and Workforce Committee could be 
responding to the very real skills crisis that our Nation's workers and 
businesses are facing. A recent article in the Washington Post found 
that, in November, there were an estimated 3.2 million job 
opportunities across the country. However, businesses interviewed by 
the Washington Post with ``help wanted'' signs were struggling to find 
workers with sufficient skills. This is in the United States of 
America. This has crippled their ability to keep the line running and 
keep their doors open. This is a major disconnect, Madam Speaker, a 
disconnect that must be explored and it must be quickly addressed.
  Certain sectors, such as health care and technology, are projected to 
grow considerably over the next decade. These sectors actually require 
more skilled workers, not fewer. That's why our committees should be 
back in our committee rooms right now looking to ensure the connection 
between employers that want to hire and workers can be fulfilled. That 
means looking at training and education programs that connect to the 
jobs available today and in the future.
  At a time when jobs are important, this shortfall means lost economic 
opportunity for millions of Americans. It means a shortfall of 
businesses that want to make it in America, with American workers.
  Now, when it comes to reviewing regulations, I have heard some 
disturbing

[[Page 1577]]

views from the other side of the aisle recently. I refuse to accept the 
argument that our Nation's health and safety protections need to be 
reduced to the level of China's in order to compete.
  There is a reason why the law of the land ensures basic health and 
safety protections on the job, and that reason is too often written in 
the blood of dead workers.
  Rolling back protections to satisfy powerful special interests at the 
expense of worker safety is a fool's errand. Relying on faulty one-
sided studies that exaggerate the cost of worker safety regulations 
while excluding any of the benefits, such as the life of a family's 
breadwinner, leads to a dishonest debate.
  We have seen the deadly results of failing to properly regulate. We 
have seen what happens when you rely on self-certification, voluntary 
compliance, and inadequate protections. Eleven workers die when an oil 
rig blows up in the Gulf of Mexico. Workers die over and over again on 
massive construction projects on the Las Vegas Strip. Fourteen workers 
die in a sugar refinery outside Savannah, Georgia, because there are no 
protections covering combustible dust.
  There are 700 workers losing their jobs in North Carolina because 
loopholes in OSHA regulations allow a massive factory explosion to 
happen. The explosion killed three and injured more than 50 workers; 
and that factory is now relocating rather than rebuilding, dealing this 
community a double tragedy.
  Madam Speaker, without proper regulation and enforcement, workers are 
misclassified as independent contractors, robbing them of benefits, 
robbing our Nation's Treasury, and putting law breakers at an unfair 
advantage over law-abiding employers. And workers' hard-earned pensions 
are gambled away.
  We have the best workers in the world, and these workers deserve 
basic protections. Our Nation's workers also deserve a Congress devoted 
to growing and strengthening the middle class, not meaningless debate 
like today's.
  I urge this Congress, get to the business of the American people 
without delay. The business of this Congress should be about jobs, and 
the business of this Congress should be about rebuilding our Nation's 
competitiveness, and that business should begin now. We cannot afford 
any further delays or distractions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, last November the people of Michigan, 
workers that long defined manufacturing, sent a message to Washington 
that business as usual in this town is not working.
  Currently, the unemployment rate in my home State is at 11.7 percent 
and even higher in some counties in my Seventh Congressional District.
  Over the past 2 years, we have witnessed burdensome laws being 
imposed on businesses and still feel the threat of costly regulation 
that prevents companies from growing and hiring. Small businesses are 
the engine of job creation in this country. Even the current 
administration believes ``that they bear a disproportionate share of 
Federal regulatory burden.''
  The Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration reports 
the total cost of Federal regulation has increased to $1.75 trillion. 
The cost per employee for businesses with fewer than 20 workers now 
averages $10,585. A Heritage Foundation study found last year alone the 
Federal Government issued 43 major regulations, with costs estimated in 
tens of billions of dollars.
  One of the threats many employers face is working with the current 
Department of Labors' Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
Everyone recognizes the need for commonsense rules that promote 
workplace safety.

                              {time}  1040

  However, onerous rules and regulations should not be a roadblock to 
job creation and economic growth. Currently, regulations by OSHA cost 
small businesses, which are defined as businesses with fewer than 500 
employees, between $650 and $781 per employee. There are serious 
questions about whether OSHA's ``punishment before prevention'' 
approach to workforce safety is really in the best interests of the 
workers.
  Last month, OSHA withdrew two costly proposed regulations. OSHA's 
noise standard proposal would have mandated companies spend thousands 
or millions of dollars for quieter machinery when simple adequate 
solutions are already in place. A week later, OSHA temporarily repealed 
its musculoskeletal disorders reporting requirement after claiming it 
did not receive enough insight from small businesses to proceed. This 
would have overwhelmed our small business owners in paperwork and 
potentially opened the door for increased fines. And while it was 
repealed, I cannot stress the unease many businesses feel about knowing 
the fact that this is only a temporary withdrawal.
  There have also been expressed concerns about the Department of 
Labor's Wage and Hour Division recently establishing a new arrangement 
with the American Bar Association. This agreement, known as the Bridge 
to Justice Program, sets the stage for the potential of costly 
litigation of a great many companies by trial lawyers who are out to 
line their own pockets. This arrangement goes into effect when the 
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division receives a complaint that 
it will not investigate. It sends the claimant referral to the American 
Bar Association, who will help provide private attorneys for them to 
pursue their claim. Will this new referral arrangement between the Wage 
and Hour Department and the American Bar Association truly help 
workers, or is it intended to punish the employers? This is a critical 
issue, especially for small businesses.
  In our subcommittee, it is my goal to find answers to many questions 
facing our workforce and employers; questions like: Are the rules 
providing the necessary protection to workers or merely creating costly 
animosity between government and free enterprise? How can we more fully 
understand and protect the interests of workers and employers alike? In 
other words, are the regulations that govern our workforce sensible or 
arbitrary?
  Madam Speaker, Congress needs to step up its oversight of the 
Department to ensure their proposals do not hinder a business's ability 
to grow, hire new workers, or ensure the cooperation of its employees 
to advance workforce safety.
  It is my objective as the Subcommittee Chairman of Workforce 
Protections to examine regulations as they relate to the workplace. The 
committee will look at any policy or proposal, regardless of whether it 
is a Democrat or Republican idea, that may lead to fewer jobs and 
opportunities for the American workforce. We plan to hold hearings to 
determine how to best remove the burden of government regulation on our 
businesses while holding fast to our commitment to workplace safety.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, we need to talk more about what real 
regulations are that we should be focusing on, not the regulations for 
oversight that we have already determined we are going to handle 
committee by committee, particularly this committee, and we always 
have.
  USA Today had an article about the sugar blast victims in Savannah, 
Georgia, and one of the victims is quoted in that article, because his 
brother was killed and he was injured. He says, ``I've been thinking 
about my brother,'' who was burned over almost half his body, and ``I 
know it could've been prevented.''
  Now, I am going to say, with the right regulations, it could have 
been prevented.
  Then the article goes on to say, ``Despite the outcry after the 
blast,'' the blast that I said had killed 14 people and injured 40 
others, ``the United States still lacks Federal regulations requiring 
industrial plants to prevent

[[Page 1578]]

the buildup of fine dust particles that can form explosive clouds in 
confined areas.''
  The regulations that OSHA has to work with are so outdated that they 
don't include sugar refineries or other industries that would benefit 
from having dust regulations.
  The article went on to say that ``Federal regulators concluded that 
the explosion and fire at the refinery in Port Wentworth, just west of 
Savannah, was caused by a spark that ignited sugar dust like gunpowder.
  ``The blast set off secondary dust explosions that turned the 
packaging plant where Butler worked with his 35-year-old brother, John 
Calvin Butler, into fiery rubble.
  ``Last summer, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
proposed $8.7 million in fines against Imperial Sugar and cited the 
company for 211 safety violations at its two refineries here in coastal 
Georgia and in Gramercy, Louisiana.
  ``OSHA has a dust regulation from,'' as I told you earlier, ``the 
1980s covering grain and plant silos. But another Federal agency says 
that's not enough because food processors,'' yes, ``wood 
manufacturers,'' yes, ``and other industries face the same risks.''
  Why are they not covered? Where are the regulations? Why are we not 
bringing OSHA into the 21st century, instead of having a debate today 
that has nothing to do with jobs and protecting our workers, and 
instead talking about oversight regulations that we are already 
committed to deal with on our committee.
  Madam Speaker, ``In 2006,'' the USA Today article goes on to say, 
``the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates industrial 
accidents, called on OSHA to close that gap by adopting a new 
combustible dust regulation. Over the past three decades, the board 
says, about 300 dust explosions have killed more than 120 workers 
nationwide.''
  Those are the regulations we should be dealing with. Those are the 
debates we should be having. Those are the steps we should be taking to 
bring OSHA into the 21st century, not keeping it back in the dark ages.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
  Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  I think we all agree that quality education is important, and I rise 
today to discuss a regulation that will unduly burden our schools and 
communities.
  Last October, the Department of Education released the Program 
Integrity regulations. Many educators fear that these regulations will 
have a broad reach and require programs to be licensed in each State 
where students reside. Let met give you an example of a small 
university in a small county in Ohio, Pickaway County. This county lost 
2,500 jobs and only has an 11 percent baccalaureate rate.
  OCU created an online degree program which currently has 1,000 
students enrolled from 15 States. In addition to educating these 
students, OCU has created over 150 jobs in 5 years. If required to be 
licensed in all 15 States, OCU will be forced to unenroll at least half 
of the online students and lay off staff. If implemented improperly, 
this regulation would impact smaller colleges and universities like OCU 
who don't have the resources to comply with this heavy burden.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. AUSTRIA. Let me just conclude by just saying that the regulations 
are unclear with States as to what extent they are going to cover this 
program, and my hope is that the chairman will address this and the 
Education Workforce Committee will review this job-killing regulation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  So we have had 10\1/2\ hours, 2 days of debate on regulations, 
oversight regulations, that our committee and other committees have 
already agreed they are going to deal with. This, to me, shows that the 
Republicans are truly in disarray. We are not discussing jobs, the most 
important issue in the United States of America for our people, and at 
the same time, in their disarray, the Republicans are pushing an 
irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that will threaten jobs.
  I yield back my time.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we're spending this 
time talking about real job creation. For the last 2 years, we've 
watched the Democrats spend literally trillions of dollars in failed 
efforts to create jobs, with more government spending. We need to get 
the private sector back to work.
  We've heard examples here today, and we'll hear more this afternoon, 
of how this blizzard of regulations is getting in the way of that job 
creation and preventing Americans from getting back to work. We need to 
step up to our responsibility, and this is just the opening of that 
discussion as we step up to do our jobs in oversight.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to claim the Agriculture 
Committee's time, which I believe I am sharing with my colleague from 
Minnesota, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Today, American agriculture is under attack. Every day, the 
administration seems to demonstrate just how vastly disconnected it is 
from the folks who feed us. The administration fails to realize that 
rural America's economy is dependent upon agriculture. The in-your-face 
approach that the administration has taken regarding government 
regulation has increased the cost of doing business for America's 
farmers and ranchers. If the administration is allowed to continue down 
this path, the only choice many farmers and ranchers will have will be 
to stop farming altogether. From the dairies of Vermont to the wheat 
fields near the Chesapeake Bay to the cornfields in the Midwest, 
American agriculture is under a constant barrage of irrational and 
unworkable regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, which 
are burdensome, overreaching, and that negatively affect jobs in rural 
economies.
  This EPA is mostly interested in pursuing the extreme agenda of 
environmentalist groups without any consideration for the impact it 
will have on our farmers and ranchers. For example, the EPA wants to 
treat milk spills like oil spills simply because milk contains animal 
fat. The EPA has suggested that milk storage should be regulated under 
the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks. The EPA wants farmers to till 
fields without producing any dust. Clearly, the folks at the EPA have 
never stepped foot on a farm in western Oklahoma, or otherwise they 
would know that dust happens, and all the regulations in the world 
can't eliminate its existence. The EPA wants farmers to ensure that 
none of the spray we use for pests drifts even 1 foot away from the 
original source.
  The EPA has started an unprecedented re-reevaluation evaluation--yes, 
I said re-reevaluation--of the popular wheat control product Atrazine. 
In 2006, the EPA completed a 12-year review involving 6,000 studies and 
80,000 public comments, yet one of the first orders of business for the 
Obama administration was to start all over after an article appeared in 
The New York Times. The EPA is trying to regulate watersheds based off 
of inaccurate and flawed models--a problem recognized even by the top 
officials at USDA.
  The list goes on and on. But what further illustrates the alarming 
frame of mind of the EPA is that the agency has gone so far as to 
recently hold a contest for the public to create videos explaining what 
Federal regulations are ``important to everyone.'' In many instances, 
the agency is overreaching its authority. Instead of operating within 
the law, the EPA believes it can order Congress to pass legislation 
that gives it more authority and threaten to regulate anyway if 
Congress chooses not to act.
  The message from the President is clear: Pass a cap-and-tax bill or 
we'll pursue an endangerment finding. Pass more authority to regulate 
watersheds or we'll proceed with an Executive order.

[[Page 1579]]

  Sadly for America's farmers and ranchers, these regulations are not 
limited to the EPA. The Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, 
Packers, and Stockyard agency's proposed rule on purported ``fairness'' 
far exceeds congressional intent expressed in the 2008 farm bill. It 
lacks a credible economic analysis and has so far been the result of a 
regulatory process that can only be described as flawed. We have a 
responsibility to producers, packers, processors, retailers--and yes, 
consumers--to continue to examine this proposal's implications and act 
accordingly.
  In addition, over the past several months the CFTC and other Federal 
financial regulators have been engaged in writing unprecedented new 
regulations over the derivatives market. As Chairman Gensler reported 
in our committee yesterday, since September alone the CFTC has issued 
39 new rule proposals involving thousands of pages of regulation. By 
comparison, before Dodd-Frank, the CFTC averaged about five rules per 
year. The speed with which the CFTC is issuing new rules precludes 
their ability to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis to ensure 
that the rules do not impose unnecessary or undue regulations on our 
financial system and our economy. And unlike many of the provisions of 
Dodd-Frank, title VII is not limited to financial firms. In fact, it 
has the potential to impact every segment of our economy, from farmers 
and ranchers to manufacturers and energy companies to the fields of 
health care and technology.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Many of the rules the CFTC has proposed would substantially increase 
the costs of hedging for commercial end-users, extending Wall Street 
regulation to Main Street companies. As we work to revive the economy 
and create new jobs, we simply cannot afford sweeping new regulations 
that are poorly vetted, that impose substantial costs that outweigh the 
benefit for our financial system and our economy, or that are crafted 
in the interest of speed rather than in sound policy.
  The Agriculture Committee has set forth an aggressive oversight plan 
that will shine a bright light on these regulations and show the real-
world consequences of them. I hope the administration will work with us 
in our efforts. Our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and small businesses 
are all counting on us to do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in this discussion 
with my good friend Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the chairman indicated, yesterday on a bipartisan basis we adopted 
the oversight plan, such as what we have done in the past when we were 
in charge of the committee, working in a bipartisan basis. And I would 
argue that the committee, under my jurisdiction, did the oversight work 
that was necessary and we made the changes and addressed the issues as 
they came up. We made significant improvements in the farm bill back in 
2008 in terms of conservation programs, other kinds of things--crop 
insurance--through the new SRA that was adopted in May. So I would 
argue that we did our work on the Agriculture Committee.
  A good part of the chairman's time was taken talking about the EPA. I 
couldn't concur with him more. But the problem is, we don't have 
jurisdiction over the EPA. I hope that under the new leadership here 
that we will be able to work with the committees that have jurisdiction 
so we can straighten out some of the things that are going on over in 
the EPA and some of these other agencies. But all we can control is 
what we have under our jurisdiction in the Agriculture Committee. And I 
can commit to you that the Democrats on the committee will work with 
the Republicans to make sure that we do the right things on the 
Agriculture Committee; that we follow the plan that we adopted 
yesterday, and we do the aggressive oversight. We are 100 percent in 
favor of that.
  In terms of the issues that the chairman talked about that are under 
our jurisdiction, the GIPSA law or rule that's being proposed, the CFTC 
rule that's being proposed, these are still proposed rules, and they're 
going through the process. And I have some optimism that at the end of 
the day that those things are going to come to a point where they're 
readable and acceptable. But if they aren't, we will take a look at 
them.

                              {time}  1100

  In terms of the CFTC, there are a lot of rules and regulations that 
they are in the process of implementing. The reason they are doing it 
is that we asked them to do it. This is not something they have 
manufactured over there. This has been directed by the Congress, and I 
would argue that it's needed.
  We had a situation before where they were only doing five regulations 
a year because we had a $600 trillion, $700 trillion market that was 
completely unregulated, completely in the dark, and it was a big part 
of this financial crisis and collapse that we had.
  At the time that we did the CFMA back in 2000, we were told that the 
folks who were in the swap market were rich people, that they had to 
have $10 million to even get into this market, that they were gambling 
with their own money. Really, it was none of our business that they 
were rich. They knew what they were doing. If they wanted to gamble 
their money, that was their business. The problem, we find out, is that 
they weren't putting the money up. They weren't putting the capital and 
collateral behind these swaps, and it almost took down the entire world 
financial system.
  So I would argue that a lot of what the CFTC is working on are things 
that are going to have to be done. Not that I'm a big fan of 
regulation, but in this case, the private sector went amuck in some of 
these areas. I think we are going to have to require that they put 
their money up, that they put up the capital and collateral, and that 
we make sure we don't get in this situation again where the public has 
to bail out these financial firms.
  We heard yesterday from the Secretary that he has no intention of 
regulating the end users. We gave that exemption in the law, and it 
looks like, in the way he has implemented it, the end users are not 
going to be subject to these capital and margin requirements. On the 
other hand, the financial firms that qualify as swap dealers or as swap 
participants are going to have to put their money up, and it needs to 
happen because we don't want to get in this situation again.
  Having said all of that, let's see what happens and what the final 
rules are that they come out with at the CFTC. Let's see what happens 
with the final rules that come out with regard to GIPSA. I am hopeful 
that we are going to get the right kind of outcome when they listen to 
everybody. They've had an open process, and they've been listening and 
taking thousands of comments. If there are problems and if they've gone 
beyond the law or if they've gone off in a direction that we didn't 
intend, I will work with the chairman to make sure we get that 
straightened out.
  So I am here today to pledge the cooperation of the minority on these 
issues. I hope the chairman can convince his colleagues on these other 
committees, which are driving us nuts in some of these areas as well as 
some of these other agencies, to come up with some process where we can 
be involved to straighten some of that out. I would love to work with 
you on that. We are with you 100 percent, and I look forward to working 
with the chairman and with the other members to get the right kind of 
outcome.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. The ranking member is always a pleasure to work with.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a lifelong farmer in 
support of House Resolution 72.

[[Page 1580]]

  My family has been involved in farming for generations. My Granddad 
Zellmer raised corn and threshed wheat with the help of neighbors as a 
threshing crew. My Granddad Purdy was a cowboy, raising Hereford 
cattle.
  Like today's farmers, they worked hard--investing their lives and 
resources to make a living for themselves and to feed the world. They 
would be shocked today by the amount of government interference in 
farming today and by the overreach of government.
  The EPA is advancing numerous proposals that are harmful to 
agriculture. One rule wants to regulate dust on our farms. They call it 
``air quality.'' Where I'm from, it's called ``living in the country.'' 
In case the bureaucrats in Washington haven't heard, driving on a 
gravel road and planting seeds in soil make dust. We don't need 
Washington to regulate dust. We need common sense.
  The EPA wants to do more. It is reviewing again the registration of 
atrazine, which is a common, useful herbicide that has been used safely 
for over 50 years. This product encourages the protection of soil and 
less dust by using no-till agriculture.
  It is time to get government out of agriculture and to preserve the 
farming heritage my parents and grandparents and so many others have 
passed on to future generations.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of our subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I am here today to address regulations, 
primarily pending, that fall under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee 
I chair. These regulations, many of which seem to be both illogical and 
prescriptive, possess the ability to adversely impact economic growth.
  The General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee has 
jurisdictional oversight over the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission. Historically, the CFTC has been a model regulatory agency. 
As the implementation of Dodd-Frank has begun to unfold, however, this 
reputation has begun to suffer. With each rule proposed, a newfound 
distrust is growing between participants and the CFTC. I believe this 
springs largely from the arbitrary and confusing way in which the 
Commission is undertaking its mandates.
  Currently, the commission's consideration of costs and benefits is 
sorely lacking. By prioritizing speed over deliberations, the 
Commission is not only producing poorly understood proposals; it is 
also creating an irrational sequence of rulemaking. Because so many of 
the rules hinge upon components of other rules, the order in which they 
are drafted and put before the public matters.
  For example, the Commission has still failed to provide certainty 
regarding its definition of what constitutes a ``swaps dealer'' and who 
may be captured in that definition. The Commission is already 
attempting to categorize various commercial entities as ``swaps 
dealers,'' which makes no sense.
  Following the financial crisis our country faced, Dodd-Frank was 
enacted. Make no mistake that the intent of Congress and the act was 
not to manage the individual risk on behalf of market participants but 
rather to mitigate those broad systemic risks that threaten the entire 
financial system. Yet the Commission is currently headed down a path 
that extends well beyond the statutory requirements of Dodd-Frank and 
is attempting, at the request of no one in particular, to micromanage 
individual risk across all industries and sectors.
  To return to the ``swaps dealer'' example, in his confirmation 
hearing 2 years ago, CFTC Chairman Gensler stated that there were 
roughly 15 to 20 swaps dealers around the globe that represented 99 
percent of the market for over-the-counter derivatives. Compare those 
comments to Chairman Gensler's stating just yesterday in front of the 
Agriculture Committee that he now believes over 200 entities would be 
captured by the definition.
  This expansive definition will categorize far more firms as ``swaps 
dealers,'' and it moves far beyond the intent of Congress. It isn't 
difficult to see that the continued overreach of the Obama 
administration has become the rule, not the exception.
  Again, Madam Speaker, we and the varied agencies of this country, 
independent or not, owe it to the American public to ensure the 
assorted regulatory schemes carried out by the Federal Government work 
to promote economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation. The CFTC's 
current track seems to be sacrificing these principles for the sake of 
political expediency.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another outstanding 
subcommittee chairman on the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rooney).
  Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution on regulations and 
jobs.
  In particular, I would like to discuss the USDA's Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration's, or GIPSA's, proposed rule 
governing livestock and poultry marketing practices. This proposed rule 
should be carefully considered for its unintended consequences, 
particularly for those it is supposed to protect--livestock producers.
  In the proposed rule, GIPSA is attempting to overturn numerous 
judicial decisions by stating, Finding that the challenge, act or 
practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition 
is not necessary in all cases. In other words, a plaintiff would no 
longer have to show actual harm when challenging a packer's activity. 
The rule would also ban packer-to-packer livestock sales and restrict 
dealers to representing a single packer.
  While intending to strengthen the cash market, these changes are 
likely to actually disrupt orderly market transactions. It will have 
far-reaching implications for livestock procurement, impacting 
producers, packers, processors, retailers, and consumers. It far 
exceeds congressional intent in the 2008 farm bill. It lacks a credible 
economic analysis and is the result of a flawed regulatory process.
  A subcommittee hearing last year demonstrated that concerns are 
widespread in the livestock community, and concerns are bipartisan here 
in Congress. We must continue to examine this proposal and act 
accordingly.
  The 2008 farm bill process considered numerous proposals to address 
livestock marketing and procurement issues.

                              {time}  1110

  Most of these ideas were rejected by Congress, and the USDA was 
directed to conduct rulemaking on a narrow range of technical issues. 
The proposed rule that emerged went far beyond the intent of Congress 
and was seen by many as an agency trying to win by rulemaking what it 
had failed to win in courts.
  The USDA determined that this was not a significant rule, even though 
observers assert that it will incur costs beyond the $100 million 
threshold for a significant rule. Therefore, no comprehensive economic 
analysis accompanied the proposed rule.
  At least 10 times in the proposed rule GIPSA states some version of 
the phrase ``GIPSA believes that potential benefits are expected to 
exceed costs'' without offering any supporting evidence. The Secretary 
has since indicated that he will conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The 
taxpayers appropriated $13 million this year for USDA's Office of Chief 
Economist. That office should have performed an analysis before the 
rule was proposed so it could have been available during the comment 
period.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, concerns about this bill are broad and 
bipartisan. Members of both parties have raised questions about the 
scope, process and intent of this rulemaking. The American people spoke 
in November to avoid these kinds of Washington insider bureaucratic 
nightmares. Our

[[Page 1581]]

work on this rule is far from complete. We must continue our efforts. 
Therefore, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee 
chairwoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I can't think of a single agency of the Federal 
Government that poses more threats to jobs in our economy than the 
Environmental Protection Agency. As chairwoman of the Nutrition and 
Horticulture Subcommittee, I am especially alert to the threat the EPA 
poses to those charged with providing food and fiber for our Nation.
  There are so many examples of actions undertaken by this President's 
EPA that defy sound science, good judgment, and will only result in 
putting America's farmers and ranchers out of business.
  For example, the EPA has proposed a zero-risk standard on pesticide 
spray drift. The EPA is proposing a standard that even it admits is 
unachievable. This proposed standard leaves our agricultural producers 
vulnerable to enormous compliance costs and untold numbers of potential 
lawsuits.
  Another example, the EPA has withdrawn a proposed exemption for milk 
from the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures program. 
This move puts the livelihoods of our dairy farmers in jeopardy because 
they could face enormous compliance costs. Under this regulation, milk 
would be treated as if it were motor oil, thereby necessitating dairy 
farmers across the country to comply with costly, burdensome rules 
designed to control storage of toxic substances. As far as I can tell, 
the agency's only stated reason for withdrawing this proposed exemption 
is that it was initiated under the Bush administration. Yet more than 2 
years later, our dairy farmers are still in limbo.
  Another example of the EPA's disconnect with science at the expense 
of the economy is the agency's unprecedented multiyear, multimillion-
dollar re-reevaluation of a popular herbicide. Only 2 years earlier, 
the agency completed a 12-year review of 6,000 scientific studies and 
concluded that the product is safe. I suppose the logic for this re-
reevaluation is that with trillions of dollars deficits we face, we 
have the money to burn on pet causes of radical environmental groups.
  As if the agency didn't have enough on its plate, we see that they 
have issued a draft pesticide registration notice entitled, ``False or 
Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names.'' Note that the EPA is now 
attempting to regulate not the safety of the product but the name of 
the product and even the name of the company that manufacturers it. 
This notice threatens to undermine the very investment in our economy 
that this President spoke about 2 weeks ago in this very Chamber.
  The President's EPA is threatening a potential loss of approximately 
$2.5 billion in brand equity for U.S. businesses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds to conclude.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I could go on and on, Madam Speaker, but the point of 
this is that the EPA is getting into areas where it doesn't belong, 
costing American farmers, American businesses, and good old Americans 
more money than they can afford.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a first-term 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of H. Res. 72.
  This administration's EPA has been allowed to operate unchecked by 
proposing regulations and actions not based on sound science and data. 
For example, an issue receiving more attention in Pennsylvania is the 
proposed regulation of the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding watershed. 
These regulations have a devastating economic impact on my 
constituents. Unquestionably, the bay is in need and truly worthy of 
our support. However, the EPA's ``shoot first and ask questions later'' 
approach will have detrimental economic effects on rural communities.
  The EPA, through a Presidential executive order, has created a 
Federal backstop for watershed implementation plans, commonly known as 
WIPs. This action has prevented the State's authority to implement 
their own strategies to clean up watersheds. Additionally, the EPA has 
proposed accelerated and unreasonable timelines for court-mandated 
total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs. The TMDL is a mandatory diet to 
restrict nutrient and sediment runoff. EPA has based the Chesapeake Bay 
TMDLs on its own bay modeling. This model has been called into question 
by many, including Limnotech, an independent and respected consulting 
firm on water issues.
  Using the EPA's own data, Limnotech compared it against data from the 
USDA which showed inconsistent assumptions between agencies. The head 
of the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service has recently gone 
as far as to say that the EPA's data on conservation practices is 
erroneous.
  Agriculture is not receiving the credit it deserves towards reducing 
nutrient and sediment runoff. Yet the EPA is forcing the bay States to 
move forward on accelerated mandates using the agency's flawed bay 
model and limited feedback from the public and stakeholders. Although 
the EPA unfortunately has not performed any kind of economic analysis 
of TMDL, continuing on this path will undoubtedly cause severe economic 
impact on producers in rural communities.
  For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia estimates it will cost 
$4,665 per taxpayer to meet the TMDL requirements, and Maryland 
estimates they're looking at $8,500 per taxpayer, or $10 billion over 
the next 10 years.
  This is simply a fundamental difference between the approach of the 
Agriculture Committee and the strategy of this administration. The goal 
is the same, the vitality and health of the Chesapeake Bay, but the 
methods of achieving these goals could not be more different.
  The 2008 farm bill provided incentive-based aid for farmers and 
ranchers to improve management practices which would have a direct 
result of improving water quality; but the administration simply does 
not want to give the time for these programs to work. Instead, they 
have done what they have been doing since taking office, overregulating 
farmers and ranchers and punishing States for not meeting certain 
arbitrary benchmarks.
  Rural America cannot afford for the EPA to continue this arbitrary 
regulation and not recognize current conservation efforts. I strongly 
believe that we need to hit the pause button on the TMDLs and first 
perform a study on the progress already being made on the Chesapeake 
through existing efforts already being employed.
  I'm proud of the fact that the farmers are taking real action on the 
ground every day to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay region 
and across the country.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to one of the senior 
members of the House Agriculture Committee and one of our subcommittee 
chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, with the comprehensive and detailed analysis that 
we've already received from our distinguished chairman and my 
colleagues, I'm not sure what I can add, but I will try.
  Article I, section 1 of our Constitution provides that all 
legislative powers be granted to the Congress of the United States. I 
remember when I was in fifth grade, I had a teacher named Mrs. Arndt in 
a seminal moment in my education who taught us what was right at the 
time and what's been badly distorted since, and that is, that we have 
three branches of a government: an executive branch to apply the law; a 
judicial branch to interpret it; and a legislative branch to make the 
law.

                              {time}  1120

  Unfortunately, that has all been turned on its head. We used to have 
the

[[Page 1582]]

conventional wisdom that as we left here, that the people's life, 
liberty, and property were safe. In fact, as my colleague and good 
friend Ron Paul said, When we leave here, we lose accountability, and 
we turn the process over to unelected bureaucrats.
  The purpose of those constitutional provisions was to provide 
accountability through elections, the popular will; and yet this 
administration has consistently ignored separation of powers and 
legislative functions, blatantly and defiantly through unelected, often 
even unratified, unaccountable, nameless, faceless bureaucrats who 
continually thwart the popular will and sound public policy.
  American agriculture, the worldwide leader in creativity and 
progress, the source of cheap food for a hungry world, is the prime 
target and victim. My colleagues have dealt very articulately with 
issues of price controls, GMO regulations, restrictive fees, and overly 
burdensome regulations.
  In addition and specifically, Madam Speaker and Members of the House, 
we have dealt and continue to deal with an EPA, a USDA, and a U.S. 
Department of Transportation that have dealt in areas of dust, backdoor 
cap-and-trade enactments, the Clean Air Act, hours of service, GMO 
coexistence, and otherwise. The key is this: none of these actions by 
themselves could ever pass the House or the Senate. None of these 
usurpations of authority are authorized by the Congress, and all of 
these serve to add dramatically to the cost of doing business and to 
reduce America's ability to feed our Nation and help feed the world.
  Each one of us represents up to 800,000 people, and each one of us 
has to face the voters every 2 years. We have a sworn constitutional 
obligation to the American people which is being twisted and subverted 
daily by perhaps well meaning, but nonetheless unresponsive, people and 
agencies who have no practical scrutiny or control. And this bill, I 
contend, Madam Speaker, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House, starts 
the process of restoration of legislative powers and upholding our 
fundamental, constitutional values, and the obligation to represent 
people rather than allowing people who were never elected or are 
unaccountable to run our public policy.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gibson).
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and to share 
the sentiments of our hardworking dairy farmers in upstate New York. 
When I talk with farmers and other small business owners throughout the 
district, they constantly share with me the primary impediments to 
their growth: high taxes, out-of-balance regulations, spiraling health 
care costs, and rising energy costs.
  Today I'll highlight just one example of an onerous regulation, a 
bureaucratic overreach that the EPA is threatening to visit upon our 
dairy farmers. Because milk has animal fat that the EPA defines as a 
nonpetroleum-based oil, the EPA is essentially treating our milk, our 
dairy product there, as a hazardous material. And if they do not get a 
waiver by November, our dairy farmers will have to invest in 
specialized containers and other equipment to be in compliance with new 
spill regulations. This will come directly out of their bottom line, 
and it makes no sense. I think we can all agree that we don't want to 
see spilt milk, but it's not a hazardous material.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation because I want to help our 
family farmers thrive and flourish.
  Mr. LUCAS. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. I rise in support of the resolution and look forward to 
reviewing a number of regulations and orders from Federal Government 
agencies.
  One regulation I would like to address today is the USDA's departure 
from a science-based regulatory system for biotech crops. Two weeks 
ago, I spoke to a number of farm and agriculture groups from my 
district, and they indicated a real concern that the current 
politicization of the regulatory process could set dangerous precedents 
for open pollinated and biotech crops in the future.
  The USDA has departed from the longstanding science-based 
``coordinated framework'' between the USDA, EPA, and FDA that has been 
accepted throughout the world. By altering the process through using a 
rules approach, rather than science, this could have a significant 
negative impact on trade. In addition, I think it is important to make 
sure that all government agencies are allowing for a proper comment 
time for proposed rules and regulations. As a government, we need a 
full understanding of how our actions will affect those governed by the 
rules.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the Congresswoman 
from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
72.
  Since becoming a Member of Congress, there has been a recurring theme 
in almost all of my meetings with constituents, the overreaching and 
burdensome nature of regulatory authority in Federal agencies. In my 
committee work just this week, I heard about the difficulties and the 
haphazard nature in which Dodd-Frank is being implemented and the 
negative impact of regulations in health care, education, and the 
National Labor Relations Board. It is obvious that the problem is not 
limited to one agency or industry, but is a growing trend by the 
administration in their approach to implementing regulations.
  I would like to take a moment to talk specifically about the 
Environmental Protection Agency's boiler MACT ruling. It would lead to 
the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is estimated that the 
cost to the paper and pulp industry would be over $5.5 billion in 
capital and $1.2 billion in annualized costs.
  The boiler MACT ruling is only one in a long line of troubling 
rulemaking decisions by the EPA and other agencies. Farmers have 
continually been faced with overreaching decisions such as rulings on 
pesticides, regulations of concentrated animal feeding operations, and 
nonpoint source pollution, to name a few. Alabama has a strong presence 
of agriculture, and I look forward to Congress exerting their 
oversight.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 72. Since 
becoming a Member of Congress, there has been a reoccurring theme in 
almost all of my meetings with constituents--the overreaching and 
burdensome nature of the regulatory authority of Federal agencies. 
Regardless if the meeting is with farmers, business owners, factory and 
mill workers, energy producers, doctors and teachers, all of them have 
been negatively impacted by unbalanced decisions by Federal agencies. 
All these groups want is fair, reasonable and balanced decisions. In my 
Committee work this week, I heard in the House Agriculture Committee 
about the difficulties in the haphazard nature in which Dodd-Frank is 
being implemented. In the House Committee on Education and Workforce, I 
heard testimony regarding the negative impact of regulations in health 
care, education, and the National Labor Relations Board. It is obvious 
that the problem is not limited to one agency or industry, but a 
growing trend by the Administration in their approach to implementing 
regulations.
  I like to take a moment and talk specifically about the Environmental 
Protection Agency's proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology for 
boilers. It is not even clear that the technology the EPA is requiring 
even currently exists. I have heard from several groups both here in DC 
and back in the district that the ruling would lead to the loss of 
hundreds of thousands of jobs at a cost of tens of billions of dollars 
in cost in implementing the rule. For example, it could result in the 
loss of 17,000 jobs in mills and 55,000 jobs in surrounding communities 
in the pulp and paper industry. It is estimated the cost to the 
industry would be over $5.5 billion in capital and $1.2 billion in 
annualized cost. New air regulations could total about $4 billion 
annually, which is over 4 times the entire industry's profit in 2008. 
This would eliminate the industry and push jobs overseas leaving us 
relying on foreign markets for products.
  The Boiler MACT ruling is only one in a long line of troubling rule-
making decisions by the

[[Page 1583]]

EPA and other agencies. In my State of Alabama, that has a strong 
presence of agriculture, farmers have continually been faced with over-
reaching decisions such as rulings on pesticides, regulations of 
concentrated animal feeding operations, ruling on genetically 
engineered crops, definition of navigable waters and nonpoint source 
pollution, to name a few. We cannot continue to be faced with 
regulations that are not consistent, that overly impede on particular 
industries, discourage innovation and eliminate jobs and businesses.
  I look forward to Congress exerting their oversight power and to 
reign in the Federal agencies. Congress must ensure that we have 
regulations that are done fairly in a balanced manner to ensure the 
safety and health of the American people while controlling for overly 
burdensome cost on our society.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I next yield 1 minute to the good gentleman 
from the great First District of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my neighbor 
from across the line in Kansas.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I would like to thank Chairman Lucas for the time to 
speak on an issue that is near to my heart.
  Madam Speaker, I came to Washington, hoping to bring some common 
sense to a city sorely lacking it. We have too many regulations being 
written by too many bureaucrats who have no idea what the real world is 
like. And let me give you one real-world example.
  Regulators at the EPA think that dust poses a serious health and 
pollution threat and have proposed significant reductions in the amount 
of dust that can be in the air. It's dry and it's windy in western 
Kansas, where I come from. So when we drive on the dirt roads common to 
rural America, we turn up dust in the air. To keep this from happening, 
the EPA recommends spraying dirt on the dry roads twice a day. 
Obviously they have never been to Kansas before. Kansans are 
hardworking people; and we don't have time to do this and, frankly, 
Madam Speaker, nor do we have the water to spray on these roads.
  I welcome the opportunity this resolution provides for us to bring 
these regulators in and give them a picture of what life is like in the 
real world outside of Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of House Resolution 72.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, we all know this is a 
challenging time for many families across America. Just like the rest 
of the country, folks in middle and south Georgia are struggling 
because of this economy. You see, the government has taxed and spent 
the American home into a recession. In fact, Madam Speaker, the current 
administration, in the last 2 years, in piling on regulation after 
regulation has made it more difficult for small businesses and family 
farms to grow and create jobs. Agencies like the EPA and laws like the 
recently enacted financial regulatory reform bill stand to do nothing 
but kill jobs. As a member of the Agriculture and Armed Services 
Committees, I look forward to working with my colleagues to tackle the 
burdensome regulations at these Federal agencies.
  President Eisenhower famously said, ``Farming looks mighty easy when 
your plow is a pencil and you're 1,000 miles away from the cornfield.'' 
We need to take an eraser to a lot of these rules and regulations that 
the bureaucrats in Washington are placing on the American small 
business owner.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would note to my colleagues on the floor, as you have seen today, 
the members of the House Agriculture Committee are very concerned about 
the impact that these regulatory issues have on farmers, ranchers, on 
processors, on the American consumer; and we are very committed to 
working in a bipartisan way with our colleagues on the entire Ag 
Committee to try and make sure that this onerous, burdensome, 
potentially economically destructive path that we seem to have gotten 
on in recent years is reversed.

                              {time}  1130

  We will use the oversight hearing process. We will use every tool 
available to us, working with other committees. We will in areas where 
perhaps we have some jurisdictional questions at least dwell upon the 
impact and the effect of direct regulation.
  I promise you over the course of this session of Congress the next 2 
years, it will be one of the highest focuses of the House Agriculture 
Committee, and perhaps, if we are successful, we will enlighten some 
unelected bureaucrats. Perhaps, if we are successful, we will prevent 
the implementation of rules and regulations that will not only prevent 
jobs from being destroyed but perhaps, if they are unfortunately 
implemented, destroy jobs that exist in this country. That's our 
commitment on this committee. That's our effort. We pledge very much to 
do that.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this week is the 100th anniversary of the birth of 
Ronald Reagan, and I think it is altogether fitting that we quote 
Ronald Reagan at a time in which, 30 years from when he said it, we're 
dealing with the burdens of increasing regulation creating a 
noncompetitive situation for American workers. It was 30 years ago that 
America was in a malaise. It was 30 years ago that Americans found 
themselves without jobs and without hope. It was 30 years ago that they 
elected Ronald Reagan, a man of hope and conviction to tear down 
anything that impeded freedom and liberty, including the growth of 
government, who said:
  ``Now let there be no misunderstanding. It is not my intention to do 
away with government. It is, rather, to make it work; work with us, not 
over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and 
must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not 
stifle it.''
  When our committee put up AmericanJobCreators.com, we thought we 
might get a few hits. Today, the letters we have received from small 
and large businesses around the country, giving us with specificity 
regulations and regulatory excesses that are stifling their ability to 
create jobs, now is more pages than ObamaCare, more pages than any bill 
I've ever seen come from here are stacking up with specific problems 
that America is dealing with here today, whether it's EPA, OSHA, or 
just regulators who won't give an honest answer to a fair question 
based on laws in which we require them to provide answers.
  America is falling behind and American jobs are suffering. So, Madam 
Speaker, our committee is dedicated to ensuring that regulatory reform 
occurs and occurs on our watch.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform, I rise in support of H. Res. 72. In fact, Madam 
Speaker, all of the ranking members of the committees that are debating 
H. Res. 72 have also joined me in expressing their support for this 
resolution. I believe that we should take every opportunity to 
thoughtfully and comprehensively reform regulations to ensure that they 
protect the health and welfare of the American people while not unduly 
impeding job creation.
  Obviously, however, this resolution is unnecessary. Our committee 
already convened a hearing on this exact topic just yesterday. We also 
adopted an oversight plan that specifically addresses the topic. So 
spending 10 hours debating this noncontroversial resolution does not 
seem to be the best use of Members' time.
  Importantly, any meaningful discussion of regulatory reform must be 
based on a comprehensive examination that considers the costs and 
benefits of regulations, that develops conclusions based on solid data, 
and that seeks input from a wide variety of sources.

[[Page 1584]]

  President Obama launched such an examination when he issued an 
executive order last month requiring agencies to examine the costs and 
the benefits of regulations to the overall economy, to small 
businesses, and to American workers and families. Several of the 
witnesses who appeared before the committee yesterday testified that 
the President's initiative is an important first step. By the way, 
these were the witnesses that were called by the majority. I look 
forward to receiving the results of the President's review. I hope that 
our committee will also undertake a balanced and thoughtful evaluation 
of regulations.
  And now, instead of wasting 2 days debating a resolution we all agree 
with, we should use our valuable floor time to consider legislation 
that will actually create jobs. With our national unemployment rate at 
9 percent, and even higher among minority communities--and as I told my 
committee yesterday, there are areas in my district where the 
unemployment rate probably approaches anywhere from 20 to 35 to 40 
percent--we should be focusing on concrete proposals to get our economy 
moving. That's what America wants, that's what America sent us here 
for, and that's what we should be about the business of doing.
  In his State of the Union message, the President proposed an 
initiative to create jobs and encourage economic growth through the 
modernization of our Nation's infrastructure. And on January 26, the 
President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Donohue, and the 
President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, issued a rare joint statement 
applauding this proposal. Here is what they said:
  ``Whether it is building roads, bridges, high-speed broadband, energy 
systems and schools, these projects not only create jobs and demand for 
businesses, they are an investment in building the modern 
infrastructure our country needs to compete in a global economy.''
  Similarly, in a study released by the National Transportation Policy 
Project in January 2011, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs concluded 
after extensive analysis, quote, wise and well-targeted expenditures on 
transportation infrastructure can generate lasting productivity gains, 
while also providing a more immediate stimulus to accelerate the 
Nation's ongoing recovery from a devastating recession.
  These are exactly the kinds of bipartisan efforts our committee and 
the Congress should be supporting. For this reason, I wrote yesterday 
to the chairman of the committee, Congressman Issa, asking that we 
schedule a hearing on these issues, these job-creating issues. I asked 
that we invite the Chamber, the AFL-CIO, and Transportation Secretary 
Ray LaHood. I hope we will follow through on that idea. I think it 
would be a lot more productive than the debate we are having here today 
on this noncontroversial issue.
  Importantly, as we consider such investments, we must also ensure 
that programs are in place to support small and minority-owned 
businesses that are so critical to the success of our economy. 
According to a report published in September 2010 by the Joint Economic 
Committee, three out of every four workers in the United States are 
hired by a firm with fewer than 250 employees.

                              {time}  1140

  These small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, have 
struggled over the past 2 years with a lack of access to capital. And 
minority-owned businesses are particularly limited by their access to 
bonding. I would ask that the majority join us in trying to find ways 
to make sure that these businesses have an opportunity to be bonded. 
This is an issue that I started working on 30 years ago, and we see 
roadblock after roadblock with regard to bonding for small and minority 
businesses and women-owned businesses. We see it over and over and over 
again. That's what we need to be dealing with. Those are the kind of 
things.
  And another thing that we find is that if you were to go into my 
district and bring together small businesses of all kinds, they would 
tell you that the thing that's stopping them from hiring people is 
things like access to capital. Many of them have had their lines of 
credit taken away. That's very significant. Anybody who has run a small 
business knows that a line of credit is essential and is extremely 
important for those small businesses to survive. And so, if we want to 
talk about trying to create jobs, which we should be, then I would hope 
that we would address that issue today.
  And so with regard to bonding, I am introducing legislation that 
would expand the Department of Transportation's ability to assist 
disadvantaged business enterprises working in the transportation 
industry in obtaining bid, payment, and performance bonds. This 
legislation would also create a program through which up to five States 
could receive Federal funding to implement their own bonding assistance 
programs.
  If the Republican leadership is serious, and I mean if they are 
really serious about creating jobs and making investment in our 
Nation's future, they should schedule time on the floor to consider 
legislation like this, rather than squandering days on pointless 
debates guaranteed to create zero jobs.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, as I introduce each of the members of my 
committee who sat through yesterday's hearing with witnesses on one 
side giving, in specificity, the problems, the regulations, what were 
the impediments to farming, to manufacturing and to mining, it is 
amazing that the gentleman quoted them, the gentleman from the other 
side of the aisle quoted them, but ignored his own witness who disputed 
any cost-benefit analysis being appropriate for looking at regulatory 
reform or even regulatory creation, preferring to simply say that all 
regulations should be judged on whether they do something, not what 
they cost.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Madam Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those calling 
for the end of overregulation that is strangling our small businesses 
here in my home State of New Hampshire and across our great Nation. I 
believe that this is a central focus of the challenges that we face in 
this 112th Congress.
  As other Members have suggested and stated, our Nation is run by 
small business owners, by employers who are hardworking, put their time 
and energy and effort into creating something, building something, 
creating new jobs for new opportunities. In my home State of New 
Hampshire, about 75 to 80 percent of our economy is dependent upon 
small business.
  And what I heard in the testimony, in committee, and what I'd like to 
convey today is my great and grave concern for the fact that every 
small business owner has to pay $10,585 per employee for the regulatory 
burdens and requirements. That is a grand impediment to the creation of 
a small business opportunity. This is something that is centrally 
focused, that we have to address as a Congress. And I certainly urge 
the passage of this resolution.
  Whether you are Laars, Incorporated in Rochester, New Hampshire, or 
Tee Enterprises in North Conway, New Hampshire, or J Dubbs in 
Manchester, New Hampshire, this impediment disallows the incentive that 
we believe is most important in our Nation.
  I, as a Member representing New Hampshire, want to ensure that we 
create an environment where small business can grow, can succeed and 
employ people, in our great State and in our Nation.
  There are two interesting things going on in New Hampshire: Project 
labor agreements that are infringing on the ability of a $35 million 
project being supported; and the OSHA demands over our small 
businesses. I hope and trust that we can pass this resolution.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to clear up something that the chairman of the committee just 
said that is not completely accurate. Yesterday, in our committee 
hearing, we

[[Page 1585]]

had Dr. Shapiro to testify. And the thing that he said was that when 
regulations are created, they are created in favor of protecting the 
health, welfare, and safety of American people. And basically, what he 
was saying is that we want to make sure that while you look at the 
cost-benefit analysis, you've got to understand that sometimes it's 
kind of hard to quantify the benefit of not seeing a baby strangled in 
a crib, the benefit of making sure that people have clean water, the 
benefit of making sure that when we eat food that that food is healthy 
and that it's not poison, the benefit of seeing that if we eat a piece 
of fish that it's not filled with pfiesteria. Those are the kinds of 
things that he was talking about. And so he wasn't saying that we 
should not look at it. What basically he was saying is that you've got 
to understand that when we came to this Congress and we put our hands 
up and we swore, we swore that we would protect Americans. And that's 
what this is all about.
  Mr. ISSA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ISSA. I was only quoting what the gentleman had said and 
reiterated that he still supported: Cost-benefit analysis is neither 
sound in theory nor useful in practice. We asked him. He said he still 
stands behind that. That's much broader than the gentleman said, I 
believe.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, as I said before, again, he was 
saying that regulations are put into effect to protect Americans. And I 
want to make it clear that we, on this side of the aisle, we have 
absolutely no problem with making sure that we look at regulations. If 
they are outdated, if they are overburdensome to the degree that 
there's no balance there, if they don't make sense, then we want to see 
those regulations go. But at the same time, what we're also saying is 
that it has to be a comprehensive examination. And I would think that 
the chairman of the committee would agree with me on that; that 
whatever we look at, because we want whatever comes out of this 
Congress to be credible and to be based on integrity, and we want the 
American people to buy into it, and hopefully this Congress to buy into 
it, that it would be a comprehensive view, that we'd look at the total 
picture, not just the cost, not just the benefit, but looking at it 
all.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues advocate a free 
market unfettered by what they say are job-killing regulations. It 
seems like to them every regulation is job-killing. We hear a lot about 
that.
  What we don't hear from the Republican majority is anything about job 
growth. We don't hear any plans about job growth because the majority 
doesn't have any plans for job growth.

                              {time}  1150

  In fact, the Republicans spent the last 2 years obstructing pro-job 
growth policy just to score political points; but they are wrong about 
regulation.
  For example, on the environment we hear from Republicans that 
environmental regulations are killing jobs, but the facts prove just 
the opposite. Based on recent estimates, total employment created by 
capital investments in the power sector over the next 5 years is 
estimated at 1.46 million jobs. That's an average of 290,000 jobs a 
year, in each of the next 5 years, and in a sector Republicans are 
telling us is full of job-killing regulations.
  While we don't hear anything from the Republican majority about job 
growth, we do hear a lot about free markets. To them, all we have to do 
is eliminate regulations, and everything will be fine. Well, at least 
for some of their wealthy corporate contributors. The rest of us? We're 
on our own in the free market.
  Madam Speaker, I wonder if my Republican colleagues think a market 
free of regulations will ensure the safety and reliability of the 
Nation's roads, railways, and airways. Our transportation system allows 
American businesses to transport their goods to retailers and 
consumers, and regulations make that system safe and reliable.
  Do they think a market free of regulations will enforce international 
agreements? Agreements help American businesses sell their goods and 
services abroad, and regulations protect and enforce those agreements.
  Do they think a market free of regulations will defend American's 
patents, copyrights and trademarks? Regulations protect American 
businesses against infringement, theft, and piracy.
  Does the Republican majority think a market free of regulations will 
protect the hundreds of millions of Americans who are their consumers 
and workers, and ensure their continued safety and security?
  When they were in the minority, Republicans worked hard to slow or 
even end the recovery from an economic crisis that they created, the 
crisis that the President and the Democratic Congress began to solve, 
the economic crisis that the new Republican majority, again for 
political reasons, seems bent on bringing back by eliminating the very 
regulations that create jobs.
  And I want to know if my Republican colleagues, who have not advanced 
one single plan to grow jobs here in this country, do they want to 
eliminate all regulations? Or do they just want to eliminate 
regulations that create jobs and protect Americans and that secure the 
economic and environmental future of this country? But they may also 
cut into the record profits of their wealthy contributors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CLAY. Instead of spending hours or days on trying to score 
political points, the Republican majority should be joining Democrats 
and the President and focusing on growing jobs. Regulations--pro-
growth, job-creating regulations--are a necessary successful way we can 
continue the Democratic recovery from the Republican economic crisis.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. ISSA. Under the rules of the House, isn't it true that the 
limitation on taking down somebody's words based on casting aspersions 
or specific actions against an individual, for example, not caring 
about Americans or wanting children to die for lack of regulation--
isn't it true that we can only do that if they cite a person, not the 
Republican Party as a whole?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to such a 
hypothetical question.
  Mr. ISSA. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. ISSA. Would it be in order for me to bring a motion to take down 
the words based on that accusation that was just made against my entire 
party, alleging that we want to roll back so that children are not 
protected and the like?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can not issue an advisory opinion. 
Is the gentleman from California making such a demand?
  Mr. ISSA. Would it be in order for me to make such a demand?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can not respond to such a 
hypothetical question. If a demand is made, the Chair will follow the 
regular process.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I think we're bigger than those accusations, 
regardless of it being likely to have been inappropriate by any 
standard.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Buerkle).
  Ms. BUERKLE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding his 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 72.
  Last November, the American people sent a message to all levels of 
government: get the government out of the way so that employers can 
create new jobs.
  Many in Washington seek a solution to our country's economic slowdown

[[Page 1586]]

through a revision of the Tax Code and broad cuts in all levels of 
spending. I support these initiatives, but I do not believe they are 
enough. We must provide a climate for economic growth and job creation. 
Congress must relieve the American people from the hidden tax of 
excessive regulation and red tape. It is a tax that affects everyone, 
passed on every day in increased costs of products and services.
  To put things in perspective, according to a report issued last year 
by the Small Business Administration, the approximate economic cost of 
regulation is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually. Increased 
regulations stifle job creation and the expansion of businesses, both 
large and small. It cripples their competitiveness in a global market 
while smothering the innovative spirit that has made the United States 
of America great.
  Moreover, businesses are not the only ones who are harmed by these 
unnecessary regulations. Municipalities, school districts, not-for-
profits, health care providers, and others serving the public pay a 
high cost to comply with the Federal bureaucracy.
  Regardless of who I talk to in the great State of New York, I ask, 
What regulations burden you? Businesses of all sizes and from all 
industries talk about how they incur unnecessary overhead for 
compliance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. BUERKLE. School districts tell my office of receiving Federal 
grants that will cost them two to five times the size of the grant to 
administer the grant.
  Not all regulations are unwarranted. Most Americans would agree on 
the need for regulatory protection, and to assume otherwise of this 
committee is irresponsible.
  Congress must address the cost to both business and the public before 
a new regulation is adopted. As Members of Congress, we cannot cede 
over the responsibility of legislation to the unchecked regulatory 
regimes that end up levying this hidden tax.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, it gives me great honor to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the whip, Mr. 
Steny Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This resolution directs the House committees to review Federal 
regulations for their effect on our economy. I agree with this 
resolution and I will vote for this resolution. In fact, that is an 
oversight, of course, that committees should in fact be carrying out 
without this resolution.
  Democrats believe that it's important to vigorously review 
regulations to make sure they are keeping pace with the changing 
economy, and that's why President Obama has already issued an executive 
order that calls for such a review.
  Where regulations are duplicative, where they stifle innovation and 
entrepreneurship, where they hold job creation back without protecting 
consumers, they should be revised or ended.
  But let's also remember that Federal regulations keep our drinking 
water and our air clean, protect our children from unsafe toys and 
food, put a check on abusive practices of insurance companies and 
credit card companies, and help control the kind of Wall Street 
gambling that wrecked our economy just a few years ago.

                              {time}  1200

  As a matter of fact, even though regulations were on the books, we 
know they were not enforced, which led to literally the loss of 
trillions of dollars by homeowners, individuals and businesses. We want 
regulations that protect Americans and foster economic growth and will 
call the committees to review regulations with both of those goals in 
mind.
  There is a reason that the Democrats have worked so hard to pass the 
Make It In America agenda, an agenda with which I am particularly 
identified. We need to in that agenda, if we are going to create the 
environment that I heard one of the Members on this floor talking about 
that will lead to businesses being able to make things in America and 
do so profitably, review regulations, review tax policies, and review 
other government policies to make sure we are competitive in the global 
marketplace. But we also want to make sure that we have consumers 
protected, as I said, and the environment protected, because there 
should not be a trade-off, but a complementary working of the two 
together.
  The new environment the Federal Government ought to work to create 
will promote growth, jobs, and success of the American people. Make It 
In America not only means manufacturing it, but it means succeeding in 
America, succeeding in global markets.
  I will, as I said, vote for this resolution. But the test will not be 
whether this resolution passes or fails. The test will be whether or 
not in fact we do the work that the American public expects us to do. 
The test will be whether our economy does succeed under the revisions 
we have made.
  I tell my friends on that side of the aisle, neither one of us have 
done perhaps the job we should have done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. But we ought to also be humbled by the fact that during 
the 30 years that I have been in office, for 20 of those years the 
Republicans have been in charge of the executive department of 
government. Just recently they were in charge, as a matter of fact, 
from 2001 to 2008, when we saw the deepest recession start and flourish 
and continue into this next administration since the Great Depression.
  So let none of us on this floor point the finger at one another. The 
American people want to see solutions, not angry rhetoric. The American 
people want to see this economy grow and create the jobs that they 
need. All of us ought to be committed to that objective, and we ought 
to project to the American people that we are prepared to come together 
and work together and legislate together to achieve that end.
  As I said, I will vote for this resolution, but the hard work is 
ahead of us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Frankly, the adoption of this resolution could have been, 
as I am sure most of us on this floor know, probably been done by 
unanimous consent, because what it calls for is our responsibility and 
is absolutely essential if we are going to create the kind of 
environment to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs and be 
competitive in international markets.
  I again thank my friend for yielding the time, and I urge the 
adoption of this resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
minority whip's statement that both sides over the years have not done 
enough. The 30-year buildup of regulatory excess is something that both 
sides need to take down.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  I do rise in support of H. Res. 72.
  When the framers of the Constitution started writing, they began 
article I, section 1, with a simple and clear statement: ``All 
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' 
After a great debate, the priority concern was the possibility that 
some other entity other than Congress would attempt to exercise 
legislative powers or compel their will on American citizens.
  If laws could be made by someone who has no accountability, they 
could create any rule based on their own preferences and force 
unchecked spending on the will of their fellow citizens without 
accountability. This is an unfunded regulatory mandate.
  It is my concern that in the race to regulate, we have moved from 
regulating American business to running State and local governments and 
have made them, in effect, Federal Government extension employees 
charged

[[Page 1587]]

with regulating all aspects of public and private business. Every stage 
of business is now regulated, from how to interview an applicant to how 
to fire an employee.
  Government paperwork abounds. Every company needs compliance officers 
and attorneys just to make sure they are running their business based 
on the preferences of someone from some agency they have never even 
heard of. That is not real job creation. American companies want to 
produce products and services, not hire de facto government employees. 
We need real job growth.
  It is time for Congress to assume its responsibility. If there is a 
grievous regulation, it shouldn't be EPA's fault, HHS's fault or even 
the executive branch's fault. It is ours.
  Let me give you some examples of these unfunded mandates in my own 
home State of Oklahoma. The City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, is 
currently drowning under a new EPA requirement to filter the storm 
water. That is correct, filtering the rainwater.
  The City of Bethany, Oklahoma, spent over a quarter of a million 
dollars in 1987 to put in two water wells, only to be required a few 
years later to take them out by EPA because of their wastewater. Then 
EPA changed their wastewater requirements in 2006 and cost the City of 
Bethany over $9 million. The street signs in Bethany must also change 
to a new type of reflective material to meet new DOT regulations, 
costing the city who knows how much.
  The Oklahoma Department of Transportation has to go through millions 
of dollars of hoops to tear down an old bridge to replace it with a new 
bridge in the exact same spot. They have to navigate the Clean Water 
Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and many more, while people drive 
over an old, deteriorating bridge.
  I will tell you, I will be the first to promote wheelchair ramps on 
sidewalks, but Federal interpretation of ADA to construct accessible 
curb ramps at intersections and other locations has been invoked where 
no connecting sidewalks even exist. In Oklahoma City, where I live, 
such a wholesale directive results in curb ramps that terminate in 
adjacent vacant lots, to a ditch, embankments, and sometimes straight 
into a light pole. The desire to do the right thing sometimes leaves no 
room for exercising common sense.
  We are regulating common sense out of Federal, State and local 
governments, and we are costing State and local taxpayers millions in 
unfunded mandates.
  Sometimes our regulations don't cost money but they do cost trust in 
the relationship between citizens and their Federal Government.
  Last Christmas, a community bank in Oklahoma was told by a Federal 
regulator that their employees had to take off the buttons that said 
``Merry Christmas, God is with us,'' and remove the scripture verse 
announcement on their board because it might cause someone to feel 
discriminated against that walked into the bank. This is a privately 
owned business in America.
  Every person in that community has lost trust with the commonsense 
leadership of the Federal Government because we have allowed unchecked 
regulation. The assumption that Federal agencies are the only people 
who care about clean water, clean air, fair business practice, et 
cetera, is arrogant and misinformed. I don't know anyone who loves the 
air, water and land in Oklahoma more than Oklahomans, and I am 
confident that is true for other States as well.
  We must take a serious look at unfunded mandates and regulations. We 
need to hear the cry of our cities, counties and States where they say 
please stop the flood of regulations. They want two things: 
predictability and clearly defined limited scope.
  This is a bipartisan issue. We have common agreement with the other 
members of my subcommittee, and we will immediately take this up next 
Tuesday in our first subcommittee hearing.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Any review of our regulatory structures or the orders 
that are issued therefrom must weigh the cost of regulations against 
their benefits. Everyone who makes or installs air bags in cars, smoke 
detectors in office buildings, HVAC units in businesses and homes and 
tamper-proof packaging for food and pharmaceuticals, just to name a 
few, has a job, thanks to regulation. And when we don't have adequate 
regulations, bad things happen. We don't have to look that far.
  Look at our financial crisis. Look at the recession. A financial 
disaster was created by a lack of regulation and by erroneously relying 
on the narrow self-interests of corporate management to protect their 
own businesses, let alone the common good.

                              {time}  1210

  And this is according to Alan Greenspan, because Mr. Greenspan told 
our Oversight Committee a few years ago, ``I made a mistake in 
presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks 
and others, were such that they were capable of protecting their own 
shareholders and their equity in the firms.''
  Last year, the Office of Management and Budget performed a cost-
benefit analysis of Federal regulations, which showed that the benefits 
of regulations far outweigh their costs. Between 1999 and 2009, the 
estimated cost of regulations were between $43 billion and $55 billion, 
while the estimated economic benefits were between $128 billion and 
$616 billion. That means during that 10-year period the cost-to-benefit 
ratio of regulations was one-to-two, based on OMB's lowest estimations, 
and one-to-fourteen based on OMB's highest estimations.
  So as we go into this great adventure about all of these regulations, 
we must look at the benefits of regulations--the economic benefits, the 
social benefits, the health benefits--if we're to come up with an 
accurate picture of the role of regulations in our society.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding and for his good work on this resolution and a 
host of other issues in leading our committee.
  The President's executive order directing agencies to take into 
account the cost of cumulative regulations is an important step, moves 
us in the right direction, and something that we just, frankly, are 
getting an understanding of how the Federal Government should work 
relative to the private sector. Job creators do not live in a world 
where they are only subject to one regulation issued by one agency. 
Rather, job creators are subject to a myriad of regulations and 
compliance obligations enforced by the EPA, the Department of Labor, 
the IRS, Health and Human Services, and on and on and on.
  The utilities sector offers fertile ground to begin understanding how 
Federal agencies should take into account the cumulative effect of 
regulations. From early 2009 to 2017, this industry will have to 
contend with no less than 35 separate regulatory deadlines. Those 
affected say looming regulatory changes have already caused two power 
plants to be shut down.
  The manufacturing sector: this industry is hit the hardest by 
cumulative regulatory costs, with per-firm costs at over $600,000--half 
a million greater than the national average. Small manufacturers bear a 
proportionately larger regulatory burden, with an estimated cost of 
$26,000 per employee--more than double the burden faced by other larger 
manufacturers. The impact of regulations is especially important on 
small business owners. They serve as both entrepreneurial leaders but 
also as the regulatory enforcer within their company. The more time 
spent complying with regulations is less time they can spend meeting 
the needs of their clients and their customers, growing their business, 
and, most importantly, creating jobs.

[[Page 1588]]

  I had an experience a few years ago. One of our manufacturers, a very 
successful business owner, wanted to meet with our U.S. Senator. I 
remember this meeting because I'll remember it forever. We were sitting 
in the meeting and our constituent said to our U.S. Senator, Senator, 
we can outcompete anybody. We are so efficient at what we do, the way 
we manage our business, our efficiencies we put in place, we feel like 
we can outcompete anybody. What makes it tough to win in the 
international market, what makes it difficult to compete and grow jobs, 
what makes it really difficult is the stuff you guys do. And he pointed 
right at the Senator. And it had an impact. He said, It's all the 
things we have to do to comply. That's what makes it difficult.
  The American worker, the American family, they can outcompete 
anybody. Let's just get government off their backs so they can do the 
things that we've been doing in this country for 200-plus years--grow 
our economy, grow jobs, put families back to work, put people back to 
work, and improve this situation.
  I look forward to the work that our Subcommittee on Regulatory 
Affairs will focus on, trying to understand the cumulative impact that 
regulations impose on the job creators.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I think we're a little perplexed over here. There's 
nobody on this side of the aisle that doesn't feel regulations ought to 
be reviewed. I don't think there's anybody on the other side that feels 
that way, and I think that everybody understands it's one of the roles 
of Congress, and particularly one of the roles of the Government 
Oversight and Reform Committee. It's in our rules. Every committee has 
already passed an entire plan for doing oversight.
  So, essentially, the real question is we're spending 9\1/2\ hours 
here today to ostensibly give authority that already exists. So we're 
not spending 9\1/2\ hours on dealing with helping 14 million Americans 
who are out of work. Instead, we're not advancing any bill that would 
repair our economy or restore our manufacturing industry. We're not 
ensuring the country's global competitiveness. We're not enhancing our 
education system. We're not enhancing or reinvesting in our public 
infrastructure. We're spending 9\1/2\ hours allotting authority that 
already exists on that, and that just doesn't seem to be a good use of 
the time of this House. I think that's been noted over and over again.
  It didn't stop Chairman Issa from issuing 170 letters looking at the 
regulatory matters the other day. It didn't stop him from having hours 
of a committee hearing yesterday where we beat this same drum over and 
over again. Everybody understands that some regulation is sometimes 
taken to excess and sometimes the enforcements are taken in the wrong 
direction.
  I take a back seat to nobody. I spent 4 years as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Policy and National Security. We had hearing 
after hearing exposing fraud, waste, and abuse in the billions in the 
Defense Department and related activities. So, yes, let's do it; but 
let's not waste our time talking about what we're going to talk about. 
Let's get out there and have the hearings. The committee is set up for 
that.
  But let's also understand what's going on here. There's one side of 
this debate, my friends on the Republican side, who want to say the 
only factor to be considered when we're looking at regulation is its 
cost, and that's it. Well, if that were the case and we only focused on 
cost, there would probably be no regulations.
  But if we look at our history, we've found it important and that 
there was undeniable progress when we implemented the regulations on 
child labor, on civil rights protections, 5-day workweeks, cleaner 
lakes and rivers, clean air, seatbelts and air bags, child-proof 
medicine caps, fire safety codes, and on and on.
  There's value in some of these regulations that also have to be 
balanced against the cost. And when in fact the Office of Management 
and Budget did that, as Mr. Kucinich just noted, their report estimated 
that between 1999 and 2009 the cost of the regulations was about $43 
billion to $55 billion, but they were outweighed by economic benefits 
that were between $128 and $616 billion.
  If you just look at the Clean Air Act, by some estimates that act 
accounted for $23 trillion in economic and health benefits. Thirty 
times higher than the cost to businesses. The Clean Air Act has created 
jobs--lots of jobs. In 2010, 1.7 million Americans were employed in 
environmental technology industries; 119,000 environmental tech 
companies produced $300 billion in revenues in 2010. And we're 
exporting these technologies. In 2008, the United States exported $43.8 
billion in environmental technologies--more than any other country in 
the world.
  So, Madam Speaker, let's be serious about this. We're talking about 
regulations. We're talking about the costs and the benefits and doing 
an analysis. And let's not waste 9\1/2\ hours talking about what we 
already have the authority to do.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, in section 2, article 1, asking for 
regulations that impede private sector job creation, I'm just sorry the 
other side doesn't understand. That's not cost; that's jobs.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I'm here today because I represent those small 
businessmen that are trying to make a living in towns like Butler, 
Pennsylvania, and Erie, Pennsylvania, and Greenville, and I've got to 
tell you, the rhetoric is absolutely off the charts. What we really 
need to see now are some results. Until we get government's boot off 
the throat of small business people and allow them to move forward, do 
we want to be in the game? Heavens yes, I want to be in the game. So 
does everybody else want to be in the game.
  We need to realize that all these taxes that we create or that we're 
trying to take in come from businesses that are profitable and people 
who are working. So if we're talking about growing an economy and if 
we're talking about cutting spending--and I do agree that cutting 
spending is important--we better wake up and start to smell the coffee.
  We have overregulated these people to the point that they don't want 
to be in this game anymore. We've got to wake up. I repeat that because 
we are missing the boat on a very vital thing that's happening right 
now in this country. We need to get onboard with this. And I've got to 
tell you, insiders in this Beltway talk about too big to fail. For 
small business people, you know what we are? We're too small to 
survive, because we can't get the help from the people we need. All we 
get is a lot of talk and a lot of overregulation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1220

  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The President has begun a review of regulations. Madam Speaker, you 
would think the majority would do something like declare victory. 
Instead, they prematurely held an oversight hearing with business, a 
one-sided hearing, rather than joining issue by calling in the agencies 
one by one to see what kind of a review the President is, in fact, 
doing.
  I favor government for the good of the general welfare; therefore I 
have always hated government bureaucracy and regulations that make 
government, even the best of government, look bad. I headed a Federal 
agency, and I believe I will be more remembered for streamlining its 
processes than for the underlying mission. I eliminated a huge backlog 
of cases, and settled cases which had usually been carried to the full 
stream. Guess what? When we started to settle them, we got more 
remedies.
  Instead, look at what the majority has done. They have changed the 
subject from jobs to reducing Federal

[[Page 1589]]

power in the District of Columbia. One way in which they have done this 
is to spend their first month on bills which usurp control of local 
power and local funds from a local jurisdiction. That is the opposite 
of what they have claimed they want to do.
  They have introduced a harsh anti-choice bill. What is the District 
of Columbia's spending of its local funds doing in such a bill? 
Yesterday, they introduced a bill to wipe out the local gun laws of a 
local jurisdiction after the courts have now found them to be 
constitutional. They have introduced a DC-only private voucher bill, 
not a national bill, after a compromise on vouchers for DC was already 
achieved and even though the District of Columbia has a home rule 
alternative, the largest alternative school system in the United 
States, where almost half of our children are in public charter 
schools.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. I am grateful.
  The majority has taken regulation, a subject on which there is a 
basis for areas of consensus, and has polarized it. They have broken 
their promises on jobs--look, no jobs bill--and on reducing Federal 
power by trying to literally usurp power from a local jurisdiction and 
dictate to that local jurisdiction from the Federal Government what it 
should be doing.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I would like to thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me time this morning.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. I commend 
the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, for rising in support 
of this resolution; and I would urge the rest of the Members on the 
other side of the aisle to follow their whip in support of this 
resolution.
  As families struggle to pay their bills and as small businesses 
falter, the impact of overregulation could not be more devastating than 
it currently is. I stand here today, supporting and representing the 
good, hardworking men and women of Florida's Second District.
  In Florida, we stand at nearly 12 percent unemployment. It is a 
historic number. I will tell you that the regulations that are coming 
through the EPA are going to further destroy and hamper job growth in 
our State. The EPA has allied with environmental activists to finalize 
numeric nutrient criteria for rivers and lakes. These crippling 
regulations due to take effect this year will penalize the State of 
Florida and could possibly destroy 14,500 agricultural jobs just in our 
State, according to the Florida Department of Agriculture and the 
University of Florida study. It could cost cash-strapped government 
entities across my State $21 billion in new water treatment facilities.
  This week, I met with a member from a local municipality who said 
they had just completed a $17 million project and that, if these 
regulations go into effect, it is going to have to be repeated again, 
which will be another $17 million on top of the $17 million that they 
have just implemented.
  It is time for Washington to get out of the way and to allow small 
businesses across my State and this great Nation to create jobs.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I would just say one thing to the gentleman who just 
spoke, which is that we agree with the gentleman from Maryland. We want 
a comprehensive look at these regulations.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
  Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I want to briefly speak about the impact 
the overbearing Environmental Protection Agency has in my district.
  I want to begin by relating an anecdote that illustrates the arrogant 
and tone-deaf attitude the EPA has taken in its attempts to regulate 
almost everything that moves or breathes in Idaho's First Congressional 
District.
  In the Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency 
announced a public meeting in Boise where my constituents could come 
and provide oral comments. Relying upon the EPA's notice in the Federal 
Register, my constituents attended in order to share their thoughts 
with the EPA, only to be told that oral comments would not be accepted.
  My constituents try to do the right thing and play by the rules; but 
when the EPA writes the rule book in erasable or even invisible ink, my 
constituents become jaded and distrustful of the EPA, and they come to 
this body for assistance. They are done being treated unfairly by a 
Federal bureaucracy that no longer seems to care if it even obeys its 
own rules. This body must no longer tolerate such actions.
  We must also not tolerate the job-killing regulations that the EPA 
dreams to implement. Even though the current and past administrations 
have recognized that the Clean Air Act is not appropriate for the 
regulation of greenhouse gases, the EPA nonetheless has chosen to 
ignore those findings and treat greenhouse gases as though they 
endanger the public health and welfare.
  The EPA and other Federal agencies led by the White House are also 
charging ahead with policies, using questionable climate change science 
under the guise of protecting vulnerable or endangered species, 
policies that will do very little, if anything, to aid species, but 
that will most surely empower Federal bureaucrats and environmental 
lawyers. These policies will further restrict access to our water and 
land and will further hit our already struggling agriculture and 
resource-dependent communities.
  Finally, the EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service have 
ignored the ``best available data'' of farmers as they determine how 
pesticide registration affects salmon in the Pacific Northwest.
  In an era in which the administration's failed fiscal and energy 
policies are inflating food prices, the EPA piles on with its 
procedures that add nothing but uncertainty to the process.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, may I inquire, do I have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
California to close this portion of debate.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my committee chair for yielding me time. I 
appreciate his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and 
recommend that we review regulations and the order from Federal 
agencies that they submit and control the private sector.
  Since the onset of the recession, the driving policy in Washington 
has been to grow our economy for the long term. Some of our colleagues 
believe that we can achieve that by growing the Federal Government. 
However, more government and more regulations do not lead to more jobs. 
In 1988, Ronald Reagan stated that, in the end, it was not government 
regulation, high taxes or Big Government spending but, rather, free 
enterprise that led to the building of a great America.
  Over the past 2 years, the American business owner has seen darker 
economic days than this country has seen in generations. Yet our 
businesses still push forward, innovating and adapting to the 
increasingly global marketplace that we live in. Our government must do 
the same thing. Astonishingly, a number of our colleagues believe that 
Federal regulations actually lead to more jobs and more productivity. 
Some have even called for more Federal regulation to spur job growth. 
Quite frankly, I think that's insane; and I think most Americans 
believe the same.
  After hearing from job creators yesterday in our Oversight and 
Government Reform hearing, as well as hearing from job creators in my 
district, it is clear that the best way to help small businesses, 
America's job creators, is to look in our own backyard to see what 
onerous regulations and wasteful

[[Page 1590]]

spending programs are getting in the way of free enterprise. That means 
a renewed commitment to tough government oversight and transparency. 
That's what this resolution does.

                              {time}  1230

  This Chamber must remain committed to enacting policies based on the 
principles of Ronald Reagan, reducing the size of government, 
increasing its efficiency, and making it accountable to those it 
serves, the American people.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Judge Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend 
the chairman and his committee for the hard work they're doing here 
today.
  While we look at bad rules, Madam Speaker, already on the books, 
let's not take new, worse rules on in the future. With a split House 
and Senate, it will be a tough job to repeal existing regulations in 
light of the Senate requirement of 60 votes to bring something to a 
vote in the Senate. It will be very difficult, but we have a special 
parliamentary tool to block new rules with the Congressional Review 
Act, which mandates a Senate vote on blocking new regulations of just 
30 Members of the Senate. So we can have closure in the Senate with 
only 30 Senators joining us.
  Today, we face new EPA attempts to shut down the Portland cement 
industry in our Nation, costing thousands of jobs. We face an EPA grab 
to take away Texas' ability to issue emission permits, undermining the 
economy of Texas and destroying job growth in our State.
  We face an HHS scheme to kick small health insurers out of the market 
because they can't match the administrative cost ratios of their mega-
insurer competitors.
  But if we use our majority in this body to disapprove these bad 
rules, we can then convince just 30 of our Senators to join us and go 
along with it to bring it to the floor of the Senate for a vote, a 
straight up-or-down vote. I think we have a very good chance to stop 
these new rules that are in the pipeline.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join our effort to use the 
Congressional Review Act to fight bad rules and save jobs. I thank you.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, as I said a little bit earlier, this is not 
controversial. We're on the same page and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) said it quite appropriately: We believe in effective and 
efficient government. There's nothing more important. When government 
performs effectively and efficiently, we all benefit.
  I think the President was right when he issued Executive order number 
13563, when he said that we want to look at outmoded, ineffective, 
insufficient, or excessively burdensome regulations to modify and 
streamline our rules. That's what we're all about, but I want to make 
sure that we do have that balance on both sides because of the fact 
that the American people are depending on us to be their line of 
defense.
  As Mr. Stanley ``Goose'' Stewart said--he's a fellow who was part of 
the Sago Mine incident in West Virginia--and I'll close with these 
words. He said this to our legislators in a letter. He said, You were 
elected to represent the American people, but more importantly, you are 
Americans, and at the very base of it all you are human beings. The 
safety of our American people should mean more to you than extra 
profits for big corporations. It seems wrong to justify the filling of 
corporate bank accounts with the blood of American workers and the 
tears of their families.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for the 
resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Dr. Gosar from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, red tape, the EPA, government regulations. 
When I travel my district, these words come up over and over again. 
These are not words of encouragement; these are words of frustration. 
Small businesses across Arizona are struggling to keep their doors open 
because government will not get out of the way. Enough is enough. Now 
is the time to make changes that will empower our Nation and put our 
people back to work.
  Take, for example, the Navajo Generating Station in my district. They 
have state-of-the-art technology that makes them one of the cleanest 
coal power plants in the country. Yet, the EPA says this technology is 
not good enough. Out-of-touch bureaucrats at the EPA are threatening 
over 500 high-paying jobs in my district, over 80 percent of which go 
to the Navajo Nation, where unemployment is approaching 60 percent. The 
plant provides power to the major cities of Arizona and 95 percent of 
the power to the Central Arizona Project's canal, which in turn 
delivers 45 percent of the city of Phoenix's projected water demand and 
80 percent of Tucson's projected water demand.
  The EPA's attempt to shut down the Navajo Generating Station will put 
Arizona's water and energy security at risk. What is worse, the Navajo 
Generating Station is willing to comply with the EPA, yet the EPA is 
imposing timelines that no businesses can reasonably meet. Why, you may 
ask? Because the EPA is more concerned with their agenda than they are 
about the people of Arizona.
  Today, I stand here asking my colleagues, the Senate, and the 
administration to listen to the people of my district. We have no more 
time to waste. We need to rein in government before it puts the rest of 
our country out of business.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, the American people do not yet really know 
the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but they probably 
know better the FCC, the SEC, the FTC, and the Consumer Product Safety 
Council--and to be honest, I got really tied up in the rest of the 
letters they put here. None of them, I repeat, none of them, are 
covered by the President's Executive order. For whatever reason, the 
President limited his Executive order to the non-independent agencies, 
not even calling on the independent agencies to begin a review.
  Madam Speaker, over the last half hour, we've heard again and again 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying this is frivolous, 
it's not necessary. Yesterday, they called the whole hearing with 
American job creators, many of whom had responded to 
Americanjobcreators.com, they called it sort of anecdotal, or 
frivolous, or hyperbole.
  Madam Speaker, it's time that we take seriously the loss of American 
jobs. Today's resolution does have specificity, does deal with the fact 
that Americans are suffering, and regulations are part of our 
competitive challenge.
  Madam Speaker, I take Steny Hoyer at his word that he supports this 
and wants to work together. I take the President at his word that it is 
time to do this review. I don't take the bureaucrats at their word 
that, like foxes guarding the henhouse, if you go back and tell them to 
guard again more carefully, that you are any more likely to have 
anything other than less chickens in the morning.
  Madam Speaker, we cannot assume here in the House that over the last 
2 years when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White 
House and did nothing to reduce regulations--just the opposite, 
increased them--and that the President, currently who is increasing 
regulation without one piece of legislation, trying to get card check 
through the back door and hundreds of other programs far beyond our 
demand, that if given the mandate to re-regulate what they've 
regulated, that they won't in fact use it as a chance to expand a 
liberal agenda in a way that will further hurt the American jobs.
  We must be there hand-in-hand with this administration to make sure 
that

[[Page 1591]]

every change in regulations is followed up with binding law that will, 
in fact, help the American people get back to work.
  So, Madam Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that this resolution is 
necessary as a first step to make it clear that the House of 
Representatives is fully committed to getting Americans working again 
and Americanjob
creators.com and other sites that are trying to collect this data from 
people who create jobs in America and the private sector, we are going 
to continue to gather and disperse those areas that American job 
creators are finding are impediments to their creating the jobs in 
America.

                              {time}  1240

  Lastly, Madam Speaker, you will hear in the days and weeks to come 
about corporate profits in America, and you will hear about the great 
profit growths of some of our best-known corporations. After 
yesterday's hearing, I went back and checked. Almost to a corporation, 
the growth in their profits has been disproportionate from overseas 
earnings, on overseas labor, and overseas development. Meaning, Madam 
Speaker, do not look to corporate profits as the bellwether. Do not 
look to the stock market as a bellwether.
  American jobs are created when American companies are incentivized 
and given an opportunity to create jobs in America. That's what this 
resolution is about today. That's what the hearings and the markups 
will be in the days and weeks to come. That's the reason why we cannot 
leave it to bureaucrats behind doors that created these problems. Allow 
them to, in fact, reevaluate their own sins.
  So, Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to support House Resolution 
72 and to urge its consideration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the 
Republican leadership.
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank my colleague from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and the examination of 
the rules and the regulations that create uncertainty and increased 
costs and disadvantage our businesses, farmers, and ranchers. My wife 
and I were small business owners for nearly 22 years. I know what it's 
like to sign the front of a payroll check and to deal with government 
rules and regulations.
  Here is a perfect example of what my farmers and ranchers face in 
Oregon. These are new rules that are coming out from the Environmental 
Protection Agency that are relying on what they even termed as a 
National Marine Fisheries Service document that was less than 
transparent. This affects new set-asides if you use modern chemicals at 
all to grow America's food and the world's food. These are new setback 
provisions that are being required in buffer zones that could, in some 
cases, be from 100 to 1,000 feet along any body of water, including 
intermittent streams. Now, if you are from sort of the dry side of 
Oregon, you have a lot of intermittent streams that only kind of flow 
with runoff, and they dry up. The practical effect, though, is that you 
could lose most of your farmland.
  This is an example, run through their models, of what this could mean 
if this rule goes into effect. And you would take from 108 acres, which 
is the whole area here, and you would begin to reduce down the buffers 
to where you would be able to farm less than 10 acres. That means that 
for this farm, you could lose upwards of--this crop yield now would 
produce $21,000 in income. When the Federal Government's rules are 
fully implemented as described here, you would be down to $1,500. You 
can't farm if you lose much of your farm ground and you go from 108 
acres down to 10.
  This will occur all over the country, all over eastern and western 
Oregon, and it is an enormous Federal Government land grab that could 
affect between 40 and 67 percent of farmlands in Oregon. And in this 
case, it's an 83 percent reduction if taken all the way to the 1,000-
foot buffer along these intermittent streams.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we need to examine this and many other rules 
and regulations and look at their practical effect on the ground 
throughout the countryside, on the men and women who raise our food and 
produce the jobs in America.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, back when I was campaigning for Members all across the 
country, I heard Republicans constantly talking about jobs. Despite the 
fact that the Democratic majority in the 111th Congress brought America 
back from the brink of a depression and presided over 10 straight 
months of private sector job growth, with Republicans obstructing every 
step of the way, the Republicans insisted they would focus on jobs, 
jobs, jobs.
  But something must have happened to the Republicans over the 
holidays, because for the full month since the opening of the 112th 
Congress, the Republican majority has done literally nothing to create 
jobs. Republicans have held votes on 11 bills that do things like 
denying insurance to people with preexisting conditions and denying 
security funding to the area around the United Nations building in New 
York. Not a single one of these votes has created a single job for a 
single American.
  Republicans are holding a host of committee hearings on issues like 
restricting access to women's legal health services and rolling back 
injured patients' legal rights. Not a single one of these hearings has 
created or will create a single job for a single American. Today we are 
talking and talking about a resolution that will instruct committees to 
conduct oversight, which they are supposed to do no matter what. This 
resolution would not create a single job for a single American.
  This week, as our economic recovery is just gaining steam, the 
Republicans are proposing a spending bill that will curtail American 
innovation and clean energy and cut the number of cops on our streets. 
This will result in Americans losing their jobs and America being less 
safe and less prepared to compete in the 21st century global economy 
and to create jobs years into the future.
  Republicans talked last year about how they would focus on jobs. But 
it seems that when they decide to focus on jobs at all, they are 
focusing on how to eliminate jobs.
  Madam Speaker, I come from a district and a State where unemployment 
is unacceptably high and too many people have been out of work for much 
too long. I honestly wish the Republican majority would focus on 
commonsense and pragmatic ways to create American jobs. If they decide 
to do this, they will find me to be a willing partner. But let's stop 
these shenanigans like we are seeing here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the cynicism on the part of the 
Democratic leadership is interesting. It was just announced yesterday 
that the Obama health care plan will net lose America 800,000 jobs. But 
it's also true that it will create millions of jobs, but it destroys 
millions more, a net 800,000 jobs. The Republican Party is here because 
of the miserable failure of the Democrat leadership in this House of 
Representatives and our President who has ruined millions of jobs in 
this country, and that is why the Republican Party is here to do 
something about that. Don't worry, we'll be adding millions of jobs.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a freshman member of the 
Republican leadership.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, every single day Americans are asking, Where are the 
jobs? The answer is simple. Current regulations are destroying jobs. 
Last year alone, government regulations cost businesses more than $1.7 
trillion.
  As an example, this chart illustrates the significant burden that the 
Clean Air Act imposes on pulp and paper businesses in my district. 
These are all

[[Page 1592]]

the regulations that could impact the industry in the next 10 years, 
with a price tag of 17 billion job-killing dollars, $17 billion.
  Another example, the FDA has threatened General Mills with regulating 
Cheerios. Cheerios. Why? Because they don't like the health claim 
benefits on the box.

                              {time}  1250

  If we want to create more jobs in America, let's get the government 
out of the way, and we can start with the 157,000 pages of regulations.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my leader from South Carolina.
  Madam Speaker, the prior gentleman who spoke is right. Americans are 
asking, ``Where are the jobs?'' And the majority is saying, ``We'll get 
to that later.''
  This week, the first thing that they did was to try to rush to the 
floor, without hearings or consideration, an extension of the Patriot 
Act, which is a very serious and profound issue for the country. And it 
didn't work.
  Then they brought to the floor a bill that was supposed to recover 
money from the United Nations, which we're all for, but the 
Congressional Budget Office says it wouldn't actually save any money. 
The New York City police commissioner said it would be harmful to his 
efforts to protect the people of New York against terrorism that might 
come up around the United Nations. And I think the rest of the world 
said, Why is the United States rocking the boat at a time when there is 
profound global crisis going on in the most dangerous area of the 
world? So that didn't work.
  They then brought to the floor this bill, which commendably says that 
committees should look at whether there are regulations that don't make 
any sense, that are harmful to jobs and businesses in our country. 
They're right. We should do that. We're already doing it. In other 
words, each committee adopts what's called an oversight plan when it 
meets. It talks about all the different things it wants to do. In 
Education and the Workforce, we did that. In Armed Services, we did 
that. So we've now spent 9\1/2\ hours debating whether we should keep 
doing something we're already doing and bring to the floor someday, in 
the distant ozone future, actual bills that might actually reduce such 
regulations.
  Now if that really weren't bad enough, the majority really switched 
this week, from ignoring the jobs problem to worsening the jobs 
problem. Because out of the view of the public on this floor, in their 
private meetings, they're planning to bring to the floor next week a 
bill that will dramatically reduce investments, and let me give you an 
example. We only know what we read in the newspaper because my 
understanding is that they have yet to post their spending bill online, 
which they've promised to do 72 hours before it comes up, but you can 
project this out that they're probably calling for a 30 percent cut in 
things like air traffic controllers.
  I want you to think about this, Madam Speaker, for a moment. Putting 
aside the obvious safety consideration, I don't think any of us would 
put anyone we love or care about on a plane we didn't think was safe. 
That's obviously true on both sides of the aisle, and I'm not 
suggesting the other side wants to do that. But there are consequences 
to not having a full complement of air traffic controllers. And beyond 
the safety consideration is an economic consideration: How can you have 
a thriving economy if people feel like they can't fly safely?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I come from a State, New Jersey, which prides on being 
the medicine chest of the world, in our pharmaceutical industry. How 
can you have a cutting edge in pharmaceutical products if you lay off 
people from the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that review the 
applications for new drugs? How can you have a supermarket industry 
that's thriving and employs millions of people in the agriculture and 
food industries if the people who inspect our meat and our milk and our 
food are not there?
  Now these are questions that are going to be debated and answered 
next week here. They do have an effect on jobs--a profoundly negative 
effect on jobs. We understand that there is a common responsibility to 
enact sensible restraint on what our government spends. That's why 
Democrats balanced the budget when President Clinton was in office. 
That's why Democrats passed a pay-as-you-go statute.
  I would urge that we return to the business of the House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a member of the Republican leadership.
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, it is all about the jobs, and that's exactly what this 
Republican majority has been fixated on ever since we've come into 
control of this House.
  I will tell you that specifically we recognize that what we need to 
do to create jobs in this country is provide certainty, tax certainty, 
and, right here in this resolution, certainty that we are being clear, 
that we are going to address the regulations that are killing jobs in 
this country that the Democratic Party has allowed to happen over the 
last several years. We're going to change that today.
  I rise in support of this resolution because small business owners in 
South Dakota and across this country are losing more of their bottom 
lines to red tape this year and in the past several years than they 
have in decades. Federal agencies continuously overstep their powers 
and impose new regulations, which not only raises the cost of doing 
business but feeds the uncertainty of doing business here in America. 
Today's economy is uncertain enough. The least we can do for our job 
creators is to provide them with stability by eliminating unnecessary 
and costly burdens.
  The EPA is rife with examples of these burdens. This agency wants to 
penalize farmers for dust on their operations and what they produce. 
You can bet any South Dakota farmer tending their livestock, baling 
hay, or harvesting their crops would agree this is absurd.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. NOEM. I want to thank you for letting me voice my opinions on 
these regulations. We will address the problem.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I would now yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, our assistant 
Democratic leader, for yielding and for his leadership.
  I strongly oppose H. Res. 72. This does nothing to create jobs. 
Secondly, it does nothing to address really the regulations and the 
policies that impact the poor and the long-term unemployed.
  I submitted an amendment to this resolution that required each 
standing committee to review administrative actions or policies that 
``reduce poverty and address the needs of the chronically unemployed.'' 
However, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee refused to 
include this modest but important provision. I am forced to conclude 
that my Republican colleagues don't quite understand the desperate 
conditions that confront the poor and long-term unemployed. Within the 
resolution, I see a list of directing actions to committees to review 
regulations that impede, discourage, hurt, harm, or limit the ability 
of agencies to achieve specific policy objectives. However, there are 
no directions to address the pain and the misery experienced by 
millions of poor

[[Page 1593]]

people and the chronically unemployed.
  In the United States, the number of persons below the poverty line 
increased from 39.3 million in 2008 to 42.9 million in 2009. In 
California, the rate increased from 4.8 million in 2008 to 5.1 million 
in 2009. Yet the resolution before us gives marching orders to 
committees to identify regulations that impede, fail, hurt, or limit. I 
cannot understand why the majority does not want to identify 
regulations that fail, hurt, or harm the poor and the chronically 
unemployed or limits the poor from achieving middle income status. This 
is not a partisan issue and we must all remember that poverty affects 
constituents that reside in Republican and Democratic districts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised to provide a comprehensive 
plan to restore America to prosperity and to create jobs. 
Unfortunately, this resolution does not do anything to deliver on that 
promise.
  Furthermore, I hope that this body, both Democrats and Republicans, 
will begin to focus on the fact that we have millions of people who are 
poor, who are low income, and who are chronically unemployed.

                              {time}  1300

  Whatever we do, we need a yardstick, and we need a criteria, and we 
need standards so that we can look at how what we do here on this floor 
elevates and lifts up people who are below the poverty line and helps 
them move into middle-income status. This resolution does not do that. 
It's really a bunch of rhetoric, as I see it. I really can't figure out 
what it's about. It does nothing, and it certainly does nothing to 
create jobs for those whom we care about.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the favorite son of 
the State of Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, today the folks on the other side of the 
aisle are actually arguing in the alternative. We heard the gentleman 
from New Jersey say, well, Republicans at least are finally getting to 
it. You don't need this resolution. And the gentlelady from California 
says, the resolution isn't good enough.
  I think what is clear is one thing. What we've seen from the past 2 
years has been failure. I mean, it's ironic. There's nobody, Mr. 
Speaker, that's on the floor today defending the economic policies of 
the past 2 years, the stimulus that promised 8 percent and obviously, 
the overpromising and under-delivering.
  Jobs are job one of this Congress. It is imperative that we focus. 
And what we're doing with this resolution is putting an imprimatur of 
the work of these committees, saying your priority is to go through 
chapter and verse on these regulations and separate that out. The ones 
that don't add value, the ones that aren't making people safer, the 
ones that are complete nonsense, let's focus in on them, highlight 
them, and remove them.
  We have to remove the barriers to job creation. That is our 
responsibility. That is what should be bringing us all together.
  I urge the swift passage of this resolution.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, we just spent the past 2 days telling 
committees to do their jobs. Why aren't we focusing on creating jobs, 
creating jobs for the American people?
  Let me be clear: I'm in favor of a strong and vigorous debate here on 
cutting redtape and finding bipartisan solutions to our Nation's 
problems. But to pretend that commonsense oversight measures to protect 
families and businesses are inherently burdensome with no benefit fails 
to acknowledge the reality of the financial disaster that was brought 
upon this country on Wall Street. It fails to acknowledge the disaster 
of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It fails to acknowledge 
toxic toys and drywall coming into this country. It fails to 
acknowledge the increase in deadly food-borne illnesses from lax 
oversight of our food safety system. And it fails to acknowledge what 
the American people want us to work on right now, and that's creating 
good jobs to support their families.
  I believe that we all want what is best for the people we represent, 
although we often have different ideas about how to get there. But to 
structure a debate that is so one-sided, that attempts to gloss over 
the very events that created this recession, is not serving the 
American people. Let's look at the entire picture.
  I will be offering a motion to recommit that will ensure we place a 
high priority on protecting the safety of America's food supply, safe 
drinking water, and the safety of children's toys in this country. This 
is, and should be, an essential function of our Nation's government.
  Just last year, cadmium, a known carcinogen, was found in amounts in 
excess of 90 percent in children's bracelets imported from China. This 
stuff happens far too often, and without strong oversight and 
commonsense regulation, American children would continue to be put at 
risk.
  I don't believe any of my colleagues here are against protecting 
public health and ensuring that we are doing our duty as elected 
officials to protect our constituents. That's why I'd like to reach out 
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and ask them to join 
us, join us in this motion to recommit which will instruct House 
committees to make the health and safety of our families a priority 
also. Preserving commonsense safety standards is just as important as 
reforming overly burdensome regulations.
  Let's work together to help create the environment that protects our 
citizens. Let's move quickly to the jobs agenda that Americans want and 
deserve. Americans are still waiting for this House to take up the jobs 
agenda.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my point to the Democratic Party and the 
leadership of that party is, wait no longer. The Republican Party is 
now in charge in this House, and our agenda is about jobs. It is about 
reducing spending, and it is about reducing the size of government.
  And today, after 9\1/2\ hours of debate, we start with rules and 
regulations that not only stifle innovativeness, that stifle 
inventions, and jobs, and job creation, but it is harming the way of 
life of the free enterprise system and sapping the energy from that 
system.
  By reviewing existing, pending, and proposed regulations from 
agencies of the Federal Government, Congress can begin to assist small 
and large businesses to focus on job creation, economic growth, and 
innovation. We first need to understand the too true impact that is 
being placed upon the free enterprise system.
  We know with the current rules that are in place, $1.75 trillion 
dollars is the cost annually to the U.S. economic free enterprise 
system. It's time for Congress to reevaluate these rules and 
regulations.
  Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. They're hindering 
investment, and innovation is eroding from the most basic elements of 
freedom in America. Congress and this administration must work 
together.
  It made me proud to hear the minority leader, Steny Hoyer, say today 
that he would be a part of and vote for this bill. However, our 
opportunity today must direct our committees and the entire focus of 
Congress to take the first step in reining in Big Government, reducing 
our deficit, and encouraging job growth and economic prosperity. This 
bill will shine the light on that process and will provide the 
necessary transparency and accountability for Congress to be looking at 
Federal agencies and rules and regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I remain committed to 
putting America back to work. And this legislation is a step in the 
right direction. I encourage my colleagues and all of the Members of 
the Congress who are here today to say that we want to bring jobs back 
to America, but we're

[[Page 1594]]

going to look at the rules and regulations that inhibit that. I say we 
should all vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 72.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner and steadfast 
advocate of government accountability, it is a pleasure to speak today 
recognizing the important work that must be done to reduce the 
economic, job-crushing harm imposed by Federal overregulation.
  As the economy struggles to recover and so many Americans remain 
jobless, it is critical that Congress takes immediate action to reduce 
waste and free up capital to unleash the job creating potential of 
small businesses and other private sector employers.
  The need to improve government transparency and accountability 
motivated me to author bipartisan legislation, H.R. 373, the Unfunded 
Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which would expand cost 
estimate reporting requirements and close loopholes that have been used 
to leave the public unaware of the full impact of Federal mandates.
  It is important to understand the real-world impact of overly 
burdensome Federal regulations that are acting as a boot to the throat 
of so many would-be job creators.
  One example comes to me from a budding entrepreneur who has recently 
started his own remodeling business specialized in installing energy 
efficient doors and windows.
  This man, who is too scared of the long arm of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to be identified, represents the universe of private 
employers who are uniquely positioned to quickly create the new jobs 
Americans so desperately need.
  In his own words, this beleaguered entrepreneur explains that:
  ``Since the new lead laws were initiated on April 1, 2010 then moved 
to July 1, 2010 because the EPA was ill-prepared for all of the 
contractors to be registered and monitored, the complete law and 
process we must follow has been nothing short of a confusing, 
unnecessary mess.
  ``Although the law started with an `Opt out option' allowing 
homeowners to opt out of `Lead safe renovations' if they met the 
criteria of no children under age six and no one pregnant in the 
household, that exception was eliminated because we were told that it 
is `unconstitutional' to ask if someone is pregnant. Now we are 
required by law to follow a laundry list of `Lead Safe Renovations' 
guidelines, with fines for each violation amounting to $36,000 per 
occurrence.
  The contractor continues: ``The EPA states the health risks but I am 
unaware of any data to support this outrageous new law. There are so 
many contradictions in this law such as we are to test for lead on any 
house built on or before 1978 and if there is lead we must be certified 
as a `lead safe renovator' which requires spending $200 to attend a 
class, $300 on the EPA's registration fee and $60 to register in Iowa. 
At that point, we must initiate lead `abatement' procedures. This 
multi-step process involves:
  ``1) Testing for lead with lead test swabs costing $4.50 each.
  ``2) Properly recording all data for six years or risk a significant 
fine and audit by the EPA.
  ``3) Plastic off inside rooms by taping plastic on doors, vents, 
windows, floor and all other indoor surfaces.''
  ``4) Plastic off the outside area, 10 feet away from structure and 20 
foot wide posting with warning sign and caution tape, which imposes 
approximate costs of $100 for each section of the structure for plastic 
and tape.
  ``5) Optional donning of a non-reusable lead suit, respirator and 
shoe covers, which cost $40 to $60 each time used.
  ``6) Start abatement process of removing wood with lead on it and 
wrapping this wood in more plastic, duct tape shut and throw in 
landfill. Although I am uncertain how safe the heavy duty plastic is 
for the landfill, I'm sure the EPA will find out 15 years from now and 
make the public pay for it.
  ``7) Use a certified HEPA vacuum cleaner to clean the room before 
using baby wipes to wipe down the inside of the room from ceiling to 
floor. When complete, test sections of each room must be wiped with 
clean baby wipes and photograph comparisons of the test wipes with 
official EPA chart. HEPA vacuums cost anywhere from $250 to $3000 and 
baby wipes a few dollars for each job and every photograph and all 
information must be recorded or risk large fines.
  ``Originally the EPA said this would only add approx 5% onto the cost 
of a job. In my experience it has added no less than 25% and sometimes 
as much as 40% per job, depending on difficulty.
  ``Furthermore, these rules are inconsistent as they do not apply to 
nursing homes and homeowners can still work on their own homes without 
following the regulations.
  ``The lead laws contradict OSHA requirements as putting a ladder on 
plastic or scaffold creates an obvious safety hazard, meaning we could 
be fined by OSHA for following EPA lead laws.
  ``The EPA is relentless in accusing businesses of not following all 
the rules, even though the businesses are following the rules they were 
taught in the class.
  ``We in the industry understand parts of the law, but things continue 
to change fast without proper notice. Something must change before this 
continues to suffocate the remodeling industry in this free democratic 
society. Unfortunately we feel these new laws are nothing less than a 
government power grab in the name of `keeping people safe from lead 
poisoning'.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is just one of a million examples of the long arm 
of the Federal Government reaching down to grab the throat of innocent, 
hard-working job creators of this great country.
  If we are serious about creating jobs, we should stop the talk. Stop 
the government spending. And act to unleash the job growing potential 
of the private sector.
  I urge your support for this resolution which is a first step towards 
these ends.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 
72.
  It's been five weeks since the House Republican leadership convened 
the 112th Congress. But we've yet to see any legislation brought to the 
floor to spur job creation, as they promised. None.
  And just yesterday Republicans voted against allowing a jobs bill--
the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act--to even come to the 
floor for a vote.
  Instead of focusing on jobs, they are spending ten hours this week 
talking about how Congress should perform oversight duties.
  Forgive me if I point out that this is one of the main 
responsibilities of Congress. Don't waste ten hours talking about it, 
just do it.
  And if a House Committee does anything right now, I'm sure our 
constituents would appreciate sending them an American job-creating 
bill.
  Our economy is showing clear signs of recovery, but it is fragile and 
there is still much more work to do. There are too many Americans out 
of work and even more struggling to make ends meet.
  We should be building on the economic recovery efforts of the last 
two years, not backtracking. But that' s just what' s happening.
  Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is dictating spending caps for 
fiscal year 2011, which will cut the same types of discretionary 
spending that was such a critical component in the Recovery Act--making 
Chairman Ryan's plan a veritable ``anti-Recovery Act.''
  Democrats in Congress have committed to measuring every effort by 
whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the 
deficit. Well so far, the Republican leadership gets a ZERO for the 
112th Congress.
  I say to my Republican friends, let's stop wasting time and let's get 
to work!
  Oh, and if you are serious about weighing the benefits of Federal 
regulations, I recommend my colleagues read the Bush Administration's 
2008 report to Congress on the subject.
  That report found the annual benefits of Federal regulations to the 
American public outweighed the costs by as much as 14 to 1. So perhaps 
we should be reading that report on the floor instead of this colossal 
waste of time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, the American economy and the American 
people are still struggling to get back on their feet. Unemployment has 
remained between 9 and 10 percent for over two years and there is no 
immediate relief in sight.
  Each week I return to Kansas and meet with local businesses, and each 
week, whether I am meeting with infrastructure providers like WATCO in 
Pittsburg, manufacturers like MGP Ingredients in Atchison or Alexander 
Manufacturing in Parsons farmers and ranchers in Brown County or CPA's 
in Baxter Springs, I hear the same sad story time and again.
  Overbearing regulation from the Federal Government, whether it be 
from the EPA, the USDA, HUD, the Department of Transportation, the SEC, 
or the IRS Regulators, at every turn are making job creation, 
investment, expansion, or growth too complex and too costly.
  For too long Washington has sent mixed messages to the nations job 
creators and small businesses. It appears we have one foot on the gas 
pedal and one foot on the brake. The rhetoric has urged our employers 
to step on the gas and invest and begin hiring again but this 
administration has slammed their foot on the breaks issuing hundreds of 
burdensome regulations that make job creation private investment and 
innovation nearly impossible.

[[Page 1595]]

  It's time for the rhetoric in this town to be met with corresponding 
action. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution to reduce 
burdensome regulation and create a measure of certainty for our 
nation's job creators.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. 
Res. 72, which would allow for nearly 10 hours of debate on Congress' 
authority to conduct oversight of executive agencies and the regulatory 
process. While there is no express authority in the Constitution for 
oversight, it is implied in Congress' myriad enumerated powers. We have 
a longstanding system where the executive branch promulgates 
regulations. If there is a problem with the regulations, the remedy is 
for the Court to invalidate--not the Congress.
  The new House majority promised leaner, more efficient, more focused 
government. Yet today we are wasting time and money debating a question 
that was already resolved. This is cheap political theater.
  This resolution is redundant and unnecessary. It is simply a waste of 
time. Americans are hurting. Spending 9\1/2\ hours debating something 
House Committees already have the authority to do is a slap in the face 
to the millions of unemployed individuals in this country.
  I am ready to roll my sleeves up and get to work and help those who 
have been harmed because of deregulation. I am ready to do what my 
constituents elected me to do--focus on growing the economy and 
creating jobs.
  We should be spending our time discussing legislation that will allow 
us to invest in America and grow the middle class.
  I strongly oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Resolution 72.
  House Resolution 72 directs House Committees to review excessive and 
costly Federal Government regulations. These excessive and costly 
Federal Government regulations stifle job creation and contribute to 
the uncertainty preventing small-businesses from hiring new employees.
  Recently, the Washington Post reported ``nonfinancial companies are 
sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash.'' I wondered why that is. After 
speaking with many Nevada small-business owners the answer is clear: 
economic uncertainty. The uncertainty created by these government 
regulations is a key reason Nevada suffers from the highest 
unemployment in the Nation at over 14 percent.
  We are only beginning to scratch Obamacare's overly burdensome, 
regulatory-riddled surface, and what we've found is alarming. Just this 
week I asked Gail Johnson, who employs young teachers, if there are 
regulations in Obamacare she feels are overly burdensome and 
interfering with her ability to do business. One example she pointed to 
is a regulation that now requires employers who provide health 
insurance plans to offer policies that have no dollar limits on durable 
medical equipment--like a walker.
  Unsurprisingly, there is a cost to having that kind of coverage 
added. Yet, Ms. Johnson's employees are young, so why should they be 
forced to have coverage they don't need! There are many people like Ms. 
Johnson in Nevada, forced to pay for something they neither want, nor 
need.
  I'm anxious to dig into the rest of Obamacare and the many other 
regulatory-riddled laws passed through Congress without regard for 
their economic impact. Nevada families shouldn't suffer because 
Washington bureaucrats are out of touch with reality.
  I do believe smart regulations are a necessary and important part of 
the Federal Government's role in keeping us safe. That said, we must 
not allow the Federal Government to continue stifling our return to 
economic stability and growth. I look forward to reviewing and removing 
job-killing federal regulations so we can get Nevadans back to work.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying resolution, H. Res. 72.
  What's happening right now is that Congress passes a law, but then 
doesn't get any say in the policy.
  Well intentioned laws like the Clear Air Act and the Clean Water Act 
are emboldening the executive branch to advance policies through 
rulemaking that they know would never make it out of Congress.
  During Fiscal Year 2010, the Obama Administration adopted 43 new 
major regulations. These regulations put over $26.5 billion in new 
burdens on Americans. Ten rules adopted by the Environmental Protection 
Agency alone cost $23.2 billion.
  Today, I want to bring attention to one example of agency rulemaking: 
the EPA's numeric nutrient water quality standards rulemaking.
  I want clean air and water. It's what Florida's about. The numeric 
nutrient criteria proposed is an EPA takeover of the state's water 
quality. Given the organic makeup of Florida and the natural phosphorus 
levels in our state, the ratios set by the EPA may be scientifically 
impossible to reach.
  Compliance will require an investment of billions of dollars that 
will be passed on to Florida taxpayers, effectively resulting in a new 
tax levied on all Floridians. Another analysis estimates that the EPA 
rulemaking will impose statewide costs ranging from $3.1 to $8.4 
billion per year for the next 30 years. To put that in perspective, 
Florida's total budget is $64 billion. Florida Dept. of Agriculture 
study shows that Florida's agriculture community alone will lose 14,545 
jobs and of lose $1.148 billion annually.
  During the State of the Union, President Obama promised to fix 
federal regulations that put an unfair burden on business and hinder 
growth and development.
  I can't think of a better example of such a regulation than the 
numeric nutrient criteria.
  The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final regulations 
each year.
  H. Res. 72 is an important step in reining back these regulations.
  With that, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting both 
this rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H. Res. 72. I am 
slightly puzzled about why we used floor time for a resolution that 
directs committees to conduct oversight, which they already have the 
power to do and should be doing, but I appreciate this opportunity to 
highlight how we can change the narrative from good regulations vs. bad 
or unnecessary regulations to one of better results achieved faster and 
at less expense.
  Through my experience as an administrator responsible for compliance, 
and as a policy maker at the local, State and Federal levels, I have 
spent a great deal of attention on regulations.
  Commonsense regulations from food safety, to lead-free children's 
toys, to environmental protections keep us safe and have saved 
countless lives. They prevent us from prioritizing short-term gains by 
corporations over the long-term prosperity of this nation. Indeed it 
was the lack of regulation in the financial industry that led us into 
this current recession.
  I hope we can reframe the regulatory debate to satisfy both sides and 
better serve the public. I believe we can, and should, move towards the 
next generation of performance driven regulation. This can reward 
innovation and increase efficiency while at the same time holding 
people accountable and achieving better results.
  The administration has already made great strides in this area by 
appointing a Chief Performance Officer at OMB. There is a tremendous 
opportunity between the White House and other Members of Congress in 
both parties who want to usher in a new era of more effective 
government.
  Instead of repealing regulations and continuing to rehash old 
arguments, which will be to the detriment of our constituents' safety 
and our nation's long-term interests, I hope my colleagues will join me 
in thinking about how we change the way we regulate to be more 
effective and efficient.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 73, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Carnahan moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 72 to 
     the Committee on Rules with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. 4. PRIORITY.

       In carrying out the requirements of section 1, relevant 
     committees shall place a high priority on preserving the 
     standards that ensure the safety of the Nation's food supply, 
     safe drinking water, and the safety of children's toys.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 1596]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 178, 
nays 242, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               YEAS--178

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     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
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     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
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     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
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     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
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     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

     Bass (CA)
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Giffords
     Harman
     Neal
     Pingree (ME)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scott, David
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1334

  Messrs. STIVERS, BROOKS, JONES, Ms. FOXX, Messrs. YOUNG of Florida, 
SAM JOHNSON of Texas, AKIN, and SMITH of Texas changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 391, 
noes 28, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               AYES--391

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica

[[Page 1597]]


     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--28

     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Ellison
     Engel
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Moore
     Nadler
     Olver
     Payne
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Schakowsky
     Towns
     Waters
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass (CA)
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Cooper
     Crowley
     DeLauro
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Harman
     Neal
     Pingree (ME)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1351

  Mr. TONKO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________