[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 15849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO H.R. 4, THE JOBS FOR AMERICA ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, November 17, 2014

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4, 
the Jobs for America Act. H.R. 4 is not a new bill to be considered on 
the House floor. It is a compilation of bills, many of which have 
already been passed by Republicans on a partisan basis. Republicans 
claim the bill would create jobs and strengthen the economy. In 
reality, H.R. 4 would weaken meaningful reforms and regulations that 
protect American consumers, families and workers. In addition, the bill 
would add $574 billion to the deficit. This bill does a disservice to 
the American people, the future of our economy and our environment.
  H.R. 4 would impose numerous administrative hurdles that would 
degrade the regulatory process. Agencies would be required to conduct 
cost-benefit analyses and could be forced to adopt rules that are the 
least costly, not necessarily the most beneficial. Agencies would also 
have to calculate often unquantifiable effects of rules on small 
businesses, another costly and unnecessary use of time and resources. 
To further delay the rulemaking process, H.R. 4 would require agencies 
to submit rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review, post 
rules online for at least six months and seek approval from both the 
House and Senate before the rules may take effect. Requiring 
congressional approval on all major rules would allow members of 
Congress to prevent finalization of rules that have already received 
extensive public input.
  A real life example can help demonstrate the impact of H.R. 4. 
Congress passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2010 to 
improve the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to police 
the food supply and protect consumers from dangerous contaminants. 
Foods we never would have imagined to be unsafe, from spinach to peanut 
butter, have harmed thousands of Americans. FDA has been working hard 
to comply with the mandate of the new law and is in the process of 
finalizing a number of rules that would implement some of the key 
pieces of the food safety legislation. The administrative hurdles that 
H.R. 4 establishes would severely delay the implementation of these 
rules, putting Americans at risk of foodborne illnesses, despite the 
law's obvious merits and public support.
  Furthermore, H.R. 4 would undermine existing regulations and laws. 
The measure would limit the ability of citizens to hold agencies 
accountable for not adequately fulfilling their regulatory obligations. 
It would exempt private equity fund advisors from important disclosure 
requirements, jeopardizing the financial system and protections for 
investors and the public. The bill would threaten existing public land 
and environmental regulations by allowing increased logging in national 
forests. It would weaken the employer-sponsored insurance system and 
hurt American workers by increasing the definition of full-time work 
week under the Affordable Care Act from 30 hours a week to 40 hours a 
week. There is simply no evidence that the ACA has led to a shift in 
part-time work. In fact, since the ACA became law, we have added more 
than nine million private sector jobs and expanded health insurance 
coverage through the marketplaces to more than eight million Americans.
  Today, the Republican majority brings to the floor a package of bills 
that have already passed the House and been rejected by the Senate. 
H.R. 4 would inhibit the ability of federal regulatory agencies to 
issue necessary health, safety, environmental and financial 
regulations. The measure does nothing to improve the economy, create 
jobs or protect Americans; it does everything to threaten the progress 
we have already made.
  I oppose H.R. 4 and I urge my colleagues do the same.

                          ____________________