[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12242-12268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT

  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4078.
  Will the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1900


                     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 further 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. Hartzler (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 112-616 offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had been disposed of.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, 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) Exception for Regulatory Actions Pertaining to Certain 
     Intellectual Property Rules.--An agency may take a 
     significant regulatory action if the significant regulatory 
     action is a regulatory action by the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office that will help streamline the application 
     processes for patents and trademarks, including rules 
     implementing the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith 
     America Invents Act.
       Page 10, insert after line 13 the following and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly:
       (c) Intellectual Property Exception.--Section 202 shall not 
     apply to a midnight rule if the midnight rule is a rule made 
     by the United States Patent and Trademark Office that will 
     help streamline the application processes for patents and 
     trademarks, including regulations implementing the micro 
     entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
       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 by the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office that will help streamline the application 
     processes for patents and trademarks, including regulations 
     implementing the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith 
     America Invents Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, after 6 long years of negotiation, thoughtful 
consideration, and bipartisan cooperation, we passed a patent reform 
bill which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, by President 
Obama. At the time the bill was passed, Speaker Boehner said:

       Modernizing our patent system for America's innovators and 
     job creators is an important part of the Republican Jobs 
     Plan. This bipartisan measure reflects our commitment to find 
     common ground with the President on removing barriers to 
     private sector job growth, and I am pleased to see it signed 
     into law.

  Under the America Invents Act, we the Congress, Republicans and 
Democrats, directed the United States Patent and Trademark Office to 
issue 20 implementing rules. Of the 20 implementing rules, seven have 
already been implemented, nine have been noticed, and four are under 
development. Under this bill that we are considering today, that entire 
process would be stopped in its tracks.
  Among the most troubling aspects of stopping the rulemaking process 
in this case is a rule that would be specifically designed to assist 
micro entities in securing patents for their inventions. It's a law 
that says, once the rule is adopted by the Patent and Trademark Office, 
micro entities will get a 75 percent reduction in the filing fees that 
they have applicable to them.
  The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office has said:

       The new micro entity provision in the America Invents Act 
     makes our patent system more accessible for smaller 
     innovators by entitling them to a 75 percent discount on 
     patent fees. By paying discounted patent fees as micro 
     entities, smaller innovators can access the patent system to 
     move their ideas into the marketplace.

  Although the micro entity definition became effective September 16 
when the President signed the bill into law--the date of enactment of 
the patent reform bill--the discount is not available to these small 
entities until these rules are passed, and this bill would make it 
impossible for us to adopt the rules.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Chair, I first would like to say I 
supported the America Invents Act, supported it in committee, and I've 
got great news for you and great news for me, and that is I don't see 
any evidence that the rules to which you referred would total $100 
million in impact and meet that threshold. I just don't believe that's 
the case. So this amendment is unnecessary. Even if they do meet that 
threshold, there are several ways that they could be brought to 
Congress for approval.
  The amendment, like so many others offered here tonight, seeks to 
carve out one set of regulations while leaving all the other 
regulations under the bill. Surely folks have their favorite 
regulations that they want to save and defend, and like a number of 
other carve-out amendments, this one is just not necessary. Titles I 
and II of the bill, for example, already exempt regulations, as I 
indicated, that will not impose $100 million in cost on the economy.
  Surely the regulations this amendment seeks to protect, those that 
will streamline patent application processes, will save the economy 
money, not impose more cost. There is, thus, no need to worry that they 
will be affected by these titles of the bill.
  Meanwhile, title III of the bill imposes balanced improvements in 
transparency, public participation, and judicial review for regulatory 
consent decrees and settlements. It will not prevent the Patent and 
Trademark Office from settling regulatory suits by consent decree or 
settlement. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12243]]

  Let me get this straight. We have passed a bill on a bipartisan basis 
that directs that rules be written, and then we want, when the rules 
are written, to have it come back to Congress so that we can approve 
those rules. Tell me, first of all, what sense that makes.
  Second of all, the gentleman obviously is not aware of some of the 
corporations that have started off as micro enterprises if he does not 
believe that this measures up to his $100 million, or whatever the 
threshold is. Let me read him some of the companies that started off as 
micro enterprises.
  What about Google or Apple or Instagram or Microsoft or Facebook, a 
whole litany of people that, were this 75 percent reduction in fees not 
in effect, might have been discouraged from ever even applying for a 
patent. So this notion that this doesn't add up to $100 million, or 
whatever this threshold is, is just false.
  The notion that we would tell the administration to adopt a set of 
rules and then say, okay, we're going to micromanage you and you've got 
to come back over here so we can cross your T's and dot your I's in a 
noncontroversial way like this and delay the process of innovation in 
our country is just nonsensical.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. While I appreciate the passion of the 
gentleman from North Carolina, it doesn't change the fact that it's 
very unlikely that the impact on the economy would be $100 million or 
more. That has nothing to do with the sales of the company. It has to 
do with the impact of the regulation on the economy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, 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 North 
Carolina will be postponed.

                              {time}  1910


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Loebsack

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam 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) Consumer Protection From High Fuels Prices Exception.--
     An agency may take a significant regulatory action if such 
     action would have the effect of lowering the price of oil or 
     the wholesale or retail price of oil, gasoline, diesel, or 
     other motor fuels.
       Page 10, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) likely to result in lower oil prices or lower wholesale 
     or retail prices for oil, gasoline, diesel, or other motor 
     fuels;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I wish to offer this amendment to provide the 
opportunity to lower the price of gas and oil. The purpose of my 
amendment is very simple: it's to ensure that our constituents are not 
disadvantaged by blindly holding up actions that potentially lower oil 
and gas prices. It will allow significant actions to move forward that 
would lower prices for gasoline, diesel, oil or other motor fuels.
  We know that some regulations can be problematic when they aren't 
crafted carefully, with broad input and consideration for effects on 
the ground. We all know that and we all agree with that.
  In fact, I've supported legislation in the past to give small 
businesses a bigger role in crafting regulations that affect them, and 
I am a member of the bipartisan Congressional Regulatory Review Caucus.
  But we also know that there are some regulations that can protect 
public health, make our economy function more smoothly, and provide 
opportunity for all Americans to succeed. And as we struggle to recover 
from the worst recession since the Great Depression, there are families 
across the country making hard decisions about whether to put food on 
the table, clothes on their back, or gas in the car. Middle class folks 
we all know have been hurt disproportionately by higher gas prices, and 
that's why this amendment, I believe, is so important.
  I think it would be irresponsible to pass legislation that would 
actually have the opposite effect, potentially, of its intention in a 
number of areas, gas prices being one of them.
  Rural Americans, like those in my home State of Iowa, are more likely 
to have older vehicles, especially trucks, and farmers and others in 
rural areas need trucks. That is their mode of transportation.
  Rural residents also--I think it's unknown to a lot of folks who live 
in urban areas--on average, drive 3,000 miles per year more than their 
urban counterparts, a disparity particularly evident when considering 
commutes to work.
  My amendment will ensure that actions taken that would lower gas, 
oil, or other motor fuels, the prices of these commodities, can move 
forward and save money for all Americans and for Iowa families. If 
there is an action that could lower gas prices, I would think that we 
can all agree that it should move forward to benefit families and 
businesses and farmers who are struggling just to make ends meet.
  If this legislation under consideration were already in effect, no 
significant actions could have been taken this year to lower oil and 
gas prices during a time of record costs, and we all had conversations 
about that on this floor earlier this year.
  I've pushed for initiatives to utilize more American-produced energy, 
but as our Nation continues to be dependent on foreign sources, 
American families' costs at the pump continues to be subject to the 
fluctuations of speculators and manipulation. And we've already heard 
from some Members previously about that issue.
  I think we need to be focusing our attention on becoming more energy 
independent through a variety of energy sources. We need an all-of-the-
above approach to domestic energy production. There's no doubt about 
that. And ensuring that actions to move forward that would lower oil or 
gas prices in the U.S. is part of an all-of-the-above approach where we 
need to be looking at all options.
  I truly hope that my colleagues will support what is truly a 
commonsense amendment, I believe, and I urge my colleagues to ensure 
that our hands are not tied by this legislation and to take actions to 
lower gas prices. I think we can improve this bill, and I think this 
amendment will do that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I rise in opposition to this amendment which would 
provide an exception for regulations that attempt to manipulate the 
price of oil, gas, and other fuels.
  As I was listening to my colleague from across the aisle, I was 
struck by the fact that he didn't actually mention any possible 
regulations that could do that. I also would like to point out that our 
hands, as Congress, are not tied. This bill ties the hands of 
regulators.
  If he is able to come up with a good idea to lower fuel prices, he 
can bring it to Congress, we can pass it, the Senate can pass it, and 
the President can sign it, just the way the Founding Fathers intended.
  Just to be clear, I also want to point out that nothing in H.R. 4078 
prevents the administration from taking any number of actions that 
would increase the supply of domestic oil and gas and lower the price 
of gasoline at the pump. The passage of this amendment,

[[Page 12244]]

however, would do nothing to lower the price at the pump.
  Now, I realize this amendment seems to preserve the option to impose 
price controls. That's the only thing I could think of that it could 
do. We learned back in the 1970s that price control does nothing but 
lead to shortage and lines at the gasoline pump. There's absolutely no 
reason we need to return to the failed policies of the Carter 
administration.
  Now, if the current administration were truly interested in providing 
relief at the pump, there are any number of actions they could do to 
increase the supply of oil and gasoline and lower the price at the 
pump. But the Obama administration's done little to tap into vast 
domestic resources that would increase the supply of American oil.
  Rather, under President Obama, permitting and leasing on Federal land 
is actually down. Alas, the President has also vetoed or is opposed to 
the Keystone pipeline, which would have connected not only Canadian oil 
to refineries in the South but would have also have connected the new 
finds in North Dakota in the Bakken shale sands.
  Canadian sands production is expected to double to 3 million barrels 
a day between 2010 and 2020, and domestic oil production will increase 
by as much as 20 percent. The lack of a Keystone XL-like pipeline means 
slower, less reliable, and less safe forms of transportation that will 
continue to necessitate transporting domestic oil from North Dakota by 
much more expensive and much less safe means of truck and rail, rather 
than pipelines.
  Lowering the cost of that transportation would lower the cost of that 
crude oil and would lower the cost of gasoline at the pump. As a matter 
of fact, a barrel of North Dakota Sweet sells for $62. That's lower 
than the international price of oil, predominantly because of the 
additional transportation costs necessary to bring it down to be 
refined in the refineries that are currently set up in this country.
  If this Bakken oil were made available to the rest of the country we 
would see an economic boom. We would see lower prices for gasoline at 
the pump. We would see more jobs in America. The east coast, in 
particular, needs this oil and this gas made available to bring costs 
down.
  Bakken may lead to some price relief there. But it will also open 
Canadian oil. We talk about energy independence, but realistically, 
North America is the energy unit that we should be looking at for 
providing our source. As we tap resources throughout the United States, 
Canada, and Mexico, we are going to be able to become energy 
independent much more rapidly than anyone ever thought as these new 
technologies develop to let us reach oil and gas deposits that we 
never, even 10 years ago, thought was possible.
  I was talking to a geologist just recently when I attended a field 
hearing in North Dakota, and he told me, when he was in school, they 
always considered shale to be the source and would never be able to tap 
it. But technology has proved that wrong. And, in fact, even with our 
current technology, we're only getting a small percentage of the actual 
oil trapped in that shale.
  I'm confident that, as our technology develops, that is going to 
become more and more available, and this is going to take care of it.
  But what we know is what's running up the price of oil and gas is 
excessive government regulation. And if we can put a hold on government 
regulation, so our businesses can know what they have to do to comply 
with those regulations, and not have the goalposts moved in the middle 
of the game, we'll have new refining infrastructure built, we'll have 
new factories built, we'll have new jobs created, and we will get to an 
unemployment rate of 6 percent a whole lot faster, I think, than 
anybody is predicting.
  This bill is a rational step to put the brakes on an oppressive 
government that is stifling job creation. And carving holes in it and 
creating loopholes, like this amendment would do, only weakens that and 
will slow our path to recovery. So I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I don't know where to begin. I don't have enough time 
to respond to everything that was said by my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle.
  What I will say at the outset is that this has nothing to do with the 
Carter administration, that it has nothing to do with any previous 
regulations, that it has nothing to do with cost control. This is a 
very simple amendment. I think, if one reads the amendment, one will 
find that there is absolutely nothing in the amendment that is feared 
by the gentleman from the other side of the aisle. It's that simple.
  In fact, it's this kind of debate, if we want to call it that, that 
is something that is very upsetting to the American people at this time 
and is something I hear in Iowa all the time. We've got to have a 
rational debate that is based on fact. There is nothing in this 
amendment whatsoever that the gentleman referred to. The amendment, 
itself, because it is so simple and because it is open-ended, would 
allow for many of the very same things that the gentleman on the other 
side of the aisle suggests that we ought to do and that I may very well 
be open to doing myself.
  I think that's what's important about this amendment. It's simple. 
It's open. In fact, it allows for the very kinds of things that he 
mentioned to go forward. If this amendment is adopted, I think it would 
vastly improve the underlying bill along the lines that the gentleman, 
himself, argued.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Chair, 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 Iowa will be 
postponed.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Richardson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, 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, after line 26, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) necessary to properly implement the provisions of (and 
     amendments made by) the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the provisions of (and 
     amendments made by) title I and subtitle B of title II of the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-152);

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Richardson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I would like to extend a thanks to Chairman Smith and 
to Ranking Member Conyers for having their hard work brought to 
fruition here with this legislation.
  Madam Chairwoman, the Richardson amendment would allow the government 
to take significant regulatory action if and when the monthly national 
unemployment rate is above 6 percent, thereby allowing for the action 
and proper implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act and the health provisions of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010.
  The sponsors of H.R. 4078 suggest the legislation will promote job 
growth. I argue that the Affordable Care Act, when fully implemented, 
will promote job growth, support economic growth and spur deficit 
reduction in our economy in terms of the deficit that we

[[Page 12245]]

currently are experiencing. My amendment is intended to ensure that 
adequate health care through the Affordable Care Act can be fully 
implemented.
  Because so many Americans rely on their employers to have access to 
health care, high levels of unemployment can leave many of our U.S. 
citizens uninsured and underinsured. When the monthly unemployment rate 
is above 6 percent, something this Nation has unfortunately incurred 
for approximately 2 years now, that is the very time, I would argue, 
that our government was created to assist U.S. citizens and all of 
those who obviously need health care. A strong economy needs healthy 
workers.
  There is a common and persistent misconception that the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act will pose an undue burden on small 
businesses and will limit job creation, but this is absolutely untrue. 
Rather, the Affordable Care Act offers $40 billion in tax credits for 
small businesses to help pay for employee health insurance coverage. In 
2011, this tax credit was used to pay for the coverage of over 2 
million uninsured Americans. In my home district, the 37th 
Congressional District of California, 510 small businesses have already 
received this tax credit to maintain or expand the health insurance 
coverage for their employees.
  The Affordable Care Act also establishes health insurance exchanges 
in which small business owners and employees can pool their buying 
power to shop for affordable plans. Beginning in 2014, all the plans 
offered in these exchanges will have guaranteed sets of minimum 
benefits to ensure that small businesses are not faced with gaps in 
coverage or fine print restrictions, which are documented problems that 
have plagued recipients in the past.
  Despite the unfounded claims that this bill will raise taxes for 
everyday Americans, the Affordable Care Act will bring a significant 
and immediate savings to the middle class at a time when we need it 
most.
  With that, 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. Madam Chair, this amendment would exempt 
regulations to implement ObamaCare, the President's health care law, 
from the regulatory freeze.
  Fear and uncertainty among job creators of the coming regulatory 
tidal wave to implement ObamaCare is certainly holding back our 
economic recovery. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 
ObamaCare will cost over $1.1 trillion. For American small businesses 
that are already struggling to stay afloat, this is a staggering 
burden.
  If you want to know what small businesses think about the bill that 
is before us, I will tell you that, in Arkansas, they support it, but 
they certainly do not support ObamaCare. I would also point out, Madam 
Chair, that the NFIB, the premier small business organization in 
America, supports the bill.
  It is estimated that ObamaCare will require nearly 160 new boards, 
bureaus, bureaucracies, and commissions. Overall, the Federal 
Government will issue, roughly, 10,000 pages of new regulations to 
implement the so-called ``health care reform.'' Yet this amendment 
would exempt these regulations from title I of the Regulatory Freeze 
for Jobs Act.
  At a time when we should be working to repeal ObamaCare and to 
replace it with patient-centered health care reform, this amendment 
simply makes no sense. I would also point out, Madam Chair, that if 
there are regulations that the Obama administration wants to see 
proceed through the process, they can certainly send them to Congress 
and see if we will approve them. We can take a look at them, see if 
they make sense, see if they do what they intend, and see if it's right 
for the country.
  For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I am convinced that President Obama does care, but 
today, I am here to talk about the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act.
  Regarding that act, I think it's important to note that this 
amendment is not simply a blanket exemption; rather, it deals with the 
time when unemployment exceeds 6 percent. For those American people--
many of whom I represent, who have struggled through no fault of their 
own to be able to gain employment--this is a significant exemption that 
is needed.
  Madam Chairwoman, when we look at the implementation of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, it passed this body in Congress; it 
passed the body in the Senate; it was signed into law; and now it has 
been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Health care 
reform is finally here to stay, and the time has come for us to commit 
ourselves and our attention and our efforts in this Congress to 
wholeheartedly supporting its enactment. Where changes and revisions 
and improvements need to be made, we have an opportunity to do so.
  The Richardson amendment I bring forward today does not obligate 
additional funds to address health care reform. It would simply give 
the Federal Government the freedom--the freedom that we all believe 
in--to pursue all available options in the future, especially in the 
greatest times of need. My amendment ensures that the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act is implemented without adding time 
and cost-consuming procedural burdens.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Richardson amendment 
No. 8 and to reaffirm this Nation's commitment to providing the basic 
necessity. Certainly, I think that equates to the level of the right to 
the pursuit of happiness, which is what America was built on.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1930


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Richardson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, 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, after line 26, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
       (3) necessary to carry out the Fair Credit Reporting Act;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Richardson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, the Richardson amendment simply 
improves the bill by allowing for necessary regulations to be 
promulgated when the monthly national unemployment rate is above 6 
percent in order to protect consumers against unintended consequences 
that they might suffer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
  This amendment promotes job growth by ensuring small businesses have 
fair and accurate credit scores to obtain competitive interest loans. 
This amendment enables the appropriate Federal agencies, such as the 
Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, to issue regulations

[[Page 12246]]

necessary to protect consumers and to promote small businesses.
  The Fair Credit Reporting Act, also known as FCRA, is an important 
piece of legislation that protects the accuracy, fairness, and the 
privacy of information collected at credit bureaus. It gives consumers 
the right to view and challenge the information in their respective 
credit reports. Although this legislation was originally passed well 
over 40 years ago, this issue has remained in the forefront of public 
consciousness, and in 2003 we had provisions that were added to deal 
with identity theft.
  The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that consumer reporting 
agencies, also known as CRAs, ensure that they provide up-to-date 
information and remove negative information after 10 years. These 
requirements mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act provide 
entrepreneurs with fair credit scores and enable them to seek 
competitive loans to start or expand small businesses.
  There are 28.6 million small businesses in the United States, and 
small businesses create two out of every three jobs in this country. In 
the State of California that I represent, small businesses employ more 
than 50 percent of the State's 16 million workers and represent 90 
percent of the job growth for higher income.
  With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to my colleagues that the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
should not be singled out for special treatment.
  This bill is about creating jobs; and the American people know, as we 
know, and as rational people looking at the process of regulation know, 
that higher regulation out of Washington means lower job growth. In 
particular, what this amendment would do is further constrict access to 
credit. Furthermore, this bill does not inhibit any individual from 
getting their free credit report or from having access to their credit 
report.
  What this bill prevents, however, is an agency like the CFPB, which 
is a very powerful agency with an unconfirmed director. The President 
went around the process that the Senate has outlined for Senate 
confirmation. It's a very controversial appointment. They've taken 
these powers, and they can write very costly and expensive rules. Those 
costly rules inhibit credit opportunity for Americans, if not done 
correctly. We've seen some actions already out of this agency that 
raise great concerns that it's going to be very costly to small banks 
and to small businesses.
  Let's avoid that. Let's reject this amendment. Let's create jobs by 
passing this bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, in relation to the comments that have 
been made, I'd like to speak to why the fair credit reporting agencies 
would be exempted in this particular amendment.
  When you consider that we're national representatives--and rational 
legislators do know, I would say, and I think small business owners are 
aware, that without capital, without the ability to have appropriate 
credit scores and not to be able to extend that, not to be able to get 
appropriate capital to have your business to be successful, there are 
no jobs. There is no thriving economy. That's why, in fact, this Agency 
should be exempted.
  The statistics are clear: small businesses are the key to our 
economic recovery and our continued growth. Relieving the financial 
burdens of small businesses stabilizes the uncertainty and encourages 
critical job growth. Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the engines 
of innovation and economic growth, and the small businesses in my 
district are at the forefront of that innovation.
  It would be wrong and counterproductive to limit the Federal 
Government's ability to support small businesses when they need it 
most. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Richardson 
Amendment No. 9 and reaffirming our commitment and this Nation's 
commitment that when businesses need the assistance, when they, in 
fact, can qualify for the assistance, that improper reporting or old 
reporting certainly shouldn't hinder their ability to have that vibrant 
business.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I would say in closing that the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act should not be singled out for special treatment, nor 
should the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be singled out for 
special treatment. We should not treat the CFPB rulemaking powers 
differently than any other Federal agency dealt with under this 
legislation before us.
  Let me also say to my colleagues that it's very important to note 
that law enforcement actions will continue. Bad actors can continue to 
be rooted out, regardless of this legislation. That power is still 
given to the CFPB and other law enforcing agencies across the 
government. Furthermore, consumers will continue to have access to 
their credit reports, and this amendment doesn't address a consumer's 
ability to get that credit report.
  Furthermore, let's create jobs by eliminating regulations that 
inhibit job growth. Let's roll back this uncertainty and give the 
American people a level of certainty and some expectation of the 
regulatory framework they have to work under. That's the way we help 
small businesses be able to take that risk, be able to get that access 
to credit so they can create jobs, and maybe even keep the doors open 
and the lights on.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and pass the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 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 5, strike lines 4 through 7 and insert the following:
       (3) Congressional action.--With respect to any submission 
     by the President under this subsection--
       (A) Congress shall give expeditious consideration to the 
     submission by taking appropriate action not later than the 
     end of a 7-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     submission is received; and
       (B) in the case that Congress fails to act upon the 
     submission during such period, section 102(a) shall not 
     apply.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, my simple amendment would 
clarify the congressional procedure for acting on the President's 
written congressional waiver request as provided for in the bill.
  Based on their remarks today, it appears my friends on the other side 
of the aisle view the availability of congressional waivers as 
sufficient to ensure commonsense, popular safeguards such as rules 
benefiting veterans with

[[Page 12247]]

catastrophic injuries, assisting students with loan debt, or providing 
families with peace of mind that the peanut butter their children eat 
will not poison them.

                              {time}  1940

  So they are not blocked by this bill's arbitrary across-the-board 
moratorium action on significant rulemaking actions because there is a 
waiver provision.
  Yet for all of the emphasis on the importance of these congressional 
waivers, this bill, H.R. 4078, only provides vague, unclear guidance 
concerning how such actions would proceed on the President's waiver 
requests. H.R. 4078 only specifies that Congress shall give each 
submission by the President ``expeditious consideration'' and take 
``appropriate legislative action'' without defining these terms in 
statute. Anyone who has watched this 112th Congress here in the House 
knows that they shouldn't put undue faith in terms like ``expeditious 
consideration.''
  Republican claims to the contrary notwithstanding, as currently 
written, the congressional waiver provisions seem designed to spur 
effective talking points, not exactly an efficient process for 
considering Presidential submissions.
  My simple amendment ensures that if the President requests a 
necessary and urgent waiver, such as the flexibility for the Department 
of Labor to issue a rule protecting coal miners from black lung 
disease, expeditious consideration shall not take longer than 1 week. 
This simple amendment takes no position on the wisdom of the given 
waiver request. It simply requires the Congress, whether it decides to 
approve or disapprove a President's request, to do so within 7 days.
  As the numerous amendments filed by my colleagues demonstrate, the 
majority of the President's waiver requests will address 
noncontroversial, yet critically important, rules that protect our 
Nation's veterans, families, workers, environment, and economy. By 
supporting this perfecting amendment, Members will ensure that no 
American is endangered because of congressional inaction.
  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. As I have said with regard to the other 
amendments that we have discussed here tonight, Madam Chair, there are 
several exemptions in the bill, and there is also the waiver, as the 
gentleman from Virginia has discussed.
  Now, before I get to the waiver, I would like to point out that, 
unless I'm missing something, I think that the safety of peanut butter 
that I and my 2-year-old and my 4-year-old eat--I like crunchy; they 
like creamy--I think it's already regulated. And if it's not, we 
certainly make provision for that to happen. I, like the gentleman from 
Virginia, want to make sure people are protected. I happen to also be a 
veteran, and I certainly want to see veterans taken care of.
  I want to make it clear that our bill does not go back and repeal 
regulations that are finalized and in place. What it does is it says, 
let's take a deep breath; let's have a time-out; and let's allow the 
many small businesses and other job creators in this country an 
opportunity to catch up.
  We've heard a lot about small businesses tonight. And I will point 
out once again that the premier small business organization in this 
country is the NFIB, and they support the bill.
  Now, with regard to the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, the 
Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act will put a moratorium on unnecessary 
regulations that will cost the economy $100 million or more until the 
economy recovers. But even the administration admits that regulations 
can kill jobs and hinder economic growth, although this doesn't seem to 
have prevented them from issuing more and more of these most costly 
regulations.
  Title I of the bill is carefully drafted to allow the President to 
issue certain necessary regulations during the moratorium period, such 
as regulations that implement trade agreements, for national security, 
for criminal and civil rights laws, the enforcement of those laws, and 
for an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency. For any 
necessary regulation not covered by one of these exceptions, we have 
the congressional waiver that the gentleman from Virginia referred to. 
Under it, the President can ask permission for Congress to make the 
regulation, to approve it. This is entirely appropriate, since the 
Constitution vests in Congress ``all legislative powers.''
  But this amendment could totally undermine the moratorium by allowing 
the President to swamp Congress with waiver requests. If Congress 
doesn't act on each request within 7 days--and the amendment doesn't 
specify whether this is calendar, session, or legislative days--then 
the waiver is deemed granted. With its track record of dramatically 
increasing the regulatory burden on the economy, this administration 
has shown that it cannot be trusted not to abuse the process this 
amendment would create. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
left on this side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I support the amendment offered by Mr. 
Connolly.
  The congressional waiver provision in this underlying bill is a 
farce. It requires the President to ask Congress its permission to 
issue a regulation and then wait for both Houses of Congress to approve 
the waiver. Give me a break. That could take months in the best case, 
but the more likely scenario is that it would never happen at all--and 
everybody knows that.
  By adopting this amendment, we can ensure that the President can 
truly issue regulations when needed. Under this amendment, the waiver 
provision in the underlying bill will be changed so that if Congress 
doesn't act within 7 days on a waiver request submitted to it by the 
President, the waiver would be granted.
  Let me be clear: under this amendment, Congress would still have the 
opportunity to object to a regulation when necessary. This amendment 
simply ensures that Congress' failure to act doesn't prevent the 
President from issuing needed regulations.
  The majority claims that the congressional waiver provision in the 
underlying bill will ensure that the President can still issue 
important regulations. If the majority really intends to give the 
President that flexibility, they will adopt this amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I would just point out, Madam Chair, that 
the part of the bill that the gentleman from Maryland calls ``a 
farce,'' the Founding Fathers might refer to it as ``balance of 
powers.'' And that's what we're trying to do here, allow Congress to 
share in the process since we are the source of all legislative power. 
That is just another reason that I oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Of course I know my friend from Arkansas 
knows his history. That was the whole battle of Federalist versus anti-
Federalist. The Federalists won out. That's how the Constitution of the 
United States got adopted, a more powerful government to help the union 
of the States.
  Madam Chairman, I will close by simply noting the irony of opposing 
any kind of finite time limit. The very organization cited by my friend 
from Arkansas, NFIB, screams the loudest about uncertainty. Yet here we 
are, going to have expeditious consideration that could take weeks or 
months here in this body, and we're not going to put a finite time 
limit to give them the predictability and the certainty that they say 
they want. I think it's the minimum required in this legislation if we 
really mean to effectuate change.

[[Page 12248]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 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 Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Posey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam 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 6, line 14, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Such award shall be paid out of the administrative budget 
     of the office in the agency that took the challenged agency 
     action.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, today in Washington, bureaucrats are able to craft and 
enforce rules that cost our economy billions of dollars while remaining 
aloof to the consequences of their actions. There remains a disconnect 
between those who write these rules in the comfort of the Beltway, 
generating reams of red tape, and the actions taken by the courts or 
Congress to delay or roll back those same rules.
  When a regulator has overreached, they have wrongfully robbed 
American citizens of their benefits, of their labor, and their means of 
productivity. Today there is really no penalty for those who overreach. 
I believe regulators should be more prudent and measured when drafting 
and issuing rules and regulations.

                              {time}  1950

  My amendment simply calls agency bureaucrats to account when they 
exceed their delegated authority.
  Section 104 of the underlying bill permits a court to award 
reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a small business when they 
prevail in a suit against an agency that has exceeded their statutory 
regulatory authority.
  My amendment takes this a step further by requiring any attorney's 
fees and costs be paid out of the administrative budget of the 
particular office that is found to have exceeded that authority. I 
believe this will give regulators greater pause before they issue 
regulations and will cause them to double-check to make sure that they 
are on solid ground. When an agency overreaches, what they are 
fundamentally doing is denying an American citizen their right to 
pursue opportunity, create jobs, or enjoy the benefits of their labor.
  In a sense, they are basically robbing someone of their opportunity. 
Outside of the regulatory environment, when someone takes property that 
belongs to someone else, there are criminal sanctions if we catch them 
doing it. In the regulatory environment, however, the best that an 
American citizen can expect from the Federal Government is ``I'm 
sorry,'' and that's at best.
  We change that in this bill. With the adoption of my amendment, we 
change that for the particular regulators that exceed their authority. 
If adopted, this amendment will give more certainty to the regulatory 
process, and it will ensure regulators are more prudent when drafting 
regulations. We make sure that any damages are not paid out of the 
agency slush fund but, rather, out of the administrative budget of the 
offending office. That brings personal and government accountability to 
the regulatory process, something that's desperately needed. Now they 
will have some skin in the game, so to speak.
  I urge my colleagues to support this good amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I strongly oppose the Posey amendment because it makes 
even worse an already deeply problematic provision.
  Under title I of this bill, a court is required to award attorney's 
fees and costs to a ``substantially prevailing small business'' in any 
civil action to challenge an agency's compliance with the moratorium. 
That provision further states that a small business can be 
substantially prevailing in the meaning of the bill even in the absence 
of a final judgment in its favor ``if the agency that took the 
significant regulatory action changes its position after the civil 
action is filed.''
  There are two problems with this. First, it doesn't matter if the 
agency's change in position had absolutely nothing to do with the civil 
action. A court would still have to award attorney's fees to a small 
business that challenges an agency's compliance with the moratorium in 
court, even if the change in policy had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
  Bad as this provision already is, the Posey amendment makes it worse 
by requiring that any award of attorney's fees and costs be taken out 
of the defendant agency's budget. Agencies are already straining under 
diminishing financial and staff resources, thanks in no small part to 
the budget priorities of this House during this Congress. Further 
debilitating agencies by taking fee awards out of their budgets--even 
under circumstances when their change in position had nothing to do 
with the underlying lawsuit--further damages agencies' ability to do 
what Congress tasked them with doing, namely, protecting public health 
and safety.
  What this amendment says is, if an agency has a regulation which, in 
its judgment, it must issue to protect the public health and safety and 
a small business sues to stop that, and even if the small business 
doesn't prevail, if there is any change in the agency's position, and 
even if that change in position has nothing to do with the subject of 
the lawsuit by the small business, it must pay attorney's fees. And, 
under this amendment, it must pay attorney's fees out of its own 
budget. That is dangerous because it will debilitate the agencies that 
we task with protecting the public health and safety.
  Second of all, it is self-defeating. If you are the agency and you 
know if you are going to change your position in any way you're going 
to have to pay the attorney's fees out of your own budget, better don't 
change. Fight the lawsuit. Don't give in. Fight the small business 
because you may win; while, if you change your position in any way, if 
you compromise, if you say, you know, they don't have that great of a 
case but we can accommodate them by making a small change--no, then you 
have to pay attorney's fees out of our own budget. So don't accommodate 
them. Don't compromise with them. Don't make the change. Fight them to 
the bitter end. That doesn't help the small business, and it certainly 
doesn't help the American people who need these agencies to police the 
marketplace and to protect the public health and safety. So it defeats 
its own purpose. It is just wrong on so many levels.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POSEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Griffin).
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this 
amendment. If an agency improperly makes a regulation during the 
moratorium period, as written, the Freeze Act would allow a small 
business that successfully challenges the action to collect attorney's 
fees. The gentleman from Florida's amendment would strengthen this 
provision by ensuring that any attorney's fees awarded under title I 
come out of the agency's budget and

[[Page 12249]]

not from the general Federal Treasury through, for example, the 
judgment fund. If an office or agency defies the law and tries to make 
a regulation that should be subject to the Freeze Act, then that 
particular office or agency should bear the consequences of forcing a 
small business to go to court to vindicate its rights.
  For these reasons, I support the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, we oppose the bill to start with because we shouldn't have a 
moratorium on rules that are intended to protect the public health and 
safety that may be necessary.
  But second of all, this amendment is self-defeating because if a 
small business sues the agency, two things. Number one, let's assume 
that the agency thinks that the small business' suit has some merit, 
not enough to win the case, but some merit. Under this amendment, the 
agency cannot compromise, cannot say, You're right; we'll make this 
change, because the moment it makes a change, even a minor change, then 
it is no longer the prevailing party. The small business, under the 
definition of the bill, is the prevailing party and will get attorney's 
fees, and the attorney's fees come out of the budget--maybe the small 
budget--of the agency. So rather than yielding in any way, rather than 
compromising with the small business, fight them. Fight them tooth and 
nail. That's what this amendment says to the agency. It is, on its own 
terms, silly and self-defeating, and I urge its defeat.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Let me tell anyone who may not have ever seen a war with 
an agency over agency rules before, they dig in and they fight to the 
death anyway, whether it's coming out of their budget or not. I've seen 
them lose at three levels with a private citizen and go after them yet 
a fourth time because their pockets are bottomless and they hope they 
can break the back of a citizen like that.
  You know, what makes this country unique is we believe we get our 
rights from God. We believe in inalienable human rights here, and we 
give rights to government. Government doesn't give us rights. We give 
rights to our government. And we're charged with administering the 
rights that were given to our government here in Congress. And we give 
the administration, we give the agencies the right to write rules, 
specific rules. We don't allow them, without our authority and beyond 
the scope of their authority, to abuse citizens, to steal their 
productivity, their labor, and the benefits that they've worked hard 
for. And that's what the agencies have done. We have asked them not to 
do it. They've reformed the Administrative Procedures Act a number of 
times. The agencies just don't get the message. They see it as their 
goal and their destiny to be the boss.
  Congress is supposed to have dominion over the bureaucrats, and this 
is one of the ways that we're going to enforce that dominion. We don't 
let the fox run the henhouse.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POSEY. 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.

                              {time}  2000


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 2, insert after ``guidance'' the following: 
     ``(other than a rule or guidance regarding the safety of a 
     civilian nuclear power plant)''.
       Page 19, after line 25, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Exception.--The provisions of this title shall not 
     apply in the case of a consent decree or settlement agreement 
     pertaining to a civilian nuclear power plant.
       Page 65, line 17, strike ``section (p)'' and insert 
     ``sections (p) and (q)''.
       Page 66, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(q) Exception for Certain Projects.--This subchapter does 
     not apply in the case of any project that pertains to the 
     safety of a civilian nuclear power plant.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would exempt 
rules to protect nuclear power plant safety from titles I, III, and V 
of the bill.
  It is rare that the premise of an entire week of legislative work on 
the House floor is wrong, but, here we are here. We are told this is 
``regulatory week,'' during which House Republicans are supposedly 
working to see that the yoke of oppressive government regulation is 
thrown off and the American entrepreneur is freed to grow his or her 
business and increase jobs. In thinking about this view, I am reminded 
of a famous line in Shakespeare's MacBeth, ``It is a tale told by an 
idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.''
  We have heard, and will continue to hear, a lot of sound and fury 
this week on the House floor, but just like all the other regulatory 
bills the House has passed this year, what we pass this week will die 
in the Senate as well. So all of that talk will signify nothing. Like 
health care repeal, on which we have taken 33 votes, this, too, is a 
tremendous waste of time.
  More importantly, there is no evidence to support the position that 
overregulation is the major cause of our slow economic growth and high 
unemployment rate. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 
``economy-wide studies do not find a significant decline in employment 
from regulatory policies.''
  The real culprit of our slow growth and high unemployment is reduced 
aggregate demand. Do not just take my word for it--this is what 
economists and business are saying. The Wall Street Journal surveyed 
dozens of economists last July, and it found that the ``main reason 
U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand.''
  The National Federation of Independent Business found that when 
business owners with declining sales were asked the cause, 45 percent 
said declining sales. Only 10 percent said higher taxes and 
regulations.
  If all of this is true, why are we here making it harder for the 
government to enact protective rules and regulations to protect the 
public health and safety?
  Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. 
Bush administrations, suggests an answer. He has said:

       Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans 
     that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue 
     an agenda supported by the business community year in and 
     year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political 
     opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high 
     unemployment.

  Let us look at what the bill that this canard has brought us would 
do. To me, it seems like Frankenstein. It's put together from various 
different pieces that do not fit together, and it is very frightening. 
For example, the underlying bill would block all and any major efforts 
to protect public health, safety, the environment and so on until the 
unemployment rate falls below the arbitrary figure of 6 percent; and 
the bill would impose needless costs on the government and make 
protecting health and welfare that much more difficult by putting 
impediments to agreeing to consent decrees and settlements. What all 
this means is that the

[[Page 12250]]

most potentially dangerous industries, like nuclear power, the safety 
of the American public would be put at serious risk by this bill.
  My amendment would attempt to make this Frankenstein bill slightly 
less of a horror show by exempting the issue of nuclear power plant 
safety from three sections of the bill.
  The dangers of nuclear power are well known. One accident can doom 
millions of people. Because of the almost unimaginable disaster that 
could happen at a nuclear power plant, regulations to prevent accidents 
or meltdowns in advance are critically important. The underlying bill 
would make it harder for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt 
such rules or policies, thereby putting millions of lives at risk.
  Hampering the ability of the NRC to require safety measures like 
those necessary to prevent a meltdown in the event of an earthquake or 
an act of terrorism could be devastating. My amendment would free the 
NRC from the burdens of this bill and allow it to promulgate those 
rules and regulations necessary to protect us from the disaster of a 
nuclear catastrophe such as those that occurred at Chernobyl in Russia 
or at Fukushima in Japan.
  I urge everyone to approve the amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Chair, this amendment would unnecessarily 
exempt regulations from title I and consent decrees and settlement 
agreements contained in title III. Title I already contains adequate 
exceptions for necessary covered regulations. Agencies do not yet need 
another loophole to make regulations by consent decree or settlement 
agreement.
  As to title V, the part of the bill that was formerly known as the 
Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act, also known 
as the RAPID Act, this amendment would block needed construction 
projects from breaking ground.
  Unemployment is stuck above 8 percent and millions of Americans are 
looking for work. The March 2011 Project No Project study identified 
351 energy projects, including nuclear projects, that, if approved, 
could generate $1.1 trillion for the economy and 1.9 million jobs.
  I appreciate that the gentleman is concerned about the safety of 
nuclear power, but this act does not require agencies to approve or 
deny any particular project or permit application, nor would any agency 
ever act on a permit application before all of the relevant review and 
analysis has been completed; rather, the act establishes a reasonable 
timetable for agencies to follow when conducting environmental review 
and making permitting decisions. This will give job creators and 
investors confidence that the process will not drag on indefinitely.
  The act is consistent with the administration's own guidance and 
rhetoric and with the President's Jobs Council's recommendations. It 
builds upon bipartisan legislation that passed the 109th Congress, 
which has dramatically reduced the time it takes to prepare 
environmental impact statements for transportation projects. In short, 
the road to economic recovery runs through permit streamlining.
  For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, first of all, we're dealing with nuclear 
regulatory authority, with nuclear power plants, and we're not dealing 
with small businesses. We are dealing with very large businesses. 
Secondly, we're dealing with permits for construction or modification 
of a nuclear power plant.
  Because of the disaster at Fukushima, hopefully, we learned from 
experience, it may very well be that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
will want to put out new regulations or modify old ones in light of 
what we have learned from what the Japanese didn't do right, and this 
would say that they could not promulgate any such regulation as long as 
unemployment is above 6 percent. As long as unemployment is above 6 
percent, we must continue to risk all of our lives. That makes no 
sense.
  Second of all, yes, we want to do environmental streamlining. Well, 
what this bill says--and this would apply to this, too--is that if an 
environmental impact statement takes longer than a certain number of 
days, forget about it. But it's the sponsor, not the Nuclear Regulatory 
Agency, the sponsor that controls the timing of the EIS.
  So if you've got a terrible project which you know is an 
environmental disaster, all you have to do, under this bill, is to 
slow-walk the EIS because you control it, and then you don't have to 
worry about any environmental consequences. That's backwards, it's 
upside down, and it risks the public safety.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Chair, let's look at this. If the 
sponsoring agency decides to hold back and there is a presumption or 
approval, who better to have the onus of having to prove that it should 
not be built than those who fail to act as opposed to those who are 
ready to act?
  The one thing that we found out is that the regulatory environment is 
so burdensome that whatever recovery our country attempts to pursue 
right now is being strangled. Polls show it. A Gallup poll on February 
15 of 2012 among 85 percent of U.S. small business owners who are not 
hiring, nearly 46 percent of these cited being worried about new 
government regulations. Small business owners cite complying with 
government regulations as their most important problem.
  It is overwhelming that we have placed in the hands of bureaucratic 
agencies unaccountable authority that is strangling the business 
recovery of this country. This bill as it is, without this amendment, 
will allow for the streamlining and 4\1/2\ years of the permitting 
process, and the permitting process will allow us to invest private 
capital to create private sector jobs.
  With that, I urge opposition to this amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, 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 New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam 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 8, line 5, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.
       Page 8, line 25, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.
       Page 27, line 18, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will add more clarity and accountability to the regulatory process.
  Under this bill, Congress will require additional analysis and 
reporting on all government regulations affecting the economy by $100 
million or more annually. This amendment simply reduces this threshold 
of $100 million to $50 million.

[[Page 12251]]

  In FY 2011, nearly 4,000 rules were published in the Federal 
Register; only 83 of these rules were classified as having an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This represents only 2.1 
percent of all the rules published. Thus far in 2012, 2,071 rules have 
been published, and 51 of these have been projected to have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, equating to just 2.4 
percent.
  According to the Small Business Administration, the cumulative burden 
of regulations exceeds more than $1 trillion annually on our economy, 
costing more than $10,000 per household. Regulations are clearly 
impacting our economy by this astounding $1 trillion amount each year, 
and nearly 98 percent of these rules have virtually no economic 
analysis or oversight.
  We have more than 23 million Americans underemployed or unemployed. 
This political maneuvering in rulemaking has to stop. The American 
people sent us here to improve the economy and help them get back to 
work, but not to allow the promulgation of more questionable, job-
hindering regulations.
  When I served in the West Virginia legislature in the eighties and 
early nineties, no regulations were adopted until the legislature 
approved them--not just a few here and there, but every single 
regulation came before the legislature for approval, significant or 
otherwise.
  Not conducting analysis and reports on nearly 98 percent of all 
government agencies' proposed regulations confounds and confronts our 
job creators with potentially excessive and burdensome rules.
  Madam Chairman, as a reminder, in 1995, Congress passed the Job 
Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, which dealt with lowering the 
regulatory threshold from $100 million to $50 million, just as this 
amendment would do today. That bill passed the House by a vote of 277-
141, including many Members who are present here today.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley), which would make a very dangerous bill even 
more devastating to the American people. If implemented, this amendment 
would broaden the scope of this legislation to impede the issuance of 
even more rules than are impeded by the underlying bill itself.
  By lowering the threshold at which a ``significant regulatory 
action'' is measured from rules that have an annual cost to the economy 
of $100 million or more to just $50 million or more, the legislation 
would prevent the implementation of important rules whose benefits far 
outweigh their costs.
  One of the things that we do not zero in on with regard to this 
legislation overall--and we saw it in our committee--is the cost-
benefit analysis. I think it's very, very significant, when you think 
about the fact that there are certain regs which save lives, many which 
protect our constituents with regard to their pocketbooks, all kinds of 
things. Sometimes when you just look at the cost of a business coming 
in and complaining, as opposed to balancing it with regard to benefits, 
sometimes I think things get out of balance.
  The amendment clearly illustrates why Cass Sunstein believes a 
moratorium on the issuance of regulations is such a bad idea. As he 
stated at an Oversight Committee hearing last September, he said:
  A moratorium would not be a scalpel or a machete, it would be more 
like a nuclear bomb, in the sense that it would prevent regulations 
that cost very little, and have very significant economic or public 
health benefits.
  This amendment only increases the size of the bomb we are dropping.
  Just one example of a pending regulation that would be halted by this 
amendment is the Securities and Exchange Commission's proposed rule 
implementing a section of the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce the purchase of 
``conflict minerals''--minerals whose sale by combatants in the 
Democrat Republic of Congo is known to fund the human rights abuses 
perpetrated by these combatants.
  Dodd-Frank requires the SEC to issue a rule directing publicly held 
companies to disclose whether any of four metals--gold, tantalum, 
tungsten or tin--used in the products they produce came from Central 
Africa, where trade in these commodities has funded years of civil war. 
The SEC issued a proposed rule in December 2010, but has delayed 
finalizing the rule in response to fierce business opposition and 
business lobbying. This proposed rule is estimated to cost industry $71 
million per year.
  The benefits of this rule cannot be quantified, simply cannot. By 
ensuring that publicly traded companies in the United States track the 
supply chain of minerals and disclose whether their purchases are 
financing armed groups responsible for committing atrocities--killing 
people, rapes, hurting people--this proposed rule will save lives and 
help prevent sexual and gender-based violence. Adopting this amendment 
would prohibit the issuance of this regulation intended to help quell 
international violence and help end a humanitarian crisis.
  We simply cannot put financial profit, as I said a few minutes ago, 
above our moral obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us. So, 
ladies and gentlemen, I urge Members to oppose this incredibly 
dangerous amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Again, Madam Chairman, I just respectfully disagree 
with the comments made, recognizing, again, that this House has already 
spoken on this matter of reducing it from 100 to 50.
  The real issue here is whether or not we want to have 98 percent of 
the rules that are being promulgated to go without oversight and 
review. It's time that we get this under control and allow more of our 
people to get back to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I hope that the body will vote against 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairwoman, I just encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment and, once it's adopted, to support the piece of 
legislation that's so needed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam 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 West 
Virginia will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam 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 8, line 10, insert after the period the following: 
     ``In determining the annual cost to the economy under this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall take into account any 
     expected change in revenue of businesses that will be caused 
     by such regulatory action, as well as any change in revenue 
     of businesses that has already taken place as businesses 
     prepare for the implementation of the regulatory action.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, my amendment hopefully is deemed to 
be somewhat simple, as this

[[Page 12252]]

piece of legislation moves forward, trying to make sure that definition 
of cost from the regulatory environment, is properly, shall we say, a 
proper box is built for it. So the amendment in many ways is very 
simple.
  The costs to organizations, a business, a business concern--as rules 
are being promulgated, that business is spending money to get into 
compliance. Those costs should also be calculated and put into the cost 
to the economy calculation.
  Secondly, as the calculations are being built, it should also--the 
calculations should take a look at what it did to the revenues of 
organizations, because those revenues are what are used to hire people, 
to grow, to expand the economy and, actually, ultimately, expand the 
tax base.
  So the amendment's very simple. It basically says, as the 
calculations are being made for cost of regulations, okay, let's 
actually add them up in a fashion where we actually acquire the real 
cost.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Hayworth). The gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Schweikert), which would make an already ambiguous bill even 
harder to implement. The amendment proposes to define the term ``annual 
cost to the economy'' as including ``any expected change in revenue of 
businesses'' caused by such regulation, including any change in revenue 
as a result of preparing for the implementation of the regulation.
  Imagine the consequences of this amendment. If it would cost a 
business any additional funds to ensure that baby formula does not 
contain toxic substances, that business could block a regulation 
requiring those safety measures. Is that really how we want to run our 
country?
  The truth is that businesses routinely blame regulations for costs 
they already incur. For example, power companies routinely blame the 
EPA for the fact that high-cost coal plants struggle to compete in 
today's market with lower-cost natural gas plants. Despite the fact 
that many of these coal plants are shut down because they are 
uncompetitive, some repeatedly blame EPA regulations for forcing their 
closings.
  The intention of this amendment appears to be to give businesses a 
veto over any regulation they oppose just by claiming that it's 
implementation somehow affects their bottom line. Since it would be 
virtually impossibility for OMB to confirm or deny such claims, they 
would be irrefutable.
  Now, I do believe that the cost of regulations imposed on industry 
should be one of many factors considered when we compare the overall 
costs and benefits of a rule. But these costs should not be the 
overriding factor to be considered, as this amendment would require.
  The amendment is just another example of the misguided effort to put 
business' profits before the health and safety of the American people. 
Therefore, I urge Members to oppose this unworkable and harmful 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate 
the gentleman from Maryland's comments. But he hit one part there, and 
that is you do believe that the costs to industry, to business, to job 
creators should be calculated. It's just the debate here is how they 
should be weighted and how ultimately, I assume, how they should be 
documented.
  All I'm trying to accomplish here with this amendment is a couple of 
very simple mechanics, those costs that go into the preparatory to be 
in compliance with the newly promulgated rule should be calculated, and 
that the calculation of the cost in the net revenues, gross revenues, 
to a job-creating industry should also be part of that calculation.
  And part of this was the bill is--I obviously fully support it, but I 
thought actually creating a little tighter definition of many of the 
types of costs that happen in a regulatory environment. I mean, 
obviously we will have a separation on the view of does it stymie 
regulation.
  I'm from the view that I truly believe one of the great hindrances to 
economic growth, to job growth in this country is the substantial 
growth of our regulatory environment.
  Okay, if we're going to run legislation that says regulations that 
exceed a certain cost, you know, are held till employment reaches a 
certain level, why not make sure we're calculating those appropriately?
  Madam Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I stand on my arguments, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I seek to offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 10, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Such term does not include a rule that would prevent or 
     reduce deaths or injuries caused by explosions and fires 
     related to the ignition of combustible dusts in the 
     workplace.''.
       Page 10, after line 13, insert the following:
       (c) Additional Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to a 
     rule that would prevent or reduce deaths or injuries caused 
     by explosions and fires related to the ignition of 
     combustible dusts in the workplace.
       Page 10, line 14, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, my amendment would 
allow the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to continue 
efforts to prevent combustible dust and fire explosions in the 
workplace. Combustible dust explosions threaten lives, limbs, jobs and 
property across this country. And it's abundantly clear that Federal 
regulatory action is needed, but the bill before us today threatens to 
block that action.
  Beginning in 2003, the Chemical Safety Board investigated three major 
explosions caused by combustible dust in North Carolina, Kentucky and 
Indiana, where 14 workers lost their lives. As part of its 
investigation, the board identified hundreds of other combustible dust 
fires and explosions, causing at least 119 fatalities and 718 injuries 
over 15 years. The board recommended that OSHA issue rules to protect 
against these hazards because the existing OSHA protections were 
inadequate.
  The investigators were not alone. Family members have also asked that 
action be taken.
  Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress how her brother, 
Shawn Boone, was killed in a metal dust fire in an aluminum wheel plant 
in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003.
  She told us how Shawn suffered from this horrific event. She said 
that Shawn did not die instantly. He laid on the smoldering floor after 
the explosion while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle 
tissue. His breaths burned his internal organs as the blast took his 
eyesight.
  Shawn was still conscious and asking for help when the ambulance took 
him. He lived for a number of hours before he finally succumbed to his 
injuries.
  Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been 
the last.
  It's been more than 4 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in 
Georgia. That explosion killed 13 workers. It

[[Page 12253]]

caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The tragedy was the 
result of unchecked accumulation of sugar dust that ignited and caused 
a chain of explosions, and Port Wentworth sugar refinery was leveled.
  These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 23 major 
combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 15 and injured 35 
since that Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia.
  The response of OSHA has been to begin the development of a rule to 
reduce the risk of combustible dust explosions. That rule should be 
allowed to go forward, and this bill threatens the opportunity of that 
bill to go forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. LANKFORD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. While I can certainly, certainly empathize and have 
tremendous compassion for the families involved and for the individuals 
involved in this, OSHA has been working through this rule since 2009. 
It has been in the advanced rulemaking phase for a very long time. The 
struggle they have is this large one-size-fits-all approach. Even under 
the passage of this particular bill, OSHA has some great options.
  Option No. 1 for them: to narrow their rulemaking. They're doing a 
large one-size-fits-all to try to cover all types of dust, all types of 
factories, all types of places. If they were to narrow their rule to 
specific types of places, they would be well under the $100 million 
limit.
  The second rule they have is very clear: that this bill, itself, 
already sets in an exemption for health and safety. Clearly, this would 
be within those guidelines of health and safety. The President could do 
an executive order and pass that and then allow them to move forward, 
or he could come back to Congress.
  The thought that only the folks at OSHA are compassionate about 
issues like this fails even the most modest of tests. Obviously, people 
who are within Congress are also compassionate to the needs here. If a 
regulation comes that deals with a problem in a commonsense manner that 
can function, certainly Congress would be able to approve that, and 
certainly a President is going to have tremendous compassion for the 
health and safety of individuals if they're able to come up with a 
regulation that clearly deals with this.
  So, while I have tremendous compassion for these families and look 
forward to OSHA's completing what they have been stalling on for 3 
years, this bill already deals with this, and this exception is not 
needed in addition to this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So, as for these workers who work in 
these dangerous conditions around all kinds of dust that explode on a 
moment's notice--without any notice, in fact--they should rely on the 
idea that we would all be compassionate here.
  The subcommittee that reported this legislation asked people in the 
industry, and they immediately targeted this standard.
  This won't be about the compassion of Members of Congress. This will 
be about the interests and the lobbying by the special interests to 
keep this dust standard from going into effect. It will not meet the 
requirement of imminent danger because it happens all the time. We have 
about 18 of these a year. It happens all the time. People are killed 
all of the time in different settings and with different dust. This 
isn't about one size fits all. This is about dust that explodes and 
kills people and burns them to death on the job. It destroys the 
workplace, and in some cases it's never rebuilt and the jobs are never 
brought back. In other cases, as in one of these cases, the employer is 
now saying, Give us this dust standard. Give us this dust standard.
  The workers in this country have a right to rely on the law to 
protect them, not on some notion of this committee or of this Congress' 
sense of compassion and of whether it will be invoked on that given day 
or not against the lobbying efforts by these industries.
  It's about the law that protects workers and their families--workers 
who get up and go to work every day, whose families hope they get to 
come home at night, but it doesn't happen for a lot of workers. In 
these industries with combustible dust, it happens over and over and 
over again. They get killed on the job. I've been here a long time 
working on combustible dust. Let me tell you, the industry doesn't say, 
Ah, gee, we've killed enough people. Let's all just kind of hold hands 
and see if we can come up with something.
  It's complicated. You must do it right. It's based upon science. It's 
based upon research so that you can isolate the dust so the explosions 
don't happen.
  But this legislation suggested by the committee notices in the 
committee that this is one of the regulations that they would target. 
They can use the old conundrum ``one size fits all.'' Do you know what? 
If you're working around combustible dust, you want the dust that you 
have taken care of. So maybe we can whittle it down. We'll take care of 
some of the dust but not all of the dust because we can get under the 
$100 million rule.
  What are you talking about? These are the lives of the American 
people. These are the lives of working people. This is an interesting 
notion you have. It just doesn't fit in the workplace. It just doesn't 
fit in the daily lives of these people who are threatened by these 
horrible, horrible, horrific incidents that take place usually through 
no fault of the workers. Other decisions were made about not keeping 
the plant clean. Other decisions were made about not installing 
equipment that could mitigate this under the old standards.
  That's the reason we need the law, the reason the workers in this 
country need the law--not some expression of compassion late at night 
in an empty Chamber of Congress. Tell them to rely on that, that one 
night in an empty Chamber of Congress the proponent of the legislation 
said, We'll be compassionate when this comes to the floor. We 
understand this. We'll grant you a waiver. We'll figure it out.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *
  The ACTING CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. LANKFORD. How unfortunate to have the implication that Members of 
Congress, including myself--I have workers in my district who live with 
this same thing--would not have compassion for people in our districts. 
OSHA has not completed this regulation. They have delayed this. They've 
had multiple options. They need to complete their work. There is a work 
safety issue that's here.
  As it is currently, the bill stands up strong for worker safety. It 
allows any exception for worker safety currently in this bill. So, 
while exceptions are pursued to add additional things into this bill, 
the bill, itself, already contains those things.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, 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 California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, 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 8, line 10, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Such term does not include a

[[Page 12254]]

     rule that would prevent or reduce the number of workers 
     suffering electrocutions or other fatalities associated with 
     working on high voltage transmission and distribution 
     lines.''.
       Page 10, after line 13, insert the following:
       (c) Additional Exception.--Section 202 shall not apply to a 
     rule that would prevent or reduce the number of workers 
     suffering electrocutions or other fatalities associated with 
     working on high voltage transmission and distribution lines.
       Page 10, line 14, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
titles I and II of H.R. 4078.
  My amendment would exempt a proposed worker safety rule from the 
``regulatory freeze'' and the prohibition on so-called ``midnight 
rules.'' This OSHA rule would update 40-year-old protections for those 
working around high-voltage transmission and distribution lines and 
equipment, which would bring them into the 21st century. If this 
amendment is not adopted, Madam Chair, many workers will be needlessly 
electrocuted or burned from electrical hazards--at least until 
unemployment drops to 6 percent.
  Are we really going to make workers wait until the jobless rate is 6 
percent before getting protections for workers against burns from high-
voltage electric arcs that run as hot as 35,000 degrees? If we are, 
they will be waiting a long time, because this Republican majority 
shows absolutely no interest in passing a jobs bill.
  Is it fair, Madam Chair, to make these workers wait for 6 percent 
unemployment before their employers have to assess and provide safe 
minimum distances from high-voltage lines? Is it morally defensible to 
make workers wait for a full economic recovery before they get simple 
protections like rubber-insulated sleeves so that their arms aren't 
blown apart from having contact with high-voltage wires?
  Certainly not.
  Unless the bill sponsor is aware of some new scientific discovery, 
35,000 degrees feels just as hot no matter how many Americans are out 
of work. Shock at 14,000 volts of electricity does the same damage 
whether unemployment is 8 percent or 6 percent. Yet this bill seems to 
assume lethal hazards are somehow less lethal during tougher economic 
times. Even worse, this bill implies that preventable electrocutions 
are somehow acceptable whenever unemployment is high.

                              {time}  2040

  This is irresponsible, if not unethical.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I thank my colleague for bringing this up, but this 
again is something that is obviously dealt with already in the text of 
the bill. As we anticipated, there would be issues like this. On page 
3, line 23 of the bill, it actually states the President has the 
ability, by executive order, in dealing with any significant regulatory 
action to go ahead and waive this, if it's necessary, because of an 
imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
  This is already dealt with in the bill itself. While we do need to be 
able to deal with this, and obviously the vast majority of electricity 
providers are very attentive to their workers, including the companies 
that are in my district, and take great pride in how they care for the 
health and safety of the workers that are on those lines and that are 
out there in very dangerous situations, it is a very important thing to 
them. We have the ability already within this bill to be able to 
address that. For that reason, I would oppose this.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, each year, 74 electrical workers covered 
under this rule are killed on the job. Another 444 are severely 
injured. OSHA is authorized to regulate a hazard when the risk of 
fatality is more than 1 in a 1,000. The fatality rate for workers 
covered under this OSHA rule is 14 times that level. Full compliance 
would eliminate 79 percent of these fatalities and injuries.
  Madam Chair, the one-size-fits-all approach of this bill will block a 
commonsense, cost-effective rule that produces an estimated $4 in 
benefits for every dollar in cost. OSHA's proposed update would provide 
an estimated $100 million in savings every single year.
  While the authors of this bill argue that the President can seek a 
waiver from Congress to allow the rule, I'm not buying it. As we saw 
with the so-called ``comma bill'' proposed by Mr. Sensenbrenner a 
number of years ago, it took three sessions of Congress just to fix a 
harmless typo. We all know that when a special interest wants to stop 
something around here, there are countless ways to win. If this bill is 
not amended, Madam Chair, Congress will be sentencing scores of workers 
every year to preventible electrocutions and to burns.
  I ask for adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, one quick statement.
  This particular rule is unique in a lot of our conversation because 
it's already gone through the process. Currently, the OIRA office has, 
in fact, had it for the last 30 days. They could issue this at any 
point. This is right at that point that it's going to be released. It 
wouldn't even fall underneath this bill. Obviously, we pass this bill 
tonight, we send it over to the Senate, it works through the process. 
OIRA can release this at any point that they choose to.
  While I again have tremendous compassion for the workers that are on 
the lines, and I have tremendous respect for electric companies around 
the country and how they take care of their workers, this particular 
rule has already gone through the process, it already sits in OIRA, and 
it would not apply to them. With that and also with the knowledge that 
we have the exceptionary built in for safety, I would choose to oppose 
this and continue to do that.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, the gentleman from the other side of the 
aisle is not correct on this. If the President signed the bill, the 
regulation would be stopped.
  In closing, Madam Chair, the adoption of my amendment will save the 
lives of Americans who work in some of the most dangerous conditions 
imaginable. It is ridiculous and it's downright cruel to tell these men 
and women who risk electrocution everyday that OSHA will only step in 
to help them when the jobless rate reaches some arbitrary level. 
Whether unemployment is 6 or 8 or 10 percent, whether the economy is 
strong or weak, we need to protect our workers.
  I ask for Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in part B of 
the House Report 112-616.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Ms. WATERS. I have an amendment at the desk that is made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 12255]]

       Page 67, line 24, strike ``shall--'' and insert ``shall, 
     subject to appropriations made specifically for such purpose 
     pursuant to paragraph (7)--''.
       Page 69, line 3, insert ``, subject to appropriations made 
     specifically for such purpose pursuant to paragraph (7),'' 
     after ``shall''.
       Page 71, line 7, insert ``, subject to appropriations made 
     specifically for such purpose pursuant to paragraph (7),'' 
     after ``shall''.
       Page 75, line 22, strike the close quotation mark and 
     following period and after such line insert the following:
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subsection such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal year 2013.
       ``(B) Covered expenses.--Funds appropriated pursuant to 
     this paragraph shall be for any costs incurred by the 
     Commission in carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, including any costs of litigation related to the 
     requirements of this subsection.''.
       Page 77, line 4, strike ``shall'' and insert ``shall, 
     subject to appropriations made specifically for such purpose 
     pursuant to paragraph (3),''.
       Page 77, line 15, insert ``, subject to appropriations made 
     specifically for such purpose pursuant to paragraph (3),'' 
     after ``shall''.
       Page 78, line 22, strike the close quotation mark and 
     following period and after such line insert the following:
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subsection such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal year 2013.
       ``(B) Covered expenses.--Funds appropriated pursuant to 
     this paragraph shall be for any costs incurred by the 
     Commission in carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, including any costs of litigation related to the 
     requirements of this subsection.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment authorizes such appropriations 
as may be necessary to allow our financial regulators to carry out the 
activities required under title VI and VII of this legislation. The 
purpose of the amendment is that if we're having our regulators 
undertake new and perhaps even duplicative economic analysis functions, 
we should provide them with the resources to do so.
  Madam Chairman, we know that the majority has tried to shortchange 
our Federal regulators in terms of appropriations, particularly when we 
contrast their funding with the new responsibility entrusted to them 
after the financial crisis. Let's consider the SEC, one of the cops on 
the beat for Wall Street.
  This agency is tasked with enforcing our securities laws. They 
protect investors and make sure firms are held to account when they 
create toxic financial instruments. The fiscal year 2013 Republican 
budget proposal calls for funding the SEC at almost $200 million less 
than what the President has requested and what the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has provided in their funding bill. This is 
just another part of an onslaught of cuts to the SEC's budget that 
Republicans have proposed and that we've been fighting against over the 
last few years.
  The SEC's funding has been erratic. After significant increases in 
the early half of the decade, the agency was forced to reduce staff. 
During this period of inconsistent funding, trading volume more than 
doubled. Since 2003, the number of investment advisers has grown by 
roughly 50 percent and funds that they manage have increased nearly 55 
percent. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 
35,000 entities, including thousands of investment advisers, mutual 
funds, broker/dealers, and public companies.
  With all this responsibility, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle want to spread the commission even thinner with new duplicative 
cost-benefit requirements that open the agency up to constant 
litigation, and they want to do this while at the same time refusing to 
devote additional resources to the agency. The result is that the SEC 
would be forced to divert resources away from other key functions of 
the commission, including, perhaps, prosecuting wrongdoers who violate 
our security laws.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And to my friend from California, she has always been 
a passionate and very articulate in the battle for resources for the 
regulators.
  But I'm going to stand here in opposition to this amendment for a 
couple of very simple reasons. One, this is already the job they're 
supposed to be doing with the money they have, this cost-benefit 
analysis. And we can talk about that further.
  But also, as you work through the amendment, I have great concern for 
the law of unintended consequences, and that is, in a weird way, 
subsidizing and incentivizing bad cost-benefit analysis. In the 
amendment, it basically says, if you end up in litigation over your 
cost-benefit analysis, there should be an appropriation, an unspecified 
amount of money that the appropriators should send you for that 
litigation. So if you do a really bad job in your cost-benefit analysis 
and you get sued, you actually get more money that is supposed to be 
appropriated to you.
  The sort of constant thing I focus on a lot is that law of unintended 
consequences of, does it actually create an incentive to draw down more 
cash for the agency, for the litigation? And the way you get to the 
litigation is the quality of the work that was done in the cost-benefit 
analysis.
  So there are two primary issues: A, this is what the agencies are 
supposed to be doing; and B, in the design of the amendment, I actually 
have a concern that ultimately, it may incentivize the very thing we're 
trying to stop.
  And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment also addresses title VII of the 
bill, which relates to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The 
CFTC is the cop on the beat that we tasked to regulate much of the 
derivatives market under the Wall Street Reform Act. And the CFTC is 
the agency that cracked down on Barclays when they manipulated a key 
interest rate benchmark, the LIBOR, in order to benefit their 
derivatives trade.
  This bill also imposes new cost-benefit requirements on the CFTC. 
While the requirements on this agency aren't as onerous as the ones 
imposed on the SEC, I think it is inappropriate to spread the CFTC any 
thinner when Republicans have proposed to cut the CFTC's funding by 12 
percent relative to last year and 40 percent relative to what the 
Senate provided.
  As CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said last month, the result of proposed 
House funding cuts ``is to effectively put the interests of Wall Street 
ahead of those of the American public by significantly underfunding the 
agency Congress tasked to oversee derivatives--the same complex 
financial instruments that helped contribute to the most significant 
economic downturn since the Great Depression.''
  Finally, I disagree with the claim that more cost-benefit analyses 
can solve every regulatory question we face. In fact, I think that 
these economic analyses often offer a false sense of precision and fail 
to capture things that aren't easily quantifiable, things like avoiding 
the next financial crisis and protecting overall market integrity.
  I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which makes 
compliance with the new requirements under the underlying bill 
contingent on them receiving sufficient appropriations to carry out 
these functions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. My two arguments still stand. But there is one other 
point. And I actually have a little bit of information here.
  According to the inspector general of the CFTC, the commission 
regularly employs a ``stripped down'' type of cost-benefit analysis 
that has ``proved perilous for financial market regulators.'' In the 
past, they've used a stripped-down methodology.

[[Page 12256]]

  So in many ways, what we're doing here in the overall legislation is 
saying, here's the box, you are supposed to be doing this, it's already 
part of your budget. And as I spoke earlier, in the design of the 
amendment, I have a fear of the unintended consequences that you are 
almost incentivizing; that when the litigation happens, the agency 
actually ends up getting more money.
  And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. In closing, this bill adds duplicative new rules. SEC is 
already held to account on cost-benefit analysis. Proxy access was 
overturned. The bill opened CFTC up to new industry lawsuits.
  I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, 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 71, line 12, add at the end the following: ``In 
     reviewing any regulation (including, notwithstanding 
     paragraph (6), a regulation issued in accordance with formal 
     rulemaking provisions) that subjects issuers with a public 
     float of $250,000,000 or less to the attestation and 
     reporting requirements of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-
     Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)), the Commission shall 
     specifically take into account the large burden of such 
     regulation when compared to the benefit of such 
     regulation.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, the amendment I'm offering tonight 
would require the SEC, when reviewing regulations, to consider the 
burden of applying section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley to companies with a 
public float of less than $250 million. Simply put, this amendment 
requires regulators to consider the cost of a specific regulation which 
hinders job creation in my district and across the Nation.
  Section 404(b) requires audits of a public company's internal 
controls. While this sounds innocuous, the cost of external audits can 
be staggering. Those costs are exponentially more burdensome on smaller 
companies. Currently, the law extends the auditing requirement to any 
company with a public float of $75 million or more, and that number has 
been widely criticized as too low and adds an extremely costly burden 
on small and growing companies.
  Recognizing that burden on emerging growth companies, the House 
overwhelmingly passed, as part of the JOBS Act, an exemption from 
404(b) for companies with up to $1 billion in revenue for 5 years after 
their initial public offering.
  This amendment would merely require the SEC to consider the burden of 
section 404(b) when reviewing their regulations and would not change 
current law. This amendment would apply to all companies and would not 
discriminate based on when a company issued their IPO.
  Congress and the SEC have appropriately recognized that all companies 
are not the same, and smaller companies should be exempt from certain 
regulations. This amendment asks that the SEC consider these costs on 
smaller companies.
  If companies are priced out of being able to go public, it restricts 
capital formation and job creation. For those companies that still 
choose to go public, resources that could otherwise be used to hire and 
grow are being sucked away by unproductive compliance costs.
  Madam Chair, Synergy Pharmaceuticals is a New York-based company that 
does their entire R&D in Doylestown Borough in my district. They have 
10 employees in their Doylestown research facility and 10 employees in 
New York. These are good-paying jobs, but by most definitions, this is 
a small company. In fact, their market capitalization exceeds even the 
increased threshold of $250 million that this bill references, which is 
why some have advocated exempting companies with a public float as high 
as $500 million or $1 billion.
  I reached out to their chief scientific officer and their chief 
financial officer to discuss this issue with them, and their comments 
were very instructive. I heard that 404(b) was one of the most 
significant regulatory burdens they face. In their words, ``It hurts.''
  It was not the direct costs of external audits or the person they had 
to hire internally to deal with these requirements but the time that 
was spent and the efforts that were wasted. According to them, hours 
and even days worth of time was spent finding ways to document and 
justify their procedures for something as menial as where the checkbook 
was kept.
  What would they do with the extra money if they didn't have to spend 
it on compliance? The answer I got was that there is no question it 
would go directly into research and development.
  I ask my colleagues, where is this money more productively used: in 
documenting how the checkbook is stored at night or hiring research 
assistants in communities like Doylestown and in New York?
  Madam Chairman, entrepreneurial companies like Synergy are those we 
are counting on to create wealth and jobs and restore America's vibrant 
economy. Their story is not unique, particularly in industries like 
biotechnology. This Congress recognized the importance of decreasing 
the regulatory burden on small and emerging companies in a strong 
bipartisan manner just a few months ago with the JOBS Act. This 
amendment is an extension of that effort, and I encourage my colleagues 
to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I rise in opposition, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This is an effort to exempt companies under $250 million. Now the 
JOBS Act, which was recently passed with broad support, said that a 
start-up company for its first 5 years would be exempt from this. This 
now would do away with that 5-year restriction without having had the 
kind of committee consideration that it seems to me it ought to have. 
It does it in this way, and I differ with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania when he says that it doesn't change the law. If it didn't 
change the law, they wouldn't offer it. He's not up here at 9 p.m. just 
to get exercise. It changes the law in a very significant way and sets 
a very bad precedent.
  The underlying legislation to which this would be an amendment 
requires a cost-benefit analysis. This cooks the books. This is not 
content to let it be an unbiased cost-benefit analysis; but it says, it 
instructs the SEC to take into account the heavy burdens--and let me 
get the exact words--the large burden of such regulation. In other 
words, it's an effort to tip the scales of the very cost-benefit 
analysis.
  And we know that, by the way, as to intent because the original 
version of this amendment was just a straight exemption of 250. But for 
parliamentary reasons, because that's not this committee's 
jurisdiction, it had to be redone. So if the gentleman really wanted to 
just exempt everybody under 250 from Sarbanes-Oxley forever, as opposed 
to a 5-year exemption for a start-up, he had to amend it.

[[Page 12257]]

  So he amended it in a way, as I said, that unfortunately impugns the 
integrity of the cost-benefit analysis because it puts a thumb on the 
scales. It says, oh, the cost-benefit analysis here should take into 
account the large burden. Well, it is already supposed to do it. Adding 
this is an instruction to the SEC essentially to find that they should 
be exempt.
  We have had a rash of Chinese companies buying small American 
companies and converting them and people investing in them and getting 
taken. And the problem is that Chinese accounting is very opaque. What 
this bill would do is to prevent the United States authorities from 
applying Sarbanes-Oxley to protect those investors.
  I don't doubt that there is a very good company--I agree there is a 
very good company in his district, although he says it is above the 
limit. But you can't legislate for just one good company. This is part 
of this nostalgia for a time when we had no regulation.
  Sarbanes-Oxley has improved the integrity of our capital markets. It 
has improved the confidence of investors. We did exempt small start-
ups, so for the first 5 years as a start-up, up to $250 million, they 
didn't have to do this. This says, in effect, by instructing the SEC to 
find that the cost outweighs the benefit no matter what, this gives a 
permanent exemption de facto for companies up to 250, which would 
include people who might be scamming, in the case of the Chinese 
companies. And as I said, it sets a bad precedent.
  If we are going to have cost-benefit analysis, and I think that can 
be overdone, let's have it in an honest and open way. Let's not put the 
thumb in the scales, as this does, by instructing the SEC, in effect, 
to find that the cost always outweighs it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of Mr. 
Fitzpatrick's amendment.
  Madam Chair, unemployed Americans are crying out for more jobs, 
urging Congress to review rules and regulations that stifle innovation, 
economic growth, and job creation. Overly burdensome regulations are 
hurting business expansion, which is why we are debating this bill this 
evening. Overly burdensome regulations is also why I introduced H.R. 
3213, the Small Company Job Growth and Regulatory Relief Act, to expand 
Sarbanes-Oxley 404(b) exemptions for companies with a public float of 
less than $350 million.
  Supporters of increasing the current $75 million exemptions from 
Sarbanes-Oxley 404(b) for small companies would save duplicative audit 
costs, which hinder many companies from going public. Going public 
provides opportunities for companies to raise needed capital in order 
to expand, reinvest, and create jobs.
  Providing a permanent exemption for Sarbanes-Oxley for companies with 
a public float of $250 million or less just makes good sense. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I guess I am in a position of being 
disagreeable to some of my friends on the committee. The gentleman from 
Tennessee cited the company that's about to go public, but they're 
already exempted.
  The jobs bill that we passed and was signed into law exempts start-
ups for the first 5 years until they go public, so this has no 
relevance to the start-ups.
  It has relevance to companies that have been in existence for more 
than 5 years as public companies. Again, we have got an exemption 
already for the first 5 years. And it says, in effect, don't give us 
this unbiased cost-benefit analysis. We'll tell you what cost-benefit 
analysis does.
  And as to IPOs, I will insert into the Record an article by Mr. 
Davidoff in the The New York Times talking about the advantages we have 
in IPOs these days; how the soccer team from England came here to do an 
IPO because our corporate governance laws are more favorable to them in 
allowing different classes of stock.
  I'm sorry to see this continuing repudiation of the legacy of George 
W. Bush. I know he's not going to come to the convention. But, gee, 
everything's being torn down. George Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley. Oxley, 
by the way, is Mike Oxley, my predecessor as chairman of our committee. 
George Bush was very proud of Sarbanes-Oxley. It's an accounting 
requirement, and what this does is to take another chunk out of that 
regulation.
  Now, maybe we hear different people. My friends say the American 
people are crying out for an end of regulation. Every indication I have 
of public opinion is that people are tired of irresponsibility by a 
few, not everybody, but they are tired of people being scammed. And, in 
fact, the notion that what we need in the financial area is less 
regulation is an odd one. It comes from people, I guess, who just slept 
through the last few years, didn't see the crisis we had because 
Sarbanes-Oxley, of course, itself came about after Enron.
  So I would align myself with President Bush. I think he got this one 
right. I think Mike Oxley got this one right. Yes, for start-ups and 
for people about to go public, they have a $250 million exemption. But 
to give a permanent exemption to companies at $250 million and above is 
a mistake. And don't, please, start monkeying with cost-benefit 
analysis.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                [From the New York Times, July 10, 2012]

     In Manchester United's I.P.O., a Preference for American Rules

                        (By Steven M. Davidoff)

       Manchester United, the English soccer team with an adoring 
     fan base in Europe and Asia, is filing to go public in the 
     United States.
       But the initial public offering is not a reflection of 
     Americans' increasing love of soccer. Instead, it is a 
     reflection of American regulators' light touch.
       I'm not kidding. The United States, which has long been 
     criticized for its harsh rules surrounding I.P.O.'s, is now 
     the place where foreign companies go to avoid regulation.
       Manchester United may be the world's most popular soccer 
     club, with 659 million fans according to the team's own 
     estimates. In 2005, the American businessman Malcolm Glazer 
     and his family bought control of the team, loading it up with 
     hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. Now, the company is 
     selling shares to raise money and reduce its debt, which 
     stands at about $655 million.
       But the Glazers do not want to give up voting control 
     since, among other reasons, Manchester United fans appear 
     eager to buy back the team from the still-unpopular family. 
     In 2010, a prominent group of Manchester United fans were 
     said to have tried to form a consortium to repurchase the 
     club. The Glazers have uniformly given the same response: the 
     team is not for sale. Now, the Glazers are venue-shopping for 
     their stock.
       They passed over the Hong Kong Stock Exchange because it 
     would not give the team a waiver to allow two classes of 
     shares, with different voting rights. The London Stock 
     Exchange also does not allow such share structures, perhaps 
     the reason this natural home was skipped over by the Glazers.
       Manchester United declined to comment for this article.
       The Singapore Exchange seemed more amenable to the Glazers' 
     plan to list Manchester United and keep control through a 
     dual-class structure. But after the exchange delayed final 
     signoff on the dual-class shares and the Asian markets 
     cooled, the Singapore plans were derailed, according to an 
     article in Reuters.
       The soccer team has recently found a home for its stock in 
     the United States. Manchester United filed the papers this 
     month for its initial public offering on the New York Stock 
     Exchange, and the Glazers are taking advantage of the 
     country's willingness to be more flexible when it comes to 
     shareholder rights. Manchester United is proposing a 
     corporate structure that would give the Glazers shares with 
     10 votes apiece. Public investors would receive one vote for 
     each share.
       While the Securities and Exchange Commission tried to ban 
     this type of dual-class voting stock in the 1980s, a federal 
     appeals court struck down the rules. Since then, the 
     structure has become increasingly common. Facebook, LinkedIn 
     and Google all have dual-class shares. The New York Times 
     also has a dual-class voting structure. In 2011, 28 offerings 
     featured dual-class structures that gave greater voting 
     rights to certain shareholders, according to the research 
     firm Dealogic.
       The Manchester United offering is a case study in how the 
     American markets have evolved toward deregulation in the past 
     decade.
       The company is a beneficiary of the newly enacted Jumpstart 
     Our Business Start-Ups Act, known as the JOBS Act, designed 
     to help private companies raise capital and go

[[Page 12258]]

     public. Although the team was founded in 1878, the JOBS Act 
     classifies Manchester United as an emerging growth company 
     since it has less than $1 billion in revenue. As such, the 
     company, which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, does 
     not face the same hurdles as American businesses.
       The JOBS Act builds on earlier efforts by the S.E.C. to 
     loosen the rules governing I.P.O.'s of foreign companies. 
     Under pressure from stock exchanges and other market players, 
     the agency has exempted foreign issuers like Manchester 
     United from large parts of American securities laws.
       Manchester United will not need to file quarterly reports, 
     report material events, file proxy statements or disclose 
     extensive compensation information, all of which American 
     companies must do. Under a different S.E.C. rule adopted in 
     2008, Manchester United also does not need to report 
     financials under the generally accepted accounting principles 
     used in the United States, but can instead rely on 
     international financial reporting standards.
       Because Manchester United will be a controlled company, it 
     does not need to follow the New York Stock Exchange rules 
     adopted in 2003 that require a public company to have a board 
     composed mainly of independent directors. The board of 
     Manchester United will have four directors, two of Malcolm 
     Glazer's sons and two executives of the company.
       The legal environment, which investment bankers and lawyers 
     have long argued deterred I.P.O.'s, also appears to be more 
     conducive. This may be because securities litigation reforms 
     put in place by Congress and the Supreme Court have meant 
     fewer cases in recent years. Even after the financial crisis, 
     only 16 companies on the Standard & Poor's 500 were subject 
     to this type of litigation in 2011, the lowest number since 
     2000, according to the Stanford Securities Class Action 
     Clearinghouse.
       It's all a bit unsettling.
       After the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, 
     critics claimed that the new regulation was driving away 
     foreign companies, although at least one academic study 
     rebutted this claim. But as regulators have slowly loosened 
     the rules, the American markets are attracting foreign 
     issuers seeking watered-down rules.
       This does not mean that this deregulation is wrongheaded.
       The JOBS Act and other initiatives may not have been 
     designed to attract the likes of Manchester United, but such 
     I.P.O.'s do provide work for investment bankers, lawyers and 
     the exchanges. They also build up American prestige by 
     bringing well-known foreign companies to the United States.
       At the same time, the deregulation effort means lower 
     compliance costs for businesses. Presumably, that extra money 
     can be invested, bolstering the economy.
       The question is whether deregulation is worth the price.
       I have little sympathy for investors who buy Manchester 
     United shares. The risks are mainly disclosed.
       The bigger question is whether lowering the bar for foreign 
     issuers will come back to haunt the American markets.
       Even before the JOBS Act, Chinese companies took advantage 
     of new S.E.C. rules and started going public en masse in the 
     United States. While some of the I.P.O.'s have worked out, 
     there are now more than 100 newly public Chinese companies 
     facing accusations of fraud by either investors or 
     regulators.
       The risk is that American exchanges will become more like 
     London's Alternative Investment Market, a lightly regulated 
     stock exchange that has fostered some spectacular flops. If 
     so, investors may lose faith in American markets, and the 
     United States may end up sacrificing long-term stature for 
     short-term gain.
       Either way, the next time someone calls the American 
     markets overregulated, you might want to point them to the 
     Manchester United I.P.O.--and remind them that the English 
     soccer club came to the United States to avoid more 
     burdensome foreign rules.
       This post has been revised to reflect the following 
     correction:
       Correction: July 12, 2012.
       The Deal Professor column on Wednesday, about the soccer 
     team Manchester United's public offering in the United 
     States, misstated the year that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was 
     enacted. It was 2002, not 2001.

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Posey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title VI the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 604. INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE NULL AND VOID.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no interpretive 
     guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission on 
     or after the effective date of this Act relating to 
     ``Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate 
     Change'', affecting parts 211, 231, and 249 of title 17, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (as described in Commission Release 
     Nos. 33-9106; 34-61469; FR-82), or any successor thereto, may 
     take effect, and such guidance shall have no force or effect 
     with respect to any person on or after February 2, 2010.

     SEC. 605. OTHER SEC ACTION PROHIBITED.

       (a) Further Guidance Related to Climate Change.--The 
     Commission may not issue any interpretive guidance with 
     respect to disclosures related to climate change on or after 
     the effective date of this Act.
       (b) Voluntary Submissions.--The Commission may not issue 
     any interpretive guidance that would establish any 
     requirements with respect to the content of or format for any 
     disclosures related to climate change voluntarily submitted 
     by any entity to the Commission on or after the effective 
     date of this Act.
       (c) Civil and Administrative Actions.--No civil or 
     administrative action or proceeding pertaining to disclosures 
     related to climate change may be initiated by the Commission 
     on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and any 
     such actions or proceedings pending on such date shall be 
     terminated.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as to--
       (1) prohibit the Commission from issuing interpretive 
     guidance with respect to disclosures related to non-
     anthropogenic or natural climate variability observed over 
     comparable time periods; or
       (2) terminate an administrative action or proceeding 
     pertaining to such disclosures.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, my amendment stops the Securities and Exchange 
Commission from pursuing an agenda on climate change and keeps its 
focus, instead, on its core mission of protecting investors.
  In recent years, we've seen the Madoff and Stanford Ponzi schemes 
bilk people out of over $70 billion. Many of these victims live in our 
districts. They are shocked and outraged that such a travesty could 
happen.
  One would think that after such embarrassments, the SEC would do 
whatever it could to focus its finite resources on stopping the next 
Ponzi scheme. At the very minimum, it would make sense for the SEC to 
appear to get serious in safeguarding the public from fraud and 
corruption.
  However, early in 2010, the SEC issued an interpretative guidance for 
companies to disclose the impact global climate change might have on 
their businesses. The SEC published this controversial guidance over 
the objections of dissenting commissioners. This was done without 
direction from Congress and outside the traditional rulemaking process.
  There are no laws in the United States explicitly addressing climate 
change. The guidance is inappropriate considering the SEC has bigger 
priorities.
  I don't have to tell my colleagues that climate change is a 
controversial and an unresolved issue. From a securities perspective 
especially, climate change information on a disclosure is highly 
speculative, and dubious at best. If allowed to proceed, it invites all 
kinds of compliance costs and confusion down the road. And guess who 
will ultimately pay all those costs? Our constituents, the American 
public.

                              {time}  2110

  Importantly, my amendment does not stop companies from mentioning 
bona fide weather and environmental risks in disclosures. And if a 
company really wants to weigh in climate change for some reason, 
they're free to

[[Page 12259]]

volunteer that information. It just keeps the SEC focused on what 
they're supposed to be doing, and that is protecting people and not 
forcing unrelated agendas down their throats.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, Federal securities law requires financial disclosures 
by public companies for the benefit of shareholders and investors. The 
Securities and Exchange Commission provides detailed guidance on how to 
interpret and comply with these disclosure requirements, which are 
intended to ensure that potential investors fully understand a security 
before they purchase it.
  The SEC recently provided guidance on existing rules that require 
companies to disclose the impact that business or legal developments 
related to climate change could have on a company's bottom line. They 
want investors to know about this.
  These disclosures help investors understand how climate change 
affects a company's operations and their potential investments in the 
company. This amendment seeks to prevent this guidance from taking 
place. It seeks to keep investors in the dark.
  Rules discussed in the SEC's guidance are clearly needed, and the 
SEC's guidance will help publicly traded companies understand how key 
areas of climate change--such as new legislation or international 
accords--could affect what they need to disclose to the public. This 
guidance is also intended to help companies explain how the physical 
impacts of climate change could affect their performance.
  In issuing this guidance, the SEC did not opine on the science of 
climate change. The guidance seeks to help companies assess the 
possibility that events related to climate change may materially affect 
their bottom lines and trigger public disclosure requirements. This 
guidance is prudent and serves to benefit both the investor and the 
company.
  Ironically, with this amendment, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle who proclaim the value of transparency are acting to hurt 
investors by denying them important information. This amendment would 
also harm Wall Street by preventing the SEC from issuing clear guidance 
to help publicly traded firms understand what they need to disclose on 
this topic to ensure full compliance with the law. It provides them 
certainty.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POSEY. The gentleman's points about disclosure are on point. They 
simply don't apply to what this amendment does. It does not deny 
required disclosure of risks. Let me be clear, thousands and thousands 
of American families were devastated by Madoff, by Stanford, MF Global 
and the like. People lost their homes, people lost their cars, people 
lost their children's education funds, and people lost their lifelong 
retirement savings. I could go on and on forever, but we have a limited 
amount of time.
  The job of the SEC is to protect those people. The job of the SEC is 
to protect honest people from dishonest corporations and persons. It's 
not to impose other agendas on the American public. It's not to talk 
about the environmental stewardship of corporations. If a corporation 
dealing with securities does not disclose a significant environmental 
risk, then they're going to be liable for that failure to disclose. But 
it's not the SEC's job to talk about their stewardship.
  The SEC knew for a decade--a decade--a full 10 years--over 10 years--
that Madoff was stealing from people; and they refused to take any 
action for over a decade, and over $70 billion evaporated. People's 
lives were devastated. People died. People died. There are dead people 
because of what Madoff did. And the SEC didn't lift a finger. They were 
too busy doing other things.
  Now, here we intend to put SEC back on the job and focus on what 
they're supposed to do: protect honest people from dishonest people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. When we had the SEC come before our committee, I made 
it very clear that I thought more could have been done with regard to 
Madoff, and I think it was extremely unfortunate what happened. But, 
again, that does not mean that we shouldn't provide clarity over all 
subjects which may affect investors. And that's what we're talking 
about here.
  I'm going to rely on my argument, but I'm going to also yield to my 
good friend, Mr. Frank from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman says the SEC wasn't on the Madoff thing for many years. 
That's true. I have to say that, while I supported the Bush 
administration on Sarbanes-Oxley, I am critical of their administration 
of the SEC. For almost all of that time, we had an SEC that was not 
inclined to enforce. And I do not think the current SEC, under a very 
good chairman, Mary Schapiro, with a much more vigorous approach ought 
to be taxed for the failures that were ideologically driven by the 
previous SEC.
  So I don't think it is valid to say, well, because they didn't catch 
Madoff--the SEC during the Bush administration reflected an unfortunate 
philosophy of non-regulation, of ceding to the company more autonomy 
than they should have, and it is not a good basis on which to legislate 
going forward.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. POSEY. I have endured about all I care to, and I think a large 
percentage of the people in this Chamber and a lot of people in this 
country have endured about all the finger-pointing and blame that they 
can endure. I don't care who shot John. I don't care who was in charge 
of the SEC before. The point of this bill is to keep the SEC focused on 
protecting investors.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, how much do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, a large percentage of the 
people in this room would be too; but, secondly, the fact is that the 
gentleman from Florida is who started pointing fingers. When I talked 
about who was in charge of the SEC, all of a sudden he is above any 
criticism. But he's the one who impugned the SEC. He's the one who said 
that the SEC sat and did nothing under Madoff. So, if you're going to 
accuse the agency, then it becomes relevant as to who was running it. I 
didn't raise the issue of who was to blame and who was at fault. I was 
simply responding to my committee colleague from Florida.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. POSEY. Very poetic, but it's off point.
  The amendment wants SEC to focus on protecting honest people from 
dishonest corporations and people, nothing more, nothing less, and 
nothing else.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me be clear, the SEC has the responsibility to 
disclose the information that investors need, and this is one of those 
areas. We want to protect investors with everything we have. I think 
this amendment flies in the face of that, and I would hope that the 
body would vote against the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments; and, once 
again, I implore my colleagues to support this good amendment to keep 
the SEC on task.

[[Page 12260]]

  Their job is to protect investors from dishonest people and dishonest 
corporations; and with the passage of this amendment, we will do that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, 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.

                              {time}  2120


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam 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 76, after line 14, insert the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 604. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title, and the amendments made by this title, shall 
     not take effect until the date on which the Chairman of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission certifies to the Congress 
     that implementing the provisions of this title, and the 
     amendments made by this title, will not divert resources from 
     the Commission's mission to protect investors, maintain fair, 
     orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital 
     formation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment concerns title VI of the bill and the enhanced cost-
benefit analysis that it requires. The amendment very simply requires 
that title VI of the underlying bill needs to basically get in line 
behind all the critical and previously assigned responsibilities 
Congress has given to the SEC to keep consumers, investors, and our 
financial system safe.
  My amendment would require the Chair of the SEC to certify that the 
Commission can perform its core mission of protecting investors and do 
the job it was created to do--safely maintain efficient markets and 
promote access to capital--before it diverts any of its resources to 
carry out the new requirements of title VI in this bill.
  The financial reforms we enacted 2 years ago gave the SEC critical 
new tools to oversee a multitrillion-dollar market and to help ensure 
that we do not get ourselves into another financial crisis. And the 
reforms we previously enacted require the SEC to conduct extensive 
rulemakings and to complete a number of critical reports.
  Unfortunately, this Congress has chosen to underfund the SEC and 
hamper its ability to provide the required oversight of the financial 
industry. The SEC is now facing a $195 million shortfall this year 
alone. They are also operating on a budget that is a 12 percent cut 
from what the President requested.
  The SEC needs every dollar it now gets just to carry out its core 
mission: to protect investors, to implement Dodd-Frank, and to provide 
enforcement. I do not believe that it would be responsible on the part 
of this Congress to require that already strained resources be diverted 
from the SEC's core mission in order to comply with the new burdens of 
this title.
  The Congressional Budget Office has made it quite clear that 
additional resources would have to be used to carry out the provisions 
of this title. Imposing these new and severe burdens on the SEC's cost-
benefit analysis process would ensure that the SEC would be hard-
pressed to carry out its fundamental regulatory functions. The SEC 
would have difficulty protecting investors even when it has identified 
harmful practices.
  The SEC is already required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and 
recent court cases prove that, if the process has been insufficient, 
the SEC must start over.
  Last year, for example, the SEC proposed a rule on proxy access to 
give shareholders more of a say into the activities of companies. The 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia very directly stated that 
their cost-benefit analysis had been inadequate. That represents a very 
real and a very effective existing check on the SEC's authority. But 
title VI of this bill will effectively shut down the SEC's rulemaking 
process altogether by requiring significant resources be directed to 
burdensome new requirements.
  So I believe that before we hobble an agency that keeps consumers, 
investors, and our financial sector safe, it would be wise to require 
that the Chair of the SEC must certify that it will still be able to 
carry out its core mission before this provision can go into effect--
also, because we already have a cost-benefit analysis.
  In the wake of all the cost, the pain, and the dislocation of the 
Great Recession, we should not now cripple the SEC's ability to do its 
real job, that of protecting investors and our financial markets.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. To my friend from New York, this is sometimes one of 
those amusing moments you get where we're both referring to the same 
litigation as part of our arguments against my side and for her 
amendment and somewhat making the point that, in that proxy rule 
litigation, demonstrating that the SEC actually didn't do the proper 
job. And actually, that's what the court stood up and told them.
  One of the reasons--and maybe this is just the classic fundamental 
different view of what the Agency should be doing to ultimately protect 
investors and the economy and working towards capital formation--is you 
would think the Chairman of the SEC, instead of moving this to the 
bottom of the ranking, it would be at the very, very top. You would 
think, actually, in many ways you'd want to rewrite this amendment, at 
least from my view, flip it, saying one of the very first things the 
Chairman of the SEC does is come in and say, Hey, we did an 
appropriate, detailed cost-benefit analysis for this new rule and 
regulation, and here's the impact it has on the economy; here's the 
impact it has on job creation.
  If we stand here repeatedly and say how much we care about jobs and 
economic growth, I would think that would be the order you would want 
to be pursuing. In many ways, this amendment--actually, not in many 
ways, it's what the amendment does--it actually does just the reverse. 
It lowers that to the bottom of that ranking.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. May I inquire how much time remains on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. Each side has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. In response to my friend on the other side of the 
aisle, regulations did not cause the Great Recession; it did not cause 
the loss of jobs. What caused the loss of jobs was the lack of 
regulation and the lack of enforcement, and certainly large swaths of 
the economy that were not regulated at all that brought on the Great 
Recession.
  It was the regulations that Dodd-Frank has put in place, and 
restoring the strength to the SEC to protect investors and to protect 
our economy, and putting hurdles and additional expenses in front of 
the SEC when they don't even have the money to enforce the new laws and 
things they have to do. They're very overburdened. So this is a 
reasonable amendment, and I urge its passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairwoman, just one quick comment I'll throw 
in there.

[[Page 12261]]

  I'm part of the belief system that one of the great burdens right now 
in economic growth and to sort of that next generation of what's the 
next world of jobs that will be coming into our economy--how are we 
going to form the capital, how are we going to see what our future 
looks like--is actually, in many ways, what we're debating here. I do 
believe the massive growth in the regulatory environment over the last 
couple of years is stymying that next generation.
  There is one point I also want to make. Think of the last decade. I'm 
doing this somewhat from memory, but I think a decade ago the SEC's 
budget was about $300 million. Today, I believe it's $1.35 billion. So 
it's up $1.05 billion in 10 years, to give you some sense of how much 
massive increase has been moved into the regulatory body.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

   TITLE VIII--ENSURING HIGH STANDARDS FOR AGENCY USE OF SCIENTIFIC 
                              INFORMATION

     SEC. 801. REQUIREMENT FOR FINAL GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2013, each 
     Federal agency shall have in effect guidelines for ensuring 
     and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and 
     integrity of scientific information relied upon by such 
     agency.
       (b) Content of Guidelines.--The guidelines described in 
     subsection (a), with respect to a Federal agency, shall 
     ensure that--
       (1) when scientific information is considered by the agency 
     in policy decisions--
       (A) the information is subject to well-established 
     scientific processes, including peer review where 
     appropriate;
       (B) the agency appropriately applies the scientific 
     information to the policy decision;
       (C) except for information that is protected from 
     disclosure by law or administrative practice, the agency 
     makes available to the public the scientific information 
     considered by the agency;
       (D) the agency gives greatest weight to information that is 
     based on experimental, empirical, quantifiable, and 
     reproducible data that is developed in accordance with well-
     established scientific processes; and
       (E) with respect to any proposed rule issued by the agency, 
     such agency follows procedures that include, to the extent 
     feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public 
     comment on all relevant scientific findings;
       (2) the agency has procedures in place to make policy 
     decisions only on the basis of the best reasonably obtainable 
     scientific, technical, economic, and other evidence and 
     information concerning the need for, consequences of, and 
     alternatives to the decision; and
       (3) the agency has in place procedures to identify and 
     address instances in which the integrity of scientific 
     information considered by the agency may have been 
     compromised, including instances in which such information 
     may have been the product of a scientific process that was 
     compromised.
       (c) Approval Needed for Policy Decisions to Take Effect.--
     No policy decision issued after January 1, 2013, by an agency 
     subject to this section may take effect prior to such date 
     that the agency has in effect guidelines under subsection (a) 
     that have been approved by the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy.
       (d) Policy Decisions Not in Compliance.--A policy decision 
     of an agency that does not comply with guidelines approved 
     under subsection (c) shall be deemed to be arbitrary, 
     capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in 
     accordance with law.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Policy decision.--The term ``policy decision'' means, 
     with respect to an agency, an agency action as defined in 
     section 551(13) of title 5, United States Code, (other than 
     an adjudication, as defined in section 551(7) of such title), 
     and includes--
       (A) the listing, labeling, or other identification of a 
     substance, product, or activity as hazardous or creating risk 
     to human health, safety, or the environment; and
       (B) agency guidance.
       (3) Agency guidance.--The term ``agency guidance'' means an 
     agency statement of general applicability and future effect, 
     other than a regulatory action, that sets forth a policy on a 
     statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or on an 
     interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Today I'm offering a commonsense, bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4078 
with my good friend from North Carolina, Mike McIntyre. This amendment 
would codify some of the administration's own policies regarding 
scientific integrity.
  In March of 2009, President Obama announced a new policy on 
scientific integrity. This amendment requires agencies to follow their 
own scientific integrity guidelines.
  It's important to consider that the nature of Federal regulations has 
been changing, with more and more decisions being made without 
developing formal, final agency actions. Instead, we see more and more 
major policy changes being made through the issuance of guidelines of 
the development of agency listings. The agencies will tell affected 
private parties that these guidelines or listings are not really 
regulations because they're not final actions. But the impact in the 
marketplace sure can be pretty final.
  The Manzullo-McIntyre amendment codifies the requirement that the 
Director of OSTP require each agency to develop guidelines to maximize 
the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of scientific 
information used by Federal agencies.
  The amendment requires appropriate peer preview, the disclosure of 
scientific studies used in making decisions, and an opportunity for 
stakeholder input. It also requires Federal agencies to give the 
greatest weight to information based upon reproducible data that is 
developed in accordance with the scientific method.
  Further, it deems agency actions that do not follow such procedures 
to be arbitrary and subject to challenge by affected stakeholders. I 
would hope that my colleagues consider this amendment as an objective, 
bipartisan attempt at improving the regulatory process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. On first read, Madam Chair, this amendment may sound 
like a good idea. However, it's true effect would be to put the 
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in charge of 
deciding whether any agency in the entire executive branch can make 
policy decisions.
  The amendment says that no policy decision issued by any agency after 
the end of this year can take effect until that agency's guidelines on 
scientific integrity have been approved by the Director of the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy.
  I agree that agencies should have strong guidelines on scientific 
integrity. In fact, agencies are already required to have such 
guidelines in place under a memo issued by President Obama. However, 
it's not realistic to expect that the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy could approve guidelines for every agency by January 1, 2013.
  The amendment would undermine the integrity of science in the Federal 
Government by jeopardizing the ability of agencies to use our best 
science to protect Americans' health and safety. Specifically, the 
amendment would

[[Page 12262]]

block any ``listing, labeling, or other identification of a substance, 
product, or activity as hazardous, or creating risk to human health, 
safety or the environment.''
  Under this amendment, for example, the FDA could not alert the public 
about a defective drug, the Department of Homeland Security could not 
implement safety measures to screen for terrorists, and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission could not recommend an evacuation zone if there 
was a nuclear accident.
  This amendment, I'm sure, is well-intentioned, but the way it has 
been drafted makes it dangerous. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment that Congressman Manzullo and I have introduced to improve 
H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act.
  Our amendment would make a sensible and needed adjustment to our 
Nation's regulatory policy by requiring that Federal agencies develop 
guidelines to maximize the quality and integrity of scientific 
information used in the regulatory process. This is a goal not only 
supported by many Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, but 
also by the administration.
  In March of 2009, the President issued a memorandum directing the 
Office of Science and Technology to require Federal departments and 
agencies to develop procedures for restoring scientific integrity to 
government decision-making.
  At the beginning of last year, the President issued Executive Order 
13563, which stated that each agency ``shall ensure the objectivity of 
any scientific and technological information and process used to 
support the agency's regulatory actions.''
  Our amendment, which is based on bipartisan legislation that 
Congressman Manzullo and I introduced earlier this year, builds on the 
President's action, has bipartisan support, and codifies the 
requirement that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
compel each Federal agency to develop guidelines regarding the 
scientific information used by Federal agencies.
  Additionally, this amendment would clarify that scientific 
information be supported by peer review, when appropriate, ensure that 
scientific studies used in decision-making be disclosed to the public, 
and require an opportunity for stakeholder input. This is just common 
sense.
  It requires Federal agencies to give the greatest weight to 
information based on reproducible data that is developed in accordance 
with the scientific method.
  Finally, this would provide grounds for any agency's actions that 
violate these integrity guidelines, that they have to be deemed 
arbitrary and subject to challenge by the affected stakeholders. This 
commonsense amendment requires maximizing the quality and integrity of 
scientific information used in the regulatory process, and I encourage 
my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. How much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. 
Manzullo's amendment, which urges the Federal Government to develop 
scientific integrity policies when a Federal agency implements a rule 
or regulation. Science should be at the heart of Federal agency 
decision-making.
  Right now, the pork producers in my State and others in agriculture 
are fighting the FDA's concerns regarding antibiotic use in animals 
when there is no scientific evidence behind those concerns. This is why 
I had originally introduced House Resolution 98 last year, which would 
send a bipartisan, commonsense message to the Food and Drug 
Administration to rely on scientific fact in its development of rules 
and regulations.
  Mr. Manzullo's amendment goes further, guiding all agencies on a path 
towards scientific integrity, not just the FDA.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that Americans are constantly 
facing the challenge of widespread and needless interventions in their 
life. Why let this continue through our agencies' misuse of science?
  I urge my colleagues to support the Manzullo amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, after hearing the arguments of the 
other side, I'm going to rest on what I've already said. I think I've 
made it abundantly clear why this is not an appropriate amendment.
  With that, I hope that the House will vote against it. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Manzullo. I say reluctant, because although I am opposed to this 
particular amendment, I very much support the idea of ensuring that our 
agencies in the Federal government utilize the best available science 
when engaged in their activities. On its face, that would appear to be 
the subject of this amendment. However, the language in this amendment 
goes further than that, and its broad reach troubles me for several 
reasons.
  Under this amendment, all Federal agencies would have to adopt 
guidelines on scientific integrity and have those guidelines approved 
by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
``OSTP''. Agencies could not make policy decisions unless the OSTP 
Director has approved their guidelines. In addition, subsection (d) of 
the amendment states that any policy decisions an agency makes which do 
not comply with the approved guidelines ``shall be deemed to be 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in 
accordance with law.''
  I am very concerned that the language in this amendment could give 
rise to a new cause of action against Federal agencies in their 
regulatory process. A longstanding principle of regulatory law is that 
agencies must show that their regulatory actions are not ``arbitrary 
and capricious'' or courts will overturn those actions. This amendment 
creates a new and separate cause of action against regulatory agencies 
who veer from their guidelines in the formulation of a regulation. This 
is an unnecessary addition to the legal weaponry available to challenge 
agency regulations since the current law already provides that agencies 
are prohibited from making ``arbitrary and capricious'' regulatory 
decisions. I do not understand why we would purposely increase our 
courts' load of regulatory litigation for no discernible substantive 
benefit.
  Furthermore, the amendment does not limit these restrictions to 
regulatory actions. All ``policy decisions,'' specifically including 
``agency guidance,'' are subject to this requirement. ``Agency 
guidance'' could include the posting of information on an agency 
website or the issuance of disaster warnings. It is troubling that we 
would potentially be creating a new legal cause of action against 
agencies for putting agency guidance on their websites. It's even more 
troubling that we would prohibit agencies from making disaster warnings 
until those agencies' scientific integrity guidelines are approved by 
the Director of OSTP.
  Clearly, these new impositions on the Federal agencies are not 
without cost. However, what is the real benefit here? Early on, the 
Obama administration issued an order to all Federal agencies to adopt 
scientific integrity policies. OSTP oversaw this process, and Federal 
agencies now have scientific integrity policies in place. What 
additional benefit does this amendment provide over what the 
administration has already completed? Moreover, the Federal government 
already has well established procedures in place to ensure Federal 
regulations are only issued after careful review of the scientific 
evidence. It's hard to imagine this amendment provides any benefits to 
this process that would outweigh the dangers and costs I just 
identified.
  Finally, I want to express my discomfort with placing the OSTP and 
the President's science advisor in a regulatory oversight role. The 
President of the United States needs sound scientific advice from a 
trusted and competent advisor. OSTP was created to provide that advice 
to the President. This is an office that has typically maintained 
bipartisan support over the years. I would hate for that support to 
erode because we've placed inappropriate responsibilities on that 
office. I would also note that OSTP's annual budget is relatively 
modest and the office is already stretched thin carrying out its 
current duties. This amendment

[[Page 12263]]

provides no funding for the newly mandated duties, and it is unclear 
how OSTP is supposed to fund these new responsibilities.
  I do think it is important that the Federal government use the best 
available science when it does its work. Unfortunately, for the reasons 
I've outlined, I don't think this amendment is the way to achieve that 
goal, and I must oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam 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:
       Add after title VII the following new title (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

    TITLE VIII--TRACKING THE COST TO TAXPAYERS OF FEDERAL LITIGATION

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Tracking the Cost to 
     Taxpayers of Federal Litigation Act''.

     SEC. 802. MODIFICATION OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Agency Proceedings.--Section 504 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``, United States 
     Code''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e)(1) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States, after consultation with the Chief Counsel 
     for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, shall 
     report annually to the Congress on the amount of fees and 
     other expenses awarded during the preceding fiscal year 
     pursuant to this section. The report shall describe the 
     number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved 
     in the controversy, and any other relevant information that 
     may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of 
     such awards. Each agency shall provide the Chairman in a 
     timely manner all information necessary for the Chairman to 
     comply with the requirements of this subsection. The report 
     shall be made available to the public online.
       ``(2)(A) The report required by paragraph (1) shall account 
     for all payments of fees and other expenses awarded under 
     this section that are made pursuant to a settlement 
     agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is 
     sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions, 
     except that any version of the report made available to the 
     public may not reveal any information the disclosure of which 
     is contrary to the national security of the United States.
       ``(B) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required 
     under subparagraph (A) does not affect any other information 
     that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement 
     agreement.
       ``(f) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall 
     create and maintain online a searchable database containing 
     the following information with respect to each award of fees 
     and other expenses under this section:
       ``(1) The name of each party to whom the award was made.
       ``(2) The name of each counsel of record representing each 
     party to whom the award was made.
       ``(3) The agency to which the application for the award was 
     made.
       ``(4) The name of each counsel of record representing the 
     agency to which the application for the award was made.
       ``(5) The name of each administrative law judge, and the 
     name of any other agency employee serving in an adjudicative 
     role, in the adversary adjudication that is the subject of 
     the application for the award.
       ``(6) The amount of the award.
       ``(7) The names and hourly rates of each expert witness for 
     whose services the award was made under the application.
       ``(8) The basis for the finding that the position of the 
     agency concerned was not substantially justified.
       ``(g) The online searchable database described in 
     subsection (f) may not reveal any information the disclosure 
     of which is prohibited by law or court order, or the 
     disclosure of which is contrary to the national security of 
     the United States.''.
       (b) Court Cases.--Section 2412(d) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States shall report annually to the Congress on 
     the amount of fees and other expenses awarded during the 
     preceding fiscal year pursuant to this subsection. The report 
     shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, 
     the claims involved in each controversy, and any other 
     relevant information which may aid the Congress in evaluating 
     the scope and impact of such awards. Each agency shall 
     provide the Chairman with such information as is necessary 
     for the Chairman to comply with the requirements of this 
     paragraph. The report shall be made available to the public 
     online.
       ``(B)(i) The report required by subparagraph (A) shall 
     account for all payments of fees and other expenses awarded 
     under this subsection that are made pursuant to a settlement 
     agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is 
     sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions, 
     except that any version of the report made available to the 
     public may not reveal any information the disclosure of which 
     is contrary to the national security of the United States.
       ``(ii) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required 
     under clause (i) does not affect any other information that 
     is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement 
     agreement.
       ``(C) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall 
     include and clearly identify in the annual report under 
     subparagraph (A), for each case in which an award of fees and 
     other expenses is included in the report--
       ``(i) any amounts paid from section 1304 of title 31 for a 
     judgment in the case;
       ``(ii) the amount of the award of fees and other expenses; 
     and
       ``(iii) the statute under which the plaintiff filed suit.
       ``(6) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall 
     create and maintain online a searchable database containing 
     the following information with respect to each award of fees 
     and other expenses under this subsection:
       ``(A) The name of each party to whom the award was made.
       ``(B) The name of each counsel of record representing each 
     party to whom the award was made.
       ``(C) The agency involved in the case.
       ``(D) The name of each counsel of record representing the 
     agency involved in the case.
       ``(E) The name of each judge in the case, and the court in 
     which the case was heard.
       ``(F) The amount of the award.
       ``(G) The names and hourly rates of each expert witness for 
     whose services the award was made.
       ``(H) The basis for the finding that the position of the 
     agency concerned was not substantially justified.
       ``(7) The online searchable database described in paragraph 
     (6) may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is 
     prohibited by law or court order, or the disclosure of which 
     is contrary to the national security of the United States.
       ``(8) The Attorney General of the United States shall 
     provide to the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States in a timely manner all information 
     necessary for the Chairman to carry out the Chairman's 
     responsibilities under this subsection.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--Section 2412(e) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``of section 2412 
     of title 28, United States Code,'' and inserting ``of this 
     section''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

                              {time}  2140

  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I have two amendments made in order 
under this rule. I will offer this amendment. However, thanks to those 
I've been working with across the aisle, I intend not to offer my 
second amendment.
  Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
  The Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA, was originally passed in 
1980 by a Congress concerned that everyday citizens could not afford to 
challenge the Federal Government in court when they had been wronged by 
government regulations. As originally designed, EAJA would reimburse 
small businesses, seniors and veterans for successfully challenging the 
Federal Government in court when no other law provided for that 
reimbursement.
  It was a good idea then, and it remains a good idea today. For 15 
years, the law has worked mostly as intended; but over time, cracks in 
the system have formed. In updating EAJA, it has become necessary to 
repair those cracks and to ensure EAJA's viability into the future. 
Three issues need to be resolved:
  First, we need to ensure that our Nation's veterans, seniors, and 
small businesses have access to qualified attorneys. Right now, EAJA 
puts up unnecessary roadblocks to these legitimate users;
  Second, we need to close loopholes that have allowed EAJA to be 
exploited by those dissatisfied with the reimbursements provided for 
them in the Nation's environmental laws;

[[Page 12264]]

  Finally, we must reinstate tracking and reporting requirements so 
that Congress and every American has an accurate accounting of how much 
taxpayer money we spend to reimburse attorneys.
  All three of those issues are addressed in H.R. 1996, the Government 
Litigation Savings Act; but this amendment, the one we are debating 
right now, only addresses the third issue--the transparency gap in 
EAJA.
  As the recently released GAO report made clear, there is a severe 
lack of information on these payments. While we don't need that data to 
know exactly what has been happening with EAJA in recent years, going 
forward we need robust tracking as a management tool to ensure that 
EAJA works as intended. The tracking and reporting of EAJA payments is 
the part of the Government Litigation Savings Act that has broad 
agreement.
  I greatly appreciate the work that the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee have put 
into this issue. We've come a long way on this, and the bill has 
benefited from constructive input from both sides of the aisle. We must 
continue to work together on providing a fair market rate for lawyers 
who represent veterans, seniors and small businesses, as well as on 
instituting a reasonable eligibility standard. Both of these issues 
require further deliberation, and I am hopeful that the chairman and 
ranking member will commit to working with me to further update EAJA as 
I am committed to working with them.
  In the meantime, let's pass this transparency amendment, which is the 
third leg of the three-pronged need to address the EAJA issues. This is 
the one on which we all agree, this third issue of transparency.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  This is one of two amendments that Mrs. Lummis has submitted. She has 
indicated that she will not be offering her other amendment, and we are 
very pleased as we had some serious concerns about that amendment.
  This amendment I am supporting, though, would require Federal 
agencies to gather valuable data, and it would require the 
Administrative Conference of the United States to issue a report based 
on that data. This report would help taxpayers and Congress determine 
where taxpayer funds flow under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
  This amendment has merit. We should have mechanisms in place to track 
where taxpayer money goes, and the reports this amendment requires will 
help Congress conduct more thorough oversight over Federal agencies.
  There are still some concerns that some have raised about the extent 
to which the data will be made public. This data could include names of 
Social Security claimants and veterans who bring claims under EAJA, and 
this may have a chilling effect on those claimants.
  We are willing to work with Mrs. Lummis to address these concerns. 
Mrs. Lummis, herself, has raised more specific concerns with how EAJA 
has been used and urges Congress to amend the act. The committee held a 
hearing and marked up her bill. The reported bill contained several 
needed improvements to address many of our concerns on this side of the 
aisle. We thank her for working with us on these changes. The bill 
still needs some more work, and we will continue to work with her to 
address all of our concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
  Madam Chairman, I wish to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. I rise in support of this amendment as well. I am 
grateful for the bipartisan cooperation and for getting a chance to 
find more transparency as well as how the Equal Access to Justice Act 
of 1980 is being implemented. Unfortunately, it seems that some special 
interest groups, particularly some environmental groups, of late are 
abusing EAJA. They're financing lawsuits to advance a special agenda.
  This amendment does shine light on who is receiving attorneys' fees 
under EAJA by revising and improving EAJA's reporting requirements, 
which have not been revised in many years. American taxpayers do 
deserve to know how their money is being spent by the Federal 
Government, regardless of what the interest group is and where it is 
coming from, and to know to what extent the financing is being used to 
advance any kind of ideology.
  For these reasons, I do support this amendment, and I am grateful for 
the bipartisan support.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 24 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Posey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part B of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam 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 8, line 10, after the period insert the following:
       If meeting that definition, such term includes any 
     requirement by the Secretary of the Treasury, except to the 
     extent provided in Treasury Regulations as in effect on 
     February 21, 2011, that a payor of interest make an 
     information return in the case of interest--
       (1) which is described in section 871(i)(2)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and
       (2) which is paid--
       (A) to a nonresident alien, and
       (B) on a deposit maintained at an office within the United 
     States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Florida International Bankers Association has reported to me 
that, over the past several months, they have seen as much as $300 
million leaving United States banks for overseas banks.
  Why is this money leaving the United States, and what can we do to 
stop the hemorrhaging?
  The adoption of this amendment will stop the hemorrhaging of hundreds 
of millions of dollars--soon to be billions of dollars if this 
amendment is not adopted. This is according to the studies on earlier, 
scaled-back proposals by the Internal Revenue Service.
  For nearly 100 years, the United States has had in place a policy 
that encourages foreigners to put their money in our banks in the 
United States. We have told them that the United States is a welcoming 
and safe place for their deposits. Earlier this year, apparently 
clueless about the financial conditions we were in as a Nation, the IRS 
finalized a new rule to take effect in January 2013 that basically 
sends the message to law-abiding foreign depositors that U.S. banks 
don't want their money. Under this rule, the United States would no 
longer provide these law-abiding depositors with the confidentiality 
that they've had and that they need.
  The new IRS rules would impose cumbersome new reporting requirements 
for law-abiding foreign depositors and for foreign depositors who live 
in nations where corruption is rampant. They will simply withdraw their 
money from the United States institutions and put their money to work 
in other nations around the world. This is bad for the United States 
economy.
  There has been strong bipartisan opposition to the IRS proposal. The 
entire Florida delegation--all 25 members, every Republican and every 
Democrat--wrote the Treasury last year,

[[Page 12265]]

asking them to withdraw the regulation. Bipartisan letters have gone to 
the Internal Revenue Service urging them to withdraw the regulation, 
and bipartisan legislation has been filed in the House and in the 
Senate to stop the regulation.
  Each day Congress refuses to act, deposits are leaving the United 
States for Singapore, Panama, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, and 
elsewhere. This money will not return to the United States once it 
leaves. Most importantly for our communities, this capital will not be 
available to our small businesses and families when they need it to 
build in America. The new regulation will harm the U.S. economy, and we 
must stop its implementation.

                              {time}  2150

  Ironically, this same regulation from the IRS was rejected about 8 
years ago when the bureaucrats at the IRS thought it was a good idea 
then. A strong bipartisan effort in Congress led to the IRS withdrawal 
of the rule, and we must do that again today.
  If you share my commitment to economic recovery and believe that the 
United States should be a welcoming place for foreign depositors who 
want to put their money to work in the United States, then I urge you 
to join in support of this amendment. Please vote ``yes.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I understand that the banks in America don't like this because they 
would like to continue to be a place where people can come from other 
countries or send their money from other countries and not have it 
reported back home. The problem is that in America, we suffer a much 
greater loss right now from Americans who evade their taxes. Most 
Americans don't. But taxes being parked in the Cayman Islands, which 
was just mentioned and elsewhere, are a problem. We passed in 2010 a 
bill to try and get money owed to the United States paid to the United 
States. That requires the cooperation of other governments.
  Members are aware of the negotiations with Switzerland and other tax 
havens. What this says is: we the United States want you to help us 
collect taxes owed to us, but we won't do the same. It is the tax 
evaders' bill of rights. The gentleman from Florida says they're law 
abiding citizens. Most of them probably are. How does he know they all 
are? Why do people in the Cayman Islands want to put money in American 
banks? Maybe they are perfectly good reasons. Maybe they want to come 
visit their money some day.
  The fact is that people who send money to other countries include 
people who evade taxes. What this says to the United States is we 
basically are going to have to abandon the effort to collect taxes owed 
to us in foreign countries because we are telling the foreign countries 
we will not cooperate with them. We have tax treaties that we're 
pursuing. This basically aborts that.
  Americans who want to send their money elsewhere and not pay taxes, 
they like this idea. With regard to the American banks, people have 
said they'll send their money elsewhere. The notion that we should 
compete in a race to the bottom, the notion that we should match other 
countries in an absence of rules is a philosophy that gets us in 
trouble. I believe that if we work hard, we will get a number of 
countries that will work with us on this. That's the essential point.
  If Members favor a vigorous effort by the United States Government to 
recover taxes owed to us from elsewhere, they should reject this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POSEY. This is not just about banks. This is about jobs, this is 
about mortgages, this is about the economy, and this is about our 
communities prospering. Information can be shared today on a case-by-
case basis. If the IRS suggests to you otherwise, it's just not true.
  There's a common misperception. Let's not forget how fortunate we are 
to live in the United States of America. Too often, too many people 
forget this, it seems. We live under a stable government and a 
relatively stable economy compared to some of the other countries we 
receive deposits from. Many nonresident deposits come from countries 
where the governments themselves are very unstable, where their 
personal security or their property are major concerns. It's very 
probable that the depositor's personal bank account information could 
be leaked to unauthorized persons in their home country--to 
governments, criminals, or terrorist groups--which could make the 
depositors and their families targets of extortion, kidnappings, and 
other potentially fatal criminal activities. Imagine living with that 
over your shoulder every day.
  Assurance from the IRS bureaucrats that your information is safe 
won't calm those fears. Our Pentagon has been hacked. I asked the 
Secretary of the Treasury if we would stand personally liable for any 
breaches that would cause a loss of life or harm to people whose 
information was betrayed. They said they would not be willing to do 
that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In fact, we suffer more from taxes evaded 
in the U.S., I believe, than the money we have here. The point, 
however, is--and I will submit the comments from the Department of the 
Treasury--we will not be sending this to countries with which we don't 
have a tax treaty. There are strong statutory and regulatory 
requirements that prevent this information from being sent to countries 
that abuse it.
  Maybe Members think that's not strong enough. If the gentleman from 
Florida would like to submit legislation to strengthen those statutory 
requirements to make it clear that some countries qualify and some 
don't--for example, I'm informed Venezuela today would not qualify for 
obvious reasons, because of the brutal, corrupt nature of that 
government.
  So the question is, because some governments would abuse it, should 
we protect every tax evader who wants to use the United States as a 
haven from having their money reported, at the price of not getting 
cooperation ourselves? That doesn't mean everybody puts their money 
here as a tax evader. If you're not a tax evader, then there's no 
problem with having this reported. As far as the Pentagon being hacked, 
yeah, people have been hacked. If the IRS was going to be hacked, a lot 
more would have happened.
  The fact is that the security of tax returns in America is one of the 
best things about our government. Administrations of both parties from 
time immemorial have protected the security of tax returns. We have a 
very good record as a government. We shouldn't just denigrate it with 
no basis in protecting the integrity of tax returns. People have filed 
tax returns and have had great privacy in them. This is the central 
point, because some of the banks would like to get this money and not 
care whether people are tax evaders or not.
  The gentleman says we can do it case by case. That's an impossible 
task, case by case to decide. Then the IRS becomes more intrusive. Do 
you want to do a frisk of each individual to decide whether he or she 
has his returns done? Case by case is the way you destroy privacy.
  Here's the fundamental point. We are making efforts to collect taxes 
owed to us by people who have hidden the money elsewhere, and we know 
that's been a problem. This would make it impossible to do that with 
any efficiency. As I said, there are very clear statements of policy 
against sending this information to Venezuela, against sending it to 
other places where it wouldn't be secure. This is the question: Are we 
going to allow American

[[Page 12266]]

standards, in trying to impose taxes that are legitimately owed here, 
to be eroded by other countries?
  The gentleman mentioned the Cayman Islands. I don't want the Cayman 
Islands to set the standard for American tax collection. The gentleman 
mentioned that the Cayman Islanders are sending money here. I don't 
want the Cayman Islanders and their desire to get shelter to be setting 
the standard for American tax collection practices, for the need of 
America to do the right thing.
  Those people who are lawfully investing money will not be frightened 
by this, and America's ability to get taxes owed to us would be 
destroyed by this amendment.
     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
     Internal Revenue Service
     26 CFR Parts 1 and 31
     [TD 9584]
     RIN 1545-BJ01
     Guidance on Reporting Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens
       AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
       ACTION: Final regulations.
       SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations regarding 
     the reporting requirements for interest that relates to 
     deposits maintained at U.S. offices of certain financial 
     institutions and is paid to certain nonresident alien 
     individuals. These regulations will affect commercial banks, 
     savings institutions, credit unions, securities brokerages, 
     and insurance companies that pay interest on deposits.
     Background
       On January 7, 2011, the Treasury Department and the IRS 
     published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG 146097-09) 
     (the 2011 proposed regulations) in the Federal Register (76 
     FR 1105, corrected by 76 FR 2852, 76 FR 20595, and 76 FR 
     22064) under section 6049 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     (Code). The 2011 proposed regulations withdrew proposed 
     regulations that had been issued on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 
     50386) (the 2002 proposed regulations). The 2002 proposed 
     regulations would have required reporting of interest 
     payments to nonresident alien individuals that are residents 
     of certain specified countries. The 2011 proposed regulations 
     provide that payments of interest aggregating $10 or more on 
     a deposit maintained at a U.S. office of a financial 
     institution and paid to any nonresident alien individual are 
     subject to information reporting.
       Written comments were received by the Treasury Department 
     and the IRS response to the 2011 proposed regulations. A 
     public hearing on the 2011 proposed regulations was held on 
     May 18, 2011, at which further comments were received. All 
     comments were considered and are available for public 
     inspection at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request. 
     After consideration of the written comments and the comments 
     provided at the public hearing, the 2011 proposed regulations 
     are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision.
     Explanation and Summary of Comments
     Objectives of This Regulatory Action
       The reporting required by these regulations is essential to 
     the U.S. Government's efforts to combat offshore tax evasion 
     for several reasons. First it ensures that the IRS can, in 
     appropriate circumstances, exchange information relating to 
     tax enforcement with other jurisdictions. In order to ensure 
     that U.S. taxpayers cannot evade U.S. tax by hiding income 
     and assets offshore, the United States must be able to obtain 
     information from other countries regarding income earned and 
     assets held in those countries by U.S. taxpayers. Under 
     present law, the measures available to assist the United 
     States in obtaining this information include both treaty 
     relationships and statutory provisions. The effectiveness of 
     these measures depends significantly, however, on the United 
     States' ability to reciprocate.
       The United States has constructed an expansive network of 
     international agreements, including income tax or other 
     conventions and bilateral agreements relating to the exchange 
     of tax information (collectively referred to as information 
     exchange agreements), which provide for the exchange of 
     information related to tax enforcement under appropriate 
     circumstances. These information exchange relationships are 
     based on cooperation and reciprocity. A jurisdiction's 
     willingness to share information with the IRS to combat 
     offshore tax evasion by U.S. taxpayers depends, in large 
     part, on the ability of the IRS to exchange information that 
     will assist that jurisdiction in combating offshore tax 
     evasion by its own residents. These regulations, by requiring 
     reporting of deposit interest to the IRS, will ensure that 
     the IRS is in a position to exchange such information 
     reciprocally with a treaty partner when it is appropriate to 
     do so.
       Second, in 2010, Congress supplemented the established 
     network of information exchange agreements by enacting, as 
     part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 
     2010 (Pub. L. 111-147), provisions commonly known as the 
     Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) that require 
     overseas financial institutions to identify U.S. accounts and 
     report information (including interest payments) about those 
     accounts to the IRS. In many cases, however, the 
     implementation of FATCA will require the cooperation of 
     foreign governments in order to overcome legal impediments to 
     reporting by their resident financial institutions. Like the 
     United States, those foreign governments are keenly 
     interested in addressing offshore tax evasion by their own 
     residents and need tax information from other jurisdictions, 
     including the United States, to support their efforts. These 
     regulations will facilitate intergovernmental cooperation on 
     FATCA implementation by better enabling the IRS, in 
     appropriate circumstances, to reciprocate by exchanging 
     information with foreign governments for tax administration 
     purposes.
       Finally, the reporting of information required by these 
     regulations will also directly enhance U.S. tax compliance by 
     making it more difficult for U.S. taxpayers with U.S. 
     deposits to falsely claim to be nonresidents in order to 
     avoid U.S. taxation on their deposit interest income.
     International Standard for Transparency and Information 
         Exchange
       Under the international standard for transparency and 
     exchange of information, which is reflected in the 
     Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
     Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters, 
     the OECD Model Tax Convention, and the United Nations Model 
     Double Tax Convention between Developed and Developing 
     Countries, exchange of tax information cannot be limited by 
     domestic bank secrecy laws or the absence of a specific 
     domestic tax interest in the information to be exchanged. 
     Accordingly, under this global standard a country cannot 
     refuse to share tax information based on domestic laws that 
     do not require banks to share the information. In addition, 
     under the global standard, a country cannot opt out of 
     information exchange based on the fact that the country does 
     not itself need the information to enforce its own tax rules. 
     Thus, even countries that do not impose income taxes, and 
     therefore do not have tax enforcement concerns, have entered 
     into information exchange agreements to provide information 
     about the accounts of nonresidents.
     Comments Regarding Confidentiality and Improper Use of 
         Information
       Some comments on the 2011 proposed regulations expressed 
     concerns that the information required to be reported under 
     those regulations might be misused. For example, comments 
     expressed concern that deposit interest information may be 
     shared with a country that does not have laws in place to 
     protect the confidentiality of the information exchanged or 
     that would use the information for purposes other than the 
     enforcement of its tax laws. These comments further suggested 
     that these concerns could affect nonresident alien investors' 
     decisions about the location of their deposits.
       The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the 
     concerns raised by the comments are addressed by existing 
     legal limitations and administrative safeguards governing tax 
     information exchange. As discussed herein, information 
     reported pursuant to these regulations will be exchanged only 
     with foreign governments with which the United States has an 
     agreement providing for the exchange and when certain 
     additional requirements are satisfied. Even when such an 
     agreement exists, the IRS is not compelled to exchange 
     information, including information collected pursuant to 
     these regulations, if there is concern regarding the use of 
     the information or other factors exist that would make 
     exchange inappropriate.
       First, information reported pursuant to these regulations 
     is return information under section 6103. Section 6103 
     imposes strict confidentiality rules with respect to all 
     return information. Moreover, section 6103(k)(4) allows the 
     IRS to exchange return information with a foreign government 
     only to the extent provided in, and subject to the terms and 
     conditions of an information exchange agreement. Thus, the 
     IRS can share the information reported under these 
     regulations only with foreign governments with which the 
     United States has an information exchange agreement. Absent 
     such an agreement, the IRS is statutorily barred from sharing 
     return information with another country, and these 
     regulations cannot and do not change that rule.
       Second, consistent with established international 
     standards, all of the information exchange agreements to 
     which the United States is a party require that the 
     information exchanged under the agreement be treated and 
     protected as secret by the foreign government. In addition, 
     information exchange agreements generally prohibit foreign 
     governments from using any information exchanged under such 
     an agreement for any purpose other than the purpose of 
     administering, collection and enforcing the taxes covered by 
     the agreement. Accordingly, under these agreements, neither 
     country is permitted to release the information shared under 
     the agreement or use it for any other law enforcement 
     purposes.
       Third, consistent with the international standard for 
     information exchange and

[[Page 12267]]

     United States law, the United States will not enter into an 
     information exchange agreement unless the Treasury Department 
     and the IRS are satisfied that the foreign government has 
     strict confidentiality protections. Specifically, prior to 
     entering into an information exchange agreement with another 
     jurisdiction, the Treasury Department and the IRS closely 
     review the foreign jurisdiction's legal framework for 
     maintaining the confidentiality of taxpayer information. In 
     order to conclude an information exchange agreement with 
     another country, the Treasury Department and the IRS must be 
     satisfied that the foreign jurisdiction has the necessary 
     legal safeguards in place to protect exchanged information 
     and that adequate penalties apply to any breach of that 
     confidentiality.
       Finally, even if an information exchange agreement is in 
     effect, the IRS will not exchange information on deposit 
     interest or otherwise with a country if the IRS determines 
     that the country is not complying with its obligations under 
     the agreement to protect the confidentiality of information 
     and to use the information solely for collecting and 
     enforcing taxes covered by the agreement. The IRS also will 
     not exchange any return information with a country that does 
     not impose tax on the income being reported because the 
     information could not be used for the enforcement of tax laws 
     within that country.
       In addition, the IRS has options regarding the appropriate 
     form of exchange. For example, the IRS might exchange 
     information with another jurisdiction only upon specific 
     request. In the case of specific exchange requests, the IRS 
     evaluates the requesting country's current practices with 
     respect to information confidentiality. The IRS also requires 
     the requesting country to explain the intended permitted use 
     of the information and justify the relevance of that 
     information to the permitted use. Alternatively, in 
     appropriate circumstances, the IRS might exchange certain 
     information on an automatic basis. The IRS currently 
     exchanges deposit interest information on an automatic basis 
     with only one jurisdiction (Canada). The IRS will not enter 
     into a new automatic exchange relationship with a 
     jurisdiction unless it has reviewed the country's policies 
     and practices and has determined that such an exchange 
     relationship is appropriate. Further, the IRS generally will 
     not enter into an automatic exchange relationship with 
     respect to the information collected under these regulations 
     unless the other jurisdiction is willing and able to 
     reciprocate effectively.
       The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the legal 
     and administrative safeguards described in the preceding 
     paragraphs regarding the use of information collected under 
     these regulations should adequately address the concerns 
     identified by the comments and, therefore, these regulations 
     should not significantly impact the investment and savings 
     decisions of the vast majority of nonresidents who are aware 
     of and understand these safeguards and existing law and 
     practice. Nevertheless, to enhance awareness and further 
     address concerns, these final regulations revise the 2011 
     proposed regulations to require reporting only in the case of 
     interest paid to a nonresident alien individual resident in a 
     country with which the United States has in effect an 
     information exchange agreement pursuant to which the United 
     States agrees to provide, as well as receive, information and 
     under which the competent authority is the Secretary of the 
     Treasury or his delegate.
       For this purpose, the Treasury Department and the IRS will 
     publish a Revenue Procedure contemporaneously with these 
     final regulations specifically identifying the countries with 
     which the United States has in force such an information 
     exchange agreement. The Revenue Procedure will be updated as 
     appropriate. With respect to any calendar year, payors will 
     only be required to report interest on deposits maintained at 
     an office within the United States and paid to a nonresident 
     alien individual who is a resident of a country identified in 
     the Revenue Procedure as of December 31 of the prior calendar 
     year as being a country with which the United States has in 
     effect such an information exchange agreement. To address any 
     potential burden associated with reporting on this basis, the 
     final regulations provide that for any year for which the 
     information return under Sec. 1.6049-4(b)(5) is required, a 
     payor may elect to report interest payments to all 
     nonresident alien individuals.
       As previously discussed, the identification of a country as 
     having an information exchange agreement with the United 
     States does not necessarily mean that the information 
     collected under these regulations will be reported to such 
     foreign jurisdiction. As an additional measure to further 
     increase awareness among concerned nonresidents regarding the 
     IRS' use of information collected under these regulations, 
     the Revenue Procedure also will include a second list 
     identifying the countries with which the Treasury Department 
     and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to have an 
     automatic exchange relationship with respect to the 
     information collected under these regulations. This 
     determination will be made only after further assessment of a 
     country's confidentiality laws and practices and the extent 
     to which the country is willing and able to reciprocate.
       In addition, in response to comments, and given the 
     information exchange practices described in the preceding 
     paragraphs and the information that will be available in the 
     Revenue Procedure, these final regulations eliminate the 
     requirement in the 2011 proposed regulations for financial 
     institutions to include in the information statement provided 
     to nonresident alien individuals a statement informing the 
     individual that the information may be furnished to the 
     government of the country where the recipient resides. In 
     addition, these final regulations clarify that a payor or 
     middleman may rely on the permanent residence address 
     provided on a valid Form W-8BEN, ``Beneficial Owners 
     Certificate of Foreign Status for U.S. Tax Withholding'', for 
     purposes of determining the country of residence of a 
     nonresident alien to whom reportable interest is paid unless 
     the payor or middleman knows or has reason to know that such 
     documentation of the country of residence is unreliable or 
     incorrect. The final regulations also modify Sec. 31.3406(g)-
     1 of the proposed regulations to clarify that, consistent 
     with the backup withholding rules generally, a payment of 
     interest described in Sec. 1.6049-8(a) is not subject to 
     withholding under section 3406 if the payor may treat the 
     payee as a foreign person, without regard to whether the 
     payor reported such interest (although a payor may be subject 
     to penalties if it fails to report as required). As under the 
     prior regulations requiring the reporting of interest paid to 
     Canadian nonresident alien individuals, the final regulations 
     define interest subject to reporting to mean interest paid on 
     deposits as defined under section 871(i)(2)(A) (including 
     deposits with persons carrying on a banking business deposits 
     with certain savings institutions, and certain amounts held 
     by insurance companies under agreements to pay interest 
     thereon).

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
expired. The gentleman from Florida has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. POSEY. I don't know how many deadbeat taxpayers are in Venezuela 
or Cuba or Iran, but I think it's ludicrous to think that we would want 
to put American investments in other countries. We're looking at, 
according to the Mercatus Center at George Mason, a possible capital 
flight of $88 billion, and this is opposed to maybe, at the high side 
estimating, we'll recover $800 million from tax cheats, hopefully. 
That's just not a good percentage. That's not a good investment. That's 
bad business in any sense of the word.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of a good commonsense bill that 
will help our economy recover and help America stay strong.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Amendment 
offered by my esteemed colleague from Florida, Mr. Posey (#25). His 
Amendment would ensure that the rule recently approved by the Internal 
Revenue Service requiring that interest payments on foreign deposits be 
reported to the IRS would not move forward. This is extremely important 
to the region which I represent, deep South Texas. Our community banks 
and local economies benefit from investments and deposits from non-
residents, and would be harmed by the serious loss of capital caused by 
these depositors fleeing our communities. Many of these depositors have 
chosen to bank in the United States because of the stability of our 
financial institution system. If this ruling goes into effect, and 
these deposits evaporate, the capacity of these banks to invest in the 
local economies diminishes.
  A Mercatus Center 2004 study of a similar rule projected that $88 
billion of capital would exit United States banks if the rule were to 
take effect. At a time of extreme economic fragility, we need this 
capital to stay on our shores. Additionally, many foreign depositors 
have chosen to bank in the United States for security reasons; their 
home countries may be politically unstable, and they fear that personal 
financial information released by the United States may fall into the 
wrong hands, making them a target.
  Lastly, the Internal Revenue Service has exceeded its authority. 
Foreigners do not pay taxes on interest earned on deposits, so there is 
no reason for these deposits to be reported to the IRS. Congress 
intended to attract capital to the United States by allowing these 
deposits to go interest-free; to force these depositors to report will 
run contrary to this original intent.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this Amendment that will prevent 
much-needed capital from fleeing the American economy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 12268]]


  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, 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.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Posey) having assumed the chair, Ms. Hayworth, 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.

                          ____________________