[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13330-13335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
        Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coats, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Moran, Mr. Thune, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 1538. a bill to provide for a time-out on certain regulations, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last month's dire economic news is a call 
to urgent action to get America working again. In August, our Nation 
produced no net new jobs. Productivity fell. Home sales fell. 
Construction spending fell. The manufacturing index declined. 
Unemployment is stagnant at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence is 
plummeting.
  Businesses, our Nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting 
economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs 
is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the 
uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations.
  The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I am introducing today with 16 of 
my

[[Page 13331]]

colleagues, provides job creators with a sensible breather from these 
burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to get back 
on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately need, and 
enhance the global competitiveness of American workers.
  Let me make clear that we also need to reform the process for issuing 
regulations. Earlier this year I proposed the CURB Act, which stands 
for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act would require 
agencies to examine the costs and benefits of proposed rules, prohibit 
them from attempting to set rules through unofficial guidance 
documents--thus circumventing the public notice and comment period--and 
provide businesses with relief from first-time paperwork violations 
when no harm comes from the violation. Senators Barrasso and Roberts 
joined me in introducing this bill.
  Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, many of our colleagues have 
recognized the need to reform the regulatory process and have 
introduced their own proposals. The Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on regulatory reform 
this year, and I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee 
this fall.
  But the fact is, our economy cannot wait for Congress to complete an 
overhaul of the regulatory process. If we want to create more jobs, we 
must act now. We must send a clear signal to the job creators that we 
have heard them. That is why I believe we must have a timeout from any 
significant new regulation that would have an adverse impact on jobs, 
the economy, or our international competitiveness.
  Under my bill, no significant final rule that would have an adverse 
impact could go into effect during a 1-year moratorium. This timeout 
would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and 
other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive 
orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George 
W. Bush and President Obama.
  Let me give an example of a rule that would be covered by the 1-year 
moratorium I am proposing. A rule that would be covered by this 
definition is EPA's Boiler MACT rule. I am sure the Presiding Officer 
is familiar with this rule. This one regulation, if it were fully 
implemented, could cost Maine's employers alone hundreds of millions of 
dollars. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, a 
jobs study just released shows that Boiler MACT, along with other 
pending air regulations, could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the 
country to close, putting more than 20,000 Americans out of work. That 
is 18 percent of that industry's workforce. That shows you the potent 
and terrible impact excessive regulation can have on job preservation 
and job creation.
  And that is just for starters. Once these mills close, the businesses 
that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. Estimates are 
that nearly 90,000 Americans would lose their jobs, wages would drop by 
$4 billion, and government at all levels would see revenues decline by 
a staggering $1.3 billion.
  That is why, along with Senator Ron Wyden, I have introduced a Boiler 
MACT bill that 24 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
already cosponsored. Our bill has been endorsed by 292 employer 
organizations and individual businesses--292 businesses and 
organizations representing employers. That shows you how worried our 
job creators are about the impact of just this one set of rules. Their 
letter sums up the impact of the Boiler MACT rule very plainly. It 
says:

       These rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-paying 
     manufacturing jobs that our Nation cannot afford to lose.

  The Boiler MACT regulations are exactly the kind of significant rules 
that my Regulatory Time-Out Act is intended to reach. The moratorium 
applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the 
National Labor Relations Board as well as executive branch departments.
  The impact of the regulatory burden under President Obama can be seen 
in the pages of the Federal Register. As my colleagues know, the 
Federal Register is the publication for all Federal regulations. Last 
year alone, the Federal Register expanded by nearly 82,600 pages, a 
level higher than any year under President Bush. Worse yet, the Obama 
administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost the 
economy at least $100 million. This is nearly twice as high as the 
number of such rules that were in the pipeline each year of the Bush 
administration.
  Let me clarify that the legislation I am proposing exempts those 
rules that are needed in emergencies such as imminent threats to public 
health or safety, as well as rules that are necessary to enforce our 
criminal laws, and with respect to military or foreign affairs. I think 
it is important that I put that on the record.
  It also exempts rules that would reduce the regulatory burden, in 
order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of 
American workers to compete. Unfortunately, those rules that actually 
reduce regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between.
  Finally, my bill requires that within 10 days of passage, agencies 
and departments must submit to Congress and to the Office of Management 
and Budget the list of rules they believe are exempt from the 1-year 
moratorium. That is important to make sure the intent of the law is 
followed and that Congress and the administration can exercise 
appropriate oversight.
  The intent of my bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is 
causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs--
jobs our economy desperately needs.
  During the August recess, I asked employers throughout the great 
State of Maine what it would take to encourage them to add jobs. To a 
person, no matter what line of business these employers were in, no 
matter what the size of their workforce, each one of them replied that 
Washington needed to stop imposing crushing new regulations; that these 
job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies; that they 
needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their 
decisionmaking.
  I am pleased that the Regulatory Time-Out Act has been endorsed by 
the NFIB, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, and by 
the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. My bill has also been 
welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated:

       American businesses need immediate relief. A ``time out'' 
     would allow both the regulators and the regulated to take a 
     deep breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying 
     jobs and economic growth.

  I agree completely. I will ask that the letters from the NFIB, the 
SBEC, and the statement by the Chamber of Commerce, be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  I am honored to have the following colleagues as cosponsors of this 
1-year regulatory moratorium: Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, 
Boozman, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cornyn, Hoeven, Hutchison, Isakson, 
Kirk, Kyl, Moran, Roberts and Thune.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support the Regulatory Time-Out Act, 
which is a critical step toward easing the regulatory uncertainty and 
costs that are keeping our job creators from getting Americans back to 
work.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that materials of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                September 6, 2011.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry M. Reid,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner; Minority Leader Pelosi; Majority 
     Leader Reid; Minority Leader McConnell: We are writing to 
     express our united and strong support for H.R. 2250 and S. 
     1392, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011,'' bipartisan 
     legislation to address the serious concerns that remain with 
     EPA's

[[Page 13332]]

     Boiler MACT rules. As they exist today, the final Boiler MACT 
     rules will have serious economic impacts on a vast array of 
     facilities across the industrial, commercial and 
     institutional sectors. These rules place at risk tens of 
     thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs that our nation 
     cannot afford to lose.
       As finalized, the Boiler MACT rules are unaffordable, just 
     as the proposed rules were. The rules are not achievable for 
     real-world boilers across the range of fuels and operating 
     conditions. EPA also has created a presumption that materials 
     commonly used as fuels are wastes subject to the extremely 
     costly and stigmatizing incinerator standards. This would not 
     only impose billions of dollars in unreasonable costs, but it 
     also would cause millions of tons of valuable materials to be 
     diverted to landfills and replaced with fossil fuel--a bad 
     result for the environment.
       As EPA has acknowledged, the rules were finalized with 
     serious flaws because EPA was forced to meet a strict court-
     ordered deadline. The final Boiler MACT rule alone would cost 
     over $14 billion in capital for the manufacturing sector, 
     plus billions more in annual operating costs. Complying with 
     the incinerator standards could cost several billion dollars 
     more in capital.
       Legislation is needed to resolve serious uncertainties and 
     vulnerabilities, including to:
       Ensure the rules are stayed for an adequate and certain 
     period, as EPA's current administrative stay is being 
     challenged in court;
       Allow EPA adequate time to re-propose the rules and get 
     them right, including time for stakeholders to conduct more 
     emissions testing and to avoid mistakes that occur when 
     rulemakings of this scope and importance are rushed and 
     become vulnerable to legal challenge;
       Provide direction and support for EPA to use the discretion 
     it already has under the Clean Air Act and Executive Order 
     13563 to add flexibility and make the rules achievable;
       Clarify that using non-hazardous materials as fuels does 
     not result in boilers being treated as incinerators; and
       Give facilities more time to comply with the complex and 
     capital-intensive requirements of the rules.
       If enacted, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act'' will provide 
     the much-needed certainty and time for EPA to get the rules 
     right and for businesses that will be investing billions of 
     dollars to rationally plan for the capital expenses. This 
     legislation will preserve jobs and the competitiveness of the 
     U.S. manufacturing sector while protecting the environment.
       We urge you to pass this important legislation as soon as 
     possible and send it to the President for his signature.
           Sincerely,
       A/C Power Colver; AbitibiBowater; Alabama Forestry 
     Association; Alabama Pulp & Paper Council; Allegheny Hardwood 
     Utilization Group, Inc.; American Architectural Manufacturers 
     Association; American Chemistry Council; American Coatings 
     Association; American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute; 
     American Composites Manufacturers Association; American Fiber 
     Manufacturers Association; American Forest & Paper 
     Association; American Foundry Society; American Frozen Food 
     Institute; American Home Furnishings Alliance; American 
     Loggers Council; American Municipal Power; American Petroleum 
     Institute; American Sugar Cane League; American Wood Council.
       Amerities Holdings LLC; Anthony Liftgates, Inc.; APA--The 
     Engineered Wood Association; Appleton Papers Inc.; APUs by 
     Rex, LLC; Archer Daniels Midland Company; ARIPPA; Arkansas 
     Forestry Association; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce; 
     Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc.; Associated 
     Industries of Vermont; Association of American Railroads; 
     Association of Independent Corrugated Converters; Atlantic 
     Wood Industries, Inc.; Barge Forest Products Co.; Beet Sugar 
     Development Foundation; Belden Brick Company; Belimed, Inc.; 
     Bennett Lumber Company Berco, Inc.
       Biomass One, LP; Biomass Power Association; Blue Bell 
     Creameries; Blue Ridge Paper Products; Boise Cascade, LLC; 
     Boise Inc.; Brick Industry Association; Business Council of 
     Alabama; Business Roundtable; Cahaba Timber Co.; California 
     Forestry Association; California League of Food Processors; 
     California Metals Coalition; Canyon Creek Logging; Carolina 
     Cotton Works, Inc.; Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition; Chaney 
     Lumber Co., Inc.; Charles Ingram Lumber Co.; Coast Wood 
     Preserving, Inc.; Coastal Plywood Company; Collins Pine 
     Company.
       Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry; Composite 
     Panel Association; Construction Materials Recycling 
     Association; Corn Refiners Association; Council of Industrial 
     Boiler Owners; Cresote Council; Decker Energy International, 
     Inc.; Dietz & Watson, Inc.; Domtar Corporation; Douglas 
     County Forest Products; Eastman Chemical Company; Eaton 
     Corporation; Electric Mills Wood Preserving; Empire State 
     Forest Products Association; Evergreen Packaging; Fibrek; 
     Finch Paper LLC; Flakeboard America; Flambeau River Papers; 
     Florida Forestry Association.
       Florida Pulp and Paper Association; Flower City Tissue 
     Mills Co., Inc.; FMC Corporation; Forest Landowners 
     Association; Forest Resources Association Inc.; Forging 
     Industry Association; Fowler Post Co, Inc.; Fox River Fiber 
     Company; Genesee Power Station LP; George A. Whiting Paper 
     Company; Georgia Association of Manufacturers; Georgia Paper 
     & Forest Products Association, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific LLC; 
     Glatfelter; Glier's Meats, Inc.; Green Diamond Resources 
     Company; H. W. Culp Lumber Co.; Hardwood Federation; Hardwood 
     Manufacturers Association; Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 
     Association.
       Harrigan Lumber Co., Inc.; Hawaii Forest Industry 
     Association; Hesse and Sons Dairy LLC; Hood Industries, Inc.; 
     Idaho Forest Group; INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics 
     Industry; Indiana Hardwood Lumbermen's Association; 
     Industrial Energy Consumers of America; Industrial Fastener 
     Institute; Industrial Minerals Association--North America; 
     Innovative Pine Technology Inc.; Interior; International 
     Falls Chamber of Commerce (MN); International Paper; J.T. 
     Fennell Company, Inc.; JELD-WEN, Inc.; Jordan Lumber & 
     Supply, Inc.; Kansas City Power & Light; Kapstone Paper and 
     Packaging Corporation; Kentucky Forest Industries 
     Association.
       Kercher Industries, Inc.; Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers 
     Association; Koppers Inc.; Lake States Lumber Association; 
     Land O Lakes Wood Preserving Co.; Langdale Forest Products 
     Co.; L'anse Warden Electric Company, LLC; Leggett & Platt, 
     Incorporated; Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.; Louis 
     Dreyfus Agricultural Industries; Louisiana Farm Bureau 
     Federation; Louisiana Pacific Corporation; Louisiana Pulp and 
     Paper Association; LyondellBasell Industries; Maine Pulp & 
     Paper Association; Manufacture Alabama; Manufacturers and 
     Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina; Maple Flooring 
     Manufacturers Association; Maxi-Seal Harness Systems, Inc.; 
     McShan Lumber Company, Inc.
       MeadWestvaco; Melrose Timber Company, Inc.; Metal Treating 
     Institute; Metals Service Center Institute; Michigan Biomass; 
     Michigan Forest Products Council; Minnesota Chamber of 
     Commerce; Minnesota Forest Industries; Mission Plastics 
     North; Mission Plastics of Arkansas; Mississippi 
     Manufacturers Association; Missouri Forest Products 
     Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; 
     Mount Vernon Mills, Inc.; Muscatine Foods Corporation; 
     National Association for Surface Finishing; National 
     Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Trailer 
     Manufacturers; National Concrete Masonry Association; 
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
       National Council of Textile Organizations; National 
     Federation of Independent Business; National Lumber and 
     Building Material Dealers Association; National Oilseed 
     Processors Association; National Solid Wastes Management 
     Association; National Spinning Company; NC Association of 
     Professional Loggers, Inc.; Neenah Paper Inc.; Nevada 
     Manufacturers Association; New Hampshire Timberland Owners 
     Association; Nippon Paper Industries USA Co.; Nisus 
     Corporation; NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers 
     (formerly the National Oil Recyclers Association); North 
     American Die Casting Association; North American Wholesale 
     Lumber Association; North Carolina Chamber; North Carolina 
     Forestry Association; Northwest Pulp and Paper Association; 
     Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Forestry Association.
       Ohio Manufacturers' Association; Ohio Municipal Electric 
     Association; Ohio Willow Wood Company; OMNOVA Solutions, 
     Inc.; Oregon Forest Industries Council; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; 
     Pacific Wood Laminates; Packaging Corporation of America; 
     Page & Hill Forest Products Inc.; Partnership for Affordable 
     Clean Energy; Pellet Fuels Institute; Pennsylvania Business 
     Council; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; 
     Pennsylvania Forest Products Association; Pennsylvania 
     Manufacturers' Association; Peterson Mfg. Co.; Pile Driving 
     Contractors; Association Piney Creek LP; Plum Creek; Port 
     Townsend Paper Corporation.
       Portland Cement Association; Possum Tree Farm; Potomac 
     Supply Corporation; PPG Industries; Precision Machined 
     Products Association; Precision Pulley & Idler; Prince 
     Manufacturing Corporation; Railway Tie Association; Rex 
     Lumber, LLC; Rhodia, Inc.; River Trading Company; Rock-Tenn 
     Company; Rosboro LLC; Roseburg Forest Products Company; ROW, 
     INC.; Roy ``O'' Martin Lumber Company, LLC; Rubber 
     Manufactures Association; Rudd Company, Inc.; S.I. Storey 
     Lumber Co., Inc.; Sage Automotive Interiors.
       Sappi Fine Paper North America; Sauder Woodworking Co.; 
     Scotch Plywood Company, Inc.; Seymour Manufacturing Co., 
     Inc.; SierraPine Limited; Smith Street Mill; Society of 
     Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates; South Carolina 
     Forestry Association; South Carolina Pulp and Paper 
     Association (SCPPA); South Carolina Timber Producers 
     Association; Southeast Wood; Southeastern Lumber 
     Manufacturers Association; Southern Appalachian Multiple-Use 
     Council; Southern Forest Products Association; Southern 
     Pressure Treaters' Association; SP Newsprint Co.; States 
     Industries, LLC; Steel Manufacturers Association; Stella-
     Jones Corporation; Streator Dependable Mfg. Co.

[[Page 13333]]

       Sunbury Textile Mills, Inc.; Tegrant Corporation; Ten-Tec, 
     Inc.; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Tennessee 
     Forestry Association; Tennessee Paper Council; Texas 
     Association of Manufacturers; Texas Forestry Association; 
     Textile Rental Services Association; The Association for Hose 
     & Accessories Distribution (NAHAD); The Business Council of 
     New York State, Inc.; The Carpet and Rug Institute; The Dow 
     Chemical Company; The International Association of Machinists 
     and Aerospace Workers; The Oeser Company; The United 
     Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Thilmany 
     Papers; Thomasson Company; Thompson Industries, Inc.; Timber 
     Products Company.
       TMA; Tolleson Lumber Company; Tradewinds International 
     Inc.; Treated Wood Council; Tri-State Generation and 
     Transmission Association; TrueGuard--wood preservation; U.S. 
     Beet Sugar Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Uniboard 
     USA LLC; Unifi Manufacturing Inc.; USA Rice Federation; 
     Vector Tool and Engineering; Verso Paper Corp.; Virginia 
     Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Forest Products Association; 
     Virginia Forestry Association; Virginia Manufacturers 
     Association; Washington Contract Loggers Association, Inc.; 
     Water Treatment Services Inc.; Wausau Paper; Webb 
     Consultants, Inc.; WEBB Furniture Enterprises Corp; The 
     Westervelt Company; Weyerhaeuser Company; Window and Door 
     Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers & 
     Commerce; Wisconsin Paper Council; Wood Machinery 
     Manufacturers of America.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 6, 2011]

                  Another EPA Rule Comes Under Attack

       Just ahead of President Barack Obama's big jobs speech, the 
     American Forest & Paper Association says a pending 
     environmental rule could cost 20,500 jobs or 18% of the 
     industry's workforce.
       In a study to be released Wednesday, the group is taking 
     aim at an Environmental Protection Agency rule to cut 
     pollution from factory boilers, saying the regulation will 
     cause 36 U.S. paper and pulp mills to close. The study comes 
     on the heels of a decision by Mr. Obama to jettison another 
     EPA air quality rule related to ozone that industry 
     complained would kill millions of jobs.
       The so-called boiler rule has come under sharp attack from 
     both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, as well as 
     industry, which say the regulations would be too costly and 
     difficult to implement. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor 
     included the rule in his list of 10 ``job-destroying 
     regulations'' that he has vowed to fight.
       The boiler rule would affect paper mills, refineries, 
     chemical factories and other facilities that use boilers, 
     such as universities, hospitals and apartment buildings. 
     Boilers are on-site generators that can provide energy for 
     facilities and factories. Bipartisan legislation is now 
     pending in the House and Senate to delay implementation of 
     the rule, with the aim of having EPA reconsider the 
     regulation.
       The AF&PA study, conducted by Fisher International, looked 
     at how many mills would be in danger of closing if they had 
     to comply with the new air quality regulations and install 
     new pollution controls. The study found 36 mills would have 
     to close, impacting 18% of the industry's workforce.
       Supporters of the rule say the benefits far outweigh the 
     costs and counter job loss claims by saying the new controls 
     being required could provide an economic boost.
       ``Industry is trying to leverage fears about the economic 
     impact and jobs and ignoring that pollution controls are made 
     and installed here in the U.S.,'' said Paul G. Billings, vice 
     president of national policy and advocacy for the American 
     Lung Association.
       Gina McCarthy, a top EPA official, is expected to testify 
     Thursday before a U.S. House subcommittee about the rule. The 
     agency, which has touted the health benefits of the rule, has 
     delayed issuing final regulations, saying it needs more time 
     for public input. That's frustrated environmental and public-
     health groups, which say the rules would save lives and help 
     avoid thousands of heart and asthma attacks.
       John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources 
     Defense Council, said the boiler rule is critical because it 
     will cut mercury and other toxic air emissions from 
     incinerators and boilers at industrial facilities. ``The the 
     reason it's important is those sectors are one of only a 
     handful that still have not had lawful toxic emission 
     standards adopted for them under the 1990 clean air act 
     amendments,'' he said.
       Donna Harman, president and CEO of AF&PA, said the rule 
     will hurt an already hard-hit sector and said lawmakers and 
     regulators should give the industry more time and impose a 
     less stringent standard.
       ``We're not asking to not be regulated. We're asking to 
     have a regulation that can be achieved based on the 
     technology that's currently available,'' she said.
                                  ____

                                        The National Foundation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2011.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The National Federation of 
     Independent Business is pleased to support the Regulatory 
     Time-Out Act. This legislation provides small business 
     owners--who create roughly two-thirds of the net new jobs in 
     America--with relief from burdensome regulations for a period 
     of one year.
       The bill would impose a one-year moratorium on 
     ``significant'' new rules--those with a cost of $100 million 
     or more--from going into effect if those rules would have an 
     adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or America's 
     international competitiveness. These particular rules 
     generally come with considerable uncertainty, which inhibits 
     small businesses from making decisions that would help the 
     economy grow.
       A recent study released by the U.S. Small Business 
     Administration showed that the cost of regulatory compliance 
     for the smallest businesses is 36 percent more than their 
     larger counterparts. The study estimates the cost of 
     compliance for small businesses to be $10,585 per employee 
     per year. Small businesses desperately need the help of 
     Congress to cut red tape.
       Importantly, the Regulatory Time-Out Act would not prevent 
     important rules that address imminent threats to human health 
     or safety or other emergencies, or that apply to the criminal 
     justice system, military or foreign affairs. Nor would the 
     legislation prevent rules which foster private sector job 
     creation and the enhancement of the competitiveness of the 
     American worker, or which otherwise reduce the regulatory 
     burden.
       The Regulatory Time-Out Act that you have introduced is a 
     prudent step toward providing small business owners with the 
     certainty they need to create jobs for Americans. NFIB looks 
     forward to working with you to help ensure that this 
     important legislation becomes law.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
     Senior Vice President, Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                                  Small Business &


                                     Entrepreneurship Council,

                                    Oakton, VA, September 8, 2011.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the 100,000 members of 
     the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), 
     I offer our strong support for ``The Regulatory `Time-Out' 
     Act.'' Given the severe fragility of the economy and dismal 
     job growth, placing a one-year moratorium on ``economically 
     significant'' rules is a commonsense strategy. Even in better 
     economic times, our economy and its competitiveness would 
     suffer under a regulatory onslaught of the current order. 
     Something must be done to counter the untamed and intrusive 
     rulemaking coming out of Washington. The ``Time-Out Act'' is 
     an approach that should warrant bipartisan support.
       The torrent of new regulations being proposed by federal 
     agencies is generating significant uncertainty among our 
     nation's small business owners. Furthermore, once finalized, 
     these regulations will impose a substantial burden on 
     entrepreneurs, exacerbating existing financial pressures that 
     are a result of weak sales and higher business costs.
       The number of ``major'' regulations issued last year is 
     unprecedented. Those costing the economy $100 million or more 
     number 224--an increase of 22 percent over 2009 and the 
     highest number on record. Many of these directly and 
     indirectly impact small business. Quite simply, our economy 
     and small businesses cannot absorb any more costs. As you 
     well know, the disproportionate cost of regulation places a 
     heavy burden on small firms. The ``Regulatory `Time-Out' 
     Act'' will help steady the rough economic and policy 
     environment that has so badly shaken entrepreneurs.
       The ``Time-Out'' act provides consideration for rules that 
     address emergencies and imminent threats to human health and 
     safety, as well as those that would enhance the environment 
     for job creation, worker competitiveness or those that reduce 
     the regulatory burden. No one can label this legislation as 
     anything but smart, practical and essential.
       Senator Collins, SBE Council appreciates your leadership. 
     Please let us know what we can do to help advance the 
     ``Regulatory `Time-Out' Act'' into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____


                   [From CHAMBERPOST, Sept. 8, 2011]

 U.S. Chamber Welcomes Sen. Collins' Proposed Regulatory Time-Out Bill

                           (By Tom Collamore)

       The U.S. Chamber welcomes Senator Susan Collins' proposed 
     legislation requiring a regulatory ``time-out.'' American 
     businesses have been overwhelmed by the recent onslaught of 
     burdensome and job-killing regulations. With another 4,257 
     regulations in the pipeline, American businesses need 
     immediate relief. A time-out would allow both the regulators 
     and the regulated to take a deep breath and ensure that 
     regulations are not destroying jobs and economic growth.

[[Page 13334]]

       A regulatory ``time-out'' is one important step in stemming 
     the tidal wave of new regulations. Reforming the regulatory 
     process itself is another. Congress must bring fundamental 
     reform to the rulemaking process, some elements of which have 
     not been modernized in 65 years. We need permanent reforms to 
     the administrative process to ensure regulations are narrowly 
     tailored and impose the least amount of regulatory burden 
     needed to achieve congressional intent, are based on quality 
     data, and will not impede job creation and growth. Reforms 
     must also encourage Congress to exercise its essential 
     oversight over federal agencies to ensure they are carrying 
     out its intent.
       We applaud Senator Collins for focusing on one of the most 
     important economic issues facing our economy--
     overregulation--and look forward to working with her on her 
     regulatory time-out legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1543. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
Code, to address retirement for Pentagon Force Protection Agency 
officers; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Retirement 
Equity for Pentagon Police Heroes Act, a bill to place Pentagon Police 
on par with Federal law enforcement officers government wide.
  As we remember the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the 
bravery of those who rushed into burning buildings as most ran away, it 
is particularly fitting to recognize the bravery of Pentagon Force 
Protection Agency Officers with this legislation.
  Ten years ago, unthinkable acts of terrorism were perpetrated against 
America, resulting in the loss of thousands of innocent lives at the 
World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Virginia, and the final 
landing site of flight 93 in Pennsylvania. The men and women of the 
Pentagon Force Protection Agency were among the first to respond in the 
chaotic minutes after flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
  On the morning of September 11, Isaac Ho`opi`i, a Pentagon Police 
officer from my home state of Hawai`i, rushed into the Pentagon and 
carried eight people out of the rubble, many of whom were badly burned. 
Many others made it out of the Pentagon thanks to Mr. Ho`opi`i, who 
became known as ``the voice,'' because survivors remember him calling 
out for those lost in the smoke and debris to crawl towards the sound 
of his voice. In 2002, Mr. Ho`opi`i was awarded a Medal of Valor for 
his bravery and quick thinking on that fateful day.
  Threats to the Pentagon continue to mount in the time since 9/11. 
Just last year, an armed gunman stormed the Pentagon, shooting at 
officers while attempting to enter the building. Officers Jeffery Amos 
and Marvin Carraway, Jr. were wounded during the shootout, but managed 
to neutralize the perpetrator, ensuring that no other officers or 
bystanders were harmed in the process.
  Despite their heroic actions and the dangerous nature of their job, 
Pentagon Police officers do not accrue retirement benefits at the same 
rate as Federal law enforcement officers. This bill would add Pentagon 
Police to the list of employees under the Civil Service Retirement 
System and Federal Employees' Retirement System who make larger 
retirement contributions than most Federal employees, and accrue 
retirement benefits at an enhanced rate. The higher accrual rate is an 
important recognition that police work is dangerous and physically 
demanding, so law enforcement officers are required to retire earlier 
than others.
  The time has come to recognize the courage of these brave men and 
women who everyday protect thousands of military personnel and 
civilians at the Pentagon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1543

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Retirement Equity for 
     Pentagon Police Heroes Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. PENTAGON FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY.

       (a) Amendments Relating to the Civil Service Retirement 
     System.--
       (1) Definitions.--
       (A) Civil service retirement system.--Section 8331 of title 
     5 United States Code is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (30), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (31), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(32) `Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer' means an 
     employee appointed to perform law enforcement and security 
     functions under section 2674(b) of title 10 whose permanent 
     duty station is the Pentagon Reservation and who occupies a 
     position in job series 0083, or any successor position, for 
     which the rate of basic pay is fixed in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) of such section.''.
       (2) Deductions, contributions, and deposits.--Section 8334 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``or customs and 
     border protection officer,'' and inserting ``customs and 
     border protection officer, or Pentagon Force Protection 
     Agency officer,''; and
       (B) in the table contained in subsection (c), by adding at 
     the end the following:

``Pentagon Force Protection     7.5  After the date of enactment of the
 Agency officer                       Pentagon Force Protection Agency
                                      Retirement Act of 2011.''.
 

       (3) Mandatory separation.--Section 8835(b)(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``or customs and border protection officer'' and 
     inserting ``customs and border protection officer, or 
     Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer''.
       (4) Immediate retirement.--Section 8336 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``or customs and 
     border protection officer'' and inserting ``customs and 
     border protection officer, or Pentagon Force Protection 
     Agency officer''; and
       (B) in subsections (m) and (n), by striking ``or as a 
     customs and border protection officer,'' and inserting ``as a 
     customs and border protection officer, or as a Pentagon Force 
     Protection Agency officer,''.
       (b) Amendments Relating to the Federal Employees' 
     Retirement System.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 8401 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (35), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (36), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(37) `Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer' means an 
     employee appointed to perform law enforcement and security 
     functions under section 2674(b) of title 10 whose permanent 
     duty station is the Pentagon Reservation and who occupies a 
     position in job series 0083, or any successor position, for 
     which the rate of basic pay is fixed in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) of such section.''.
       (2) Immediate retirement.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     section 8412(d) of title 5, United States Code, are amended 
     by striking ``or customs and border protection officer,'' and 
     inserting ``customs and border protection officer, or 
     Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer,''.
       (3) Computation of basic annuity.--Section 8415(h)(2) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 
     customs and border protection officer'' and inserting 
     ``customs and border protection officer, or Pentagon Force 
     Protection Agency officer.''.
       (4) Deductions from pay.--The table contained in section 
     8422(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``Pentagon Force Protection     7.5  After the date of enactment of the
 Agency officer                       Pentagon Force Protection Agency
                                      Retirement Act of 2011.''.
 

       (5) Government contributions.--Paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (3) 
     of section 8423(a) of title 5, United States Code, are 
     amended by inserting ``Pentagon Force Protection Agency 
     officers,'' after ``customs and border protection officers,'' 
     each place it appears.
       (6) Mandatory separation.--Section 8425(b)(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or customs and border protection officers 
     who'' and inserting ``customs and border protection officer, 
     or Pentagon Force Protection Agency officers who''; and
       (B) by striking ``or customs and border protection officer 
     as the case'' and inserting ``customs and border protection 
     officer, or Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer, as the 
     case''.
       (c) Maximum Age for Original Appointment.--Section 3307 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(h) The Secretary of Defense may determine and fix the 
     maximum age limit for an original appointment to a position 
     as a Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer, as defined by 
     section 8401(37).''.
       (d) Regulations.--Any regulations necessary to carry out 
     the amendments made by this section shall be prescribed by 
     the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense.
       (e) Effective Date; Transition Rules.--

[[Page 13335]]

       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective on the first day of the first pay 
     period beginning at least 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transition rules.--
       (A) Nonapplicability of mandatory separation provisions to 
     certain individuals.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a)(3) and (b)(6), respectively, shall not apply to an 
     individual first appointed as a Pentagon Force Protection 
     Agency officer before the effective date under paragraph (1).
       (B) Treatment of prior pentagon force protection agency 
     officer service.--Nothing in this section or any amendment 
     made by this section shall be considered to apply with 
     respect to any service performed as a Pentagon Force 
     Protection Agency officer before the effective date under 
     paragraph (1).
       (C) Minimum annuity amount.--The annuity of an individual 
     serving as a Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer on the 
     effective date under paragraph (1) pursuant to an appointment 
     made before that date shall, to the extent that its 
     computation is based on service rendered as a Pentagon Force 
     Protection Agency officer on or after that date, be at least 
     equal to the amount that would be payable--
       (i) to the extent that such service is subject to the Civil 
     Service Retirement System, by applying section 8339(d) of 
     title 5, United States Code, with respect to such service; 
     and
       (ii) to the extent that such service is subject to the 
     Federal Employees' Retirement System, by applying section 
     8415(d) of title 5, United States code, with respect to such 
     service.
       (D) Rule of construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by 
     subsection (c) shall be considered to apply with respect to 
     any appointment made before the effective date under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Pentagon Force Protection Agency officer'' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 8331(32) or 8401(37) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as amended by this Act).
       (4) Exclusion.--Nothing in this Act or any amendment made 
     by this Act shall be considered to afford any election or to 
     otherwise apply with respect to any individual who, as of the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (A) holds a position within the Pentagon Force Protection 
     Agency; and
       (B) is considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of 
     subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United 
     States Code, by virtue of such position.

                          ____________________