[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12200-12241]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on H.R. 4078.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4078.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1500


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4078) to provide that no agency may take any significant 
regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 
6.0 percent, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 2 
hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Job creation is, rightfully, at the top of Americans' agenda. 
Americans know that as long as the unemployment rate stays high, wages 
are stagnant and more than 12.7 million Americans seek jobs they cannot 
find. More than 42 percent, or nearly 6 million, of those Americans 
have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  Madam Chair, the verdict is in: the President's stimulus plan has 
failed. While costing over $1 trillion and still counting, those jobs 
that were created were short, and they too are disappearing. 
Ultimately, small business will create the engine going forward.
  Today's bill, in fact, is designed specifically to give confidence to 
America's business creators, ones that we have heard from on the 
committee for more than 18 months, the opportunity to take a breath, 
evaluate what is the lay of the land, and go forward with the business 
plan, no longer worrying that out of the blue will come major 
regulatory changes, ones that were unforeseen just a little while ago, 
that ultimately change their plans, change their ability to make a 
profit.
  Whether it's the President's ACA or ObamaCare or smaller $100 
million, $200 million, $1 billion new regulations, this uncertainty has 
put dollars on the sidelines. Today, through more than seven different 
elements of the titles of the bill, our effort will be to ensure that 
we do not propose without serious consideration new regulations.
  The President himself, while producing more than 106 major rules 
costing more than $46 billion, has said, We may be overregulated. His 
own chief spokesperson, Mr. Sunstein, has said that, in fact, 
regulations can cost jobs.
  So, Madam Chairwoman, it is extremely important that we understand 
that we must have regulatory certainty, something we will only have by 
the passage of today's bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Whether serving as a staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee years ago or as chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 
Fairfax County or now, as a Member of Congress, a constant principle of 
my own public service career has been a deep suspicion of political 
legislation that employs arbitrary across-the-board mechanisms that 
make for good talking points but terrible policy. Such messaging bills 
make a mockery of the legislative process, and, unfortunately, H.R. 
4078 is just such a bill.
  To understand the absurdity of this bill, consider the proposal to 
ban any new regulations based on the Nation's unemployment rate. 
Actually with the typo in the bill, it's the ``employment'' rate. But 
for starters, there is little or no evidence correlating regulation to 
private sector hiring. However, there is considerable evidence showing 
that blocking important health and safety regulations will have a 
negative effect on all seniors, children, veterans, consumers--not to 
mention the private sector itself.

[[Page 12201]]

  As written, the legislation prohibits any new regulatory actions 
until the ``employment'' rate falls to 6 percent, meaning unemployment 
would have to reach 94 percent before agencies could issue new 
regulations. The effect of that language, coming from a crowd that was 
just a few years ago talking about ``read the bill,'' means we would 
never update Medicare payment rates for doctors, bank lending 
protections for families, or food safety protections for consumers. No 
doubt, our Republican colleagues intended for this moratorium to apply 
until ``unemployment'' falls to 6 percent, which would still block 
regulation for the foreseeable future.
  What is absurd about their premise is that the Department of Labor, 
for example, would be able to update the exposure safety standards to 
adequately protect the health of workers exposed to beryllium, a toxic 
substance linked to lung cancer and other chronic and fatal diseases, 
based on a 0.1 percent swing in the unemployment rate.
  The same would be true for implementation of the Veterans' Benefits 
Act, bipartisan legislation that passed in the last Congress with no 
opposition. Under this bill, when the unemployment rate is 6 percent, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs would be able to take ``significant 
regulatory action,'' meaning implementation of the enhanced disability 
compensation benefits provisions for veterans experiencing difficulty 
using prostheses, for example, after the loss of limbs, or veterans in 
need of extensive care because of post-traumatic stress syndrome. 
However, if the unemployment rate is 0.1 percent higher, just 6.1 
percent instead of 6 percent, H.R. 4078--the bill we're debating right 
now--would prohibit the Veterans Administration from improving care for 
those veterans.
  Think about that: in voting for this bill, Members are endorsing a 
world view that a 0.1 percent swing in unemployment ought to determine 
whether the Federal Government can issue rules that benefit veterans 
with catastrophic injuries, updating Medicare payments for doctors, 
assisting students with loan debt, or providing families peace of mind 
that the peanut butter in their pantry will not poison their children. 
Any law that results in such absurd outcomes is deeply flawed and 
misguided far beyond the typo. In fact, the bill, as written, would 
even prevent those rules that would save money from being implemented.
  Whether one advocates for smart regulation or passionately hates all 
regulations, surely we can all agree that the bizarre, capricious, and 
unjust outcomes that H.R. 4078--this bill--would lead to are the 
hallmarks of careless policy based on ideology, not on good public 
policy, not on good governance. Indeed, as former Republican 
Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York stated in a recent op-ed 
piece in The New York Times, I believe, on H.R. 4078, he said, it is 
``difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the House 
bill.'' That was from a Republican former colleague in this body.
  I would remind my Republican colleagues that one of the first 
executive orders issued by President Obama requires agencies to ensure 
that their regulations are, indeed, cost-effective. Of course that 
doesn't fit their narrative. Neither does it fit the fact that the 
Obama administration has actually issued fewer final rule regulations 
than the Bush administration did in its first term.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring sanity to the 
policymaking process in this House by opposing this extreme measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I trust the gentleman from Virginia is well 
aware that the typographical error in the bill under consideration was, 
in fact, a mistake done by professional staff. And although unanimous 
consents are not permitted in the Committee of the Whole, I would ask 
the gentleman from Virginia if he would be willing--or let me rephrase 
that--if he would not object to a unanimous consent in the House to 
make a correction in what was clearly a typographical error made by 
nonpartisan professional staff at the Leg Counsel's office.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Is the gentleman yielding to me for an 
answer?
  Mr. ISSA. Yes, I am.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, this Member will reserve 
the right to object at the appropriate time.
  Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, nothing could be more insincere than to 
pick on professional staff on a typographical error.
  If we have to go to the Rules Committee, I guess we will. But I am 
really sorry to see that kind of an attitude on what the gentleman and 
all of us know was simply a typographical error.

                              {time}  1510

  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ribble).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, matter of personal 
privilege.
  Did this Member hear the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, characterize a Member as 
insincere?
  The CHAIR. The Chair cannot interpret as a matter of personal 
privilege remarks that were made in debate.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I'm not asking for interpretation, Madam 
Chairman. I'm asking whether he in fact said it.
  The CHAIR. That is a matter for debate between Members.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would ask the Chair to caution all 
Members about personal characterizations of Members on the floor of the 
House.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. ISSA. I thank the Chair. I meant nothing other than I was shocked 
that the gentleman would say that he would reserve time on what was 
clearly a typographical error.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ribble).
  Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this legislation 
which includes the Midnight Rule Relief Act that I authored earlier 
this year.
  I would like to take just a moment as a former small business owner 
to talk a little bit about the impact of regulations because we will 
hear from our colleagues on the other side that there is no evidence 
that regulations affect hiring, it doesn't affect start-ups, that if we 
do these things that the whole environment is going to go down the 
hill, the whole country is going to end here because of the fact that 
the Federal Government can't control every minutia of our lives.
  Now I would say this, Madam Chair, that I believe rather than a big 
government, I believe in a big, free individual. I think a little bit, 
as I tell my story today about my father who started our roofing 
company in 1958, there were fewer rules of the road then. There were 
rules of the road, for sure. There were certainly rules put in place. 
Since that time, there have been thousands and thousands and thousands. 
There has been a lot of discussion in this Chamber about the gap 
between the rich and the poor and how the middle class is getting 
squeezed. I just wonder if we ever think that the middle class is 
getting squeezed, but they're getting squeezed by their government. 
They're not getting squeezed by rich people; they're not getting 
squeezed out of it by opportunity. They're getting squeezed out of it 
by a government that no longer lets them pursue the American Dream. 
Sometimes I feel that the other side wants them to pursue their dream, 
that our government wants to dictate what the dream ought to be for 
American citizens.
  My father had his own dream. He was a milkman in the 1950s after he 
came home from World War II as a U.S. marine. He had six sons and later 
adopted two girls. I'm the youngest of eight. There were many, many 
times in my life, when my father, as he tried to not just make a better 
dream for himself, not just to live out his hopes and dreams and 
aspirations, but to build a better future for me and my family, for my 
children and for my grandchildren as he started our family business. I

[[Page 12202]]

wonder if today he could even do it. He had no money. He was delivering 
milk at the time, one of the lowest paid jobs out there at the time in 
1956.
  He put an ad in the paper and tried to find work, and he decided that 
he would go into the roofing business. And through pure grit and 
determination and hard work, he started his own company. He was able to 
do that because all of the barriers that had been put in place by this 
overreaching government weren't there. He had a customer of ours--his, 
actually, because I was just a child--tell him he ought to name the 
company Security Roofing because they felt secure in his hands. That 
customer was well aware of the fact that my father was providing a 
service for them that they were willing to transact money for. And it 
was a fair transaction of goods. And if my father had cheated them, his 
reputation would have went down, and he wouldn't have been able to 
sustain himself. He built his company on fairness. He built his company 
on honesty and integrity, and the government wasn't in the way.
  And now today, imagine some unemployed worker thinking about starting 
his own landscaping business, his own roofing company, a young college 
graduate, a young woman who wants to be a beautician and start her own 
beauty shop. We have this complex maze of rules and regulations and 
licensures and all these things that we think have made life better, 
but have taken freedom and have crossed the American Dream.
  That's what this bill is about. It's about for a moment in time, it's 
about incentivizing this government to remove the barriers and 
obstacles, to get them out of the way and say to the American people, 
there will be no more for a period of time until unemployment reaches 
this level, 6 percent. We're not taking away rules. We're just saying 
you can rely that there won't be new ones for a time.
  Also, this bill will stop the President of the United States, both 
Republicans and Democrats, from doing a lame duck session, whether they 
have been fired or extended in their careers, to not promulgate a bunch 
of rules and regulations during a lame duck session. We've seen a 
massive increase of rules and regulations during that period of time--
17 percent in the 3 months following an election where parties change 
hands.
  The number of major rules issued during Bill Clinton's midnight 
period totaled 3\1/2\ times more than the average number issued during 
the same calendar period in the other years in President Clinton's 
second term. President Bush wasn't much better. His was 2\1/2\ times 
more.
  So to solve this problem, this bill would simply say to the President 
of the United States, for 90 days you can't do it. I support this bill, 
Madam Chairman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I wish my friend's 
characterization of the bill were accurate; but, sadly, I think what 
this bill does is cripple the ability of the government to protect the 
American public across a broad swath of policy areas that certainly 
matter to the average American.
  I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership.
  Madam Chair, this is a terrible bill. This shortsighted legislation 
affects every corner of our government and keeps Federal agencies from 
issuing rules critical to our economy and health and safety of 
Americans. It sets a ridiculous arbitrary benchmark of a 6 percent 
unemployment rate before an agency can issue rules.
  For example, I think it goes in the opposite direction of making the 
Securities and Exchange Commission more efficient and more effective 
for the American people. The bill could place extremely high procedural 
barriers in the agency's way as it seeks to enact all of the rules as 
directed in financial reform with a limited budget.
  With this bill, my colleagues across the aisle seem to somehow 
believe that the final years of the prior administration were just a 
rousing success, that the near collapse of our financial system never 
happened, that the outrageous abuses that we saw in the mortgage 
lending industry never occurred, and that the abuses in consumer 
lending that the Federal Reserve labeled as unfair and deceptive were 
just business as usual. But we know that those things actually happened 
and that they crippled our economy.
  It was in response to events of 2008 that we gave agencies like the 
SEC tools that they had been lacking to monitor the financial system 
and to protect our overall economy. And now, right in the middle of 
implementation of these critical reforms, my friends on the other side 
of the aisle want to forget that all of this happened and want to put 
barriers in front of implementing the reforms.
  I believe that the language in this bill would basically cripple the 
SEC. Even as SEC budgets are being slashed, their bill requires the 
Commission to expend more in the way of resources on economic analysis 
and places additional procedural barriers in the Agency's way.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge everyone to vote ``no.'' It 
is a death knell of commonsense reform. It would stop reform.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. ISSA. It is amazing that we are hearing that the world will come 
to an end if we slow down new regulations.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding time.
  I rise today in support of the regulatory reform package before us 
today and in particular title IV of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction 
and Small Business Job Creation Act, which embodies my bill, H.R. 373, 
the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.
  My bill represents the first comprehensive reform modernizing the 
bipartisan Unfunded Mandates Reform Act since its inception in 1995. 
This bill is supported by State government advocates, including the 
National Council of State Legislatures, which, in a letter to 
Subcommittee Chairman Lankford, stated that:

       UMRA has enduring shortcomings that your amendment 
     corrects. In particular, expanding the scope of reporting 
     requirements to include new conditions of grant aid is 
     essential. NCSL's members repeatedly point to this exclusion 
     in the underlying statute as one of the law's major flaws.

  This bill responds to those concerns by allowing a committee chairman 
or ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office 
perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a 
bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes 
to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on any respective 
participating State, local or tribal government.
  The purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the Federal 
Government is passing along to State and local governments that would 
otherwise remain hidden but are borne by taxpayers regardless of which 
governmental entity is taxing them. This provision represents just one 
of the many reasons I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri, my friend, Mr. Clay.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The majority's plan to stop national safeguards will harm real 
Americans. Regulations affect real people, not just balance sheets. 
When we look at the cost of regulations, we have to examine more than 
cold dollar amounts. We also have to look at the benefits. We have to 
look at the real lives saved and at the real catastrophic injuries 
prevented. We have to look at the real American families who live 
healthier, happier, and safer lives because of Federal regulations, 
regulations that protect them in their homes, regulations that protect 
them at their jobs, and regulations that protect them in their 
communities, places of worship, the roads they drive on, the stores 
where they shop, the schools where their children learn, and the parks 
where they play.

[[Page 12203]]

  The majority's plan will have real negative consequences on the 
economy and on the health and safety of all Americans, especially those 
among us who need the most help. The majority's plan would prevent HUD 
from updating their housing subsidy rates, and more families would be 
without a place to live. Worker safety will be jeopardized because the 
majority's plan would block workplace regulations. Children will be put 
at greater risk because the majority's plan would prevent the Federal 
Government from protecting them.
  Madam Chair, we need to work together to create jobs and protect 
American families, and we don't have to choose between the two.
  Mr. ISSA. I trust the gentleman from Missouri is aware that last 
year, out of over 3,000 regulations coming out of the administration, 
no more than 66 would have even qualified for this moratorium.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 
4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act.
  I applaud the work of my colleagues to combat the growing 
stranglehold that needless government regulation is having on job 
creation and on economic growth. Today's bill will put an end to the 
``regulate first'' attitude that pervades the Obama administration.
  Contrary to popular belief, this legislation does not prohibit 
regulators from moving forward with new regulations, but it does 
require a Presidential or congressional waiver to do so. This simple, 
prudent check on the power of bureaucrats will ensure that regulations 
must be justified before they are enacted and that less burdensome 
alternatives are considered first.
  Beyond just slowing the pace of regulations, H.R. 4078 also contains 
language that will substantially reform the way two of our independent 
agencies develop rules for financial institutions. I am pleased that 
the Red Tape Reduction and Regulatory Reform Act would finally require 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to perform a comprehensive 
cost-benefit analysis for each rule that they propose.
  One of the most important steps in any regulatory process must be an 
effort to accurately quantify the costs and the benefits of a proposed 
action. This is the foundation of good rulemaking. Despite this, the 
CFTC has consistently stated that their obligation under the law is to 
only ``consider'' the cost and benefits of proposals. I believe that we 
can do better, and they must do better. Today's legislation is simple 
and straightforward. It would extend the same requirements for cost-
benefit analysis to the CFTC that the President has already asked every 
other executive branch agency to fall under.
  During the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process, the CFTC has rarely tried 
to estimate the cost of compliance. At times, ``consideration'' 
included vague statements like ``the costs could be significant.'' At 
other times, costs were dramatically underestimated. In one particular 
instance, industry groups calculated that the cost of compliance with a 
proposed rule was 63 times greater than the CFTC's guess.
  Accurately assessing compliance costs is one-half of the equation. 
The other half, of equal importance, is capturing the benefits of a new 
rule. Regulators must quantify what good the rule does. It is not 
simply good enough to regulate because the authority exists. There must 
also be tangible benefits for market participants that outweigh the 
costs of the imposed rules.
  Requiring cost-benefit analysis is a bipartisan step toward better 
governance. Exact language now contained in H.R. 4078 passed out of the 
Agriculture Committee unanimously in January. Last year, President 
Obama was right to demand that the executive agencies be held to a 
higher standard of analysis. Today, there's no reason why we should not 
require the same from the CFTC.
  H.R. 4078 will strengthen the rulemaking process at CFTC and it will 
result in better rules and a safer marketplace. This small mandate on 
the economists and lawyers at the CFTC will ensure that the burdens 
placed on large businesses and small are justified in the real world, 
not just in the pages of the Federal Register.
  It's also important to note that the bill is prospective--it will not 
hinder or delay the current proposed rules already making their way 
through the process. As well, title VII of H.R. 4078 is consistent and 
complementary to previously House-passed cost-benefit analysis.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 4078.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 22 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and extreme piece of 
legislation. This bill would prevent federal agencies from issuing 
regulations that protect the health and safety of all Americans. Do not 
be fooled. This bill will not create jobs, and this bill will not make 
the government better. This bill is intended to stop the Federal 
Government from issuing regulations until the unemployment rate reaches 
6 percent or less.
  The standard is indeed arbitrary, and it absolutely makes no sense. 
But the bill itself is so poorly drafted that, in fact, the moratorium 
would be in effect until unemployment actually reaches 94 percent. The 
bill accidentally refers to the ``employment'' rate instead of the 
``unemployment'' rate.
  Even if this bill were drafted properly, it would be extremely 
misguided. For example, the Food and Drug Administration would be 
prevented from issuing a rule ensuring that infant formula is safe for 
babies to drink. Why should the safety of baby formula depend on the 
national unemployment rate? Of course, it should not. But the FDA would 
be banned from issuing a rule it now is considering to protect babies 
like 10-day-old Avery Cornett, who died last year after he drank infant 
formula contaminated with a dangerous bacteria.
  I offered an amendment to this bill that would have allowed agencies 
to protect the health and safety of children, but the House Republicans 
refused to allow it.

                              {time}  1530

  Under this bill, the Department of Health and Human Services would be 
blocked from issuing routine updates to payment rates for doctors who 
treat seniors under the Medicare program. This would result in 
hospitals having to lay off workers--not creating jobs.
  I offered an amendment that would have allowed the Department to 
protect the health and safety of seniors. The House Republicans refused 
to allow that one, too.
  Under this bill, the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs would be blocked from issuing regulations to protect 
the health and safety of our troops serving overseas and our Nation's 
veterans. For example, the VA could be blocked from issuing a rule it 
is now considering to help veterans suffering from traumatic brain 
injuries. And we have seen so much pain with regard to our veterans.
  When we considered this bill during the Oversight Committee's markup, 
Congressman Yarmuth offered an amendment to allow the VA to protect the 
health and safety of veterans. This amendment was adopted on a 
bipartisan vote. Even our chairman, Mr. Issa, supported it in 
committee, yet mysteriously it was stripped from the bill before it 
came to the floor. Representative Yarmuth tried to offer that same 
amendment at the Rules Committee, but the House Republicans refused to 
allow it.
  The House Republicans have refused to allow debate on amendments to 
protect children, to protect seniors, and to protect our Nation's 
servicemembers and veterans. They even removed the language that was 
adopted on a bipartisan basis.

[[Page 12204]]

  This bill is based on a false premise. The proponents argue that 
regulations kill jobs. This myth has been widely discredited by 
economists on both sides of the aisle.
  Congress should be taking a balanced approach to reviewing 
regulations, just as President Obama has done. The President has 
focused on helping small businesses by identifying regulations that are 
inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome. The bill takes the opposite 
approach by freezing all significant regulations regardless of how 
critical they are to the health and safety of our people.
  Former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican, wrote an op-ed 
last week, titled, ``GOP Right Wing Is Serious About Disabling 
Government.'' Congressman Boehlert cut right to the heart of the bill. 
Keep in mind, this is one of our Republican colleagues, former 
colleagues. Here's what he wrote:

       If one wants to fully appreciate the stranglehold the right 
     wing has on the Republican congressional agenda and its 
     intended dangers, one need look no further than the bill the 
     House plans to consider next week--talking about this bill--
     which would shut down the entire regulatory system.

  I wish that that description was hyperbole, but sadly it is not. 
Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the sweeping 
destructiveness of this House bill.
  I agree with Congressman Boehlert; this is an extremely irresponsible 
bill. I urge all our Members to vote against it, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. There you go again. We're shutting down the entire 
regulatory system because 66 out of 3,000 regulations would be affected 
by this bill before us today. In just last year, 66 out of 3,000, 
that's shutting it down.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. Madam Chair, I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 4078, 
the Regulatory Freeze for Job Acts of 2012, which seeks to eliminate 
needless red tape and puts Americans back to work. I also thank and am 
proud of Darrell Issa and Lamar Smith for the handling of this bill.
  The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has explored 
regulatory hurdles being put up by a number of agencies, and we've seen 
a massive expansion of red tape under this administration. Much of it 
has come from the Environmental Protection Agency, where too many of 
the environmental regulations put forward have been based on secret 
science, hidden data, and predetermined outcomes--and some just 
outright phony.
  EPA appears to be hostile toward economic growth and job creation. 
For example, EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule added Texas in at the 
last minute and threatened hundreds of jobs in my district and electric 
reliability across my State.
  One amendment to be offered to H.R. 4078, while well-intentioned, may 
have the unintended effect of driving agencies to make policy decisions 
without considering scientific information.
  While science almost never provides one specific answer to a policy 
decision, sound science should be used to inform the ultimate decision-
maker. Science can tell you how the world is, not how the world should 
be.
  Eliminating other considerations, whether they be moral or ethical, 
leaves some scientists and unelected bureaucrats in charge.
  At a time, Madam Chair, when many American families are struggling, 
H.R. 4078 eliminates red tape, reduces costs, and improves the 
environment for small businesses and job creators by getting Washington 
out of the way.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his great work on 
this bill.
  Despite the best efforts of Republicans in Congress, our Nation has 
actually made significant progress over the last several years 
protecting the health and the well-being of Americans.
  Democrats have passed legislation ensuring that Wall Street plays by 
the rules. They can't continue to turn it into a casino where the rich 
clean up on the way up and the poor get cleaned out on the way down.
  Democrats modernized food safety laws so that Americans can feel 
secure in the knowledge that the food we put on the dinner table won't 
make our families sick.
  Democrats passed legislation to protect the privacy of Americans' 
sensitive health information.
  But all of these laws are still in the process of being implemented. 
That's what's bothering the Republicans here today and all of their 
supporters across the country. They cannot go fully into effect to work 
for the American people until those regulations are finalized. 
Republicans are determined to keep these vital health, safety, and 
consumer protections from reaching the finish line to offer protection 
for ordinary families.
  GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now GOP stands for ``Gut 
Our Protections.''
  I released a report today, called, ``Protection Rejection: GOP 
Abandons Consumer, Health, and Safety Measures''--across the board. It 
describes the safeguards that would be jeopardized under this misguided 
legislation.
  If you're a wounded veteran needing home care, it will be harder for 
your family to take time off work to care for you. Family members were 
going--finally--to be able to take up to 26 weeks of job-protected 
leave to care for a wounded veteran back from Iraq and Afghanistan, but 
the implementation of this new law will be stopped cold by this 
coldhearted Republican bill.
  The bill prevents new fuel economy standards, increasing our 
dangerous dependence on foreign oil, forcing families to pay more at 
the pump, rather than a law that backs out 4.3 million barrels of oil a 
day from OPEC, telling them that we don't need their oil any more than 
we need their sand. They're saying stop those regulations from going 
into effect.
  And as we approach the 2-year anniversary of the worst environmental 
disaster in the history of our country, the BP oil spill, this 
misguided Republican bill would stop new safety standards for the 
blowout preventers on drilling rigs that could prevent future spills. 
This makes no sense. The safety of the American people should be put 
above the special interests that want to stop all of these regulations.
  The Republicans say this is about cutting red tape, but it's really 
nothing more than a red herring, a desperate attempt to distract from 
the GOP's abject failure to spur job creation in this country. There 
are so many red herrings out here we might as well put an aquarium here 
to deal with all of them that the Republican Party is throwing out here 
on this bill.
  We must not allow this Republican regulatory freeze bill to set 
consumer protections back to the ice age. There's simply too much 
progress at stake.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. Hundreds of regulations are going to be taken off the 
books right now. And over the life of this bill, thousands of 
regulations that would have protected the health, the safety, the 
consumer interests across our country will be wiped off the books.

                              {time}  1540

  This is a wholesale destruction of the protections that ordinary 
people need against wealthy corporations taking advantage of them in 
their homes, in their neighborhoods. And so, ladies and gentlemen, 
there has not been a more important bill that comes out this year of 
this Congress onto the House floor.
  All of you have access to this report I'm putting out here today, 
``Protection Rejection: GOP Abandons Consumer Health and Safety 
Measures.'' It's on my Web site. If you want to understand the full 
damage that's going to be done across all of these areas, from Dodd-
Frank to health care, to food safety, to privacy protections for 
families across our country, vote ``no'' on this bill.

[[Page 12205]]


  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, apparently the other side assumes most 
Americans are corrupt; they're corrupt people who cannot be trusted, 
and they must be babysat at each moment. Company leaders, company 
owners, many company employees, city and State leaders have to be 
supervised at every single moment, because if we don't have a Federal 
bureaucrat standing over the top of them, goodness knows what they'll 
do.
  Well, I happen to trust the American people. The people that I live 
around and that I work around and that I meet as Americans are great 
people who drink that water, who eat that food, who interact with their 
neighbors in an honorable way. And when someone violates and does 
something criminal, they should be treated in a criminal way.
  Most Americans are greathearted people that just want to do what's 
right, and they're just trying to figure out every day what the Federal 
Government is doing to them, rather than what the Federal Government is 
doing for them.
  This bill begins to deal with limiting the regulations so each and 
every day Americans don't have to wake up and worry about what the 
Federal Government did to them last night while they were sleeping.
  Let me give you an example of that. In Oklahoma, we're asking the 
question, What authority does a special interest group have over our 
State government?
  In January of 2009, several environmental groups sued the EPA to 
force them to review the regional haze standards. The EPA had wide 
latitude in its response, but it chose to settle with the environmental 
groups in a private agreement, just the environmental groups and some 
individuals from the EPA. That private agreement created a way for the 
Federal Government to take from the States the right to enforce 
regional haze requirements. The original law clearly gave the authority 
to the States, not the EPA and the Federal Government to realize 
regional haze.
  Let me give you an example. This is in my own State in Oklahoma. 
Regional haze is not a health issue. It is not a health issue. The way 
the law is written, it's only a visibility issue. It has nothing to do 
with health issues. So our own State has a State implementation plan.
  On one side of this is the picture of our State implementation plan, 
what it would look like with our restrictions. The other side is the 
Federal implementation plan, well over $1 billion additional in costs.
  No one could step up here with confidence and tell me which one's 
which.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LANKFORD. This is what happens when the EPA makes a private 
agreement, overshoots a State agreement, and says we're going to go in 
and step in and take over: over $1 billion of additional costs to the 
ratepayers in Oklahoma, with no difference in the two, other than who 
controls it.
  This is an issue where there is no public-comment period, no 
stakeholder involvement, nothing. It is time to resolve how we do our 
regulations and to make sure stakeholders that are affected are also at 
the table helping make the decisions on how things will be affected for 
the good of our country as a whole.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, this is an example of the 
Republican majority's taste for legislative exotica.
  We have a very strange bill that no one expects to go anywhere. They 
do expect to make some people happy by pretending that they're going to 
be making oil here. This is in lieu of real legislation.
  This is the group that could not have this House pass a 
transportation bill. The House passed the transportation bill by a 
legislative maneuver of the kind they used to denounce. It was made 
part of an overall omnibus package. There was never any chance to amend 
it, and it came out of a conference committee.
  This is a group that can't pass an agriculture bill. We face problems 
in the agricultural area; and because they are so split over what to 
do, that committee's brought out a bill, and it's not coming forward. 
They are unable to do the regular legislative business, so we get this.
  Now, what this says is that no rules that have been promulgated of 
any significance are going to be going forward.
  I will not debate the gentleman from Oklahoma about haze. I am no 
expert about it. But that's the problem. This is not a bill that deals 
with rules in one area and one area of expertise. It does everything. 
So let me talk about one area I am familiar with.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma says we're saying that you need a Federal 
regulator looking over the shoulders of every American. No, not every 
American; but I'm close to thinking of every American who runs a large 
financial institution, yeah. Of the people who lied about LIBOR, of the 
people at Capitol One who cheated consumers.
  Now, I am glad we have a consumer bureau that stepped in to protect 
the Americans there. It's not every American who's corrupt; it is too 
many in the financial area.
  We passed financial reform. I know some of the Republicans don't like 
it. I read in the paper today, well, Mr. Romney says he's going to 
repeal it, but the House Republicans say, oh, no, we can't. So instead 
of repealing it in a head-on way or amending it in a head-on way, they 
want to stop the rules.
  What this bill would do, if it ever became law, would be to say 
``no'' to the Volcker rule. No, let's not differentiate as to what kind 
of activities are legitimate for a bank to do or not. If an American 
bank that's got deposit insurance wants to speculate and lose billions 
of dollars in derivative trades, let them be.
  This bill will stop us in a number of other areas with regard to 
derivatives, speculation where we want to put limits on what the 
nonusers of oil can buy so we can drive up the price.
  The notion that the American people are crying out for an end to 
regulation is not congruent with anything I have read or heard about 
the financial area. And I am on the Financial Services Committee. I've 
worked on that.
  This bill would fully apply here. It would prevent us from going 
forward with any of the pending rules in the financial reform bill.
  Now, they've taken awhile. They're complicated. Many of them are 
done. Most of them will be done soon. This is an effort to re-
deregulate derivatives, re-deregulate financial irresponsibility 
without standing up and saying so.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  This is an effort to do re-deregulation by stealth. If they don't 
want to regulate derivatives, if they think speculation's a good thing, 
then let's bring up a bill. After all, this isn't the agriculture bill. 
You don't have to be afraid of splitting your membership by trying to 
do it.
  This ought to be straightforward. Instead, they want to do it by 
stealth. They want to end our effort to bring regulation to the 
financial industry.
  And, yes, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, when it comes 
to the people who have been running the large financial institutions, 
we do need more regulation, not less; and I believe the American people 
understand that and do not want to see the people who brought this 
terrible recession of 2008 from that financial irresponsibility set 
free of any restraint.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, pursuant to the unanimous consent made in the 
House, I will insert the staff report from the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform entitled, ``Continued Oversight of Regulatory 
Impediment to Job Creation,'' the result of

[[Page 12206]]

over 30 separate field hearings and hearings by the committee, and the 
work of countless hundreds of job creators around the country who have 
participated.

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

                              STAFF REPORT

                             July 19, 2012

  Continuing Oversight of Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation: Job 
                   Creators Still Buried by Red Tape


                                Summary

       Rules and red tape imposed by the federal government choke 
     economic expansion and job growth, according to job creators 
     themselves. Despite hearing this message loud and clear, 
     regulations implemented during the Obama Administration have 
     moved aggressively in the opposite direction--the regulatory 
     state continues to grow, adding billions of dollars in 
     compliance costs to businesses and job creators. These costs 
     will ultimately be paid by consumers.
       Although Obama Administration officials frequently proclaim 
     it has issued fewer regulations than its predecessors, 
     analysis by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     reaches a far different conclusion: the Obama Administration 
     has issued far more of the most expensive group of 
     regulations with a higher overall economic cost.
       The aggressive march of the regulatory state has been the 
     subject of an ongoing, multiyear examination by the 
     Committee. This staff report expands on earlier Committee 
     work and documents how the regulatory state is proliferating 
     with dire consequences for the economy, and how federal 
     regulations continue to impede job growth and business 
     expansion.
       From 2010 to 2011, the number of final rules issued by 
     federal agencies rose from 3,573 to 3,807--a 6.5 percent 
     increase. During that same time frame, the number of proposed 
     rules that will be finalized increased 18.8 percent. The 
     published regulatory burden for 2012 could exceed $105 
     billion, according to the American Action Forum, headed by a 
     former director of the Congressional Budget Office. Since 
     January 1, the federal government has imposed $56.6 billion 
     in compliance costs and more than 114 million annual 
     paperwork burden hours.
       Beyond this ``routine'' rulemaking, the number of rules 
     with significant costs is on the rise. Analysis from the 
     Heritage Foundation indicates that the Obama Administration 
     issued 106 new rules in its first three years that 
     collectively cost taxpayers more than $46 billion annually--
     four times the number of ``major'' regulations and five times 
     the cost of rules issued in the prior administration's first 
     three years.
       Workers and job creators confirm that the oppressive 
     regulatory red tape environment continues to hinder 
     improvement. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly half of 
     small businesses are not hiring because they are worried 
     about new government regulations. Forty-four percent of 
     likely voters say they believe regulations from the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hurt the economy.
       Research conducted by The Winston Group found that 53 
     percent of voters say federal regulations are one of the 
     major reasons the economy is struggling; 59 percent think 
     that cutting regulations is vital to improving the economy, 
     and 52 percent indicate that stopping new regulations would 
     free employers to begin hiring. According to the National 
     Federation of Independent Business, the issue of regulation 
     and red tape is one of the single most important problems for 
     small businesses.
       These views are held not just by poll respondents or 
     business group members--senior Obama Administration officials 
     have spoken out on the need to actively address regulatory 
     impacts on job creation and economic growth.
       The White House has praised the Committee for pointing out 
     deficiencies in its approach to regulations. Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass 
     Sunstein said ``I'm especially grateful to you Mr. Chairman 
     and to the committee as a whole for its constructive and 
     important work on this issue over the past months. It's very 
     significant to try to get regulation in a place where it's 
     helpful to the economic recovery.''
       The OIRA Administrator has also said that expensive 
     regulations can ``increase prices, reduce wages, and increase 
     unemployment (and hence poverty).''
       OIRA's 2012 Draft Report to Congress on Federal Regulations 
     concedes that ``regulations . . . can place undue burdens on 
     companies, consumers, and workers, and may cause growth and 
     overall productivity to slow.'' It also notes that ``evidence 
     suggests that domestic environmental regulation has led some 
     U.S. based multinationals to invest in other nations 
     (especially in the domain of manufacturing), and in that 
     sense, such regulation may have an adverse effect on domestic 
     growth.''
       Finally, OIRA agrees that ``regulations can also impose 
     significant costs on businesses, potentially damaging 
     economic competition and capital investment,'' if not 
     carefully designed.
       This staff report examines three types of regulations 
     (energy and environmental, labor, and financial services), 
     and looks at both current and new/proposed rules, their costs 
     and impacts on job creators. It concludes that until the 
     government addresses the overwhelming cost, scope and impact 
     of the ever-expanding regulatory state, it is not in a 
     position to aid job creators and spur economic recovery. 
     Moreover, the staff report suggests that until these 
     regulations are addressed, high unemployment and slow 
     economic growth will persist.


                              Key Findings

       From 2010 to 2011, the number of final rules issued by 
     federal agencies rose from 3,573 to 3,807--a 6.5 percent 
     increase. During that same time frame, the number of proposed 
     rules increased 18.8 percent.
       The published regulatory burden for 2012 could exceed $105 
     billion, according to the American Action Forum, headed by a 
     former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
       Analysis from the Heritage Foundation indicates that the 
     Obama Administration issued 106 new rules in its first three 
     years that collectively cost taxpayers more than $46 billion 
     annually--four times the number of ``major'' regulations and 
     five times the cost of rules issued in the prior 
     administration's first three years.
       In the past decade, the number of economically significant 
     rules in the pipeline--those that could cost $100 million or 
     more annually--has increased by more than 137 percent.
       Over 40 EPA regulations cited by job creators as barriers 
     to growth and expansion in the Committee's February 2011 
     staff report remain a problem.
       The Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
     rule proposed in 2010 will cost job creators up to $15 
     billion in regulatory compliance costs. A similar ``Utility'' 
     MACT rule would cost providers $9.6 billion annually and 
     result in the shutdown of 25 percent of U.S. power generating 
     units.
       EPA's proposal to regulate coal combustion residuals 
     (``coal ash'') usurps states' previous role and exerts 
     unprecedented federal control over the utility industry. More 
     than half of the complaints received from business and 
     industry groups expressed concern last year, while half of 
     the complaints are new. Compliance costs range from $78-110 
     billion over the next 20 years while job loss estimates range 
     from 39,000, under a low estimate, to 316,000, under a high 
     estimate.
       EPA's E15 ethanol rule ``places consumers and vehicle 
     manufacturers at significant risk'' but is proceeding despite 
     these concerns. EPA estimates industry compliance at $3.64 
     million per year but also notes that half of existing retail 
     outlets are incompatible with the fuel, and would need to 
     purchase and install new equipment.
       Proposed fuel economy standards will increase the cost of 
     new vehicles by at least $4,000 per vehicle while delivering 
     less than half that amount in fuel savings and could result 
     in the loss of as many as 220,000 automotive jobs.
       Tier 3 gasoline standards proposed by EPA would impose a 
     total economic cost of approximately $8 billion on the 
     industry and raise the cost of gasoline by six to nine cents 
     per gallon for consumers.
       Rules attributed to the Dodd-Frank Act will grow from 36 
     implemented today to roughly 400 required under the act. 
     Rules governing ``conflict minerals'' such as gold, tin, 
     tantalum and tungsten will cost the industry $71 million per 
     year and impact as many as 5,000 companies. The National 
     Association of Manufacturers estimates true compliance costs 
     for the rule to be $9-16 billion.
       A U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable survey notes 
     that those impacted by a proposed ``end user'' rule effecting 
     derivatives would have to sideline up to $6.7 billion in 
     working capital and cost 100,000 jobs.
       The National Labor Relations Board's ``notice posting 
     rule'' promoting unionization in the workplace will cost 
     employers an estimated $386.4 million and in the words of one 
     industry organization, ``could set a disturbing precedent and 
     chill job creation.''
       The Committee is publishing this staff report to tell the 
     American people directly what job creators say is the true 
     cost and impact of the Obama Administration's regulatory 
     agenda.
       For additional information please visit: http://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/staff-Report-
FINAL.pdf.

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).
  Ms. BUERKLE. Madam Chair, I stand here today in strong support of 
H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Creation Act, 
which takes important steps and strides to provide our businesses and 
our small businesses throughout this country with some certainty, the 
certainty that they so desperately need.
  Every time I'm home in my district, I hear from my constituents, my 
small business owners. They want to know when is this deluge of 
regulations out of Washington going to end. And that's what this bill 
addresses today.

[[Page 12207]]



                              {time}  1550

  It's such a harsh reminder that this administration's policies are 
not working.
  Rather than looking ahead, our small businesses and our job creators 
are ducking and hiding behind the myriad, the deluge of mandates and 
regulations that so restrict their growth. This uncertainty that these 
regulations create is the enemy of growth, and it's why our economy 
does not move forward, and it's why it is so stagnant.
  This year, the Federal Register has reached nearly 42,000 pages with 
regulations that cost our American businesses $56.6 billion and that 
result in 114 million hours of paperwork. That's why our economy is not 
growing. They cannot even deal with the deluge of regulations coming 
out of Washington.
  Why should an owner of a supermarket in upstate New York spend his 
time dealing with the 15,000 pages of regulations from the Affordable 
Care Act rather than paying attention to the inventory in his grocery 
store?
  Simply put, Madam Chair, Washington's attitude toward the private 
sector is discouraging. It's time for Congress to reverse the trend and 
to let America's job creators know that we stand beside them rather 
than in front of them, blocking their progress and their growth.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  All year, the House Republicans have brought extreme bills to this 
floor to repeal commonsense safeguards. In fact, we have voted over 280 
times this Congress to repeal or undermine landmark environmental laws 
like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That's not what the 
American people want.
  The legislation we are debating today takes this assault to a new 
level. It halts virtually all regulation until unemployment drops below 
6 percent. I don't see it. We are going to have an unprecedented attack 
on critical public health, safety and economic protections? We are 
going to let the marketplace solve all problems?
  This bill would undermine Medicare by preventing the issuance of 
updated reimbursement rates and by denying hospitals and clinics 
hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare payments--because these are 
regulations as well. It would jeopardize the food supply by blocking 
produce safety rules that would prevent contaminated food from showing 
up on our local grocery store shelves. It would stop broadly supported 
tailpipe rules for cars and trucks that will save consumers money, 
slash pollution, and cut our dependence on oil. It would block rules to 
ensure health care quality and raise the bar for provider performance.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation could 
even delay incentive auctions of spectrum by the FCC. These auctions 
would raise billions of dollars to build out the public safety 
communications system. This is a clear example of how this bill will 
kill jobs, not create them, and increase, not reduce, the deficit.
  Madam Chair, a lot of regulations are important and a lot of 
regulations create jobs, but we hear over and over again, Oh, we can't 
burden the job creators with regulations. When we put regulations in 
place, it's for a reason. There is a reason that we ought to let the 
regulations go forward and not stop them all as this bill would do. The 
reasons are to protect public health and safety. The reasons are to 
have a Medicare system that is up to date. The reasons are to make sure 
that our financial institutions have rules that apply to them and that 
we don't let them make the decisions on their own. They may be job 
creators, but they were job destroyers in 2008.
  Republicans say they want to cut red tape, but this legislation does 
not cut red tape. It makes the rest of the government just like the 
House of Representatives--dysfunctional and unresponsive to the 
Nation's pressing problems. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
bill. I urge the American people to watch carefully who votes for it.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, as a business owner, this is what I get when 
I hear, The government is here to help us. Look at this red tape. Wow. 
That's what a small business has to put up with just to create a 
business. That's why I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape 
Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act of 2012.
  A recent report released from Gallup suggests that 46 percent of all 
small business owners have put a freeze on new hiring because they are 
worried about regulations and costs. Clearly, sensible solutions and 
reforms are needed. This bill will allow small businesses to be free of 
the burdensome yoke of government regulation. For far too long, 
stifling bureaucracy and meddlesome mandates have stagnated job growth. 
Red tape has tied the hands and the feet of employers and entrepreneurs 
alike.
  Look at the maze. These binds which constrict the free flow of labor 
and capital will be cut by this bill, which simply states that any new 
major Federal regulations costing over $100 million may not be 
implemented until the unemployment rate falls to 6 percent. This will 
save an estimated $22.1 billion.
  Just as important, the upside down roller coaster that our small 
businesses and entrepreneurs have been on for the past few years can 
finally stop. Americans looking to start businesses, expand their 
business facilities, or hire more workers can plan for the future and 
put our economy back on a path to prosperity.
  As a small business owner for 25 years, I am acutely aware of the way 
in which restrictive regulations and rules can hold a business owner 
hostage. Let's free the private sector from this captivity. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation 
Act.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time both 
sides have.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Issa, and 
Members of the House.
  I've read this bill. There is something about it that we really need 
to understand, and that is that we just got through having a debate 
about the Federal Reserve. One of the reasons the Fed should be audited 
is that it is not fulfilling its responsibility for bringing about 
employment in this country.
  Now, this bill exempts the Federal Reserve. Think about it. We say we 
want to bring unemployment down to 6 percent. The Fed, if you look at 
the Board of Governors' report, has basically jettisoned the whole idea 
about bringing unemployment down. Right now, they're establishing what 
I would call a new threshold of 5 to 6 percent unemployment. So, if our 
friends are successful with their bill, we won't have jobs, and we 
won't have regulations either.
  Hello? Read the report.
  I mean, we ought to be investigating why has the Fed stepped back 
from its job creation, and why are we exempting them from a bill in 
which we are actually taking the pressure off them for job creation.
  Now, look, we should be creating jobs. No question about it. I have a 
bill, H.R. 2990, that puts the Fed under Treasury and that let's the 
government spend money into circulation and create millions of jobs. 
Put America back to work. Prime the pump of the economy, a full 
employment economy. It goes way past Humphrey-Hawkins. Get America back 
to work. America needs to get back to work.
  If that's what my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, 
we're together on that. America has to get back to work--but we're 
going to get back to work while having water that's not safe to drink? 
air that's not safe to breathe? We're going to get back to work by 
having products that you

[[Page 12208]]

don't know your pets can consume? Are we going to get back to work by 
having to worry about, when we go to various salad bars, if it's 
something we can consume and whether or not there are proper food 
inspections? Are we going to get America back to work by not checking 
on airplane safety?
  Is that how we get America back to work?
  Come on. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, there are certain 
regulations that are absolutely fundamental to running an organized 
society. I understand wedge issues--this is a political climate--but 
let's not mix up this mutual concern that we have about creating jobs 
in this country by trying to score some points by saying, well, there 
are regulations that are bad.
  I'm sure there are regulations that don't work. I'm not somebody who 
believes that government has the solution to everything. I know better 
than that. I've been here for 16 years. I understand that much. Yet I 
know one other thing, which is, when you take a broad approach in 
trying to knock out regulations, you're looking for trouble. You're 
going to create trouble. That's what this does. So I am urging a ``no'' 
vote, and I'll have more to say on an amendment that I have.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it's now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I add my voice to calling for the passage of H.R. 4078, 
the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act.
  One of the key provisions of this bill is title III, the Sunshine for 
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Certain environmental advocacy 
groups sue Federal agencies to issue regulations, and then agencies 
settle these lawsuits behind closed doors, which is also known as ``sue 
and settle.'' Only after a settlement has been agreed to does the 
public have any chance to provide any comment. This is a pointless 
exercise because the damage has already been done. More troubling, 
these settlements often allow advocacy groups and agencies to 
effectively dictate major policy on their own by circumventing the 
protections that exist for public participation in a regulatory system.
  This provision, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements 
Act of 2012, promotes openness and transparency in the regulatory 
process, and it does that by requiring agencies to notify the public of 
these lawsuits before they're settled and giving the public meaningful 
voice in the process.
  As Chairman Issa knows from the field hearing he held on Great Bay in 
my district in the State of New Hampshire, my constituents and small 
businesses are facing this very issue. Communities, small businesses, 
and New Hampshire families are facing massive tax increases because 
outside organizations with political agendas are forcing the EPA into a 
sue or settle situation, costing Granite Staters on the seacoast 
hundreds of millions of dollars. This has been done behind closed doors 
without the community being at the table as a full negotiating partner, 
and this is wrong.
  We all want the Great Bay to be clean and to be protected, but sue 
and settle is not the way. In the end, the actions of a few politically 
driven organizations are costing small businesses and hurting New 
Hampshire families in an already difficult economy.
  Chairman Issa, I want to thank you for coming to New Hampshire to 
shed light on this problem. For these reasons, I urge all Members to 
support this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Maryland has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to clear up something. It has been said that this would 
affect matters that would likely have an annual cost to the economy of 
over $100,000 or more, in other words, those that would be subject to 
the bill. But the piece that is left out on page 8 of the bill--and 
this is very crucial. It says:

       Or if OMB determines--or adversely affect--that is, 
     legislation rules, proposed rules--that would adversely 
     affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
     economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
     public health or safety, small entities or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities.

  And, of course, the bill goes on to say that OMB may make a 
determination, but if there is an entity that is agreed, they can 
always go to court. It's not accurate to say that it's just limited to 
those types of regulations that would affect the economy to the tune of 
$100 million. It actually affects a whole lot more than that.
  With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, hopefully the gentleman would note that the 
language he just quoted is from the President's executive order. It's 
not some sort of pocket information, but, in fact, something the 
President of the United States felt was a reasonable set of language.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Chairman Issa.
  Most Congressmen call their district staff workers caseworkers. I 
call my district workers red tape cutters, because that's what they do. 
Unfortunately, we have to have a job like that because government red 
tape is so thick. A lot of what our caseworkers do is for veterans and 
Social Security recipients, but they also help our small businesses.
  When I'm back home, I hear time and time again from businesses about 
how the government is getting in the way of creating jobs, and if we 
would just tell them what to do and let them do it and quit changing 
the rules midstream, they would do it. That's what this bill does, it 
tells the government: Stop. Don't change the rules midstream until our 
economy is back on track. It's a jobs bill, and it's an opportunity to 
give our businesses the opportunity to get people hired.
  This Congress has been tireless in our pursuit of creating jobs by 
eliminating senseless and expensive government regulation. I'm 
confident this bill will pass the House, and I hope it has better luck 
than some of the other bills that we've passed, like the REINS Act, 
that also deals with regulation, when it gets across the Capitol and to 
the Senate.
  We have got to get these bipartisan jobs bills passed and signed into 
law. Americans know we have to cut the unemployment rate. To do that, 
we're going to have to cut the red tape.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  I rise today in support of this legislation that will save this 
country billions of dollars and create thousands of much-needed jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, ``red tape'' is a word we hear all too often in 
Washington, but when you get back to places like Danville, Virginia, 
and talk with the people who are stuck in it, you gain a new 
perspective on what Federal regulations mean to everyone outside of the 
beltway.
  As the Federal Government continues to grow in size and scope, our 
Main Street businesses continue to struggle. The President tells us 
that the private sector is doing just fine. The President tells us that 
if you've got a business, you didn't build it. But the President has 
not told us how he plans to help our small business owners grow and 
create the jobs our local communities need.
  Our Nation has faced over 8 percent unemployment for more than 3 
years. We're being crushed under a rapidly accumulating $16 trillion 
debt, and both of these things have everything to do with the policies 
set forth in Washington that grow the Federal Government and strangle 
our Main Street businesses.

[[Page 12209]]

  Where others will not lead, the House will. That's why we remain 
focused on adopting legislation like the bill we consider today, 
legislation that will remove the Federal Government as a barrier to job 
creation. This package of bills will lead us to responsible regulations 
and ensure that the economic impacts of Federal regulations are 
accounted for. Most importantly, it will give our small business owners 
across central and south Virginia the ability to hire and expand their 
businesses at a time when many are closing their doors.
  This legislation is the kind this country needs to turn the corner 
from a struggling economy to the America that we have known for 
generations, a country of limited government and unlimited opportunity. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to whether or not the 
gentleman has other speakers?
  Mr. ISSA. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in closing, that the debate 
today proves that this bill is an extreme attack on the regulatory 
system.
  Republicans have put critical protections on the line by proposing to 
shut down the regulatory process with a bill that was ill-conceived 
from the start and that was cobbled together so quickly it is riddled 
with flaws that render it unworkable.
  I might also say that one of the things that I've said over and over 
again, and I think the position has been--I know it's the position of 
the President--that we must have balance with regard to regulations. I 
think that Mr. Waxman and certainly Mr. Frank were absolutely right. 
It's not a question of distrust. It's a question of making sure that we 
have regulations in place to protect the safety and welfare of our 
citizens, and we don't need to look too far.
  When I look at my district and I see the many people who lost so much 
because of what happened on Wall Street and what happened just recently 
with regard to the banks, the fact is that regulation is needed. If any 
committee has had evidence of it, it is our committee, Oversight and 
Government Reform.
  We've heard no evidence today that regulations kill jobs. We've heard 
no evidence that regulations hurt our economy. We've heard countless 
examples of how regulations can improve the health and safety of 
Americans and save lives. It is so very important that we keep in mind 
that balance that I talked about.
  It's also important that we keep in mind what this President has 
done. President Obama has made sure that he has taken a careful look at 
those rules, those regulations that were unnecessary. He has put forth 
less regulations than either former President Bush. He has slowed down 
the process of approving regulations. I think, clearly, he is headed in 
the right direction as to what I just said about a balanced approach.

                              {time}  1610

  So I hope the American people understand that this legislation is not 
advancing their interests. I repeatedly said that the majority is 
forcing a false choice. We do not have to choose between creating jobs 
and protecting the health and safety of American families. We can and 
must do both. This legislation does neither, and I urge all our Members 
to vote against it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I never thought I would hear former Chairman Waxman speak in terms of 
how dysfunctional Congress is, how we just don't operate and can't be 
trusted; but, clearly, I heard him say that today.
  I still believe in the institution that all of us belong to. In 
living up to our responsibility, Congress has the responsibility to 
pass laws; and it has an absolute obligation to oversee the 
administration of those laws. The executive branch, or administrative 
branch, actually, only has the right to create regulations and 
executive orders to support the laws that have been created.
  For too long, we have abrogated our responsibility. Former Chairman 
Waxman apparently would like to continue doing that, in what he said of 
our low rating and essentially repeating it.
  Until the unemployment rate reaches 6 percent, taking back just less 
than 66 out of 3,000 regulations last year and making them accountable 
either to fall into emergency requirements into specific categories of 
essential harm or to come to Congress would seem to be a small task.
  I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot and President 
Bush was still in office and the Democrats were still in charge, that 
this bill would look more favorable to them. But that's not what we 
should be here deciding, who it favors or disfavors. When this bill 
becomes law, it will, in fact, become law for the future for Democrats 
and Republican Members alike.
  The elimination of the ``midnight regulations'' that for so long have 
been abused by Presidents of both parties, H.R. 4607 absolutely is long 
overdue. President George W. Bush rushed excess amounts to close before 
he left. President Obama will, undoubtedly, do the same. That's wrong. 
It's simply wrong. And we know is. And we know that often, as this bill 
says, these are regulations that aren't heard before the election and 
are concluded in those 75 days before departure.
  It's wrong. We know we need to stop it. We shouldn't abrogate our 
responsibility. And the Members on the other side will suddenly decide, 
I'm sure, this is a better idea, should Mitt Romney be elected in the 
fall.
  This bill is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, Associated 
Builders & Contractors, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, 
and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
  The fact is, this is about simply saying not that we're going to stop 
3,000 regulations, but that we're going to slow and evaluate more 
carefully the 66 largest of them by this administration last year.
  During debate, the administration was essentially lauded for having 
passed fewer regulations in numbers than President George W. Bush. I 
checked that during debate. That's true. But that's because President 
George W. Bush did regulatory changes to eliminate regulations, and 
those scored. When you actually look at the cost of regulations under 
this administration, the cost is dramatically higher.
  I will share with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
cost is not just dollars and cents, that you have to look at all the 
benefits. But for too long, we've had ``sue and settle.'' We've had the 
ability for these determinations to be made without that due process of 
looking at both sides.
  So today, as we move this bill, I clearly appreciate the fact that 
the men and women of my committee--the staff, the hardworking people 
who never get seen in front of the camera, who, in fact, have worked 
through 30 hearings, through countless interviews with job creators--
have made sure that the right things are in this bill for the right 
reason.
  I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the 
national unemployment rate above 8 percent for over 40 months. The 
President promised that his $800 billion spending bill would keep 
unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, the spending bill only added to 
the deficit, which has doubled under this administration.
  More than 12 million Americans are out of work, 700,000 more than 
when President Obama took office; and the median income of American 
families has dropped too.
  The President's economic policies have failed, and his regulatory 
policies have made the economy worse. A recent Gallup poll found that 
among the

[[Page 12210]]

85 percent of U.S. small businesses that are not hiring, nearly half 
cited ``being worried about new government regulations'' as the reason.
  President Obama has turned America into a regulation Nation. A 
Heritage Foundation study found that in his first 3 years in office, 
President Obama implemented 106 major rules that imposed $46 billion in 
additional annual regulatory costs on the private sector. That's a new 
record.
  The President promised in his 2011 State of the Union address to fix 
``rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses,'' but he has gone 
in the opposite direction. We need to encourage businesses to expand, 
not tie them up with red tape.
  Today, Congress continues to fight the constricting red tape that 
comes from Washington by offering commonsense solutions that deserve 
bipartisan support. And that's what we do today.
  Members of the Judiciary Committee introduced three of the titles in 
the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Mr. 
Griffin's Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act gives small businesses a much-
needed break from new regulations that cost the economy $100 million or 
more until the unemployment rate stabilizes at 6 percent.
  The Freeze Act is narrowly tailored to stop unnecessary economically 
significant regulations. It contains reasonable exceptions, such as 
health and safety, criminal or civil rights laws, trade agreements, and 
national security. The Freeze Act gives job creators confidence about 
future regulatory conditions, which will encourage them to make the 
investments that will jump-start our economy.
  The RAPID Act, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), 
helps to create jobs as it streamlines the Federal environmental review 
and permitting process. It draws upon established definitions and 
concepts from existing regulations and even from the administration's 
own recommendations.
  Employers and investors can't move forward without necessary permits 
and without confidence in the process. The RAPID Act establishes 
reasonable, predictable deadlines for agencies to complete the permit 
review process and for lawsuits to be filed afterwards.
  The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, introduced 
by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), ends the abuse of consent 
decrees and settlements to require more regulations.
  For many years, regulatory advocates and agencies have used consent 
decrees and settlements to establish new rules in secrecy, outside the 
regular rule-making procedures that provide for transparency and public 
participation. The ``sue and settle'' approach has enabled agencies to 
impose higher costs and avoid accountability since they can claim ``the 
court made us do it.''
  Mr. Quayle's legislation makes sure that the public and those 
affected by regulations have a say in these decrees and settlements. It 
also requires greater judicial scrutiny and helps to prevent an 
outgoing administration from unfairly setting its successor's agenda 
through consent decrees. These and all of the titles of the Red Tape 
Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act provide needed relief to 
small businesses.
  Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. This 
legislation frees up businesses to spend more, invest more, and produce 
more in order to create more jobs for American workers. I urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Could I begin by asking the distinguished chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee this following inquiry: Is it not true that the 
United States of America has less regulation than almost any other 
industrialized country in the Western Hemisphere?
  I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas to respond.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I have no idea whether we have more or fewer 
regulations than other countries. I do know this: we have far more 
regulations today than we had 3 years ago. And I also know that the 
Obama administration has set a new record in the number of expensive, 
unnecessary regulations that it has suggested and implemented.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, the gentleman is welcome. His answer is no, he 
doesn't know. And I'm going to, in the course of this debate, try to 
share with him the fact that other industrialized nations have far more 
regulations than us, just to put things into some kind of relative 
proportion.
  Members of the House of Representatives, Joseph Stiglitz has talked 
about the subject of regulation. Here is something that he had to say 
about it that I think will set us in the right frame of mind to examine 
dispassionately the principle that is under examination this afternoon. 
He said this:

       The subject of regulation has been one of the most 
     contentious, with critics arguing that regulations interfere 
     with the efficiency of the market, and advocates arguing that 
     well-designed regulation not only makes markets more 
     efficient, but also helps to ensure the market outcome is 
     more equitable. Interestingly, as the economy plunges into a 
     slowdown, if not a recession, with more than 2 million 
     Americans expected to lose their homes, there is a growing 
     consensus there was a need for more government regulation. If 
     it is the case that better regulations could have prevented 
     or even mitigated the downturn, the country and the world 
     will be paying a heavy price for the failure to regulate 
     adequately, and the social costs are no less grave, as 
     hundreds of thousands of Americans will not only have lost 
     their homes, but their lifetime savings as well.

  And so the measure before us, H.R. 4078, by stopping or delaying 
rules from going into effect, seriously jeopardizes the safety and the 
soundness of our Nation's economy and our society generally.
  Another fundamental problem with this proposal is that it myopically 
focuses on the cost of regulations while largely ignoring their 
overwhelming benefits. So this measure, with its misleadingly short 
title, will not result in creating jobs for one simple reason: there is 
no credible evidence establishing that regulations have any substantive 
impact on job creation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee and the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative 
Law Subcommittee.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman from 
Texas for having yielded, and I rise in support of H.R. 4078.
  I have the honor and privilege of serving as the chairman of the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, 
which among other things has jurisdiction over the Administrative 
Procedures Act. Our subcommittee has spent an enormous amount of time 
and energy reviewing proposals to refine the manner in which our 
Federal Government formulates and implements regulations. I have 
encountered two philosophies on improving our regulatory system. One 
philosophy is we routinely review and improve regulations, while others 
advocate that the Federal Government should issue yet more regulations.
  It appears to me that the Obama administration has embraced the 
latter philosophy because red tape has been flying fast and furious 
during his tenure. His administration has proposed regulations that are 
expected to exceed $100 million at the rate of 125 every 2 years. 
Currently, there are 24 major rules in the pipeline for review by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The results have been 
telling. During the first 26 months of the Obama administration, our 
Federal Government has added $40 billion of annual regulatory cost to 
our economy, and this year the Federal Register already exceeds 40,000 
pages.
  In the transportation arena, new DOT passenger protection regulations 
are estimated by the American Aviation Institute to cost $1.7 billion 
annually. In total, there are 10 new Federal

[[Page 12211]]

aviation regulations that will cost $4 billion annually. Although they 
will produce no significant benefit to the traveling public, they 
certainly and inevitably will be passed along in the form of fees, 
reduced services, or increased prices.
  Since 2008, the combined budget of regulatory agencies has ballooned 
16 percent, topping $54 billion. During the same time, employment at 
the agencies grew 13 percent while our economy only grew by 5 percent 
and the number of private sector jobs shrunk by 5.6 percent.
  The scene is ominous, and I think it reflects what has happened to 
our economy, but I also do not believe that the situation is hopeless. 
The need for regulatory reform has been emulated by every 
administration since President Ronald Reagan, but efforts have not been 
successful. Enacting H.R. 4078 will be a step in the right direction.
  Several titles of this legislation which were approved by the 
Judiciary Committee will implement immediate relief.
  The original provisions of H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze Act, 
could reportedly save our economy $22.1 billion and save thousands of 
jobs without jeopardizing our safety.
  H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, 
will end the practice of special interests using consent decrees to 
bypass the regulatory process and imposing their will and priorities on 
affected communities.
  H.R. 4377, the RAPID Act, will help end the permitting logjam that 
has stifled development investment without diminishing a single 
environmental standard or protection.
  Regulations that are narrowly tailored, effective, and routinely 
reviewed can make our society safer and our economy stronger, but when 
they are ineffective or inefficient, our security is jeopardized, and 
so is our economy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I direct an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) to ask him if he is aware of the fact that the 
Obama administration has accomplished and accumulated net benefits of 
regulations in the last 3 fiscal years that exceed $91 billion?

                              {time}  1630

  This comes from the Office of Management and Budget, and it's more 
than 25 times the net benefits of regulations issued by the Bush 
administration for a comparable period of time.
  I would yield to the distinguished gentleman for a response.
  Mr. COBLE. No, I was not aware of that. But job creators need some 
certainty about the regulatory forecast to make the kind of investments 
that will create jobs. The Freeze Act is carefully drafted to only 
freeze those regulations that cost the economy $100 million or more. 
Thus, a regulation that has $100 million in benefits would not be 
frozen by the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Are you telling me that the freeze will be helpful to 
creating jobs? Are you telling me in response to my question that the 
freeze will be helpful to create jobs?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. COBLE. Yes, I am telling you that.
  Mr. CONYERS. But do you accept the Office of Management and Budget's 
findings that the benefits of regulations by the current administration 
in the last 3 fiscal years exceeded $91 billion?
  Mr. COBLE. Well, I don't know that, but if you will permit me, I will 
yield to the chairman for that.
  Mr. CONYERS. You may not. You're not able to yield because I yielded 
to you. So you don't know?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would yield to me, I would be 
happy to try to respond.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, I just wanted to ask the gentleman. I didn't mean 
to make this as prolonged as it has become, but I don't think his 
response of a freeze was an adequate response to my question.
  Mr. COBLE. I was not aware of the questions you put to me. I can 
neither embrace nor reject that.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his attempted response.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from upstate 
New York, Ms. Kathy Hochul, who serves with great distinction on the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. HOCHUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On February 12, 2009, Flight 3407 crashed into a house in my 
district, killing all the passengers and an individual in his home. Out 
of that devastation arose a spirit that actually united this Congress 
in enacting flight safety and pilot training rules that would have 
prevented the crash. The families never gave up, coming to talk to 
Members of Congress over 50 times over 3 years, and they are eagerly 
awaiting the final implementation of potentially lifesaving rules. It 
sounds like a happy ending, doesn't it?
  Yet, this week, because the House Rules Committee refused to allow my 
amendment to protect those specific rules, we are at risk of losing all 
those hard-fought, bipartisan safety reforms. With the so-called 
Regulatory Freeze Act, these reforms would simply die. So those who 
voted for them in the past are now calling them job killing? Well, I 
call them people saving.
  Listen, I know we need to end overburdensome regulations, and I voted 
against many of them, the ones that hurt our farmers and small 
businesses. I hear about that in upstate New York. But there's a 
commonsense way to do it. But to freeze all government regulations, all 
of them, regardless of the health and safety of our citizens is over 
the top, even for this town.
  Flight safety rules are just one example. The bill would also block 
benefits for disabled and homeless veterans, it would hurt seniors, and 
it would eliminate rules that ensured taxpayer dollars are used for 
goods made in America. This only proves that Washington is broken and 
we need to fix it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this senseless regulation and 
this rule.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
respond to a question that the gentleman from Michigan posed a few 
minutes ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to include for the Record an article from 
earlier this year that appeared in The Economist magazine. This is a 
magazine that is one of the oldest, most respected sources of news and 
analysis, and it is favorably disposed toward the Obama administration. 
But it published an article detailing how the Obama administration 
systematically manipulates the cost-benefit analysis in agency 
rulemaking.
  This manipulation deliberately inflates benefits and minimizes the 
cost, the article says. The Economist goes so far as to call the 
administration's cost-benefit analysis ``highly suspect'' and ``subject 
to the whims of the people in power.''

                  [From the Economist, Feb. 18, 2012]

                   Measuring the Impact of Regulation


  The rule of more--Rule-making is being made to look more beneficial 
                           under Barack Obama

       Washington, DC: In December Barack Obama trumpeted a new 
     standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule, 
     he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths, 
     heart attacks and asthma cases. The Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up to $90 
     billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr. 
     Obama took a swipe at past administrations for not 
     implementing this ``common-sense, cost-effective standard''.
       A casual listener would have assumed that all these 
     benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury 
     explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths, 
     heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary 
     benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from 
     concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the 
     principal target of the rule: namely, fine particles.
       The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem 
     arcane, but matters a lot. When businesses complain that Mr. 
     Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers 
     respond that those costs are more than justified by even 
     higher benefits. His Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out of the 
     federal apparatus, reckons the ``net benefit'' of the rules 
     passed in 2009-10 is greater than in the first two years of 
     the administrations of either George Bush junior or Bill 
     Clinton.
       But those calculations have been criticised for resting on 
     assumptions that yield higher

[[Page 12212]]

     benefits and lower costs. One of these assumptions is the 
     generous use of ancillary benefits, or ``co-benefits'', such 
     as reductions in fine particles as a result of a rule 
     targeting mercury.
       Mr. Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been 
     included in regulatory cost-benefit analysis. The logic is 
     sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to 
     save money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get 
     more exercise. Both sorts of benefit should be counted.
       The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-
     benefits play in assessing Mr. Obama's rule-making. Fully 
     two-thirds of the benefits of economically significant final 
     rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to reductions in 
     fine particles brought about by regulations that were 
     actually aimed at something else, according to Susan Dudley 
     of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under 
     George Bush (see chart). That is double the share of co-
     benefits reported in Mr. Bush's last year in office in 2008.
       If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it would 
     surely be more transparent and efficient to target them 
     directly. As it happens, federal standards for fine-particle 
     concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely claims 
     additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well 
     below levels the current law considers safe. That is dubious: 
     a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of 
     such low concentrations.
       Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is 
     its heavy reliance on ``private benefits''. Economists 
     typically justify regulation when private market 
     participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity, 
     generate costs--such as pollution-- that the rest of society 
     has to bear. But fuel and energy-efficiency regulations are 
     now being justified not by such social benefits, but by 
     private benefits like reduced spending on fuel and 
     electricity.
       Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit 
     analysis but Ms. Dudley's data show that, like co-benefits, 
     their importance has grown dramatically under Mr. Obama. Ted 
     Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes that private 
     benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and shorter 
     refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in 
     lifetime benefits claimed for last year's new fuel-economy 
     standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for 
     92% and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency 
     standards for washing machines and refrigerators 
     respectively.
       The values placed on such private benefits are highly 
     suspect. If consumers were really better off with more 
     efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a 
     prod from government. The fact that they don't means they put 
     little value on money saved in the future, or simply prefer 
     other features more. Mr. Obama's OIRA notes that a growing 
     body of research argues that consumers don't always make 
     rational choices; Mr. Gayer counters that regulators do not 
     make appropriate use of that research in their calculations.
       Under Mr. Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance 
     the benefits of rules but also reduce the costs. John Graham 
     of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr. Bush, cites the 
     new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that 
     electric cars have no carbon emissions, although the 
     electricity they use probably came from coal. They also 
     assume less of a ``rebound effect''--the tendency of people 
     to drive more when their cars get better mileage--than was 
     the case under Mr. Bush.
       Mr. Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the 
     opposite bias: understating benefits and overstating costs. 
     At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to 
     reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had 
     fewer years left to live; it eventually backed down. Mr. 
     Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the 
     risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more 
     horrifying way to die than others.
       More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such 
     controversies. Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a 
     liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done 
     through the creation of a non-partisan congressional 
     oversight body using the best evidence available to vet 
     regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets 
     fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to 
     see if the original analysis behind them was still valid. 
     Rule-making would still require judgment, but it would be 
     less subject to the whims of the people in power.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Griffin), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of the 
legislation we consider today.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 
say that the idea that this bill will stop good, reasonable, 
commonsense, and much-needed regulations is nonsense. It simply 
requires Congress to have a role. And after all, Congress is the body 
that authorizes laws and regulations in the first place. That just 
makes sense. The complications that so many complain about, I call 
checks and balances.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small 
Business Job Creation Act. This bill would freeze significant 
regulations, those costing the economy $100 million or more, until 
nationwide unemployment falls to 6 percent or below.
  Many of my friends on the other side say there's no connection 
between excessive and overly burdensome regulation and job creation. 
They must have been asking their favorite economist and not talking to 
actual job creators. Even President Obama disagrees.
  In a January 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, President Obama wrote:

       Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing 
     unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled 
     innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.

  He has at least given lip service to the problem.
  Small businesses like Razor Chemical, a manufacturer of 
environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in North Little Rock, 
Arkansas, bear the brunt of regulatory compliance costs. According to 
the government's Small Business Administration, complying with current 
Federal regulations already costs at least $1.75 trillion every year, 
adding more than $10,000 in overhead per small business employee--which 
is 30 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing large firms.
  Half of all private sector employees in the United States are 
employed by a small business job creator--exactly the type of folks who 
are getting hammered by the Obama administration's aggressive 
regulatory agenda. In its first 3 years, the Obama administration 
created 120 new major regulations, costing Americans more than $46 
billion each year. That's more than four times the number and five 
times the cost of major regulations created by the Bush administration 
in its first 3 years.
  As the lead sponsor of this bill, I made sure it carefully targets 
the most harmful regulations while making exceptions for Federal rules 
necessary for national security, trade agreements, enforcement of 
criminal and civil rights laws, and imminent threats to health or 
safety.
  It also includes a provision allowing the President to seek 
congressional approval for other regulations that he thinks are 
absolutely critical. And, in fact, with that waiver, you can pretty 
much pass any regulation as long as Congress agrees.
  In his State of the Union address, President Obama admitted, 
``There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary 
or too costly.''
  If there's no question about the problem, he should embrace the 
House's solution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume to ask the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Tim Griffin of Arkansas, if he is aware that the President, as he's 
correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle but that 
he opposes very strongly H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act 
of 2012?
  I would yield to the gentleman for a response.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Well, I thank the gentleman.
  First of all, I don't know anyone who's antiregulation. It's the 
excessive and overly burdensome regulations that are the problems.
  I have a 2-year-old baby, John, and a 4-year-old, Mary Katherine. I 
want clean air and clean water for them.
  I understand the need for reasonable, commonsense regulations, but 
that's not what we're talking about here, with all due respect.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, if I could interrupt the gentleman, this is not 
about what your opinion is or mine. I'm asking you about the 
President's opinion.
  The President, as you quite accurately said, is supportive of 
regulation, but he is specifically opposed to this regulation, and I 
would like to quote to you exactly what he said about H.R. 4078:

       The bill would undermine critical public health and safety 
     protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in 
     agency decisionmaking, and interfere with agency performance 
     of statutory mandates.


[[Page 12213]]


  Now, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Miller), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the astronomical 
estimates we hear on the cost of regulation assume that no business 
would ever do anything that any regulation requires unless there was a 
regulation requiring them to do it.
  The truth is that most businesses really want to do the right thing. 
Most businesses try to have a safe workplace. Most businesses try not 
to pollute the air and pollute the water and release toxic chemicals 
that are going to affect public health. Most businesses want to have 
safe products. They don't want to produce baby formulas that are going 
to hurt infants. Those folks do the right things.
  The other folks who don't want to do that and would save a little bit 
of money by not doing anything that common decency requires, in 
addition to regulations, they hire lobbyists and they make campaign 
contributions. Those are the folks that we need regulations for.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans don't know what this bill really does. 
They don't know what a ``freeze on significant regulations'' really 
means without a long explanation, and a reporter who's trying to get 
air time to talk about this bill or print space is not going to have 
much luck. This bill is just too in the weeds, and Republicans 
obviously think that there is public safety in the weeds.
  If Republicans were to try to bring a bill to the floor that openly 
repealed the Wall Street Reform Act, the Clean Water Act, the Food and 
Safety Act, and on and on, that bill would get some attention. This 
bill does much the same thing as repealing those acts but without being 
honest about it. They would have to explain themselves to their 
constituents if they just up and repealed those laws. Instead, 
Republicans are speaking in political gobbledygook. They don't tell 
folks what this bill is really doing. It's like adults who spell out 
words so their children won't know what they're talking about. Their 
constituents, Republicans hope, will not know what ``red tape 
reduction'' means, really. It sounds good, but the effect is to undo 
all of the protections that we depend upon from our government.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and 
a sponsor of the RAPID Act, which is a part of this legislation.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, our country is in the midst of the 
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Much of the blame 
lies here in Washington where living beyond our means and micromanaging 
the economy is, to quote some in this town, ``just the way Washington 
works.''
  Well, Mr. Chairman, Washington doesn't work. Any business that has 
tried to break ground and build something knows what I'm talking about: 
dozens of Federal agencies representing varied interests competing 
against each other while special interest groups wait in the wings to 
hold projects hostage for ransom.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to sum up what our permitting process should 
be.

       Our Federal permitting and review processes must provide a 
     transparent, consistent, and predictable path for both 
     project sponsors and affected communities. They must ensure 
     that agencies set and adhere to timelines and schedules for 
     completion of reviews, set clear permitting performance 
     goals, and track progress against those goals. They must 
     encourage early collaboration among agencies, project 
     sponsors, and affected stakeholders in order to incorporate 
     and address their interests and minimize delays.

  What I just read is verbatim from a March 2012 executive order by 
President Barack Obama, and I agree with the President 100 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we achieve these goals of the President in H.R. 4078, 
and it could not come soon enough for those looking for work. A March 
2011 study conducted by the United States Chamber of Commerce 
identified some 351 projects that are being stymied by the current 
regulatory review process; 1.9 million jobs are on hold, $1.1 trillion 
economic impact to this country.
  These jobs are not CEOs or jet-setters. These jobs are miners. 
They're machinists. They're blue collar workers. I know because I've 
watched this happen in my community where 200 jobs were lost because, 
after 7 years and 14 Federal, State, and local agencies went through a 
permitting process, a company then, 1 month later, was shut down in 
their project because some environmental group went to a very lenient 
judge and shut them down, moms and dads wondering where their mortgage 
payment and supper would come from. They wondered why an environmental 
activist group--that I can tell you does not represent the interest of 
my district--could put them out of work.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, these projects are halted because 
businesses that will invest billions in a project cannot do so without 
some idea of certainty.
  Some say this legislation will allow corporations to harm our clean 
air and clean water. I say to that: Nonsense. This part of my 
legislation merely says that all parties, from environmental groups to 
government agencies, must be at the table sharing concerns and offering 
remedies from the start. It says that the process has a time limit and 
that government must meet those time limits. It says that, if you don't 
get in at the beginning, you can't come in after years of hard work and 
remediation and use a sympathetic judge to shut it down.
  This is not an academic exercise either. This same process was used 
in 2005 when the House voted 412-8 to impose the SAFETEA-LU program, 
which provided the same detailed streamlining procedures that have now 
reduced the permitting process under NEPA in transportation highway 
construction from 73 months to 37 months.
  Mr. Chairman, the process is broken. This legislation presents 
solutions that are eminently sensible and immediately effective. For 
these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and give 
millions of our fellow citizens a hope for a better future.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'd just like the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) to 
know that later on I'm going to introduce over 60 outstanding leaders, 
economists, and organizational heads that take a completely different 
view from the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I'd like him to 
examine those documents.
  I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former 
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee from California, George 
Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is nothing more than a cynical 
attempt to put the profits of well-connected special interests above 
the interests of working families and middle class Americans. But this 
is nothing new. In this House, ideology prevails over bipartisanship, 
the powerful over the middle class families, politics over job 
creation, and brinksmanship over cooperation.
  Congress has paid the price in its approval ratings, but low approval 
ratings do not compare to the damage that this sort of politics 
inflicts upon the American people and our economy. Indeed, our Nation's 
working families are paying the price.
  There was a chance for the House to put working people first by 
allowing the full debate and vote on a number of amendments filed by 
Democrats that would have put people first. Unfortunately, the House 
Republican leadership blocked many of these amendments from being 
considered for this legislation.
  One amendment would have ensured that ``Buy America'' provisions 
could be implemented. Another amendment would have facilitated job 
protection and family leave for military families.

                              {time}  1650

  Another would have insured that Federal contractors recruit and 
employ veterans.
  Another amendment would have allowed health and safety officials to

[[Page 12214]]

continue their efforts to better protect the Nation's miners from black 
lung disease. The facts are indisputable. Black lung is on the rise 
again, and some mine operators are exploiting loopholes and obsolete 
rules to evade compliance. The present system is badly broken, and the 
improvements are desperately needed.
  It's time to move forward with modern protections based upon years of 
careful scientific study. Blocking efforts by the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration to modernize miner protections will only cost the 
lives, careers, and family income of those who go underground every day 
to provide the energy that this country needs.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the lives and the well-being of working 
people in serious peril. It threatens the effort to protect American 
jobs. It's not what the American people sent us here to do.
  It is well past time to put these transparently political efforts 
behind us and work together to re-energize the economy, to grow and to 
strengthen the middle class. And I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this very special interest bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the 
sponsor of the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, 
which is a part of this legislation.
  Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Red Tape Reduction 
and Small Business Jobs Creation Act.
  Now, time and time again, when I talk to small business owners in my 
district, they say that the number one challenge holding them back from 
expanding their business and hiring more workers is uncertainty in 
regulation and taxation.
  The current pro-regulatory administration has issued nearly four 
times the number of regulations as the previous administration. The 
administration's own numbers show that U.S. businesses spent over 8.8 
billion hours complying with Federal paperwork requirements. To put 
this into perspective, this is equal to 1 million years of filling out 
government paperwork.
  Mr. Chairman, one of these costly regulations that the EPA is 
currently imposing is the Regional Haze Rule that could close down 
power plants across the country, all for aesthetics. This regulation 
affects the Navajo generating station in Arizona, which could cost $1.1 
billion in initial compliance costs, hundreds of Arizona jobs, and cost 
$90 million a year, increasing the cost of electricity and water across 
the State of Arizona.
  And what does $90 million a year get us?
  Well, according to the administration's own study, they found 
inconclusive evidence that these regulations would improve visibility 
at all.
  Across the country, pro-regulatory environment groups are suing the 
EPA and forcing these haze requirements through settlement and consent 
decrees. In my home State of Arizona, the EPA entered into a consent 
decree with nine environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and 
the Environmental Defense Fund, which will affect the emission control 
technology at coal-fired power plants throughout the State.
  Regulations have costly and job-killing implications, and it is 
important that the rulemaking process is not written behind closed 
doors by activist groups and regulatory agencies.
  I am pleased that a bill that I have sponsored is included in this 
package, H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements 
Act. This legislation provides transparency to these sue-and-settle 
agreements and consent decrees, which are used by activist groups to 
dictate regulations behind closed doors, and often contrary to 
congressional intent, if an agency misses a statutory deadline.
  My bill ensures that interested parties will have an opportunity to 
provide comments and requires courts to consider the impact on States 
and tribes. Additionally, my bill makes it easier for future 
administrations to modify consent decrees as circumstances and facts 
dictate.
  This legislation is increasingly necessary as more statutory 
deadlines slip due to the large number of rulemakings that were 
mandated during the previous Congress, notably in ObamaCare and Dodd-
Frank.
  I urge my colleagues to support this pro-growth bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived measure which will do 
nothing to promote small business growth. Small businesses everywhere 
need help. They require affordable credit and greater demand for their 
services. Yet today we are focused on legislation that does nothing to 
address these challenges and, instead, pushes an extreme agenda.
  Despite what some assert, regulation is not among entrepreneurs' top 
concerns. In fact, surveys note that 85 percent of small business 
owners believe regulation is necessary. And I have with me a survey 
that was conducted last February by the American Sustainable Business 
Council, and I will enter this survey into the Record.

         Opinion Polling: The Economic State of Small Business

                              [Feb. 2012]

 (By the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance, 
                      and Small Business Majority)


                                Summary

       In January and February 2012, the American Sustainable 
     Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business 
     Majority released polling that asked small employers across 
     the country about key issues impacting the small business 
     community. These included access to credit; proposals in the 
     American Jobs Act to boost the economy; regulations; taxes; 
     and money in politics. Respondents were politically diverse: 
     50% identified as Republican, 32% as Democrat and 15% as 
     independent.
       The poll found nine in 10 small business owners have a 
     negative view of the role money plays in politics. The 
     results showed 90% of small business owners see the 
     availability of credit as a problem for small business and 
     they strongly favor increasing the lending authority of 
     community banks and credit unions. We also learned that 
     entrepreneurs support current proposals being debated in 
     Congress that aim to boost the economy and create jobs, 
     particularly investments in infrastructure.
       The polling revealed that consumer demand--not regulation--
     is small business owners' greatest concern. In fact, 86% see 
     regulation as a necessary part of a modern economy and three-
     quarters believe it is necessary to level the playing field 
     between small and large businesses. Lastly, 90% of small 
     business owners believe large corporations use loopholes to 
     avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay, and three-
     quarters say their own business suffers because of it.
       Below are the extended main findings of the poll.


                              Methodology

       The poll reflects an Internet survey of 500 small business 
     owners across the country, conducted by Lake Research. It has 
     a margin of error of +/-4.4%. The survey was conducted 
     between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. Researchers 
     used a random sample of small business owners obtained from 
     Harris Interactive, with additional samples from InfoUSA.


                           Money in Politics

       Polling results that revealed small business owners' 
     attitudes toward money in politics and the Citizens United 
     decision were released on Jan. 18.
       Small business owners view the Citizens United decision as 
     bad for small business: 66% of those surveyed said the two-
     year-old ruling that gives corporations unlimited spending 
     power in elections is bad for small businesses. Only 9% said 
     it was good for small business.
       Small business owners have a negative view of the role 
     money plays in politics overall: 88% of respondents view the 
     role money plays in politics negatively; 68% view it very 
     negatively.


          Access to Credit and Proposals to Boost the Economy

       Poll results that revealed small business owners' attitudes 
     toward credit availability were released on Jan. 26, 2012 in 
     conjunction with results showing their views on proposals in 
     the American Jobs Act.
       Small business owners say access to credit is a problem: 
     90% of respondents agree the availability of small business 
     loans is a problem, and 60% have faced difficulty themselves 
     when trying to obtain loans that would grow their businesses.

[[Page 12215]]

       Small business owners agree it is harder now to obtain 
     loans: 61% of respondents say it is harder now than it was 
     four years ago to get a loan.
       Small business owners support making it easier for 
     community banks and credit unions to lend more: 90% of owners 
     support making it easier for community banks and credit 
     unions to lend to small businesses, and more than three-
     quarters, or 77%, support creating incentives for community 
     banks to lend more. By more than a 2:1 ratio, respondents 
     support increasing credit unions' lending cap from 12.25% to 
     27.5% of a credit union's assets.
       Support for reforming and regulating credit cards is 
     extremely high among small business owners: 82% support 
     tighter credit card regulations, such as clearer disclosure 
     of terms and caps on interest rates, including 47% who 
     strongly support these regulations; 52% of entrepreneurs have 
     used credit cards to help finance their own business.
       Respondents favor reducing collateral requirements: 60% of 
     small business owners support reducing collateral 
     requirements so loans can become more accessible.
       The housing and mortgage crisis has harmed consumer demand 
     for small businesses: Almost three-quarters of small business 
     owners, or 73%, feel their business has been hurt by a drop 
     in consumer demand stemming from the housing and mortgage 
     meltdown.
       Small business owners believe reducing the principal on 
     underwater mortgages will boost spending: 57% of respondents 
     agree reducing the principal on underwater mortgages to the 
     current market value would boost consumer spending, helping 
     small businesses regain their vigor through increased 
     profits.
       Small business owners strongly support investment in 
     infrastructure: 69% favor investing $50 billion in 
     infrastructure projects that would create jobs.
       Entrepreneurs favor creating a nationwide wireless network: 
     59% of those surveyed are in support of creating this kind of 
     network and expanding access to high-speed wireless services.


                              Regulations

       Polling results that revealed small business owners' 
     attitudes toward government regulations were released on Feb. 
     1, 2012.
       Weak demand is small business owners' biggest problem: 34% 
     of respondents said weak demand is their biggest problem, 
     while 15% cited the cost of health coverage and other 
     benefits. Only 14% said it is the level of government 
     regulation. The level of taxes came in fourth place with 12% 
     and competition with larger companies garnered 10%.
       Small business owners believe eliminating incentives to 
     move jobs overseas would do the most to create jobs: 24% of 
     small business owners said eliminating incentives for 
     employers to move jobs overseas would do the most to create 
     jobs, and 14% called for tax cuts. Thirteen percent of 
     respondents said increasing consumer purchasing would be the 
     biggest job creator and 12% believe jobs lie in improving 
     infrastructure like roads and bridges. Only 10% of 
     respondents said reducing regulation would do the most to 
     create jobs.
       Small business owners see regulations as a necessary part 
     of a modern economy and believe they can live with them if 
     they're fair and reasonable: 86% of small business owners 
     agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern 
     economy, and 93% of them agree their business can live with 
     some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable.
       Small businesses believe some regulations are needed to 
     level the playing field with big business and that 
     enforcement should be just as tough on large corporations as 
     it is on small businesses: 78% of respondents said some 
     regulations are important to protect small businesses from 
     unfair competition and to level the playing field with big 
     businesses. Additionally, 95% believe the enforcement of 
     regulations should be at least as tough on large corporations 
     as it is on small businesses. Another 76% of respondents 
     believe regulations on the books should be enforced.
       Respondents feel strongly that specific regulations play an 
     important role: 78% believe policies are needed to hold 
     health insurance companies accountable so they don't increase 
     insurance rates by excessive amounts; 84% support policies 
     that ensure food safety for businesses and customers that buy 
     or sell food products and 80% support disclosure and 
     regulation of toxic materials.
       Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79% of 
     small business owners support having clean air and water in 
     their community in order to keep their family, employees and 
     customers healthy, and 61% support standards that move the 
     country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.
       Small business owners believe in streamlining the process 
     for regulatory compliance and documentation: 73% of 
     respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic 
     filing of government paperwork.


                                 Taxes

       Polling results that revealed small business owners' 
     attitudes toward taxes were released on Feb. 6.
       Small business owners overwhelmingly believe big 
     corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small 
     businesses have to pay: a sweeping 90% believe this to be 
     true; 92% say big corporations' use of such loopholes is a 
     problem.
       Nine out of 10 small business owners say U.S. multinational 
     corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S. 
     profits to offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem: 
     91% of respondents agreed it is a problem, with 55% saying it 
     is a very serious problem.
       Majority of small business owners say their business is 
     harmed when big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes: 
     Three-quarters of respondents agree that their small business 
     is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid 
     taxes. More than one-third say it harms their business a lot.
       Small business owners say big corporations are not paying 
     their fair share of taxes: 67% believe big corporations pay 
     less than their fair share of taxes. An even bigger majority, 
     73%, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair 
     share.
       Small business owners say households making more than $1 
     million a year pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58% 
     of owners say households whose annual income exceeds $1 
     million pay less than their fair share.
       Small business owners support a higher tax rate for 
     individuals earning more than $1 million a year: 57% of 
     respondents agree that individuals earning more than $1 
     million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income 
     over $1 million. Only one small business owner out of 500 
     polled reported their annual household income to be more than 
     $1 million.
       Four out of five small business owners disapprove of the 
     ``carried interest'' loophole that gives hedge fund managers 
     a big break on their taxes: 81% of small business owners 
     favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income 
     tax rate, with a top bracket rate currently set at 35%, 
     rather than the 15% capital gains rate--with 61% strongly 
     supporting this change.
       A majority of small business owners believe Congress should 
     let tax cuts expire on taxable household income exceeding 
     $250,000 a year: 51% of respondents believe Congress should 
     let tax cuts on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a 
     year expire (40% said they should be extended).


                        About the Organizations

     American Sustainable Business Council
       The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of 
     business organizations representing over 100,000 companies 
     and 200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for public 
     policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global 
     economy including strategic investments in workforce and 
     infrastructure; standards and safeguards that promote 
     innovation, prevent abuse and protect critical resources; and 
     a new sustainable economic model that fosters a growing, 
     economically-secure middle class. www.asbcouncil.org
     Main Street Alliance
       The Main Street Alliance is a national network of small 
     business coalitions. MSA creates opportunities for small 
     business owners to speak for themselves to advance public 
     policies that benefit business owners, their employees, and 
     the communities they serve. Making health reform work for 
     small businesses is a top priority of the MSA network and its 
     state coalitions. www.Mainstreetalliance.org
     Small Business Majority
       Small Business Majority is a national nonpartisan small 
     business advocacy organization, founded and run by small 
     business owners, and focused on solving the biggest problems 
     facing America's 28 million small businesses. We conduct 
     extensive opinion and economic research and work with small 
     business owners, policy experts and elected officials 
     nationwide to bring small business voices to the public 
     policy table. www.smallbusinessinajority.org

  This survey says that eight out of 10 think regulations have a role 
to play in leveling the playing field between small businesses and 
larger competitors that seek an unfair advantage.
  Even surveys by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses, who, themselves are vehemently 
against regulation, they find that small businesses rank economic 
uncertainty and poor sales, respectively, as the most important 
concerns, not regulation.
  There are a number of proposals that this House could pass to 
generate demand for small company services and empower them to hire. 
Tax credits for new employees, expanding payroll tax cuts, and 
extending tax cuts for working families all come to mind.
  Let's reject this legislation and move on to a real small business 
jobs act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority 
leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of legislation before us that will 
cut red

[[Page 12216]]

tape and spur small business job creation. Small businesses create the 
majority of new jobs in this country; but over the last 3 years, 
there's been a 23 percent decline in new business start-ups.
  The President says he wants to help grow small businesses; but, 
frankly, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. Recently, the 
President attacked hard-earned success, telling small businessmen and -
women and entrepreneurs that if you've got a business, you didn't build 
it. Well, it's pretty clear that the President doesn't get it.
  Since the President took office, his administration has had under 
review more than 400 regulations that cost the economy $100 million; 
and small businesses are facing annual regulatory costs that add up to 
$10,000 per employee.
  If you're a small business owner, this is just part of the maze of 
the regulatory red tape you're facing today. And where do we get the 
information for this chart? From President Obama's administration's own 
Web sites at SBA and the IRS.
  The president of a trucking company in Ashland, Virginia, in my 
district, says that constant regulatory changes by the EPA have caused 
the prices for his operation to go up. These rising costs have, 
frankly, made it more difficult for him to plan for the future, 
difficult for him to operate in the present and, frankly, have just 
made it plain too hard.
  We are voting today on cuts to red tape so we can empower small 
business owners like the one in Ashland to start growing again. Our 
legislation freezes costly new regulations until national unemployment 
drops to 6 percent or lower.
  Further, we give small businesses the ability to intervene before 
government agencies agree to legal settlements that result in more 
onerous regulation.

                              {time}  1700

  The bill also increases the transparency for Federal agencies that 
have been operating outside the purview of regulatory review, such as 
the Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that, just this year, thousands of pages of red 
tape have been published, imposing billions in new compliance costs on 
businesses. Under this bill, we will require all agencies to perform 
the thorough cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations. In other 
words, agencies must finally ask the question of whether and how their 
proposed actions will affect job creation and our economy. Federal 
regulation must become smarter and less harmful to our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, we know small businesses are built because of the men 
and women who take risks, work hard, and invest capital in new ideas. 
Because it's just too hard for these small business owners to operate, 
we've brought this bill forward, and that is why I urge my colleagues 
to support the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to just remark on the words of the distinguished speaker 
on the Republican side by saying that another Republican has a 
completely different point of view, who was the former chairman of the 
House Committee on Science, and was so for over 5 years. He is Sherwood 
Boehlert, and many of us remember him fondly.
  He says that it would be ``difficult to exaggerate the sweep and 
destructiveness of the House bill.'' He is referring to H.R. 4078.

       The legislation might as well just directly order the 
     agencies that were created to protect the public to close up 
     shop.

  Then he goes on to say:

       There is no indication that this bill would aid job growth. 
     Indeed, by blocking rules needed to make the economy run more 
     smoothly, the bill could harm our economic prospects for 
     years to come.

  So I present to you a point of view of the Republican leader of the 
House of Representatives, a distinguished Republican and former 
chairman of the Committee on Science in 2001 and 2006.
  I now yield such time as she may desire to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. To the distinguished ranking member and my good friend, 
thank you for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very troubled about this bill. Instead of 
considering legislation that would create jobs and stimulate economic 
growth, the House is going to take up and vote on a bill that does the 
exact opposite. In fact, it has the enormous potential of delaying the 
implementation of new spectrum and public safety law.
  Now, I don't know if you vetted your own effort, so to speak, but it 
was not all that long ago--it was earlier this year--that Congress 
passed and the President signed into law landmark legislation that 
implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. The legislation 
also made more spectrum available for mobile broadband services. This 
was the last recommendation that the 9/11 Commission had made.
  Congress finally made good on that recommendation, which was to 
establish a nationwide interoperable public safety network. Why? 
Because on that fateful day in New York, when police and fire went into 
those Twin Towers, their communications systems did not allow them to 
communicate with each other, to talk to each other. We finally, on a 
bipartisan basis, resolved that.
  Also, at the time of the passage of that legislation, Mr. Chairman, 
we all praised it. We described the billions of dollars in new 
investment as well as the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be 
created as a result of the legislation, calling it an economic game 
changer.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the bill 
that you dragged to the floor today, H.R. 4078, which is what we are 
considering, suggests that this legislation could delay this critical 
investment and the job creation that comes with it.
  My rhetorical question to the majority is: Do you even know what 
you're doing? I don't think the left hand knows what the right hand is 
doing.
  Now, I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee, which was not 
made in order, that would have exempted the legislation I'm referring 
to: that any agency rulemaking that creates jobs or protects public 
safety, including the provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012 that pay for the creation of a nationwide public 
safety broadband network through voluntary spectrum incentive auctions, 
be exempt. That was not made in order.
  So all I can do is come to the floor and use the voice that my 
constituents have entrusted to me to stand up for things that really 
make sense for our country, bipartisan legislation, which your 
legislation today really screws up--in plain English. With the auction 
of this prime spectrum expected to raise over $25 billion, the passage 
of this legislation, H.R. 4078, will not only delay access to this 
critical revenue, but on top of that, you've brought to the floor 
really bad policy.
  That's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the final passage 
of this legislation, because it messes up the good work that we were 
able to bring forward with, really, I think, a political advertising 
message. This is not serious legislation. What is serious about it is 
the damage that it will do to legislation that, on a bipartisan basis, 
we worked so hard on to make law. This essentially comes behind it as 
the wrecking crew.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
  I find it interesting that we are sitting here having a discussion 
about regulations in this context. I believe that it is the regulations 
that are the by-product of this process that we engage in here. It's 
called ``legislation.''
  The regulatory process is not the fourth branch of government that 
has no accountability to anyone and that can basically do whatever the 
heck it darn well pleases. The agencies that we are talking about here 
today, none of which exist in the Constitution, were created by this 
Congress, which means, if we created you, we can darn well talk about 
the regulations that you provided.

[[Page 12217]]

  When I hear words like ``ideology,'' ``cynicism,'' ``really bad 
policy,'' what is the danger in predictability, for instance, in the 
timing of the regulatory process?
  There is nothing in this legislation which changes the substance of 
agency discretion in how they go about their business. What we are 
talking about here is the process, the process by which you go to 
provide some predictability and stability to those people who are 
trying to talk about investing capital, hiring workers and things like 
that.
  I urge your support. I thank Mr. Griffin and Mr. Ross for their 
efforts in this area.
  Mr. CONYERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), who is a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, my former chairman on Judiciary, for 
yielding the time to me.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, Mr. Chairman, and I am standing 
behind 2-weeks' worth of regulatory material produced in the Federal 
Register, which is the official record keeper of regulations here in 
Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  1710

  This represents the issue that we are talking about, Mr. Chairman. We 
need to stop sending this regulatory burden to our job creators back in 
the districts, back on the frontline that are creating the jobs of 
today and tomorrow.
  I believe there is a clear distinction between the two philosophies 
that are on display this afternoon in this Chamber. The other side is 
standing up for regulation, standing up for Big Government. I've come 
here as a firm believer in the private sector and small business 
America. We will stand for them day in and day out. Mr. Chairman, this 
pile of material, this pile of regulations is not good for our job 
creators. We can do better. We must do better for our children and 
grandchildren.
  With that, I ask support for H.R. 4078 and the corresponding long-
term fix, the REINS Act, which will go a long way to taking care of 
this problem in perpetuity.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is the vice chairman of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, the Regulatory 
Freeze for Jobs Act. At a time when new regulation after new regulation 
is being proposed by the Obama administration, it is critical that we 
restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure 
that our Nation's small businesses do not continue down in a sea of red 
tape.
  I thank Congressman Griffin, Chairman Smith, Chairman Issa, Leader 
Cantor, and the Rules Committee for including the SEC Regulatory 
Accountability Act as part of title VI of this legislation. This 
legislation subjects the SEC to the President's executive order. What 
that does is require enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirements, as 
well as require a review of existing regulations.
  Title VI will enhance the SEC existing cost-benefit analysis 
requirements by requiring the commission to first clearly identify a 
problem that would be addressed before issuing any new rules and to 
require that the cost-benefit analysis be performed by the SEC's chief 
economist.
  While the SEC already has certain cost-benefit requirements relative 
to rulemaking, recent court decisions have simply vacated or remanded 
several of these rules and have specifically pointed out deficiencies 
in the Commission's use of cost-benefit analysis. For example, recently 
the SEC Inspector General issued a report that expressed several 
concerns he had about the quality of the SEC's cost-benefit analysis. 
It found absolutely none of the rulemaking it examined attempted to 
quantify either benefits or costs, other than information and 
collection costs. This bill now will ensure that the benefits of any 
rulemaking outweigh the costs, and that both new and existing 
regulations are accountable, consistent, written in plain language, and 
simply easy to understand.
  Title VI also will require the SEC to assess the costs and benefits 
of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of 
simply not regulating, and choose the approach that maximizes the 
benefits.
  Under the bill, the SEC shall also evaluate whether a proposed 
regulation is inconsistent, whether it is incompatible, or duplicates 
other Federal regulation, as well. Because some regulations have been 
politicized in the past, this bill will require that the examinations 
be done by the Commission's chief economist.
  These are really just commonsense reforms and are appropriate, 
especially given the fact that the Commission continues to struggle 
with this issue. For instance, the D.C. Court of Appeals, which vacated 
the Commission's proxy access rule, stated: ``The commission acted 
arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again to adequately 
assess the economic effects of a new rule'' and also ``inconsistently 
and opportunistically framed costs and benefits of the rule.''
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes a new section adopted by the 
subcommittee to provide a clearer post-implementation assessment of all 
new regulations so that these post-implementation cost-benefit 
analyses, in addition to pre-implementation, will be done correctly.
  Finally, it's a commonsense approach, and it's a pragmatic approach 
to a rulemaking process. I support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 5\1/2\ minutes, and 
the gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. At this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, a 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 4078, the so-called Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job 
Creation Act.
  This mother of all anti-regulation bills is actually a repackaging of 
a noxious potpourri of previously introduced bills that would make it 
virtually impossible for the executive branch and its agencies to 
protect the American public. This bill would block the issuance of 
regulations regardless of how vital they are to safeguarding the 
public's health. They want to eliminate regulations that keep our 
workers safe and which would rein in the excesses of Wall Street.
  Why? So that they can please their crony capitalist brothers, the 
Koch brothers, and also their crony capitalist friends in the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce. They want to keep them happy.
  Instead of creating jobs, the Tea Party Republicans are assaulting 
the very regulations that ensure that we have clean air to breathe and 
clean water to drink; regulations that protect our children from unsafe 
products like toys, like clothing and bedding, baby food, regulations 
that protect seniors from adulterated medicines and unsafe substances 
that they use.
  They essentially want to create so many barriers and obstacles to the 
promulgation of regulations that it's virtually impossible to do so. 
They want to keep these Federal agencies from doing their job, which is 
to protect the health, safety, and well-being of this country.
  This isn't red tape reduction, folks. This is a philosophy of putting 
profits over people. The House is in session for 6 more days prior to 
our August break. After that, we have maybe about 10 legislative days 
left before the end of the year. What have we accomplished in this 
Congress? Bills like this. And we've voted to rescind and repeal 
ObamaCare over and over again. We're now up to number 34 votes on that.
  What do we have pending here? We have the Bush tax cuts, which we all

[[Page 12218]]

agree that we should keep in place for the middle class; but because we 
don't agree to extend them for the Koch brothers and the other crony 
capitalists that this party represents, they're not willing to get that 
done. They don't want to do the payroll tax cuts, the tax extenders, 
the AMT patch, unemployment benefits, the doc fix, and sequestration. 
All of this remains to be wrapped up within the next 10 days or so, 
plus 6, the next 2 weeks of legislative activity.
  So to think that this legislation would be effective in bringing 
reasonable regulations through this Congress, is absurd.

                              {time}  1720

  We should be creating jobs legislatively. We should be helping 
veterans adjust to civilian life. We should be taking measures to 
impact the ongoing taking of homes of individuals in foreclosure. There 
is so much that we should be doing instead of appeasing our crony 
capitalist friends. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
fundamentally flawed bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I am pleased to come to the floor after my colleague from Georgia. He 
and I share a common border and we share a lot of common ground, but I 
have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, he could not be more wrong today. 
Because this bill does one thing, and it does one thing only, and that 
is to say that whatever it is that the people's House decides, whatever 
it is that the people's Congress decides and sends to the executive 
branch for implementation, that it come right back here at the end, if 
it's that big. If it's over $100 million, if it's that big, it come 
right back here so that we confirm that they got it right.
  Now, as I listened to my friend's words, Mr. Chairman, I might 
believe this is something a Republican Congress was doing to a 
Democratic administration. But I daresay, what is so important about 
the work the chairman is doing is this isn't about a Republican House 
and a Democratic administration. This is about good oversight for a 
Republican House and a Republican administration, and this is about 
good oversight for a Democratic House and a Democratic administration.
  I will say to my friend, Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely right about 
all the work we have left to get done this year, but the oversight that 
we do, the oversight is so important. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, I 
believe my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle fell short in 
that respect over a Democratic administration, and I am certain that my 
friends on the Republican side of the aisle fell short on that during a 
Republican administration.
  The chairman is giving us an opportunity to change that, and change 
that in statute, and I hope that my friend from Georgia is going to 
join me in that effort.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  I really enjoy the fact that we share a common border, and we have 
worked together to try to traverse that border and come to a consensus 
on issues that affect the people of our districts. And I think that's 
exactly what this Congress should be about but, unfortunately, due to 
an obstructionist strategy, we've not been successful.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
  The gentleman from Michigan has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no way, with the many regulations 
that need to be promulgated and put into effect, that we would be able 
to do that here in Congress instead of letting the stakeholders, the 
business community, and the regulatory agencies work things out. 
There's no way that we're going to be able to handle that in Congress.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I say to my friend that the children we share across our 
common border, there is not one regulation that this Congress would 
send to the executive branch that you and I would not come together and 
pass for the benefit of those children.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, what about Wall Street 
regulations? We would not be able to come to an agreement on that.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time controlled by the gentleman from Michigan 
has expired.
  The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this act. This legislation would provide 
important regulatory reforms, and it couldn't come at a better time for 
the economy. In particular, I am pleased to support my colleague from 
Arizona, Congressman Quayle's Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
Settlements Act that is included in this legislation.
  In the West, we have seen the EPA adopt what appears to be a 
contemplated strategy with respect to the implementation of the Clean 
Air Act regional haze requirements that includes ignoring submitted 
State plans addressing air quality issues, inviting lawsuits from 
nongovernmental organizations, and then agreeing to consent decrees 
that result in Federal intervention.
  While this ``sue and settle'' strategy raises a host of issues, in 
this instance, it tramples on States' prerogatives, and it flies in the 
face of Congress' explicit intent to let the States lead when it comes 
to air quality decisions.
  In Arizona, for example, EPA has previously flatly ignored the 
State's plan for dealing with regional haze. They have instead agreed 
to a consent decree without even consulting ADEQ, the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality, that would result in a federally 
driven and needlessly costly outcome that will not be beneficial to 
Arizona's residents. While Arizona has sued to be allowed to intervene 
and is appealing the consent decree, it is likely this scenario would 
have been more beneficial to Arizonans had this legislation been in 
place.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and, in doing so, 
support Congress' intent that the States lead when it comes to air 
quality planning.
  Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, job creation is the key to economic recovery. But 
overregulation kills jobs and burdens small businesses, which are 
America's main job generators.
  The Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act offers 
many commonsense, bipartisan solutions to the problem of 
overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the 
Regulatory Accountability Act, and the REINS Act, the bill before us 
today offers more commonsense, bipartisan solutions to protect small 
businesses from even more wasteful job-killing regulations and red 
tape.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I 
look forward to its passage and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4078 would help to rein in the 
nontransparent and undemocratic activities of this Administration. 
There is one agency that personifies runaway regulations: the EPA.
  I'd like to highlight a backdoor power grab being pursued by EPA that 
demonstrates the need for this bill. As a member of the Science 
Committee, I'm concerned that this Agency is trying to expand its power 
under the guise of ``sustainability.'' Without any legal authority or 
input from Congress, EPA has committed to ``incorporate sustainability 
principles into [their] policies, regulations, and actions,'' has 
signed MOUs with DOD and the Army on sustainability, and has spent 
untold taxpayer dollars on UN conferences in Brazil and multiple 
National Academy of Sciences reports on this topic.

[[Page 12219]]

  What is sustainability? That's a good question, and apparently it 
means whatever EPA wants it to mean. For example, one EPA website on 
this topic lists 16 different definitions of ``sustainability.'' Based 
on the track record of this Agency and this Administration, I fear that 
this new policy is designed to expand federal power to enact more 
billion dollar regulations without the consent of Congress.
  This bill will help control arbitrary and cumbersome federal 
regulations on job creators in my district in south Mississippi.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4078, which 
would prohibit agencies from issuing significant rules until the 
unemployment rate falls below 6%.
  Similar to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I 
support a comprehensive review of federal regulations to make them more 
effective and efficient. I am, however, strongly opposed to any measure 
which will prevent the government from exercising its rule making power 
and in turn jeopardize the health and safety of the American people.
  H.R. 4078 is based on the falsehood that regulations kill jobs. The 
Oversight Committee has held 28 hearings this Congress, touting this 
absurd theory in spite of an abundance of evidence to the contrary. 
Regulations have been found to have little overall impact on job 
creation. In many cases, regulations have had a positive impact on job 
growth.
  To continue to tie regulations to job growth is arbitrary and 
misleading to the American people. This bill asks the public to choose 
between saving their lives through the enactment of regulations that 
will protect their health and safety--and saving a job which may or may 
not be created because of the regulation.
  In other words, people are being asked to choose a job over their 
very lives. It is wrong to ask anyone to do this. It is worse than 
wrong--in fact, it is criminal--to ask people to make this choice when 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that the probability 
of losing a job because of regulation is just an illusion.
  H.R. 4078 puts the interests of business before the interests of 
people. The Chairman of this Committee sent hundreds of letters to 
groups representing industry, asking them which regulations they would 
like to see repealed. Many of the corporations that submitted responses 
to the Committee have had skyrocketing profits over the past several 
years, and they are looking to this Congress to put even more profits 
into their pockets by passage of this bill.
  These are the same companies that are cutting jobs and sending 
American jobs overseas--not because of any regulation, but simply 
because they want cheaper labor to increase their profit margin. The 
presence or absence of a regulation will not stop them from outsourcing 
American jobs.
  Mr. Chair, I refuse to take part in any measure that places profits 
before people. I refuse to sanction any legislation that requires the 
government to consult with business interests before a rule reaches the 
public for debate. Industry has shown that it will always choose a 
pathway to higher profit regardless of the impact of a measure on the 
health and well-being of people.
  It is not difficult to imagine the destruction H.R. 4078 will bring 
on important safeguards to the public health and safety if it is 
passed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any curtailment of the 
government's ability to regulate the health and safety of the American 
People by voting no on H.R. 4078.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 4078, which would cut critical regulations not with a scalpel but, 
like many have said, with a nuclear bomb. The transportation 
authorization bill, MAP-21, which this body passed with a widely 
bipartisan vote, included many important safety and efficiency 
regulations, but my amendment to exempt them was not made in order.
  If signed into law, this bill would pull the emergency brake and stop 
safety regulations which were just enacted. One important regulation 
this bill would block is the installation of seatbelts in motorcoaches. 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes these 
seatbelts could reduce the risk of fatalities in rollover crashes by 77 
percent. Safety improvements like these will help prevent all too 
common transportation disasters, like the motorcoach crash in 2007 
which killed 7 members of the Bluffton University baseball team in 
Ohio.
  This is just a single example of the critical regulations that H.R. 
4078 would halt indiscriminately. I urge the House to reject this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, this legislation is an amalgam of seven 
dangerously misguided bills designed to shut down a breathtaking number 
of safeguards and protections citizens rely on--from the quality of 
health care seniors receive to the safety of infant formula babies 
drink to the benefits our veterans have earned. As former Republican 
Congressman Sherry Boehlert has warned: ``It's difficult to exaggerate 
the sweep and destructiveness of . . . (this) . . . bill.''
  The core of H.R. 4078 proposes to freeze most regulatory action until 
the nation's unemployment rate hits 6 percent--as if the quality of 
seniors' health care, the safety of infant formula or the availability 
of veterans' benefits should depend on where the nation's unemployment 
rate is. Another provision of H.R. 4078 would block so called 
``midnight rules'' issued in the final days of an outgoing 
administration--without any apparent recognition that the offshore 
drilling bill the majority brought to the floor of the House just 
yesterday was itself largely proposed as a ``midnight'' regulation in 
the final days of the Bush Administration. Still other provisions in 
H.R. 4078 would tie up the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission with additional paperwork, thereby 
diverting already scarce resources from other critical functions, like 
ensuring transparency and accountability in our financial markets.
  Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to regulatory reform. Where a regulation 
is truly wasteful, unnecessary or duplicative, we should fix it or get 
rid of it. But, like the comedy of errors surrounding the numerous 
typos leading up to consideration of this bill, H.R. 4078 is a poorly 
conceived, hastily thrown together mess. The American people deserve 
better.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, the House considered H.R. 4078, the Regulatory 
Freeze for Jobs Act. Like the REINS Act and other similar legislation 
this chamber has considered--and I have opposed--the Regulatory Freeze 
for Jobs Act (H.R. 4078) would prevent federal agencies from developing 
and implementing regulations that protect public health, consumers, and 
our environment.
  One of the majority's primary arguments for this bill is that 
regulations kill jobs by making it hard for businesses to do what they 
need to do to succeed. In the current economy, this sounds plausible. 
Unfortunately, the facts and data do not support this claim.
  Since 2007 the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has asked businesses 
that have laid off large numbers of workers what caused them to make 
such layoffs. According to the BLS's survey data government regulations 
contributed to only 0.2 percent of layoffs in 2009, 2010 and through 
the first half of 2011.
  Instead, the BLS found that the number one reason companies made mass 
layoffs was because of reduced demand for their products or services 
from consumers.
  Surveys conducted by the American Sustainable Business Council, the 
Main Street Alliance, and the Small Business Majority also found that 
lack of demand is the primary challenge facing businesses today--not 
regulations.
  One of the other arguments the majority has advanced to support their 
claim that regulations hurt the economy is that there will be 
``unintended consequences.'' Again, this sounds plausible given the 
state of our economy. But again, this assertion does not hold up 
against the facts.
  Take, for example, the Clean Air Act and the regulations that 
resulted from the law. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act 
Amendments on a strong bipartisan basis. Despite concerns raised by 
industry over the cost of the rules mandated by the law, the decade 
following its enactment was a great time U.S. businesses. The economy 
created 21 million jobs, and we had the longest period of sustained 
economic growth in national history.
  In fact, since passage of the initial Clean Air Act over 40 years 
ago, our economy has grown by over 200 percent. At the same time, we 
have improved the nation's air quality and the health of the American 
people by reducing toxic and health threatening air pollutants by 60 
percent. The estimated economic benefits from lower health care costs, 
less illness and premature death, and increased worker productivity of 
the Clean Air Act are expected to reach the $2 trillion mark in 2020. 
This exceeds the projected costs of implementing the regulations by 
more than 30 to 1.
  We can also look at the recent financial crisis as a cautionary tale 
of the ``unintended consequences'' of not having appropriate safeguards 
put in place.
  In 1994 Congress gave the Federal Reserve authority to regulate 
subprime and other high risk mortgages. It took them until 2008 to do 
anything with that authority. Unfortunately, 2008 was too late to 
prevent the housing bubble that popped and set off a financial crisis 
that cost American families $6.5 trillion in household wealth, millions 
of jobs, and required significant resources from the federal government 
to address.
  Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted to the 
House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee in 2008 that he'd been 
wrong about the housing bubble and should have done more.

[[Page 12220]]

  These stories illustrate the importance of responsible environmental 
and consumer protections to a strong economy, strong communities, and 
healthy families. Yet none of this information or experience seems to 
have had any impact on the majority.
  In fact, the bill today would likely delay regulations like the 
mercury and air toxics rule. According to estimates, each year that we 
delay implementing this rule means 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 
cases of asthma, 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits for 
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and 850,000 days of missed work 
and school due to illness.
  In addition, every year approximately 1.2 million people get sick, 
7,125 people are hospitalized, and 134 people die from foodborne 
illnesses attributed to contaminated produce. Enacting this bill would 
halt progress on implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act to 
reduce these contaminations and protect our families.
  The Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act would arbitrarily freeze all 
regulations until unemployment is below 6 percent, prevent regulations 
from being developed and implemented during presidential transitions, 
expose regulations to court challenges that will increase uncertainty, 
and make other changes to procedures for developing and implementing 
regulations.
  These changes would primarily accomplish one thing--undermining the 
government's ability to do its job efficiently and cost effectively.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that these changes would 
freeze routine updates to programs like payment rates for services to 
Medicare patients. This would have a negative impact on doctors and 
seniors.
  CBO also estimates that the legislation ``would have a significant 
effect on direct spending'' because laws could not be implemented 
properly--unnecessarily increasing the deficit.
  H.R. 4078 would also give regulated industries the ability to 
influence rules behind closed doors by requiring that agencies consult 
with private industry stakeholders before proposed rules are made 
available for public comment. The changes made under this bill would 
also allow regulations to be challenged and delayed, increasing 
uncertainty for businesses and the economy--which seems to run counter 
to the majority's primary argument for the bill in the first place.
  This bill also ignores the work that the Obama Administration has 
been engaged in to review current regulations in order to eliminate 
outdated, obsolete, and ineffective rules. The President placed a 
premium on getting feedback on this effort from the public--including 
the business community. As a result paperwork burdens, unnecessary or 
outdated rules, and barriers to exporting and other job creating 
activities have been or will be eliminated. These changes are projected 
to save taxpayers billions in the coming years.
  Now is not the time to put the brakes on this effort, which has been 
open, transparent and appropriately balances the need for responsible 
safeguards for consumers, the environment, and public health with the 
need for a strong and growing economy.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform, 
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-28, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 112-616, is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4078

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Red Tape Reduction and Small 
     Business Job Creation Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                  TITLE I--REGULATORY FREEZE FOR JOBS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Moratorium on significant regulatory actions.
Sec. 103. Waivers and exceptions.
Sec. 104. Judicial review.
Sec. 105. Definitions.

                     TITLE II--MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Moratorium on midnight rules.
Sec. 203. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial 
              deadlines.
Sec. 204. Exception.
Sec. 205. Definitions.

             TITLE III--REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Consent decree and settlement reform.
Sec. 303. Motions to modify consent decrees.
Sec. 304. Effective date.

        TITLE IV--UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Purpose.
Sec. 403. Providing for Congressional Budget Office studies on policies 
              involving changes in conditions of grant aid.
Sec. 404. Clarifying the definition of direct costs to reflect 
              Congressional Budget Office practice.
Sec. 405. Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include 
              regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies.
Sec. 406. Amendments to replace Office of Management and Budget with 
              Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sec. 407. Applying substantive point of order to private sector 
              mandates.
Sec. 408. Regulatory process and principles.
Sec. 409. Expanding the scope of statements to accompany significant 
              regulatory actions.
Sec. 410. Enhanced stakeholder consultation.
Sec. 411. New authorities and responsibilities for Office of 
              Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sec. 412. Retrospective analysis of existing Federal regulations.
Sec. 413. Expansion of judicial review.

   TITLE V--IMPROVED COORDINATION OF AGENCY ACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL 
                               DOCUMENTS

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Coordination of agency administrative operations for 
              efficient decisionmaking.

 TITLE VI--SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of 
              the costs and benefits of its regulations and certain 
              other agency actions.
Sec. 603. Sense of Congress Relating to Other Regulatory Entities.

  TITLE VII--CONSIDERATION BY COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF 
                       CERTAIN COSTS AND BENEFITS

Sec. 701. Consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of 
              the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.

                  TITLE I--REGULATORY FREEZE FOR JOBS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Regulatory Freeze for Jobs 
     Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 102. MORATORIUM ON SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.

       (a) Moratorium.--An agency may not take any significant 
     regulatory action during the period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and ending on the date that the 
     Secretary of Labor submits the report under subsection (b).
       (b) Determination.--The Secretary of Labor shall submit a 
     report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     when the Secretary determines that the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics average of monthly employment rates for any 
     quarter beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     is equal to or less than 6.0 percent.

     SEC. 103. WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, an agency may take a significant regulatory 
     action only in accordance with subsection (b), (c), or (d) 
     during the period described in section 102(a).
       (b) Presidential Waiver.--An agency may take a significant 
     regulatory action if the President determines by Executive 
     Order that the significant regulatory action is--
       (1) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       (2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal or civil 
     rights laws;
       (3) necessary for the national security of the United 
     States; or
       (4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
     international trade agreement.
       (c) Deregulatory Exception.--An agency may take a 
     significant regulatory action if the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget certifies in writing that the 
     significant regulatory action is limited to repealing an 
     existing rule.
       (d) Congressional Waivers.--
       (1) Submission.--For any significant regulatory action not 
     eligible for a Presidential waiver pursuant to subsection 
     (b), the President may submit a written request to Congress 
     for a waiver of the application of section 102 for such 
     action.
       (2) Contents.--A submission by the President under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) identify the significant regulatory action and the 
     scope of the requested waiver;

[[Page 12221]]

       (B) describe all the reasons the significant regulatory 
     action is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or 
     welfare; and
       (C) include an explanation of why the significant 
     regulatory action is ineligible for a Presidential waiver 
     under subsection (b).
       (3) Congressional action.--Congress shall give expeditious 
     consideration and take appropriate legislative action with 
     respect to any submission by the President under this 
     subsection.

     SEC. 104. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Review.--Any party adversely affected or aggrieved by 
     any rule or guidance resulting from a regulatory action taken 
     in violation of this title is entitled to judicial review in 
     accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Any 
     determination by either the President or the Secretary of 
     Labor under this title shall be subject to judicial review 
     under such chapter.
       (b) Jurisdiction.--Each court having jurisdiction to review 
     any rule or guidance resulting from a significant regulatory 
     action for compliance with any other provision of law shall 
     have jurisdiction to review all claims under this title.
       (c) Relief.--In granting any relief in any civil action 
     under this section, the court shall order the agency to take 
     corrective action consistent with this title and chapter 7 of 
     title 5, United States Code, including remanding the rule or 
     guidance resulting from the significant regulatory action to 
     the agency and enjoining the application or enforcement of 
     that rule or guidance, unless the court finds by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that application or enforcement 
     is required to protect against an imminent and serious threat 
     to the national security of the United States.
       (d) Reasonable Attorney's Fees for Small Businesses.--The 
     court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a 
     substantially prevailing small business in any civil action 
     arising under this title. A small business may qualify as 
     substantially prevailing even without obtaining a final 
     judgment in its favor if the agency that took the significant 
     regulatory action changes its position after the civil action 
     is filed.
       (e) Limitation on Commencing Civil Action.--A party may 
     seek and obtain judicial review during the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date of the challenged agency action or 
     within 90 days after an enforcement action or notice thereof, 
     except that where another provision of law requires that a 
     civil action be commenced before the expiration of that 1-
     year period, such lesser period shall apply.
       (f) Small Business Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``small business'' means any business, including an 
     unincorporated business or a sole proprietorship, that 
     employs not more than 500 employees or that has a net worth 
     of less than $7,000,000 on the date a civil action arising 
     under this title is filed.

     SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except 
     that such term does not include--
       (A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
       (B) the Federal Open Market Committee; or
       (C) the United States Postal Service.
       (2) Regulatory action.--The term ``regulatory action'' 
     means any substantive action by an agency that promulgates or 
     is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or 
     regulation, including a notice of inquiry, an advance notice 
     of proposed rulemaking, and a notice of proposed rulemaking.
       (3) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Significant regulatory action.--The term ``significant 
     regulatory action'' means any regulatory action that is 
     likely to result in a rule or guidance that the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the 
     Office of Management and Budget finds is likely to have an 
     annual cost to the economy of $100,000,000 or more or 
     adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 
     the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
     environment, public health or safety, small entities, or 
     State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
       (5) Small entity.--The term ``small entity'' has the 
     meaning given that term under section 601(6) of title 5, 
     United States Code.

                     TITLE II--MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Midnight Rule Relief Act 
     of 2012''.

     SEC. 202. MORATORIUM ON MIDNIGHT RULES.

       Except as provided under sections 203 and 204, during the 
     moratorium period, an agency may not propose or finalize any 
     midnight rule that the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget finds is likely to result in an annual 
     cost to the economy of $100,000,000 or more or adversely 
     affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
     economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
     public health or safety, small entities, or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities.

     SEC. 203. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND JUDICIAL 
                   DEADLINES.

       (a) In General.--Section 202 shall not apply with respect 
     to any deadline--
       (1) for, relating to, or involving any midnight rule;
       (2) that was established before the beginning of the 
     moratorium period; and
       (3) that is required to be taken during the moratorium 
     period.
       (b) Publication of Deadlines.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the beginning of a moratorium period, the Administrator of 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall identify and publish in 
     the Federal Register a list of deadlines covered by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 204. EXCEPTION.

       (a) Emergency Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to a 
     midnight rule if the President determines that the midnight 
     rule is--
       (1) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       (2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal or civil 
     rights laws;
       (3) necessary for the national security of the United 
     States; or
       (4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
     international trade agreement.
       (b) Deregulatory Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to 
     a midnight rule that the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of 
     Management and Budget certifies in writing is limited to 
     repealing an existing rule.
       (c) Notice of Exceptions.--Not later than 30 days after a 
     determination under subsection (a) or a certification is made 
     under subsection (b), the head of the relevant agency shall 
     publish in the Federal Register any midnight rule excluded 
     from the moratorium period due to an exception under this 
     section.

     SEC. 205. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except 
     that such term does not include--
       (A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
       (B) the Federal Open Market Committee; or
       (C) the United States Postal Service.
       (2) Deadline.--The term ``deadline'' means any date certain 
     for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any authority 
     established by or under any Federal statute or rule, or by or 
     under any court order implementing any Federal statute, 
     regulation, or rule.
       (3) Moratorium period.--The term ``moratorium period'' 
     means the day after the day referred to in section 1 of title 
     3, United States Code, through January 20 of the following 
     year, in which a President is not serving a consecutive term.
       (4) Midnight rule.--The term ``midnight rule'' means an 
     agency statement of general applicability and future effect, 
     issued during the moratorium period, that is intended to have 
     the force and effect of law and is designed--
       (A) to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy; or
       (B) to describe the procedure or practice requirements of 
     an agency.
       (5) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (6) Small entity.--The term ``small entity'' has the 
     meaning given that term under section 601(6) of title 5, 
     United States Code.

             TITLE III--REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Sunshine for Regulatory 
     Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 302. CONSENT DECREE AND SETTLEMENT REFORM.

       (a) Application.--The provisions of this section apply in 
     the case of--
       (1) a consent decree or settlement agreement in an action 
     to compel agency action alleged to be unlawfully withheld or 
     unreasonably delayed that pertains to a regulatory action 
     that affects the rights of private parties other than the 
     plaintiff or the rights of State, local or Tribal government 
     entities--
       (A) brought under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code; 
     or
       (B) brought under any other statute authorizing such an 
     action; and
       (2) any other consent decree or settlement agreement that 
     requires agency action that pertains to a regulatory action 
     that affects the rights of private parties other than the 
     plaintiff or the rights of State, local or Tribal government 
     entities.
       (b) In General.--In the case of an action to be resolved by 
     a consent decree or a settlement agreement described in 
     paragraph (1), the following shall apply:
       (1) The complaint in the action, the consent decree or 
     settlement agreement, the statutory basis for the consent 
     decree or settlement agreement and its terms, and any award 
     of attorneys' fees or costs shall be published, including 
     electronically, in a readily accessible manner by the 
     defendant agency.
       (2) Until the conclusion of an opportunity for affected 
     parties to intervene in the action, a party may not file with 
     the court a motion for a consent decree or to dismiss the 
     case pursuant to a settlement agreement.
       (3) In considering a motion to intervene by any party that 
     would be affected by the agency action in dispute, the court 
     shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that the interests of 
     that party would not be represented adequately by the current 
     parties to the action. In considering a motion to intervene 
     filed by a State, local or Tribal government entity, the 
     court shall take due account of whether the movant--
       (A) administers jointly with the defendant agency the 
     statutory provisions that give rise to the regulatory duty 
     alleged in the complaint; or
       (B) administers State, local or Tribal regulatory authority 
     that would be preempted by the

[[Page 12222]]

     defendant agency's discharge of the regulatory duty alleged 
     in the complaint.
       (4) If the court grants a motion to intervene in the 
     action, the court shall include the plaintiff, the defendant 
     agency, and the intervenors in settlement discussions. 
     Settlement efforts conducted shall be pursuant to a court's 
     mediation or alternative dispute resolution program, or by a 
     district judge, magistrate judge, or special master, as 
     determined by the assigned judge.
       (5) The defendant agency shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and by electronic means any proposed consent decree 
     or settlement agreement for no fewer than 60 days of public 
     comment before filing it with the court, including a 
     statement of the statutory basis for the proposed consent 
     decree or settlement agreement and its terms, allowing 
     comment on any issue related to the matters alleged in the 
     complaint or addressed or affected by the consent decree or 
     settlement agreement.
       (6) The defendant agency shall--
       (A) respond to public comments received under paragraph 
     (5); and
       (B) when moving that the court enter the consent decree or 
     for dismissal pursuant to the settlement agreement--
       (i) inform the court of the statutory basis for the 
     proposed consent decree or settlement agreement and its 
     terms;
       (ii) submit to the court a summary of the public comments 
     and agency responses;
       (iii) certify the index to the administrative record of the 
     notice and comment proceeding to the court; and
       (iv) make that record fully accessible to the court.
       (7) The court shall include in the judicial record the full 
     administrative record, the index to which was certified by 
     the agency under paragraph (6).
       (8) If the consent decree or settlement agreement requires 
     an agency action by a date certain, the agency shall, when 
     moving for entry of the consent decree or dismissal based on 
     the settlement agreement--
       (A) inform the court of any uncompleted mandatory duties to 
     take regulatory action that the decree or agreement does not 
     address;
       (B) how the decree or agreement, if approved, would affect 
     the discharge of those duties; and
       (C) why the decree's or agreement's effects on the order in 
     which the agency discharges its mandatory duties is in the 
     public interest.
       (9) The court shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that it 
     is proper to allow amicus participation by any party who 
     filed public comments on the consent decree or settlement 
     agreement during the court's consideration of a motion to 
     enter the decree or dismiss the case on the basis of the 
     agreement.
       (10) The court shall ensure that the proposed consent 
     decree or settlement agreement allows sufficient time and 
     procedure for the agency to comply with chapter 5 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and other applicable statutes that govern 
     rule making and, unless contrary to the public interest, the 
     provisions of any executive orders that govern rule making.
       (11) The defendant agency may, at its discretion, hold a 
     public hearing pursuant to notice in the Federal Register and 
     by electronic means, on whether to enter into the consent 
     decree or settlement agreement. If such a hearing is held, 
     then, in accordance with paragraph (6), the agency shall 
     submit to the court a summary of the proceedings and the 
     certified index to the hearing record, full access to the 
     hearing record shall be given to the court, and the full 
     hearing record shall be included in the judicial record.
       (12) The Attorney General, in cases litigated by the 
     Department of Justice, or the head of the defendant Federal 
     agency, in cases litigated independently by that agency, 
     shall certify to the court his or her approval of any 
     proposed consent decree or settlement agreement that contains 
     any of the following terms--
       (A) in the case of a consent decree, terms that--
       (i) convert into mandatory duties the otherwise 
     discretionary authorities of an agency to propose, 
     promulgate, revise or amend regulations;
       (ii) commit the agency to expend funds that Congress has 
     not appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the 
     action in question, or commit an agency to seek a particular 
     appropriation or budget authorization;
       (iii) divest the agency of discretion committed to it by 
     Congress or the Constitution, whether such discretionary 
     power was granted to respond to changing circumstances, to 
     make policy or managerial choices, or to protect the rights 
     of third parties; or
       (iv) otherwise afford relief that the court could not enter 
     on its own authority upon a final judgment in the litigation; 
     or
       (B) in the case of a settlement agreement, terms that--
       (i) interfere with the agency's authority to revise, amend, 
     or issue rules through the procedures set forth in chapter 5 
     of title 5, United States Code, or any other statute or 
     executive order prescribing rule making procedures for rule 
     makings that are the subject of the settlement agreement;
       (ii) commit the agency to expend funds that Congress has 
     not appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the 
     action in question; or
       (iii) provide a remedy for the agency's failure to comply 
     with the terms of the settlement agreement other than the 
     revival of the action resolved by the settlement agreement, 
     if the agreement commits the agency to exercise its 
     discretion in a particular way and such discretionary power 
     was committed to the agency by Congress or the Constitution 
     to respond to changing circumstances, to make policy or 
     managerial choices, or to protect the rights of third 
     parties.
       (c) Annual Reports.--Each agency shall submit an annual 
     report to Congress on the number, identity, and content of 
     complaints, consent decrees, and settlement agreements 
     described in paragraph (1) for that year, the statutory basis 
     for each consent decree or settlement agreement and its 
     terms, and any awards of attorneys fees or costs in actions 
     resolved by such decrees or agreements.

     SEC. 303. MOTIONS TO MODIFY CONSENT DECREES.

       When a defendant agency moves the court to modify a 
     previously entered consent decree described under section 302 
     and the basis of the motion is that the terms of the decree 
     are no longer fully in the public interest due to the 
     agency's obligations to fulfill other duties or due to 
     changed facts and circumstances, the court shall review the 
     motion and the consent decree de novo.

     SEC. 304. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this title apply to any covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement proposed to a court after the 
     date of enactment of this title.

        TITLE IV--UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates 
     Information and Transparency Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 402. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is--
       (1) to improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress 
     with respect to proposed Federal mandates by--
       (A) providing Congress and the public with more complete 
     information about the effects of such mandates; and
       (B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after 
     focused deliberation on their effects; and
       (2) to enhance the ability of Congress and the public to 
     identify Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on 
     consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and State, 
     local, and tribal governments.

     SEC. 403. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES 
                   ON POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF 
                   GRANT AID.

       Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Additional studies.--At the request of any Chairman 
     or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the 
     Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director shall 
     conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of 
     funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of 
     carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance 
     being imposed on State, local, or tribal governments 
     participating in the Federal assistance program concerned or, 
     in the case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes 
     such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated 
     level of funding compared to such costs.''.

     SEC. 404. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO 
                   REFLECT CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE.

       Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``incur or'' 
     before ``be required''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``to spend'' 
     the following: ``or could forgo in profits, including costs 
     passed on to consumers or other entities taking into account, 
     to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,''.

     SEC. 405. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO 
                   INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT 
                   REGULATORY AGENCIES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is amended by striking ``, but 
     does not include independent regulatory agencies'' and 
     inserting ``, except it does not include the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee''.

     SEC. 406. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
                   BUDGET WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND 
                   REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

       The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 
     2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Office of 
     Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs''; and
       (B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs'';
       (2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``OMB''; and
       (B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs''; and
       (3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking ``Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget'' and inserting 
     ``Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs''.

     SEC. 407. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE 
                   SECTOR MANDATES.

       Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and 
     inserting ``Federal mandates''; and

[[Page 12223]]

       (2) by inserting ``or 424(b)(1)'' after ``section 
     424(a)(1)''.

     SEC. 408. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

       Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise 
     expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal 
     regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments 
     and the private sector (other than to the extent that such 
     regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set 
     forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
       ``(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it 
     intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of 
     private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
     agency action) as well as assess the significance of that 
     problem.
       ``(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing 
     regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to, 
     the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and 
     whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified 
     to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
       ``(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available 
     alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
     economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such 
     as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information 
     upon which choices can be made by the public.
       ``(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best 
     available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it 
     shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective 
     manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each 
     agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency, 
     predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to 
     the government, regulated entities, and the public), 
     flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
       ``(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the 
     benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that 
     some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or 
     adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only 
     upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the 
     intended regulation justify its costs.
       ``(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best 
     reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and 
     other information concerning the need for, and consequences 
     of, the intended regulation.
       ``(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative 
     forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, 
     specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
     behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
     adopt.
       ``(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are 
     inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other 
     regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
       ``(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize 
     the costs of the cumulative impact of regulations.
       ``(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple 
     and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the 
     potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such 
     uncertainty.
       ``(b) Regulatory Action Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `regulatory action' means any substantive action by an agency 
     (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates 
     or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or 
     regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking 
     and notices of proposed rulemaking.''.

     SEC. 409. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY 
                   SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 202 of the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by 
     law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after 
     promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a 
     general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed 
     rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may 
     result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal 
     governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of 
     $100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare 
     a written statement containing the following:
       ``(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final 
     rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the 
     need for the proposed rulemaking or final rule and an 
     explanation of how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will 
     meet that need.
       ``(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of 
     the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an 
     explanation of the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or 
     final rule is consistent with a statutory requirement and 
     avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal 
     governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
       ``(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including 
     the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the 
     proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of 
     the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets, 
     the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the 
     natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of 
     discrimination or bias).
       ``(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including 
     the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the 
     proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the direct costs 
     both to the Government in administering the final rule and to 
     businesses and others in complying with the final rule, and 
     any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the 
     economy, private markets (including productivity, employment, 
     and international competitiveness), health, safety, and the 
     natural environment);
       ``(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that 
     the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably 
     feasible, of--
       ``(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; 
     and
       ``(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal 
     mandate upon any particular regions of the nation or 
     particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or 
     rural or other types of communities, or particular segments 
     of the private sector.
       ``(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the 
     agency's prior consultation with the private sector and 
     elected representatives (under section 204) of the affected 
     State, local, and tribal governments.
       ``(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that 
     were presented by the private sector and State, local, or 
     tribal governments either orally or in writing to the agency.
       ``(C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of 
     those comments and concerns.
       ``(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with 
     each of the regulatory principles described in section 
     201.''.
       (b) Requirement for Detailed Summary.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 202 of such Act is amended by inserting ``detailed'' 
     before ``summary''.

     SEC. 410. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.

       Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1534) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND PRIVATE 
     SECTOR'' before ``INPUT'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the 
     private sector (including small business),'' after ``on their 
     behalf)'';
       (B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and 
     inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of 
     subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and 
     regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
       ``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible, 
     before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue 
     through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly 
     into the rulemaking process.
       ``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State, 
     local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the 
     private sector (including small businesses). Geographic, 
     political, and other factors that may differentiate varying 
     points of view should be considered.
       ``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist 
     with these consultations. The scope of the consultation 
     should reflect the cost and significance of the Federal 
     mandate being considered.
       ``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and tribal 
     governments, and impacted parties within the private sector 
     (including small business), on costs, benefits, and risks; 
     and
       ``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of compliance 
     and potential flexibilities, and input on whether the Federal 
     regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws 
     in other levels of government.
       ``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of 
     regulations on the affected entities.
       ``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of 
     comments by relevant parties but may not use those comments 
     as the sole method of satisfying the guidelines in this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 411. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF 
                   INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

       Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                   RESPONSIBILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide meaningful 
     guidance and oversight so that each agency's regulations for 
     which a written statement is required under section 202 are 
     consistent with the principles and requirements of this 
     title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict 
     with the policies or actions of another agency. If the 
     Administrator determines that an agency's regulations for 
     which a written statement is required under section 202 do 
     not comply with such principles and requirements, are not 
     consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the 
     policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator 
     shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify the agency, 
     and request that the agency comply before the agency 
     finalizes the regulation concerned.
       ``(b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--
     The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform of the House of Representatives, a written report 
     detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of 
     this title that relate to regulations

[[Page 12224]]

     for which a written statement is required by section 202, 
     including activities undertaken at the request of the 
     Director to improve compliance, during the preceding 
     reporting period. The report shall also contain an appendix 
     detailing compliance by each agency with section 204.''.

     SEC. 412. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL 
                   REGULATIONS.

       The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 
     2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and
       (2) by inserting after section 208 the following new 
     section 209:

     ``SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL 
                   REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or 
     ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall 
     conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal 
     regulation promulgated by an agency.
       ``(b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective 
     analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall submit to the chairman of the relevant 
     committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report 
     containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered 
     by the analysis--
       ``(1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
       ``(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
       ``(3) the nature of comments or complaints received 
     concerning the Federal regulation from the public since the 
     Federal regulation was promulgated;
       ``(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps, 
     duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and, 
     to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental 
     rules;
       ``(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, 
     or other factors have changed in the area affected by the 
     Federal regulation;
       ``(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs 
     and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies 
     done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such 
     costs or benefits; and
       ``(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal 
     regulation.''.

     SEC. 413. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
     (2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1) 
     and (2), and 205(a) and (b)''; and
       (B) by striking ``only'' each place it appears;
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section 202'' and 
     all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     the following: ``section 202, prepare the written plan under 
     section 203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 205(a) and 
     (b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such written 
     statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with such 
     section.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``written statement or 
     plan is required'' and all that follows through ``shall not'' 
     and inserting the following: ``written statement under 
     section 202, a written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2), 
     or compliance with sections 201 and 205(a) and (b) is 
     required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare such statement 
     (including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate, 
     analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written 
     plan, or to comply with such section may''.

   TITLE V--IMPROVED COORDINATION OF AGENCY ACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL 
                               DOCUMENTS

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Responsibly And 
     Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2012'' or as 
     the ``RAPID Act''.

     SEC. 502. COORDINATION OF AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS 
                   FOR EFFICIENT DECISIONMAKING.

       (a) In General.--Part I of chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter II the 
     following:

    ``SUBCHAPTER IIA--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING PERMITTING

     ``Sec. 560. Coordination of agency administrative operations 
       for efficient decisionmaking

       ``(a) Congressional Declaration of Purpose.--The purpose of 
     this subchapter is to establish a framework and procedures to 
     streamline, increase the efficiency of, and enhance 
     coordination of agency administration of the regulatory 
     review, environmental decisionmaking, and permitting process 
     for projects undertaken, reviewed, or funded by Federal 
     agencies. This subchapter will ensure that agencies 
     administer the regulatory process in a manner that is 
     efficient so that citizens are not burdened with regulatory 
     excuses and time delays.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter, the 
     term--
       ``(1) `agency' means any agency, department, or other unit 
     of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal government;
       ``(2) `category of projects' means 2 or more projects 
     related by project type, potential environmental impacts, 
     geographic location, or another similar project feature or 
     characteristic;
       ``(3) `environmental assessment' means a concise public 
     document for which a Federal agency is responsible that 
     serves to--
       ``(A) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for 
     determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 
     statement or a finding of no significant impact;
       ``(B) aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no 
     environmental impact statement is necessary; and
       ``(C) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact 
     statement when one is necessary;
       ``(4) `environmental impact statement' means the detailed 
     statement of significant environmental impacts required to be 
     prepared under NEPA;
       ``(5) `environmental review' means the Federal agency 
     procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement, 
     environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other 
     document under NEPA;
       ``(6) `environmental decisionmaking process' means the 
     Federal agency procedures for undertaking and completion of 
     any environmental permit, decision, approval, review, or 
     study under any Federal law other than NEPA for a project 
     subject to an environmental review;
       ``(7) `environmental document' means an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement, and includes 
     any supplemental document or document prepared pursuant to a 
     court order;
       ``(8) `finding of no significant impact' means a document 
     by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why a 
     project, not otherwise subject to a categorical exclusion, 
     will not have a significant effect on the human environment 
     and for which an environmental impact statement therefore 
     will not be prepared;
       ``(9) `lead agency' means the Federal agency preparing or 
     responsible for preparing the environmental document;
       ``(10) `NEPA' means the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       ``(11) `project' means major Federal actions that are 
     construction activities undertaken with Federal funds or that 
     are construction activities that require approval by a permit 
     or regulatory decision issued by a Federal agency;
       ``(12) `project sponsor' means the agency or other entity, 
     including any private or public-private entity, that seeks 
     approval for a project or is otherwise responsible for 
     undertaking a project; and
       ``(13) `record of decision' means a document prepared by a 
     lead agency under NEPA following an environmental impact 
     statement that states the lead agency's decision, identifies 
     the alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its 
     decision and states whether all practicable means to avoid or 
     minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected 
     have been adopted, and if not, why they were not adopted.
       ``(c) Preparation of Environmental Documents.--Upon the 
     request of the lead agency, the project sponsor shall be 
     authorized to prepare any document for purposes of an 
     environmental review required in support of any project or 
     approval by the lead agency if the lead agency furnishes 
     oversight in such preparation and independently evaluates 
     such document and the document is approved and adopted by the 
     lead agency prior to taking any action or making any approval 
     based on such document.
       ``(d) Adoption and Use of Documents.--
       ``(1) Documents prepared under nepa.--
       ``(A) Not more than 1 environmental impact statement and 1 
     environmental assessment shall be prepared under NEPA for a 
     project (except for supplemental environmental documents 
     prepared under NEPA or environmental documents prepared 
     pursuant to a court order), and, except as otherwise provided 
     by law, the lead agency shall prepare the environmental 
     impact statement or environmental assessment. After the lead 
     agency issues a record of decision, no Federal agency 
     responsible for making any approval for that project may rely 
     on a document other than the environmental document prepared 
     by the lead agency.
       ``(B) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency 
     may adopt, use, or rely upon secondary and cumulative impact 
     analyses included in any environmental document prepared 
     under NEPA for projects in the same geographic area where the 
     secondary and cumulative impact analyses provide information 
     and data that pertains to the NEPA decision for the project 
     under review.
       ``(2) State environmental documents; supplemental 
     documents.--
       ``(A) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency 
     may adopt a document that has been prepared for a project 
     under State laws and procedures as the environmental impact 
     statement or environmental assessment for the project, 
     provided that the State laws and procedures under which the 
     document was prepared provide environmental protection and 
     opportunities for public involvement that are substantially 
     equivalent to NEPA.
       ``(B) An environmental document adopted under subparagraph 
     (A) is deemed to satisfy the lead agency's obligation under 
     NEPA to prepare an environmental impact statement or 
     environmental assessment.
       ``(C) In the case of a document described in subparagraph 
     (A), during the period after preparation of the document but 
     before its adoption by the lead agency, the lead agency shall 
     prepare and publish a supplement to that document if the lead 
     agency determines that--
       ``(i) a significant change has been made to the project 
     that is relevant for purposes of environmental review of the 
     project; or
       ``(ii) there have been significant changes in circumstances 
     or availability of information relevant to the environmental 
     review for the project.
       ``(D) If the agency prepares and publishes a supplemental 
     document under subparagraph (C), the lead agency may solicit 
     comments from agencies and the public on the supplemental 
     document for a period of not more than 45 days beginning on 
     the date of the publication of the supplement.

[[Page 12225]]

       ``(E) A lead agency shall issue its record of decision or 
     finding of no significant impact, as appropriate, based upon 
     the document adopted under subparagraph (A), and any 
     supplements thereto.
       ``(3) Contemporaneous projects.--If the lead agency 
     determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the 
     project will have similar environmental impacts as a similar 
     project in geographical proximity to the project, and that 
     similar project was subject to environmental review or 
     similar State procedures within the 5 year period immediately 
     preceding the date that the lead agency makes that 
     determination, the lead agency may adopt the environmental 
     document that resulted from that environmental review or 
     similar State procedure. The lead agency may adopt such an 
     environmental document, if it is prepared under State laws 
     and procedures only upon making a favorable determination on 
     such environmental document pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(e) Participating Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The lead agency shall be responsible for 
     inviting and designating participating agencies in accordance 
     with this subsection. The lead agency shall provide the 
     invitation or notice of the designation in writing.
       ``(2) Federal participating agencies.--Any Federal agency 
     that is required to adopt the environmental document of the 
     lead agency for a project shall be designated as a 
     participating agency and shall collaborate on the preparation 
     of the environmental document, unless the Federal agency 
     informs the lead agency, in writing, by a time specified by 
     the lead agency in the designation of the Federal agency that 
     the Federal agency--
       ``(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     project;
       ``(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     project; and
       ``(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
       ``(3) Invitation.--The lead agency shall identify, as early 
     as practicable in the environmental review for a project, any 
     agencies other than an agency described in paragraph (2) that 
     may have an interest in the project, including, where 
     appropriate, Governors of affected States, and heads of 
     appropriate tribal and local (including county) governments, 
     and shall invite such identified agencies and officials to 
     become participating agencies in the environmental review for 
     the project. The invitation shall set a deadline of 30 days 
     for responses to be submitted, which may only be extended by 
     the lead agency for good cause shown. Any agency that fails 
     to respond prior to the deadline shall be deemed to have 
     declined the invitation.
       ``(4) Effect of declining participating agency 
     invitation.--Any agency that declines a designation or 
     invitation by the lead agency to be a participating agency 
     shall be precluded from submitting comments on any document 
     prepared under NEPA for that project or taking any measures 
     to oppose, based on the environmental review, any permit, 
     license, or approval related to that project.
       ``(5) Effect of designation.--Designation as a 
     participating agency under this subsection does not imply 
     that the participating agency--
       ``(A) supports a proposed project; or
       ``(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with 
     respect to evaluation of, the project.
       ``(6) Cooperating agency.--A participating agency may also 
     be designated by a lead agency as a `cooperating agency' 
     under the regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2011. 
     Designation as a cooperating agency shall have no effect on 
     designation as participating agency. No agency that is not a 
     participating agency may be designated as a cooperating 
     agency.
       ``(7) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal agency shall--
       ``(A) carry out obligations of the Federal agency under 
     other applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the 
     review required under NEPA; and
       ``(B) in accordance with the rules made by the Council on 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to subsection (n)(1), make and 
     carry out such rules, policies, and procedures as may be 
     reasonably necessary to enable the agency to ensure 
     completion of the environmental review and environmental 
     decisionmaking process in a timely, coordinated, and 
     environmentally responsible manner.
       ``(8) Comments.--Each participating agency shall limit its 
     comments on a project to areas that are within the authority 
     and expertise of such participating agency. Each 
     participating agency shall identify in such comments the 
     statutory authority of the participating agency pertaining to 
     the subject matter of its comments. The lead agency shall not 
     act upon, respond to or include in any document prepared 
     under NEPA, any comment submitted by a participating agency 
     that concerns matters that are outside of the authority and 
     expertise of the commenting participating agency.
       ``(f) Project Initiation Request.--
       ``(1) Notice.--A project sponsor shall provide the Federal 
     agency responsible for undertaking a project with notice of 
     the initiation of the project by providing a description of 
     the proposed project, the general location of the proposed 
     project, and a statement of any Federal approvals anticipated 
     to be necessary for the proposed project, for the purpose of 
     informing the Federal agency that the environmental review 
     should be initiated.
       ``(2) Lead agency initiation.--The agency receiving a 
     project initiation notice under paragraph (1) shall promptly 
     identify the lead agency for the project, and the lead agency 
     shall initiate the environmental review within a period of 45 
     days after receiving the notice required by paragraph (1) by 
     inviting or designating agencies to become participating 
     agencies, or, where the lead agency determines that no 
     participating agencies are required for the project, by 
     taking such other actions that are reasonable and necessary 
     to initiate the environmental review.
       ``(g) Alternatives Analysis.--
       ``(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the 
     environmental review, but no later than during scoping for a 
     project requiring the preparation of an environmental impact 
     statement, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for 
     involvement by cooperating agencies in determining the range 
     of alternatives to be considered for a project.
       ``(2) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under 
     paragraph (1), the lead agency shall determine the range of 
     alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead 
     agency is responsible for preparing for the project, subject 
     to the following limitations:
       ``(A) No evaluation of certain alternatives.--No Federal 
     agency shall evaluate any alternative that was identified but 
     not carried forward for detailed evaluation in an 
     environmental document or evaluated and not selected in any 
     environmental document prepared under NEPA for the same 
     project.
       ``(B) Only feasible alternatives evaluated.--Where a 
     project is being constructed, managed, funded, or undertaken 
     by a project sponsor that is not a Federal agency, Federal 
     agencies shall only be required to evaluate alternatives that 
     the project sponsor could feasibly undertake, consistent with 
     the purpose of and the need for the project, including 
     alternatives that can be undertaken by the project sponsor 
     and that are technically and economically feasible.
       ``(3) Methodologies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall determine, in 
     collaboration with cooperating agencies at appropriate times 
     during the environmental review, the methodologies to be used 
     and the level of detail required in the analysis of each 
     alternative for a project. The lead agency shall include in 
     the environmental document a description of the methodologies 
     used and how the methodologies were selected.
       ``(B) No evaluation of inappropriate alternatives.--When a 
     lead agency determines that an alternative does not meet the 
     purpose and need for a project, that alternative is not 
     required to be evaluated in detail in an environmental 
     document.
       ``(4) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead 
     agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being 
     identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than 
     other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of 
     mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other 
     applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the 
     development of such higher level of detail will not prevent 
     the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to 
     whether to accept another alternative which is being 
     considered in the environmental review.
       ``(5) Employment analysis.--The evaluation of each 
     alternative in an environmental impact statement or an 
     environmental assessment shall identify the potential effects 
     of the alternative on employment, including potential short-
     term and long-term employment increases and reductions and 
     shifts in employment.
       ``(h) Coordination and Scheduling.--
       ``(1) Coordination plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall establish and 
     implement a plan for coordinating public and agency 
     participation in and comment on the environmental review for 
     a project or category of projects to facilitate the 
     expeditious resolution of the environmental review.
       ``(B) Schedule.--
       ``(i) In general.--The lead agency shall establish as part 
     of the coordination plan for a project, after consultation 
     with each participating agency and, where applicable, the 
     project sponsor, a schedule for completion of the 
     environmental review. The schedule shall include deadlines, 
     consistent with subsection (i), for decisions under any other 
     Federal laws (including the issuance or denial of a permit or 
     license) relating to the project that is covered by the 
     schedule.
       ``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing the 
     schedule, the lead agency shall consider factors such as--

       ``(I) the responsibilities of participating agencies under 
     applicable laws;
       ``(II) resources available to the participating agencies;
       ``(III) overall size and complexity of the project;
       ``(IV) overall schedule for and cost of the project;
       ``(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that could be affected by the project; and
       ``(VI) the extent to which similar projects in geographic 
     proximity were recently subject to environmental review or 
     similar State procedures.

       ``(iii) Compliance with the schedule.--

       ``(I) All participating agencies shall comply with the time 
     periods established in the schedule or with any modified time 
     periods, where the lead agency modifies the schedule pursuant 
     to subparagraph (D).
       ``(II) The lead agency shall disregard and shall not 
     respond to or include in any document prepared under NEPA, 
     any comment or information submitted or any finding made by a 
     participating agency that is outside of the time period 
     established in the schedule or modification

[[Page 12226]]

     pursuant to subparagraph (D) for that agency's comment, 
     submission or finding.
       ``(III) If a participating agency fails to object in 
     writing to a lead agency decision, finding or request for 
     concurrence within the time period established under law or 
     by the lead agency, the agency shall be deemed to have 
     concurred in the decision, finding or request.

       ``(C) Consistency with other time periods.--A schedule 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be consistent with any other 
     relevant time periods established under Federal law.
       ``(D) Modification.--The lead agency may--
       ``(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph 
     (B) for good cause; and
       ``(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the 
     cooperating agencies.
       ``(E) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule under 
     subparagraph (B), and of any modifications to the schedule, 
     shall be--
       ``(i) provided within 15 days of completion or modification 
     of such schedule to all participating agencies and to the 
     project sponsor; and
       ``(ii) made available to the public.
       ``(F) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With 
     respect to the environmental review for any project, the lead 
     agency shall have authority and responsibility to take such 
     actions as are necessary and proper, within the authority of 
     the lead agency, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of 
     the environmental review for the project.
       ``(i) Deadlines.--The following deadlines shall apply to 
     any project subject to review under NEPA and any decision 
     under any Federal law relating to such project (including the 
     issuance or denial of a permit or license or any required 
     finding):
       ``(1) Environmental review deadlines.--The lead agency 
     shall complete the environmental review within the following 
     deadlines:
       ``(A) Environmental impact statement projects.--For 
     projects requiring preparation of an environmental impact 
     statement--
       ``(i) the lead agency shall issue an environmental impact 
     statement within 2 years after the earlier of the date the 
     lead agency receives the project initiation request or a 
     Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
     is published in the Federal Register; and
       ``(ii) in circumstances where the lead agency has prepared 
     an environmental assessment and determined that an 
     environmental impact statement will be required, the lead 
     agency shall issue the environmental impact statement within 
     2 years after the date of publication of the Notice of Intent 
     to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(B) Environmental assessment projects.--For projects 
     requiring preparation of an environmental assessment, the 
     lead agency shall issue a finding of no significant impact or 
     publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 
     Statement in the Federal Register within 1 year after the 
     earlier of the date the lead agency receives the project 
     initiation request, makes a decision to prepare an 
     environmental assessment, or sends out participating agency 
     invitations.
       ``(2) Extensions.--
       ``(A) Requirements.--The environmental review deadlines may 
     be extended only if--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The environmental review shall not be 
     extended by more than 1 year for a project requiring 
     preparation of an environmental impact statement or by more 
     than 180 days for a project requiring preparation of an 
     environmental assessment.
       ``(3) Environmental review comments.--
       ``(A) Comments on draft environmental impact statement.--
     For comments by agencies and the public on a draft 
     environmental impact statement, the lead agency shall 
     establish a comment period of not more than 60 days after 
     publication in the Federal Register of notice of the date of 
     public availability of such document, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(B) Other comments.--For all other comment periods for 
     agency or public comments in the environmental review 
     process, the lead agency shall establish a comment period of 
     no more than 30 days from availability of the materials on 
     which comment is requested, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(4) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any case in 
     which a decision under any other Federal law relating to the 
     undertaking of a project being reviewed under NEPA (including 
     the issuance or denial of a permit or license) is required to 
     be made, the following deadlines shall apply:
       ``(A) Decisions prior to record of decision or finding of 
     no significant impact.--If a Federal agency is required to 
     approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, license, or 
     other similar application for approval related to a project 
     prior to the record of decision or finding of no significant 
     impact, such Federal agency shall approve or otherwise act 
     not later than the end of a 90 day period beginning--
       ``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the 
     project is complete; and
       ``(ii) after the lead agency publishes a notice of the 
     availability of the final environmental impact statement or 
     issuance of other final environmental documents, or no later 
     than such other date that is otherwise required by law, 
     whichever event occurs first.
       ``(B) Other decisions.--With regard to any approval or 
     other action related to a project by a Federal agency that is 
     not subject to subparagraph (A), each Federal agency shall 
     approve or otherwise act not later than the end of a period 
     of 180 days beginning--
       ``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the 
     project is complete; and
       ``(ii) after the lead agency issues the record of decision 
     or finding of no significant impact, unless a different 
     deadline is established by agreement of the Federal agency, 
     lead agency, and the project sponsor, where applicable, or 
     the deadline is extended by the Federal agency for good 
     cause, provided that such extension shall not extend beyond a 
     period that is 1 year after the lead agency issues the record 
     of decision or finding of no significant impact.
       ``(C) Failure to act.--In the event that any Federal agency 
     fails to approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, 
     license, or other similar application for approval related to 
     a project within the applicable deadline described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B), the permit, license, or other 
     similar application shall be deemed approved by such agency 
     and the agency shall take action in accordance with such 
     approval within 30 days of the applicable deadline described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(D) Final agency action.--Any approval under subparagraph 
     (C) is deemed to be final agency action, and may not be 
     reversed by any agency. In any action under chapter 7 seeking 
     review of such a final agency action, the court may not set 
     aside such agency action by reason of that agency action 
     having occurred under this paragraph.
       ``(j) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
       ``(1) Cooperation.--The lead agency and the participating 
     agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this 
     section to identify and resolve issues that could delay 
     completion of the environmental review or could result in 
     denial of any approvals required for the project under 
     applicable laws.
       ``(2) Lead agency responsibilities.--The lead agency shall 
     make information available to the participating agencies as 
     early as practicable in the environmental review regarding 
     the environmental, historic, and socioeconomic resources 
     located within the project area and the general locations of 
     the alternatives under consideration. Such information may be 
     based on existing data sources, including geographic 
     information systems mapping.
       ``(3) Participating agency responsibilities.--Based on 
     information received from the lead agency, participating 
     agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues 
     of concern regarding the project's potential environmental, 
     historic, or socioeconomic impacts. In this paragraph, issues 
     of concern include any issues that could substantially delay 
     or prevent an agency from granting a permit or other approval 
     that is needed for the project.
       ``(4) Issue resolution.--
       ``(A) Meeting of participating agencies.--At any time upon 
     request of a project sponsor, the lead agency shall promptly 
     convene a meeting with the relevant participating agencies 
     and the project sponsor, to resolve issues that could delay 
     completion of the environmental review or could result in 
     denial of any approvals required for the project under 
     applicable laws.
       ``(B) Notice that resolution cannot be achieved.--If a 
     resolution cannot be achieved within 30 days following such a 
     meeting and a determination by the lead agency that all 
     information necessary to resolve the issue has been obtained, 
     the lead agency shall notify the heads of all participating 
     agencies, the project sponsor, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality for further proceedings in accordance 
     with section 204 of NEPA, and shall publish such notification 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(k) Report to Congress.--The head of each Federal agency 
     shall report annually to Congress--
       ``(1) the projects for which the agency initiated 
     preparation of an environmental impact statement or 
     environmental assessment;
       ``(2) the projects for which the agency issued a record of 
     decision or finding of no significant impact and the length 
     of time it took the agency to complete the environmental 
     review for each such project;
       ``(3) the filing of any lawsuits against the agency seeking 
     judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by 
     the agency for an action subject to NEPA, including the date 
     the complaint was filed, the court in which the complaint was 
     filed, and a summary of the claims for which judicial review 
     was sought; and
       ``(4) the resolution of any lawsuits against the agency 
     that sought judicial review of a permit, license, or approval 
     issued by the agency for an action subject to NEPA.
       ``(l) Limitations on Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial 
     review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal 
     agency for an action subject to NEPA shall be barred unless--
       ``(A) in the case of a claim pertaining to a project for 
     which an environmental review was conducted and an 
     opportunity for comment was provided, the claim is filed by a 
     party that submitted a comment during the environmental 
     review on the issue on which the party seeks judicial review, 
     and such comment was sufficiently

[[Page 12227]]

     detailed to put the lead agency on notice of the issue upon 
     which the party seeks judicial review; and
       ``(B) filed within 180 days after publication of a notice 
     in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license, 
     or approval is final pursuant to the law under which the 
     agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in 
     the Federal law pursuant to which judicial review is allowed.
       ``(2) New information.--The preparation of a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement, when required, is deemed a 
     separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a 
     claim for judicial review of such action shall be 180 days 
     after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal 
     Register announcing the record of decision for such action. 
     Any claim challenging agency action on the basis of 
     information in a supplemental environmental impact statement 
     shall be limited to challenges on the basis of that 
     information.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to create a right to judicial review or 
     place any limit on filing a claim that a person has violated 
     the terms of a permit, license, or approval.
       ``(m) Categories of Projects.--The authorities granted 
     under this subchapter may be exercised for an individual 
     project or a category of projects.
       ``(n) Effective Date.--The requirements of this subchapter 
     shall apply only to environmental reviews and environmental 
     decisionmaking processes initiated after the date of 
     enactment of this subchapter.
       ``(o) Applicability.--Except as provided in subsection (p), 
     this subchapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, 
     to all projects for which a Federal agency is required to 
     undertake an environmental review or make a decision under an 
     environmental law for a project for which a Federal agency is 
     undertaking an environmental review.
       ``(p) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to supersede, amend, or modify sections 134, 135, 
     139, 325, 326, and 327 of title 23, United States Code, 
     sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, United States Code, or 
     subtitle C of title I of division A of the Moving Ahead for 
     Progress in the 21st Century Act and the amendments made by 
     such subtitle (Public Law 112-141).''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to subchapter II the following:
       ``SUBCHAPTER IIA--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING 
           PERMITTING
       ``560. Coordination of agency administrative operations for 
           efficient decisionmaking.''.
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) Council on environmental quality.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this title, the Council 
     on Environmental Quality shall amend the regulations 
     contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, to implement the provisions of this title and 
     the amendments made by this title, and shall by rule 
     designate States with laws and procedures that satisfy the 
     criteria under section 560(d)(2)(A) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Federal agencies.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date that the Council on Environmental Quality amends the 
     regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, to implement the provisions of this 
     title and the amendments made by this title, each Federal 
     agency with regulations implementing the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     shall amend such regulations to implement the provisions of 
     this subchapter.

 TITLE VI--SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``SEC Regulatory 
     Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 602. CONSIDERATION BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
                   COMMISSION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ITS 
                   REGULATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS.

       Section 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     U.S.C. 78w) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Consideration of Costs and Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Before issuing a regulation under the 
     securities laws, as defined in section 3(a), the Commission 
     shall--
       ``(A) clearly identify the nature and source of the problem 
     that the proposed regulation is designed to address, as well 
     as assess the significance of that problem, to enable 
     assessment of whether any new regulation is warranted;
       ``(B) utilize the Chief Economist to assess the costs and 
     benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the intended 
     regulation and propose or adopt a regulation only on a 
     reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended 
     regulation justify the costs of the regulation;
       ``(C) identify and assess available alternatives to the 
     regulation that were considered, including modification of an 
     existing regulation, together with an explanation of why the 
     regulation meets the regulatory objectives more effectively 
     than the alternatives; and
       ``(D) ensure that any regulation is accessible, consistent, 
     written in plain language, and easy to understand and shall 
     measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of 
     regulatory requirements.
       ``(2) Considerations and actions.--
       ``(A) Required actions.--In deciding whether and how to 
     regulate, the Commission shall assess the costs and benefits 
     of available regulatory alternatives, including the 
     alternative of not regulating, and choose the approach that 
     maximizes net benefits. Specifically, the Commission shall--
       ``(i) consistent with the requirements of section 3(f) (15 
     U.S.C. 78c(f)), section 2(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 
     (15 U.S.C. 77b(b)), section 202(c) of the Investment Advisers 
     Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(c)), and section 2(c) of the 
     Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c)), consider 
     whether the rulemaking will promote efficiency, competition, 
     and capital formation;
       ``(ii) evaluate whether, consistent with obtaining 
     regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose 
     the least burden on society, including market participants, 
     individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other 
     entities (including State and local governmental entities), 
     taking into account, to the extent practicable, the 
     cumulative costs of regulations; and
       ``(iii) evaluate whether the regulation is inconsistent, 
     incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations.
       ``(B) Additional considerations.--In addition, in making a 
     reasoned determination of the costs and benefits of a 
     potential regulation, the Commission shall, to the extent 
     that each is relevant to the particular proposed regulation, 
     take into consideration the impact of the regulation on--
       ``(i) investor choice;
       ``(ii) market liquidity in the securities markets; and
       ``(iii) small businesses
       ``(3) Explanation and comments.--The Commission shall 
     explain in its final rule the nature of comments that it 
     received, including those from the industry or consumer 
     groups concerning the potential costs or benefits of the 
     proposed rule or proposed rule change, and shall provide a 
     response to those comments in its final rule, including an 
     explanation of any changes that were made in response to 
     those comments and the reasons that the Commission did not 
     incorporate those industry group concerns related to the 
     potential costs or benefits in the final rule.
       ``(4) Review of existing regulations.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of the SEC Regulatory 
     Accountability Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Commission shall review its regulations to determine whether 
     any such regulations are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, 
     or excessively burdensome, and shall modify, streamline, 
     expand, or repeal them in accordance with such review.
       ``(5) Post-adoption impact assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Whenever the Commission adopts or amends 
     a regulation designated as a `major rule' within the meaning 
     of section 804(2) of title 5, United States Code, it shall 
     state, in its adopting release, the following:
       ``(i) The purposes and intended consequences of the 
     regulation.
       ``(ii) Appropriate post-implementation quantitative and 
     qualitative metrics to measure the economic impact of the 
     regulation and to measure the extent to which the regulation 
     has accomplished the stated purposes.
       ``(iii) The assessment plan that will be used, consistent 
     with the requirements of subparagraph (B) and under the 
     supervision of the Chief Economist of the Commission, to 
     assess whether the regulation has achieved the stated 
     purposes.
       ``(iv) Any unintended or negative consequences that the 
     Commission foresees may result from the regulation.
       ``(B) Requirements of assessment plan and report.--
       ``(i) Requirements of plan.--The assessment plan required 
     under this paragraph shall consider the costs, benefits, and 
     intended and unintended consequences of the regulation. The 
     plan shall specify the data to be collected, the methods for 
     collection and analysis of the data and a date for completion 
     of the assessment.
       ``(ii) Submission and publication of report.--The Chief 
     Economist shall submit the completed assessment report to the 
     Commission no later than 2 years after the publication of the 
     adopting release, unless the Commission, at the request of 
     the Chief Economist, has published at least 90 days before 
     such date a notice in the Federal Register extending the date 
     and providing specific reasons why an extension is necessary. 
     Within 7 days after submission to the Commission of the final 
     assessment report, it shall be published in the Federal 
     Register for notice and comment. Any material modification of 
     the plan, as necessary to assess unforeseen aspects or 
     consequences of the regulation, shall be promptly published 
     in the Federal Register for notice and comment.
       ``(iii) Data collection not subject to notice and comment 
     requirements.--If the Commission has published its assessment 
     plan for notice and comment, specifying the data to be 
     collected and method of collection, at least 30 days prior to 
     adoption of a final regulation or amendment, such collection 
     of data shall not be subject to the notice and comment 
     requirements in section 3506(c) of title 44, United States 
     Code (commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act). 
     Any material modifications of the plan that require 
     collection of data not previously published for notice and 
     comment shall also be exempt from such requirements if the 
     Commission has published notice for comment in the Federal 
     Register of the additional data to be collected, at least 30 
     days prior to initiation of data collection.
       ``(iv) Final action.--Not later than 180 days after 
     publication of the assessment report in the

[[Page 12228]]

     Federal Register, the Commission shall issue for notice and 
     comment a proposal to amend or rescind the regulation, or 
     publish a notice that the Commission has determined that no 
     action will be taken on the regulation. Such a notice will be 
     deemed a final agency action.
       ``(6) Covered regulations and other agency actions.--Solely 
     as used in this subsection, the term `regulation'--
       ``(A) means an agency statement of general applicability 
     and future effect that is designed to implement, interpret, 
     or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or 
     practice requirements of an agency, including rules, orders 
     of general applicability, interpretive releases, and other 
     statements of general applicability that the agency intends 
     to have the force and effect of law; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) a regulation issued in accordance with the formal 
     rulemaking provisions of section 556 or 557 of title 5, 
     United States Code;
       ``(ii) a regulation that is limited to agency organization, 
     management, or personnel matters;
       ``(iii) a regulation promulgated pursuant to statutory 
     authority that expressly prohibits compliance with this 
     provision; and
       ``(iv) a regulation that is certified by the agency to be 
     an emergency action, if such certification is published in 
     the Federal Register.''.

     SEC. 603. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO OTHER REGULATORY 
                   ENTITIES

       It is the sense of the Congress that other regulatory 
     entities, including the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
     Board, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and any 
     national securities association registered under section 15A 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3) 
     should also follow the requirements of section 23(e) of such 
     Act, as added by this title.

  TITLE VII--CONSIDERATION BY COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF 
                       CERTAIN COSTS AND BENEFITS

     SEC. 701. CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 
                   COMMISSION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ITS 
                   REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.

       Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 
     19(a)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Before promulgating a regulation under 
     this Act or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph 
     (3)), the Commission, through the Office of the Chief 
     Economist, shall assess the costs and benefits, both 
     qualitative and quantitative, of the intended regulation and 
     propose or adopt a regulation only on a reasoned 
     determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
     justify the costs of the intended regulation (recognizing 
     that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify). It 
     must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of 
     regulatory requirements.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In making a reasoned determination 
     of the costs and the benefits, the Commission shall 
     evaluate--
       ``(A) considerations of protection of market participants 
     and the public;
       ``(B) considerations of the efficiency, competitiveness, 
     and financial integrity of futures and swaps markets;
       ``(C) considerations of the impact on market liquidity in 
     the futures and swaps markets;
       ``(D) considerations of price discovery;
       ``(E) considerations of sound risk management practices;
       ``(F) available alternatives to direct regulation;
       ``(G) the degree and nature of the risks posed by various 
     activities within the scope of its jurisdiction;
       ``(H) whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory 
     objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose the least 
     burden on society, including market participants, 
     individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other 
     entities (including small communities and governmental 
     entities), taking into account, to the extent practicable, 
     the cumulative costs of regulations;
       ``(I) whether the regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, 
     or duplicative of other Federal regulations;
       ``(J) whether, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
     approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits (including 
     potential economic, environmental, and other benefits, 
     distributive impacts, and equity); and
       ``(K) other public interest considerations.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 112-616. 
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert the 
     following: ``(d), or (e)''.
       Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
       (e) Significant Regulatory Actions Ensuring Safe Drinking 
     Water.--The moratorium in section 102(a) shall not apply to 
     any significant regulatory action that is intended to ensure 
     that drinking water is safe to drink.
       Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly:
       (c) Safe Drinking Water Exception.--Section 202 shall not 
     apply to a midnight rule that is intended to ensure that 
     drinking water is safe to drink.
       Page 20, insert after line 12 the following:

     SEC. 305. EXCEPTION FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER.

       The provisions of this title do not apply to any consent 
     decree or settlement agreement pertaining to a regulatory 
     action that is intended to ensure that drinking water is safe 
     to drink.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this 
amendment to help ensure clean drinking water. This measure amends H.R. 
4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, by exempting from the 
moratorium regulations that ensure drinking water is safe.
  Safe drinking water is essential to public health. There is a long 
and terrible history of polluters dumping all matter of toxins into 
rivers, streams, and other sources of drinking water. Aside from the 
environmental destruction, it costs an enormous amount to effectively 
clean such sources once they have been polluted. It costs even more to 
provide the necessary medical care for persons made sick by exposure to 
polluted water.
  We cannot afford to weaken or delay critical agency actions designed 
to ensure the continued enforcement and regulation of clean water 
rules.

                              {time}  1730

  This is not about creating jobs. Polluting water doesn't create more 
jobs, but it does negatively impact public health. We must remain 
vigilant in protecting our water supplies, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I oppose this amendment because it is 
unnecessary and weakens the important reforms made by the bill. This 
administration has been issuing a torrent of the most expensive 
regulations, each of which cost the economy over $100 million. 
According to a study by The Heritage Foundation, President Obama 
already has adopted 106 regulations that add $46 billion in annual 
regulatory costs to the private sector, and nearly $11 billion in one-
time implementation cost.
  By contrast, in his first 3 years in office, President Bush adopted 
28 major regulations costing the private sector $8 billion annually.
  The bill is designed only to prevent unnecessary regulations. Titles 
I and II have reasonable exceptions for the President to allow 
regulations necessary because of an ``imminent threat to health or 
safety or other emergency.'' And the congressional waiver provision of 
title I allows the President to authorize regulations during the 
moratorium period with the permission of Congress. Regulations that the 
President wants enacted simply have to go through Congress. Balance of 
power.
  Title III prevents agencies from using litigation with special 
interest groups to force more regulations on the economy without 
sufficient transparency, public participation, and judicial scrutiny. 
For too long, agencies have used consent decrees and settlement 
agreements as cover to promulgate regulations with less time for review 
of cost and benefits, alternatives, and public comment. This is yet 
another way that agencies impose unnecessary and ill-

[[Page 12229]]

considered regulations on the public. It should be stopped.
  For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time in light of the fact that I don't think anyone else is going to 
speak on this amendment.
  I clearly understand my colleague's position as set forth. One thing 
I cannot abide and offer by way of constructive criticism is the fact 
that all over this Nation too often we find that polluters cause our 
streams, rivers, and waters to be damaged. I'm a fifth-generation 
Floridian, and I heard the gentleman in the Rules Committee and on the 
floor today speaking pridefully, and rightfully, about his children. 
I've seen the damage in Florida, and I have seen much of the damage 
that has been done around the Nation. While it is true that the 
legislation as offered would allow for the President to come to 
Congress for approval, by the time Congress gets through doing 
anything, the pollution that we are trying to avoid may very well have 
overtaken us.
  We have a very fragile ecosystem in our country and, as it pertains 
to water, it would just be absurd for us not to be able to address it 
immediately.
  I'm pleased to yield such time as he will consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the author of this amendment because it 
highlights the dangers of this bill. And surely if there is anything 
that we prioritize in our whole ecosystem is the value and importance 
of clean water over profits, and I am astounded that anyone would 
oppose the amendment, frankly.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would just like to make it clear, again, that any regulations that 
are needed, that the gentleman from Florida feels are needed, that the 
President feels are needed, those can be enacted under this law. It 
simply requires Congress to play a role. I have no doubt that the 
President opposes this bill. I understand that he doesn't want to share 
his regulatory power with this body. I'm sure a lot of Presidents might 
feel that way. But it is all about separation of powers and sharing 
power and allowing this body to have a say.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of 
Congressman Conyers on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert the 
     following: ``(d), or (e)''.
       Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
       (e) Exception for Regulatory Actions Pertaining to 
     Privacy.--An agency may take a significant regulatory action 
     if the significant regulatory action pertains to privacy.
       Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly:
       (c) Privacy Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to a 
     midnight rule if the midnight rule pertains to privacy.
       Page 19, insert after line 25 the following:
       (d) Exception.--This section shall not apply in the case of 
     any consent decree or settlement agreement in an action to 
     compel agency action pertaining to privacy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would amend the 
bill's definition of ``significant regulatory action'' to exclude any 
regulation or guidance that is intended to protect the privacy of 
Americans.
  With the increasing opportunities for governmental and private 
organizations to obtain, maintain, and disseminate sensitive, private 
information on citizens, it is critical that we not prevent or delay 
the implementation of government regulations designed to protect the 
privacy of this information for several reasons.
  First, the government routinely collects almost every type of 
personal information about individuals and stores it in its databases. 
It may maintain this information for stated periods of time or 
permanently, and the government may share it with State agencies under 
certain circumstances.
  The concern, Mr. Chairman, is that such information has itself become 
a commodity with financial value, subject to abuse by those who seek to 
sell it for financial gain or for criminal purposes, such as identity 
theft.
  Unfortunately, several Federal agencies, such as the Veterans 
Administration, have lost the personal information of millions of 
Americans. For example, in 2006, the personal information for more than 
26 million veterans and 2.2 million current military servicemembers was 
stolen from a Department of Veterans Affairs employee's home after he 
had taken the data home without authorization.
  Second, thanks to the largely unfettered use of Social Security 
numbers and the availability of other personally identifiable 
information through technological advances, data security breaches 
appear to be occurring with greater frequency, in government and the 
private sector. In both of those arenas, we see these data breaches 
occurring. In turn, identity theft has swiftly evolved into one of the 
most prolific crimes in the United States. Unregulated, those who have 
it would seek to sell it and abuse it. And there are businesses which 
exist for the purpose of collecting as much personal information as 
possible about individuals so that they can put together profiles that 
they can then sell.
  Finally, the protection of Americans' privacy is not a Democratic or 
Republican issue. Indeed, it is one of the few that those on opposite 
ends of the political spectrum have long embraced.

                              {time}  1740

  Who can dispute the need to protect the privacy of patients' health 
information? The Department of Health and Human Services has been 
tasked by Congress to implement new regulations to give patients more 
control over their own health records. In addition, HHS is proposing 
new rules to protect Americans from discrimination based on their 
genetic information. Yet, H.R. 4078 would stop these regulations from 
going into effect because the bill has only limited exceptions that 
would be generally inapplicable to privacy protection regulations.
  Likewise, the bill's waiver provisions are generally unworkable. My 
amendment corrects this shortcoming by including in the bill an 
exception for regulations that protect the privacy of Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono Mack).
  Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered relating to 
privacy regulations, midnight privacy rules, and consent decrees. At a 
time when many of us are fighting attempts by the United Nations to 
regulate the Internet, lo and behold, some in Congress would have us do 
the exact opposite. The Conyers amendment would open the door for new, 
burdensome, and potentially job-killing regulations on the Internet. We 
don't need the United

[[Page 12230]]

States stifling Internet freedom any more than Russia, China, or India.
  As chairman of the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over this 
issue, I've convened multiple hearings on online privacy and had 
countless conversations with stakeholders. And there is one thing that 
absolutely everyone agrees on: don't mess up a great thing.
  E-commerce continues to flourish, creating jobs for millions of 
Americans and providing a tremendous boost to an otherwise stagnant 
economy. This amendment could put all of that success in jeopardy, 
stifling future innovation and growth.
  I'd like to remind my colleagues that an agency could still 
promulgate rules on privacy so long as they are not considered 
``significant'' as defined in the bill. But what we don't need is a 
system where dueling bureaucrats, the FTC and the FCC, impose 
conflicting and confusing rules for consumers.
  While the amendment sounds as if it is narrowly tailored to exempt 
privacy regulations from the interim prohibitions on new regulations 
and midnight rules, the term ``privacy'' is nonetheless undefined. 
That's the very definition of ``loophole'' and opens the back door to 
government intervention and regulation.
  Soon, the House will consider my legislation telling the United 
Nations, Russia, China and others to keep their hands off the Internet. 
Today, let's tell the United States that very same thing.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not designed 
to pave the way for any specific regulation. It is intended generally 
to prevent the delay in issuing regulations that will protect the 
privacy of our citizens. Privacy considerations should be at the 
forefront of our concerns, not treated as secondary inconvenience. 
Whether or not a specific issue is one ripe for regulation is properly 
considered as part of the regulatory process, which carefully considers 
all interests.
  To delay privacy regulations, as this bill would do, is to short-
circuit the appropriately careful issuance of regulations needed to 
keep the personal behavior and personal information of our citizens 
safe from unwanted surveillance or exploitation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
because it is unnecessary. Titles I and II of the bill, the regulatory 
freeze and midnight rules titles, apply only to those regulations that 
are most costly to the economy, costing $100 million or more. 
Unfortunately, these are the kinds of rules that the Obama 
administration is issuing at a much faster rate than the previous 
administration.
  Under President Bush, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs' biannual regulatory agenda on average reported 77 economically 
significant regulations in the proposed and final stages of the 
rulemaking process. By comparison, President Obama's biannual average 
is 124.
  I would also note that President Obama's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not yet issued the spring 2012 regulatory 
agenda, although judging by the weather alone, I would say that spring 
is well behind us.
  This can only add to the regulatory uncertainty that discourages job 
creation. It is no wonder, then, that a Gallup Poll found that small 
businessowners cite complying with government regulations as their most 
important problem. The Federal Government needs to slow down on issuing 
the most costly regulations until the economy has a chance to recover 
or until this body approves regulations forwarded to it. Even if a 
regulation related to privacy met the $100 million threshold for titles 
I and II, I am confident that the bill's reasonable waiver procedures 
would allow any necessary privacy regulation to move forward. There is 
no reason that regulations related to privacy should be exempt from the 
reforms to consent decree abuse contained in title III. For these 
reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert ``(d), or 
     (e)''.
       Page 5, after line 7, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) Exception for Limiting Oil Speculation.--The 
     prohibition in section 102(a) shall not apply to any 
     significant regulatory action specifically aimed at limiting 
     oil speculation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer a sensible amendment to improve 
this bill.
  My amendment exempts from the moratorium any significant regulatory 
action that is specifically aimed at limiting speculation in the oil 
markets. Now, think of a gas pump this way: if you look at a gas pump, 
it's got that nozzle like that--it is actually a holdup device. Every 
time our constituents pull up to the pump and say ``fill it up,'' the 
oil companies are saying ``stick 'em up.'' That's what's happening.
  So, do we really want to tell these speculators in oil markets that 
we don't have any interest in stopping their speculation? Do we really 
want this bill to do that? Because if we do that, what we are, in 
effect, causing is, we're giving the oil companies carte blanche to 
steal from our constituents. I am sure my friends on the other side of 
the aisle don't want that to happen, which is why I brought this 
amendment forward to help you.
  Today, financial speculators have overwhelmed commodity markets and 
have driven out bona fide market participants who seek to reduce the 
risk of their investment by making offsetting investments. Excessive 
speculation in oil markets has come about as a result of the 
financialization of commodity markets. Financialization means that the 
prices of a commodity like oil are being set not by supply and demand 
but by financial concerns and by manipulation. Financialization has 
increased volatility, increased prices in the futures market and 
needlessly inflated the price all of our constituents pay at the pump--
stick 'em up--and pay for products like heating oil.
  Now, let's not forget that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused, 
in part, by commodity swaps, most of which are oil swaps. In July of 
2008, traders pushed the price of a barrel of oil to a record $145. The 
wild price fluctuation was not caused simply by changes in supply or 
demand or by events in the Middle East. There was a worldwide recession 
in 2008. Weak economies usually mean weaker demand for oil. But thanks 
to Wall Street, that's not the case. They find a way to make a profit 
at the expense of consumers and businesses.
  For decades, bona fide commercial hedgers made up about 70 percent of 
the commodities market activity, with speculators making up the other 
30 percent. Now the speculators make up about 70 percent of the 
activity, and commercial hedgers are 30 percent.

                              {time}  1750

  Do we really want to provide an opportunity for these speculators to 
cause our constituents to have to stick 'em up again?

[[Page 12231]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes and 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. I will yield 45 seconds to my friend.
  Mr. CONYERS. I may not need that much time.
  But this is the most important provision in this bill--if we can 
persuade our colleagues to accept it--because we've all been victims of 
this rising gas price and then they miraculously come down a little 
bit, and then they start going back up again and then they come down.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for introducing 
the amendment, and I'm proud, along with him, to support consumers 
across this country.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. How much more time would you 
like? I thank you sincerely.
  The New England Fuel Institute published a list of 100 studies--100 
studies, my friends--showing the impact of commodity speculation. This 
is entitled, ``Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation 
by Academics, Analysts and Public Institutions.'' These studies show 
the harms of unchecked financial speculation on all commodity markets, 
not just oil. And though my amendment is focused on retaining the power 
of our regulatory agencies to address oil speculation, the fact is that 
excessive speculation hampers the proper function of all derivative 
markets, not just energy markets.
  Today, the average price of gas in America is about $3.50 a gallon--
higher than it ought to be--and that's because of excessive 
speculation.

                            [June 14, 2012]

Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation by Academics, 
                    Analysts and Public Institutions

                       (Compiled by Markus Henn)

       1) Adammer, Philipp/Bohl, Martin T./Stephan, Patrick M. 
     (University of Munster) (2011): Speculative Bubbles in 
     Agricultural Prices: ``The empirical evidence is favorable 
     for speculative bubbles in the corn and wheat price over the 
     last decade.''
       2) Agriculture and food policy centre (Texas University) 
     (2008): The effects of ethanol on Texas food and feed: 
     ``Speculative fund activities in futures markets have led to 
     more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased 
     price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end 
     result has been the loss of the ability to use futures 
     markets for price risk management due to the inability to 
     finance margin requirements.''
       3) Algieri, Bernardina (Zentrum fur Entwicklungsforschung 
     Bonn) (2012): Price Volatility. Speculation and Excessive 
     Speculation in Commodity Markets: Sheep or Shepherd 
     Behaviour?: . . . this study shows that excessive speculation 
     drives price volatility, and that often bilateral 
     relationships exist between price volatility and speculation. 
     (. . .) excessive speculation has driven price volatility for 
     maize, rice, soybeans, and wheat in particular time frames, 
     but the relationships are not always overlapping for all the 
     considered commodities.''
       4) Aliber, Robert Z. (University of Chicago) (2008): Oil 
     Rally Topped Dot-Com Craze in Speculators' Mania (Bloomberg 
     article): ``You've got speculation in a lot of commodities 
     and that seems to be driving up the price. (. . .) Movements 
     are dominated by momentum players who predict price changes 
     from Wednesday to Friday on the basis of the price change 
     from Monday to Wednesday.''
       5) Baffes, John (The World Bank)/Haniotis. Tassos (European 
     Commission) (2010): Placing the 2006/08 Commodities Boom into 
     Perspective. World Bank Research Working Paper 5371: ``We 
     conjecture that index fund activity (one type of 
     ``speculative'' activity among the many that the literature 
     refers to) played a key role during the 2008 price spike. 
     Biofuels played some role too, but much less than initially 
     thought. And we find no evidence that alleged stronger demand 
     by emerging economies had any effect on world prices.''
       6) Bass, Hans H. (Univ. Bremen) (2011): Finanzmsrkte als 
     Hungerverursacher? Studie fur Welthungerhilfe e.V.: ``Das 
     Engagement der Kapitalanleger auf den Getreidemarkten fuhrte 
     nach unseren Berechnungen in den Jahren 2007 bis 2009 im 
     Jahresdurchschnitt zu einem Spielraum fur 
     Preisniveauerhohungen von bis zu 15 Prozent.''
       7) Basu, Parantap/Gavin. William T. (Federal Reserve Bank 
     of St. Loius) (2011): What explains the Growth in Commodity 
     Derivatives? ``Banks argue that they need to use commodity 
     derivatives to help customers manage risks. This may be true, 
     but the recent experience in commodity futures did not reduce 
     risks but exacerbated them just at the wrong time.''
       8) Berg, Ann (former CME trader and director, now FAO 
     advisor) (2010): Agricultural Futures: Strengthening market 
     signals for global price discover. Paper to the FAO's 
     Committee on Commodity Problems Extraordinary meeting: ``. . 
     . over 150 years of futures trading history demonstrates that 
     position limits are necessary in commodities of finite supply 
     to curb excessive speculation and hoarding.''
       9) Berg, Ann (former CME trader and director. now FAO 
     advisor) (2011): The rise of commodity speculation: from 
     villainous to venerable: ``Structural changes in global 
     commodity markets have greatly contributed to rising prices 
     and increased price variability. These fundamental trends 
     toward higher prices have been a key lure for increased 
     speculative activity on the major futures exchanges.''
       10) Bicchetti, David/Maystre, Nicolas (2012) (UNCTAD): The 
     synchronized and long-lasting structural change on commodity 
     markets: evidence from high frequency data: ``we document a 
     synchronized structural break, characterized by a departure 
     from zero, which starts in the course of 2008 and continues 
     thereafter. This is consistent with the idea that recent 
     financial innovations on commodity futures exchanges, in 
     particular the high frequency trading activities and 
     algorithm strategies have an impact on these correlations.''
       11) Buyuksahin, Bahattin (IEA)/Robe, Michel A. (American 
     University) (2010): Speculators, Commodities and Cross-Market 
     Linkages: ``We then show that the correlations between the 
     returns on investable commodity and equity indices increase 
     amid greater participation by speculators generally and hedge 
     funds especially.''
       12) Chevalier, Jean-Marie (ed.) (Ministere de l'Economie. 
     de l'Industrie et de l'Emoloi) (2010): RaDDOrt du groupe de 
     travail sur la volatilite des prix du petrole: ``On peut 
     raisonnablement avancer en conclusion que le jeu de certains 
     acteurs financiers a pu amplifier les mouvements a la hausse 
     ou a la baisse des cours, augmentant a volatilite naturelle 
     des prix du petrole...''
       13) Cooke, Bryce/Robles. Miguel (IFPRI) (2009): Recent Food 
     Prices Movements. A Time Series Analysis: ``Overall, our 
     empirical analysis mainly provides evidence that financial 
     activity in futures markets and proxies for speculation can 
     help explain the observed change in food prices; any other 
     explanation is not well supported by our time series 
     analysis.''
       14) Cooper, Marc (Consumer Federation of America) (2011): 
     Excessive Speculation and Oil Price Shock Recessions: A Case 
     of Wall Street ``Deja vu all over again'': ``the paper shows 
     that excessive speculation, not market fundamentals caused 
     the spike in oil prices. The movement of trading and prices 
     in the three years since the speculative bubble in oil burst 
     in 2008 provides even stronger evidence that excessive 
     speculation is a major problem that afflicts the oil market 
     and the economy.''
       15) Deutsche Bank Research (2009): Do speculators drive 
     crude oil prices? Dispersion in beliefs as price 
     determinants. Research Notes 32: ``The econometric estimates 
     can reject the null hypotheses that the dispersion in beliefs 
     of speculators has no influence on the crude oil price and 
     its volatility. Both the Granger causality tests and the 
     distributed lag models, which also include lagged regressors 
     that measure the dispersion in beliefs of speculators, 
     confirm moreover the role of speculation as a precursor to 
     price movements.''
       16) Dicker, Dan (former NYMEX trader) (2011): ``I wrote 
     Oil's Endless Bid to show how the treatment of oil as a stock 
     by investors, far more than any number of globally 
     significant competing factors, causes the dramatically higher 
     prices that we've seen in recent years. I've witnessed 
     seismic changes to the oil markets during my many years as a 
     trader, and it's the everyday consumer who shoulders the 
     burden.''
       17) Du, Xiaodong/Yu, Cindy L./Hayes. Dermott J. (Iowa State 
     University) (2009). Speculation and Volatility Spillover in 
     the Crude Oil and Agricultural Commodity Markets: A Bayesian.
       Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation by 
     Academics, Analysts and Public Institutions--14 June 2012_
[email protected] Analysis. Working Paper No. 09-WP 
     491, 2009: ``Speculation, scalping, and petroleum inventories 
     are found to be important in explaining oil price 
     variation.''
       18) Eckaus. R.S. (MIT) (2008): The Oil Price Really Is A 
     Speculative Bubble. ``Since there is no reason based on 
     current and expected supply and demand that justifies the 
     current price of oil, what is left? The oil price is a 
     speculative bubble.''
       19) Einloth. James T. (FDIC) (2009): Speculation and Recent 
     Volatility in the Price of Oil: ``The paper finds the 
     evidence inconsistent with speculation having played a major 
     role in the rise of price to $100 per barrel in March 2008. 
     However, the evidence suggests that speculation did play a 
     role in its subsequent rise to $140.''

[[Page 12232]]

       20) Evans, Tim (Citigroup energy analyst) (2008): The 
     Official Demise of the Oil Bubble (Wall Street Article): 
     ``This is a market that is basically returning to the price 
     level of a year ago which it arguably should never have left. 
     (...) We pumped up a big bubble, expanded it to an impressive 
     dimension, and now it is popped and we have bubble gum in our 
     hair.''
       21) Frenk, David (Better Markets Inc.) (2010): Review of 
     Irwin and Sanders 2010 OECD report: 1) The statistical 
     methods applied are completely inappropriate for the data 
     used. 2) The study is contradicted by the findings of other 
     studies that apply more appropriate statistical methods to 
     the same data. 3) The overall analysis is superficial and 
     easily refuted by looking at some basic facts.''
       22) Frenk, David/Turbeville, Wallace C. (Better Markets 
     Inc.) (2011): Commodity Index Traders and the Boom/Bust Cycle 
     in Commodities Prices: ``We find strong evidence that the CIT 
     Roll Cycle systematically distorts forward commodities 
     futures price curves towards a contango state, which is 
     likely to contribute to speculative ``boom/bust'' cycles by 
     changing the incentives of producers and consumers of 
     storable commodities, and also by sending misleading and non-
     fundamental, price signals to the market.''
       23) Gheit, Fadel/Katzenberg, Daniel (2008) (Oppenheimer & 
     Co.): Surviving lower oil prices: ``The investment banks that 
     hyped oil prices using voodoo economics have suddenly 
     reversed their position and now expect much lower oil prices. 
     They helped cause excessive speculation, create the oil 
     bubble, and contributed to the global financial crisis. They 
     have changed their tune in exchange for a government bailout, 
     not because of changes in market fundamentals.''
       24) Gilbert, Christopher (Trento University) (2010): How to 
     understand high food prices: ``By investing across the entire 
     range of commodity futures, index-based investors appear to 
     have inflated food commodity prices.''
       25) Gilbert, Christopher (Trento University) (2010): 
     Speculative Influences on Commodity Futures Prices: ``The 
     results ... indicate that index-based investment in commodity 
     futures may have been responsible for a significant and 
     bubblelike increase of energy and non-ferrous metals prices, 
     although the estimated impact on agricultural prices is 
     smaller.''
       26) Ghosh, Jayati (Jawaharlal Nehru University) (2010): 
     Commodity speculation and the food crisis: ``Thus 
     international commodity markets increasingly began to develop 
     many of the features of financial markets, in that they 
     became prone to information asymmetries and associated 
     tendencies to be led by a small number of large players. Far 
     from being `efficient markets' in the sense hoped for by 
     mainstream theory, they allowed for inherently `wrong' 
     signalling devices to become very effective in determining 
     and manipulating market behaviour. The result was the 
     excessive price volatility that has been displayed by 
     important commodities over the recent period--not only the 
     food grains and crops mentioned here, but also minerals and 
     oil.''
       27) Global Hunger Index 2011 (IFPRI, Welthungerhilfe, 
     Concern Worldwide) (2011): ``Price increases and volatility 
     have arisen for three main reasons: increasing use of food 
     crops for biofuels, extreme weather events and climate 
     change, and increased volume of trading in commodity futures 
     markets.''
       28) Goldman Sachs (2011): Global Energy Weekly March 2011: 
     ``We estimate that each million barrels of net speculative 
     length tends to add 8-10 cents to the price of a barrel of 
     oil.''
       29) Greenberger, Michael (University of Maryland) (2010): 
     The Relationship of Unregulated Excessive Speculation to Oil 
     Market Price Volatility. Paper for the International Energy 
     Forum: ``When speculators make up too large a share of the 
     futures market, they have the potential to upset the healthy 
     tension between consumers and producers and resulting 
     adherence of prices to market fundamentals. The resulting 
     volatility makes it more difficult for commercial consumers 
     and producers to successfully hedge risk, because prices do 
     not reflect market fundamentals, and so they abandon the 
     futures market and risk shifting--thereby further 
     destabilizing the price discovery influence of these 
     markets.''
       30) Hamilton, James (Department of Economics, UC San Diego) 
     (2009) Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08: 
     ``With hindsight, it is hard to deny that the price rose too 
     high in July 2008, and that this miscalculation was 
     influenced in part by the flow of investment dollars into 
     commodity futures contracts.''
       31) Henderson, Brian J. (George Washington University)/
     Pearson, Neil D./Wang, Li (2012) (University of Illinois at 
     Urbana-Champaign): New Evidence on the Financialization of 
     Commodity Markets: ``this paper examines the price impact of 
     commodity investments on the commodities futures markets 
     using a novel dataset of Commodity-Linked Notes (CLNs). CLN 
     issuers hedge their liabilities by taking long positions in 
     the underlying commodity futures on the pricing dates. These 
     hedging trades are plausibly exogenous to the contemporaneous 
     and subsequent price movements, allowing us to identify the 
     price impact of the hedging trades. We find that these 
     hedging trades cause significant price changes in the 
     underlying futures markets, and therefore provide direct 
     evidence of the impact of ``financial'' trades on commodity 
     futures prices.''
       32) House of Commons Select Committee on Science & 
     Technology of the United Kingdom (2011). ``While the debate 
     on the relative importance of the multiple factors 
     influencing commodities prices is still open, it is clear 
     that price movements across different commodity markets have 
     become more closely related and that commodities markets have 
     become more closely linked to financial markets.''
       33) Hunt, Simon (Simon Hunt Strategic Services) (2011): 
     ``Slowly, the truth on whether the global copper market is 
     really tight is coming out. It illustrates just how large an 
     involvement the financial institutions have become to the 
     copper industry. It shows, too, that by throwing money at a 
     market, prices can be driven higher. In the process, however, 
     the delicate balance between supply and the industry's 
     requirements for a basic material used to produce a range of 
     essential products is destroyed. In short, copper is becoming 
     a financial asset in place of its historic role as an 
     industrial metal.''
       34) Inamura, Yasunari/Kimata, Tomonori/Takeshi, Kimura/
     Muto, Takashi (Bank of Japan) (2011): Recent Surge in Global 
     Commodity Prices--Impact of financialization of commodities 
     and globally accommodative monetary conditions. Bank of Japan 
     Review March 2011: ``While the strong increase in commodity 
     prices has been driven by global economic growth propelled by 
     emerging economies, speculative investment flows into 
     commodity markets have amplified the intensity of the price 
     surge. (...) global commodity markets have become more 
     sensitive to portfolio rebalancing by financial investors, 
     which has made commodity markets more correlated with other 
     asset markets, including major equity markets.''
       35) institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2009): 
     Betting Against Food Security: Futures Market Speculation. 
     Trade and Global Governance Programme Paper: ``A large share 
     of the commodity exchange price volatility resides not so 
     much in supply and demand of the commodity traded as in the 
     fund formulas for buying and selling the bundled futures 
     contracts.''
       36) International Monetary Fund (2008): Regional Economic 
     Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia: ``In summary, it 
     appears that speculation has played a significant role in the 
     run-up in oil prices as the U.S. dollar has weakened and 
     investors have looked for a hedge in oil futures (and 
     gold).''
       37) Jalali-Naini. Ali bin Ibrahim (Economic Research Forum 
     Cairo) (2009): The Impact of Financial Markets on the Price 
     of Oil and Volatility: Developments since 2007: ``Causality 
     tests indicate that changes in speculative positions--
     resulting from the entry and exit of non-commercials--can 
     generate price volatility. When used in conjunction with a 
     number of other variables, including commercial stocks and 
     product prices to explain variations in the price of oil, the 
     speculative length in the futures market has a positive and 
     significant coefficient.''
       38) Jickling, Mark/Austin, Andrew D. (Congressional 
     Research Service) (2011): Hedge Funds Speculation and Oil 
     Prices: ``A statistically significant correlation is evident 
     between changes in positions held by ``money managers'' (a 
     category of speculators that includes hedge funds) and the 
     price of oil. In other words, during weeks when money 
     managers have been net buyers of oil futures and options (or 
     increased the size of their long positions), the price has 
     tended to rise. Price falls, conversely, have tended to 
     coincide with reductions in money managers' long positions.''
       39) Jouyet, Jean-Pierre (President de l'Autorite des 
     marches financiers)/de Boissieu, Christian (President du 
     Conseil d'analyse economique)/Guillon. Serge (Controleur 
     general economigue et financier) (2010): Rapport d'etape--
     Prevenir et gerer l'instabilite des marches agricoles: ``Les 
     marches agricoles sont confrontes a une mondialisation et a 
     une financiarisation qui influencent leur fonctionnement. La 
     volatilite naturelles des prix qui caracterise ces marches 
     est amplifiee par de nouveaux facteurs et notamment par une 
     speculation excessive.''
       40) Juvenal, Luciana/Ivan, Petrella (Federal Reserve Bank 
     of St. Louis) (2011): Speculation in the Oil Market: ``We 
     find that the increase in oil prices in the last decade is 
     mainly due to the strength of global demand, consistent with 
     previous studies. However, financial speculation 
     significantly contributed to the oil price increase between 
     2004 and 2008.''
       41) Kaufmann, Robert (Boston University) (2010): The role 
     of market fundamentals and speculation in recent price 
     changes for crude oil: ``I hypothesize that the price spike 
     and collapse of 2007-2008 are driven by both changes in both 
     market fundamentals and speculative pressures.''
       42) Kawamoto, Takuji/Kimura, Takeshi/Morishita, Kentaro/
     Higashi, Masato (Bank of

[[Page 12233]]

     Japan (2011): What has caused the surge in global commodity 
     prices and strengthened cross-market linkage?: ``Moreover, we 
     find quantitative evidence that an increase in cross-market 
     linkage between commodity and stock markets was caused by the 
     markets' increased comovements due to large fluctuations in 
     the global economy during the financial crisis as well as by 
     the ``financialization of commodities,'' that is, financial 
     investors are increasingly treating commodities as an 
     investment asset class.''
       43) Kemp, John (Reuters) (2008): Crisis remakes the 
     commodity business: ``It does not alter the fact most of the 
     upsurge in futures and options turnover on commodity 
     exchanges and in OTC markets over the last five years has 
     come from investment-related rather than trade-related 
     business.''
       44) Khan, Mohsin S. (Petersen Institute) (2009): The 2008 
     Oil Price ``Bubble'': ``While market fundamentals obviously 
     played a role in the general run-up in the oil prices from 
     2003 on, it is fair to conclude by looking at a variety of 
     indicators that speculation drove an oil price bubble in the 
     first half of 2008. Absent speculative activities, the oil 
     price would probably have been in the $80 to $90 a barrel 
     range.''
       45) Korzenik, Jeffrey (CIO. Caturano Wealth Management) 
     (2009): Fundamental Misconceptions in the Speculation Debate: 
     ```Overspeculation' or `excessive speculation' exists when 
     speculators become primary drivers of price. When this 
     happens, commodities are no longer efficiently allocated--if 
     prices are driven below the point where commercial supply and 
     demand meet, shortages result.''
       46) Krugman, Paul (Columbia University) (2009): Oil 
     speculation: ``Last year I was skeptical about claims that 
     speculation was central to the price rise, because what I 
     considered the essential signature of a speculative price 
     rise . . . just wasn't showing. This time, however, oil 
     inventories are bulging, with huge amounts held in offshore 
     tankers as well as in conventional storage. So this time 
     there's no question: speculation has been driving prices 
     up.''
       47) Lagi, Marco/Bar-Yam, Yavni/Bertrand, Karla Z./Bar-Yam, 
     Yaneer (New England Complex Systems Institute, Cambridge MA) 
     (2011): The Food Crises A Quantitative Model of Food Prices 
     Including Speculators and Ethanol Conversion: ``The two sharp 
     peaks in 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 are specifically due to 
     investor speculation, while an underlying upward trend is due 
     to increasing demand from ethanol conversion. The model 
     includes investor trend following as well as shifting between 
     commodities, equities and bonds to take advantage of 
     increased expected returns. Claims that speculators cannot 
     influence grain prices are shown to be invalid by direct 
     analysis of price setting practices of granaries.'' and the 
     UPDATE from February 2012: ``we extend the food prices model 
     to January 2012, without modifying the model but simply 
     continuing its dynamics. The agreement is still precise, 
     validating both the descriptive and predictive abilities of 
     the analysis.''
       48) Lines, Thomas (commodity consultant) (2010): 
     Speculation in food commodity markets: ``These are the main 
     problems that are caused by long-only index trading: It 
     pushes prices up, irrespective of the market situation. It 
     disrupts the rolling over of futures contracts when the 
     nearest month expires.''
       49) Lombardi, Marco J./Van Robays, Ine (ECB) (2011): Do 
     financial investors destablize the oil price?: ``We find that 
     financial investors in the futures market can destabilize oil 
     spot prices, although only in the short run. Moreover, 
     financial activity appears to have exacerbated the volatility 
     in the oil market over the past decade, particularly in 2007-
     2008. However, shocks to oil demand and supply remain the 
     main drivers of oil price swings.''
       50) Luciani, Giacomo (Gulf Research Center Foundation) 
     (2009): From Price Taker to Price Maker? Saudi Arabia and the 
     World Oil Market: ``The inflow of liquidity, the increasing 
     role played by the futures market (paper barrels) over the 
     spot (wet barrels), and the proliferation of derivatives 
     which encourage betting on price changes rather than on the 
     absolute level of prices all contribute to worsen the 
     situation, amplifying price oscillations.''
       51) Masters, Michael W. (Masters Capital) (2009): Testimony 
     before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission: ``In 
     summary, passive investors compete with physical commodity 
     consumers and make it much more difficult for them to hedge. 
     (. . .) They provide no benefits whatsoever to the markets 
     because they consume liquidity. And most importantly, they 
     drive up commodity prices, which hurts everybody on the 
     planet.''
       52) Masters, Michael W. (Masters Capital)/White, Adam K. 
     (White Knight Research) (2008): How institutional investors 
     are driving up food and energy prices: ``Unfortunately, this 
     price discovery function of the commodities futures markets 
     is breaking down. With the advent of financial futures, the 
     important distinctions between commodities futures and 
     financial futures were lost to regulators. Excessive 
     speculation gradually became synonymous with manipulation, 
     and speculative position limits were raised or effectively 
     eliminated because they were not deemed necessary to prevent 
     manipulation.''
       53) Mayer, Jorg (2009): The Growing Interdependence between 
     Financial and Commodity Markets. UNCTAD Discussion Paper 195: 
     ``The increasing importance of financial investment in 
     commodity trading appears to have caused commodity futures 
     exchanges to function in such a way that prices may deviate, 
     at least in the short run, quite far from levels that would 
     reliably reflect fundamental supply and demand factors. 
     Financial investment weakens the traditional mechanisms that 
     would prevent prices from moving away from levels determined 
     by fundamental supply and demand factors--efficient 
     absorption of information and physical adjustment of markets. 
     This weakening increases the proneness of commodity prices to 
     overshooting and heightens the risk of speculative bubbles 
     occurring.''
       54) Medlock, Kenneth B./Jaffe, Amy M. (Rice University) 
     (2009): Who is in the Oil Futures Market and How Has It 
     Changed?: ``. . . trading strategies of some financial 
     players in oil appears to be influencing the correlation 
     between the value of the U.S. dollar and the price of oil. (. 
     . .) We also find that the correlation between movements in 
     oil prices and the value of the dollar against the trade-
     weighted index of the currencies of foreign countries has 
     increased to 0.82 (a significant measure) for the period 
     between 2001 and the present day, compared to a previously 
     insignificant correlation of only 0.08 between 1986 and 
     2000.''
       55) Miller, Marcus (University of Warwick) (2011) Interview 
     with Al-Jazeera. ``A disturbing amount of price increases, I 
     fear, is being driven by speculative activity. Bets [on 
     future price rises or declines] can become self-fulfilling if 
     you are big enough to affect the market.''
       56) Morse, E. (former Lehman Brothers chief energy 
     economist) (2008): Oil Dotcom. Research Note: ``Fundamental 
     changes cannot explain sudden, severe price or curve 
     movements. (. . .) Our conclusion from this study is that we 
     are seeing the classic ingredients of an asset bubble.''
       57) Mou, Yiqun (Columbia University) (2010): Limits to 
     Arbitrage and Commodity Index Investment: Frontrunning the 
     Goldman Roll: ``This paper focuses on the unique rolling 
     activity of commodity index investors in the commodity 
     futures markets and shows that the price impact due to this 
     rolling activity is both statistically and economically 
     significant.''
       58) Muller, Dirk (Finanzethos) (2011): Unschuldsmythen, Wie 
     die Nahrungsmittelspekulation den Hunger anheizt: ``Wie die 
     folgende Analyse zeigt, ist der zentrale Einfluss der 
     Spekulation auf die Preisentwicklung bei Grundnahrungsmittel 
     in Entwicklungslandern kaum zu leugnen.''
       59) Naylor, Rosamund L./Falcon. Walter P. (Stanford) 
     (2010). Food Security in an Era of Economic Volatility: 
     ``Uncertainty surrounding exchange rates and macro policies 
     added to price misperceptions, as did flurries of speculative 
     activity in organized futures markets. Events since 2005--
     including the most recent period of price variability in 
     2010--underscore the point that uncertainty and expectations 
     can be as important as or even more important than actual 
     changes in grain demand and supply in driving price 
     variability.''
       60) Newell, J. (Probability Analytics Research) (2008): 
     Commodity Speculation's ``Smoking Gun'': ``Real market forces 
     in these diverse markets are largely independent of one 
     another, and therefore price changes should be essentially 
     uncorrelated. This was clearly true historically; from 1984 
     through 1999 average correlation between all commodities was 
     only 7%. In the last 12 months this average rose to 64%. 
     Correlation with the GSCI was 23% historically, and rose to 
     76% in the last year. Index speculation has swamped real 
     market forces.''
       61) Nissanke, Machiko (University of London) (2010): 
     Commodity Markets and Excess Volatility. Sources and 
     Strategies to Reduce Adverse Development Impacts. Paper 
     presented at the CFC Conference in Brussels December 2010: 
     ``It can be argued that asset prices, including commodity 
     prices, traded globally are largely influenced by market 
     liquidity cycles in global finance. From this particular 
     perspective, we can have a plausible narrative of the recent 
     episode of commodity pricey cycle. (. . .) Clearly, trading 
     activities in world commodity markets have undergone some 
     fundamental change, as the links between activities in 
     commodity and financial markets has further intensified.''
       62) Ortiz, Isabel/Chai, Jingqaing/Cummins. Matthew (2011): 
     Escalating Food Prices--the threat to poor households and 
     policies to safeguard a Recovery for All. Unicef Social and 
     Economic working paper. ``Such activities [trading futures 
     contracts for speculative gains] have contributed to 
     excessive fluctuations in food commodity futures prices and 
     distorted signals for expected prices. By doing to, 
     speculation impedes practical hedging strategies and imposes 
     significant unanticipated costs and undue burden on food 
     farmers, processors and distributors, potentially 
     contributing to unwarranted changes in local food costs.''
       63) Petzel, Todd E. (Offit Capital Advisors) (2009): 
     Testimony before the CFTC: ``I believe these investors in 
     aggregate have had a material impact on price levels, price 
     spreads and the level of inventories being held.''

[[Page 12234]]

       64) Phillips, Peter C. B. (Yale University)/Yu, Jun 
     (Singapore University) (2010): Dating the Timeline of 
     Financial Bubbles During the Subprime Crisis: ``a bubble 
     first emerged in the equity market during mid-1995 lasting to 
     the end of 2000, followed by a bubble in the real estate 
     market between September 2000 and June 2007 and in the 
     mortgage market between August 2005 and July 2007. After the 
     subprime crisis erupted, the phenomenon migrated selectively 
     into the commodity market and the foreign exchange market, 
     creating bubbles which subsequently burst at the end of 2008, 
     just as the effects on the real economy and economic growth 
     became manifest.''
       65) Pollin, Robert/Heintz. James (University of 
     Massachusetts)(2011): How Wall Street Speculation is Driving 
     Up Gasoline Prices Today: ``A major additional factor is the 
     rapid growth in large-scale speculative trading around oil 
     prices through the oil commodities futures market. Indeed, we 
     estimate that, without the influence of large-scale 
     speculative trading on oil in the commodities futures market, 
     the average price of gasoline at the pump in May would have 
     been $3.13 rather than $3.96.''
       66) Ray, Darryl E/Schaffer, Harwood D. (University of 
     Tennessee) (2010): Index funds and the 2006-2008 run-up in 
     agricultural commodity prices: ``the fundamentals and/or 
     expectations in the energy and mineral markets rein supreme--
     grains are along for the ride with little-to-no regard to 
     what is happening in the grain sector. Worries during the 
     period about the availability of oil drove up the price of 
     crude, which caused index funds to rebalance their portfolios 
     by making additional purchases of the other commodities to 
     maintain the specified balance. Since the resulting price 
     increases in agricultural commodities had virtually nothing 
     to do with their market conditions, the record level of 
     activity in the futures market by index funds would seem to 
     make index funds a logical source of possible price 
     overshooting.''
       67) Robles, Miguel/Torero, Maximo/Braun. Joachim von 
     (IFPRI) (2009): When speculation matters. IFPRI Issue Brief 
     57: ``Changes in supply and demand fundamentals cannot fully 
     explain the recent drastic increase in food prices. Rising 
     expectations, speculation, hoarding, and hysteria also played 
     a role in the increasing level and volatility of food 
     prices.''
       68) Roubini, Nouriel (New York University) (2009): The risk 
     of a double-dip recession is rising (Financial Times 
     Article): ``Another reason to fear a double-dip recession is 
     that oil, energy and food prices are now rising faster than 
     economic fundamentals warrant, and could be driven higher by 
     excessive liquidity chasing assets and by speculative 
     demand.''
       69) Sachs, Jeffrey D. (Columbia University) (2008): Corn 
     Futures Spark Riots as Speculators Take Trading to Limit 
     (Bloomberg article): ``The fact that prices soared and then 
     they came down so much really does suggest that there was a 
     speculative element to it.''
       70) Schulmeister, Stephan (Vienna University) (2009): 
     Trading Practices and Price Dynamics in Commodity Markets. 
     Study commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry of 
     Finance and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and 
     Labour: ``Based on the ``bullishness'' in commodity 
     derivatives markets, short-term oriented speculators reacted 
     much stronger to news in line with the expectation of rising 
     prices than to news which contradicted the ``market mood''. 
     Hence, they put more money into long positions than into 
     short positions and held long positions longer than short 
     positions. Due to this trading behavior, upward commodity 
     price runs lasted longer in recent years than downward runs 
     causing prices to rise in a stepwise process. Commodity price 
     runs were lengthened by the use of trend-following trading 
     systems of technical analysis. These systems try to exploit 
     price runs by producing buy (sell) signals in the early stage 
     of an upward (downward) run. The aggregate trading signals 
     then feed back upon commodity prices.''
       71) Schumann, Harald (2011): Die Hungermacher. Wie Deutsche 
     Bank, Goldman Sachs & Co. auf Kosten der Armsten mit 
     Lebensmitteln spekulieren. ``Die verantwortlichen Manager der 
     Finanzbranche argumentieren, es gebe keine Beweise dafur, 
     dass Finanzinvestoren auf den Rohstoffmarkten einen mehr als 
     nur kurzfristigen Einfluss auf das Preisniveau haben. Diese 
     Behauptung ist nicht haltbar. Fur den Roholmarkt 1st dieser 
     Zusammenhang sogar unter den Fachleuten der Finanzbranche 
     selbst nicht mehr umstritten.''
       72) Schutter, Olivier de (UN Special Rapporteur on the 
     Right to Food) (2010): Food commodities speculation and food 
     price crises: Regulation to reduce the risks of financial 
     volatility: ``The global food price crisis that occurred 
     between 2007 and 2008, and which affects many developing 
     countries to this day, had a number of causes. The initial 
     causes related to market fundamentals, including the supply 
     and demand for food commodities, transportation and storage 
     costs, and an increase in the price of agricultural inputs. 
     However, a significant portion of the increases in price and 
     volatility of essential food commodities can only be 
     explained by the emergence of a speculative bubble.''
       73) Shiller, Robert J. (Yale University) (2008): Commodity 
     Prices Tumble (New York Times article): ``Commodities 
     followed the euphoria cycle that we had along with housing.''
       74) Silvennoinen Annastiina (Queensland University) / 
     Thorp, Susan (Sydney University) (2010): Financialization 
     crisis and commodity correlation dynamics: We observe higher 
     and more variable correlations between commodity futures and 
     stock returns from mid-sample, with many series showing a 
     structural break in the conditional correlation processes 
     from the late 1990s.''
       75) Singleton, Kenneth J. (Stanford University) (2010): The 
     2008 Boom/Bust in Oil Prices: ``In my view, while spot-market 
     supply and demand pressures were influential factors in the 
     behavior of oil prices, so were participation in oil futures 
     markets by hedge funds, long-term passive investors, and 
     other traders in energy derivatives.''
       76) Singleton, Kenneth J. (Stanford University) (2011): 
     Investor Flows And The 2008 Boom/Bust in Oil Prices: ``I 
     present new evidence that there was an economically and 
     statistically significant effect of investor flows on futures 
     prices . . . The intermediate-term growth rates of index 
     positions and managed-money spread positions had the largest 
     impacts on futures prices.''
       77) Soros, George (2008): Interview with Stem: 
     ``Speculators create the bubble that lies above everything. 
     Their expectations, their gambling on futures help drive up 
     prices, and their business distorts prices, which is 
     especially true for commodities. It is like hoarding food in 
     the midst of a famine, only to make profits on rising prices. 
     That should not be possible.''
       78) Tanaka, Nobuo (head International Energy Agency) 
     (2009): IEA says speculation amplifying oil prices moves 
     (Reuters article): ``Our analysis shows that the fundamentals 
     are deciding the direction of the price while these funds or 
     speculations . . . are amplifying the movement.''
       79) Tang, Ke (Princeton University) / Xiong. Wei (Renmin 
     University) (2011): Index Investment and The Financialization 
     of Commodities. ``This paper finds that concurrent with the 
     rapid growing index investment in commodities markets since 
     early 2000s, futures prices of different commodities in the 
     U.S. became increasingly correlated with each other and this 
     trend was significantly more pronounced for commodities in 
     the two popular GSCI and DJUBS commodity indices. This 
     finding reflects a financialization process of commodities 
     markets and helps explain the synchronized price boom and 
     bust of a broad set of seemingly unrelated commodities in the 
     U.S. in 2006-2008. In contrast, such commodity price 
     comovements were absent in China, which refutes growing 
     commodity demands from emerging economies as the driver.''
       80) Timmer, C. Peter (FAO) (2009): Peter Timmer: Peter 
     Timmer: Did Speculation Affect World Rice Prices? 
     ``Speculative money seems to surge in and out of commodity 
     markets, strongly linking financial variables with commodity 
     prices during some time periods. But these periods are often 
     short and the relationships disappear entirely for long 
     periods of time.''
       81) Trostle, Ronald (2008): Global Agricultural Supply and 
     Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent Increase in Food 
     Commodity Prices. USDA Economic Research Service: ``It is 
     unclear to what extent the effect these new investor 
     interests had on prices and the underlying supply and demand 
     relationships for agricultural products. However, 
     computerized trend-following trading practices employed by 
     many of these funds may have increased the short-term 
     volatility of agricultural prices.''
       82) Tudor Jones, Paul (Tudor Investment Corporation) 
     (2010): Price Limits: A Return to Patience and Rationality in 
     U.S. Markets. Speech to the CME Global Financial Leadership 
     Conference. October 18, 2010: ``Every exchange traded 
     instrument including all securities, futures, options and any 
     other form of derivatives should have some form of a price 
     limit. And this is all the more urgently needed now that 
     electronic execution dominates trading.''
       83) Turbeville, Wallace C. (former Goldman Sachs vice-
     president) Critique of Irwin and Sanders 2010 OECD report 
     (2010): ``The issue is so important that scepticism of 
     conventional beliefs, not faith in the perfection of free 
     markets, is appropriate for any study of the issue.''
       84) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 
     (UNCTAD) (2009): Trade and Development Report. Chapter II--
     The Financialization of Commodity Markets: ``The 
     financialization of commodity futures trading has made 
     commodity markets even more prone to behavioural 
     overshooting. There are an increasing number of market 
     participants, sometimes with very large positions, that do 
     not trade based on fundamental supply and demand 
     relationships in commodity markets, but, who nonetheless, 
     influence commodity price developments.''
       85) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 
     (UNCTAD) (2009): The global economic crisis: Systemic 
     failures and multilateral remedies. ``The evidence to support 
     the view that the recent wide fluctuations of commodity 
     prices have been driven by the financialization of commodity 
     markets far beyond the equilibrium prices is

[[Page 12235]]

     credible. Various studies find that financial investors have 
     accelerated and amplified price movements at least for some 
     commodities and some periods of time. (. . .) The strongest 
     evidence is found in the high correlation between commodity 
     prices and the prices on other markets that are clearly 
     dominated by speculative activity.''
       86) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 
     (UNCTAD) (2011): Price Formation in Financialized Commodity 
     Markets: the Role of Information. ``Due to the increased 
     participation of financial players in those markets, the 
     nature of information that drives commodity price formation 
     has changed. Contrary to the assumptions of the efficient 
     market hypothesis (EMH), the majority of market participants 
     do not base their trading decisions purely on the 
     fundamentals of supply and demand; they also consider aspects 
     which are related to other markets or to portfolio 
     diversification. This introduces spurious price signals to 
     the market.''
       87) United Nations Commission of Experts on Reforms of the 
     International and Monetary System (2009): Report: ``In the 
     period before the outbreak of the crisis, inflation spread 
     from financial asset prices to petroleum, food, and other 
     commodities, partly as a result of their becoming financial 
     asset classes subject to financial investment and 
     speculation.''
       88) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 
     (2010): Final report of the committee on commodity problems: 
     Extraordinary joint intersessional meeting of the 
     intergovernmental group (IGG) on grains and the 
     intergovernmental group on rice: ``Unexpected crop failure in 
     some major exporting countries followed by national responses 
     and speculative behaviour rather than global market 
     fundamentals, have been amongst the main factors behind the 
     recent escalation of world prices and the prevailing high 
     price volatility.''
       89) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 
     (2010). Price Volatility in Agricultural Markets. Economic 
     and Social Perspectives Policy Brief 12. December 2010. 
     ``Financial firms are progressively investing in commodity 
     derivatives as a portfolio hedge since returns in the 
     commodity sector seem uncorrelated with returns to other 
     assets. While this `financialisation of commodities' is 
     generally not viewed as the source of price turbulence, 
     evidence suggests that trading in futures markets may have 
     amplified volatility in the short term.
       90) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation 
     (FAO), IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP. The World Bank, The WTO, 
     IFPRI, UN HLTF (2011): Price Volatility in Food and 
     Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses: ``While analysts 
     argue about whether financial speculation has been a major 
     factor, most agree that increased participation by non-
     commercial actors such as index funds, swap dealers and money 
     managers in financial markets probably acted to amplify short 
     term price swings and could have contributed to the formation 
     of price bubbles in some situations.''
       91) United Nations High Level Task Force on the global food 
     security crisis (2008): ``The impact of speculation in 
     futures and commodity markets on food prices has also 
     highlighted the importance of appropriate regulatory measures 
     to ensure that on-going integration of financial markets 
     provides the basis for increased benefits, rather than risks, 
     for the poor.''
       92) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on 
     Investigations (2007): Excessive Speculation in the Natural 
     Gas Market: ``Amaranth's 2006 positions in the natural gas 
     market constituted excessive speculation. (. . .) Purchasers 
     of natural gas during the summer of 2006 for delivery in the 
     following winter months paid inflated prices due to 
     Amaranth's speculative trading.''
       93) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on 
     Investigations (2009): Excessive Speculation in the Wheat 
     Market ``This Report concludes there is significant and 
     persuasive evidence that one of the major reasons for the 
     recent market problems is the unusually high level of 
     speculation in the Chicago wheat futures market due to 
     purchases of futures contracts by index traders offsetting 
     sales of commodity index instruments.''
       94) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on 
     Investigations (2006): The Role of Market Speculation in 
     Rising Oil and Gas Prices: ``The large purchases of crude oil 
     futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an 
     additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil to be 
     delivered in the future in the same manner that additional 
     demand for the immediate delivery of a physical barrel of oil 
     drives up the price on the spot market.''
       95) Urbanchuk, John M. (Cardno ENTRIX) (2011): Speculation 
     and the Commodity Markets: ``A careful examination of 
     activity by non-commercial and index traders (i.e. 
     speculators) in the corn futures market in the context of 
     supply and demand fundamentals strongly suggests that 
     speculation is a major factor behind the sharp increase in 
     both the level and volatility of corn prices this year.''
       96) Van der Molen, Maarten (University of Utrecht) (2009): 
     Speculators invading the commodity markets: a case study of 
     coffee: ``Various analyses were performed to investigate 
     these effects [i.e. effects that index speculators have on 
     the futures market]. The results indicate that index 
     speculators frustrated the futures market in the period 
     between 2005 and 2008. This conclusion is based on the 
     following indications: fundamentals have a lower impact on 
     the price, the volume of index speculators has increased and 
     their ability to influence the futures market has 
     increased.''
       97) Vansteenkiste, Isabel (ECB) (2011): What is driving oil 
     price futures? Fundamentals versus Speculation: ``We find 
     that for the earlier part of our sample (up to 2004) that 
     fundamentals have been the key driving force behind oil price 
     movements. Thereafter, trend chasing patterns appear to be 
     better in capturing the developments in oil futures 
     markets.''
       98) Von Braun, Joachim (Bonn University) (2010). Time to 
     regulate volatile food markets (Financial Times article): 
     ``The setting of prices at the main international commodity 
     exchanges was significantly influenced by speculation that 
     boosted prices. Not only are food and energy markets linked, 
     but also food and financial markets have become intertwined--
     in short, the ``financialisation'' of food trade. There are 
     increasing indications that some financial capital is 
     shifting from speculation on housing and complex derivatives 
     to commodities, including food.''
       99) Woolley, Paul (former fund manager. York University/
     London School of Economics) (2010). Why are financial markets 
     so inefficient and exploitative--and a suggested remedy. 
     ``Before the middle of the last decade the prices of 
     individual commodities could be explained by the supply and 
     demand from producers and consumers. With the flood of 
     passive and active investment funds going into commodities 
     from 2005 onwards, prices have been increasingly driven by 
     fund inflows rather than fundamental factors. Prices no 
     longer provide a reliable signal to producers or consumers. 
     More damagingly, commodity prices have a direct impact on 
     consumer price indices and the role of central banks in 
     controlling inflation is made doubly difficult now that 
     commodity prices are subject to volatile fund flows from 
     investors.''
       100) Wray, Randall L. (University of Missouri-Kansas City) 
     (2008) The Commodities Market Bubble--Money Manager 
     Capitalism and the Financialization of Commodities. Public 
     Policy Brief No 96. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard 
     College: ``There is adequate evidence that financialization 
     is a big part of the problem, and there is sufficient cause 
     for policymakers to intervene with sensible constraints and 
     oversight to reduce the influence of managed money in these 
     markets.''

  So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I rise today to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  This amendment, which exempts any regulation aimed at limiting oil 
speculation from the provisions of this bill, is no doubt well-
intentioned. No one in this body should be willing to settle for any 
market manipulation or illegal trading activities. Indeed, the Federal 
Government already has a robust and effective enforcement effort. In an 
April 2011 letter to Senator Maria Cantwell, the Federal Trade 
Commission wrote:

       The Commission established a number of processes to 
     identify, investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute illegal 
     behavior in the energy industry using our full array of 
     enforcement tools. After review, Bureau of Competition staff 
     determined that none of the complaints involved conduct that 
     violated the market manipulation rules.

  In fact, CFTC Chairman Mike Dunn summarized it in a January 13, 2011, 
statement during the open meeting on the proposed rule. He said:

       To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable 
     economic analysis to support either the conclusion that 
     excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or 
     that position limits will prevent excessive speculation.

  Indeed, study after study has shown that excessive speculation has 
not been the problem that my colleague would argue. Instead, almost 
every instance of high prices can be traced back to market fundamentals 
and an imbalance in supply and demand.
  But today's amendment, though, isn't really about excessive 
speculation. If it were, we would also be talking about the speculators 
who have brought the natural gas markets to an all-time low, betting 
that our newfound abundance of natural gas cannot all be used. Instead, 
today's amendment is about finding fault. It's about

[[Page 12236]]

finding a scapegoat for the problem of high gas prices that have been 
plaguing all of our constituents.
  While I can sympathize with the gentleman's desire to know who is 
responsible, the truth is the high price of oil is a problem of our own 
making. Policy decisions that were made years ago--failing to open new 
areas of production, boutique fuel mandates, and slow-walking new 
infrastructure--all contribute to today's pain at the pump.
  Compounding these regulatory burdens is a growing long-term supply 
problem. While we have experienced recent production gains, that may 
not be enough to offset the demands of an expanding global economy. As 
China, India, and others continue to industrialize, and as the United 
States shakes off its economic downturn, we will again see pressure on 
production to keep pace with demand.
  Over the past 3 years, oil producers in America have invested in new 
drilling technology and set off a production boom in places like North 
Dakota, Pennsylvania, and in my home State, my hometown in the Permian 
Basin area. This investment has led to 3 straight years of increasing 
domestic production on private lands, adding an additional 120,000 
barrels of oil a day in production last year alone.
  If prices are too high, we should not castigate producers and/or 
investors; we should open access to more supplies. If it is worth it, 
Americans will produce more oil and bring down prices.
  Efforts to blunt market signals by introducing regulations that make 
it harder to trade commodities may provide a temporary reprieve from 
high prices, but it will come at a cost. In the long term, artificially 
lowered prices like this may lead to less investment and ultimate 
supply shortages. The better way to fight high prices is to increase 
supply. Just as the natural gas markets have plummeted to 10-year lows, 
oil prices will respond to increasing production.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and not to waste any 
more taxpayer dollars on finding blame for Congress' failure to act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to say to my friend that if the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission isn't really sure of the impact of 
speculation, I have 100 different studies here--100. And if you would 
like, if you have a budget for copy, we'll be glad to bring it over to 
the CFTC so they can see that speculation is undermining markets and 
undermining consumers.
  Also, none other than Goldman Sachs did a study on the impact of 
speculation. If you translate their study, our constituents are paying 
a 56-cent-per-gallon increase on the price at the pump for speculation. 
Stick `em up? No. We have to make sure that we hold the speculators to 
an accountability, and particularly in oil markets.
  I ask everyone to support this amendment, something we should be able 
to agree on on a bipartisan basis.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman a designee of Mr. Lipinski of 
Illinois?
  Mr. WELCH. Yes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert the 
     following: ``(d), or (e)''.
       Page 5, insert after line 7 the following:
       (e) Significant Regulatory Actions Promoting Energy 
     Efficiency.--An agency may take any significant regulatory 
     action that is intended to promote energy efficiency.
       Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly:
       (c) Promotion of Energy Efficiency Exception.--Section 202 
     shall not apply to a midnight rule that is intended to 
     promote energy efficiency.
       Page 20, insert after line 12 the following:

     SEC. 305. EXCEPTION FOR PROMOTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

       The provisions of this title do not apply to any consent 
     decree or settlement agreement pertaining to a regulatory 
     action that is intended to promote energy efficiency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks by two things: 
number one, not all regulations are good. It's a fair and appropriate 
question to examine whether regulations are useful or harmful. But 
second, not all regulations are bad. They can be useful, particularly 
in the area of energy efficiency.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we're having a very contentious debate about 
energy policy, but we've found one area where there is common 
agreement, and that's less is more. Any time, whatever your fuel choice 
is--whether it's coal, nuclear, oil, solar, wind--using less means you 
save money. That's a good thing.
  Regulations can play a very constructive role in helping those of us 
who participate in the economy as individuals and as businesses to save 
money. My amendment would exempt from this overbroad bill rules that 
would prohibit energy efficiency-saving regulations.
  Let me give a very good example of something that would happen 
detrimental to the economy if this bill is not amended.
  Fuel standards were established in November. They have not yet gone 
into effect and would be prohibited from going into effect. The fuel 
economy standards for model years 2017 to 2025 will carry our vehicle 
fleet to an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon. The 
consumers support this and, my friends, the industry supports this. The 
car industry supports this. And one of the reasons they do is, if you 
have a rule that applies to all our manufacturers, that's the rule that 
they will manufacture their cars to.

                              {time}  1800

  So you won't have gaming of this to try to get some short-term 
advantage at the expense of the consumer, at the expense of a 
competitor.
  So energy efficiency is something that can help us save money. It can 
help the economy be more efficient. And in order to achieve the goal of 
energy efficiency, regulations, reasonably enacted, are absolutely 
essential to achieving that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to adopt the amendment and improve 
this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I've 
been saying repeatedly when the other amendments were debated I will 
repeat: the bill that we have before us has ample exceptions for 
regulatory action. And, in fact, it has a catch-all waiver that will 
allow the President of the United States to seek approval of 
regulations, but he'll have to work with Congress on them. After all, 
we're the ones that authorize the laws, the bills; and we should be 
authorizing and approving regulations.
  There's no limit to which ones. The regulations addressed by this 
amendment would certainly be fertile ground for the President to 
forward to Congress for approval. So there are ample exceptions and 
waivers.
  And I would also point out that, as I indicated earlier, I'm not 
anti-regulation. It's the excessive and overly burdensome regulations 
that we are concerned with. We need reasonable regulation, commonsense 
regulation. But the problem is the system, the regulatory system, has 
gotten out of control.

[[Page 12237]]

  So there are ample ways to deal with the issue addressed here under 
the bill, and I believe this amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. May I inquire as to how much time I have.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, two things: number one, we can't have a 
comprehensive, one-size-fits-all bill that applies to regulations. It 
requires some judgment. That means that there are some regulations that 
are good, some are bad.
  The gentleman, I think, is defending a bill that essentially has, as 
its proposition, all regulations, by definition, are detrimental to the 
economy, when that's not even close to accurate.
  Second, I appreciate the gentleman's description of a waiver process 
that gives, unfortunately, a theoretical way to resolve a situation, 
but it's not a practical remedy. It requires congressional action.
  And here's, Mr. Chairman, where I think we've got to get real with 
ourselves, and we've got to get real with the American people. The idea 
that we can agree on a disputed regulation would suggest that we could 
have agreed on student loan interest rates, that we could have agreed 
on the debt ceiling, that we could have agreed on a grand bargain. All 
of these issues that are enormously contentious and consequential for 
the American people, we have sharp divisions.
  And I'm not asserting who's right or wrong in this. I'm saying that 
all of us have to acknowledge the obvious and, that is, that Congress 
is pretty close to dysfunctional. Things that have to be addressed are 
being neglected.
  So this notion that when it comes to the car mileage standard, we'll 
be able to come into Congress and do a Kumbaya and all of us get 
together and reach agreement on one thing when, on everything else, the 
simplest of things we can't reach agreement, is not being direct and 
straightforward with ourselves or with the American people.
  Let's carve out an exception to this bill so that when this economy 
and our consumers and businesses can benefit by energy efficiency, 
which our industry supports, which our people and consumers support, we 
allow them to do that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 18, strike ``or (d)'' and insert ``(d), or 
     (e)''.
       Page 5, after line 7, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) Additional Exception.--An agency may take a significant 
     regulatory action if such action would protect the public 
     from extreme weather events, including drought, flooding, and 
     catastrophic wildfire.
       Page 10, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) necessary to protect the public from extreme weather 
     events, including drought, flooding, and catastrophic 
     wildfire;
       Page 10, line 5, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 10, line 7, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself, at this point, 2 minutes, 
and it's just to lay out how simple this amendment is.
  It would ensure that the government could act to protect the public 
from extreme weather, including drought, flooding, and catastrophic 
wildfire.
  The Republican bill on the floor today is so broadly and badly 
written, who knows what could fall through the holes it blasts in 
America's safety net.
  Given the record-breaking extreme weather events our country has 
experienced in the last few years, it cannot risk tying the helping 
hands of government when it comes to dealing with droughts and floods 
and wildfires and extreme events.
  Mr. Welch was just talking about these fuel economy standards that 
lift our fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 
2026. Well, that's a message to OPEC that we don't need their oil 
anymore than we need their sand. But it's also a message that we can 
reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we're sending up into the 
atmosphere in a dramatic way.
  And do you know who's complying with that? Do you know who said they 
support it? The auto industry of the United States of America.
  So it's not that we're doing anything that's radical. The radical 
activity is coming from the majority, from the Republican Party, that 
just has an aversion to anything that is put on the books as 
regulation, even if it helps America's safety, helps America's climate, 
helps America's foreign policy to back out imported oil. And that's 
really what's very troubling here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is, like the 
others, unnecessary. And as it is drafted, it seems to suggest that the 
Federal Government can somehow regulate the weather.
  Titles I and II of this bill were carefully drafted to block only 
those unnecessary, most costly regulations, those that cost the economy 
$100 million or more. The bill contains reasonable exceptions for the 
President to issue a regulation, for example, that is ``necessary 
because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency'' 
or one that is ``necessary for the national security of the United 
States.''
  The bill also contains a congressional waiver exception whereby the 
President can make any other necessary regulation with the permission 
of Congress.
  King Canute famously demonstrated many centuries ago that the weather 
does not respect executive fiat. Although the Federal Government cannot 
control the weather by regulation, it can issue regulations to help 
Americans cope with the effects of extreme weather.
  I believe the exceptions already in this bill would cover regulations 
related to the extreme weather events suggested by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' amendment. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  So is the question this, that we're supposed to do literally nothing 
about extreme weather? Are we supposed to pretend that we don't have 
extreme weather?
  We've had the worst drought, the hottest 12-month period in the 
history of keeping records since 1895. You can go throughout the entire 
country and see almost everywhere now the effects of extreme weather.
  In our State of Vermont, Mr. Chair, last August 28, Tropical Storm 
Irene dumped an immense amount of water and did the worst damage since 
1927. We didn't used to have storms like that.
  We also are starting to have a threat to our maple trees, from which 
come the best maple syrup in the country, in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, extreme weather is real. It's serious. And our response 
is to put our heads in the sand.

[[Page 12238]]

  I support this amendment.

                              {time}  1810

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would advise the gentleman from Vermont 
that the best maple syrup comes from Chardon, Ohio.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair be able to give a recapitulation of the 
time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes and 
15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Corn is shriveling. Pastures are dying. More than 1,000 
counties in 29 States are eligible for drought disaster assistance. 
Increased food prices from droughts act like an extreme weather food 
tax on every single American. Even if the drought is not in your 
neighborhood, you will feel the pain at the checkout counter. Even if 
the heat wave has broken in your State, your cupboard may be emptier as 
you have to make hard choices at the grocery store. Even if the storm 
skips your town, the disruptions will be felt all the way to your 
dinner plate. Many of our Western forests are also extremely dry. 
Wildfire has already burned millions of acres this summer. Tens of 
thousand of people have had to evacuate. Hundreds of homes have been 
destroyed. Lives have been lost.
  We also know that increasing carbon pollution increases the risk of 
extreme weather. We all buy flood and fire insurance for our homes. 
This amendment is the flood and fire insurance for America from the 
disaster, the disaster that is this Republican legislation.
  On the other side of this spectrum, parts of Minnesota and Florida 
experienced devastating flooding in June. The rain from Tropical Storm 
Debby caused Florida to have its wettest June ever. All of this 
occurred during the hottest 12-month period for the lower 48 States 
since record-keeping began in 1895, and it follows 2011, when America 
experienced a record 14 extreme weather disasters that each caused $1 
billion or more of damage.
  Clearly, extreme weather is a threat to the safety and the security 
of the American people and the economy, but this Republican bill could 
smother the government's ability to prepare for a response to extreme 
weather events. This amendment would make sure that the government's 
regulatory fire blanket is ready for emergencies. The risk of extreme 
weather is not going away. In fact, it is increasing. Mark Twain once 
complained that everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does 
anything about it. Well, now we are with this amendment.
  By pumping carbon into the air, we are changing the climate, raising 
the temperature, increasing the risk of extreme weather. The 
Republicans just don't accept science. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in Part B of House Report 
112-616 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 514]

                               AYES--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--231

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent

[[Page 12239]]


     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Culberson
     Dicks
     Garamendi
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lewis (CA)
     Noem
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Stivers
     Sutton

                              {time}  1839

  Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, CAMPBELL, COBLE, FLAKE, GRIFFITH of 
Virginia, BARTLETT, and SMITH of Nebraska changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TIPTON, TOWNS, BISHOP of Georgia, McDERMOTT, PLATTS, and 
MEEHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, 
noes 259, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 515]

                               AYES--159

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--259

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (NY)
     Culberson
     Dicks
     Garamendi
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lewis (CA)
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sutton


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1843

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 515 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 245, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 516]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer

[[Page 12240]]


     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (NY)
     Culberson
     Dicks
     Garamendi
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lynch
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Stivers
     Sutton

                              {time}  1847

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 242, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 517]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline

[[Page 12241]]


     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Bishop (NY)
     Culberson
     Dicks
     Garamendi
     Herrera Beutler
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lewis (CA)
     Meeks
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Stivers
     Sutton

                              {time}  1851

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 240, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 518]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop (NY)
     Culberson
     Dicks
     Garamendi
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Stivers
     Sutton

                              {time}  1855

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gingrey of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4078) to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory 
action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 
percent, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________