Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 738 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 738 is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, from the Natural Resources Committee and Chairman Hastings, and seven other bills that will be considered as a single package, including mine, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act; H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act by Mr. Griffin; H.R. 4607, the Midnight Rule Relief Act by Mr. Ribble; H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act by Mr. Quayle; H.R. 4377, the RAPID ACT by Mr. Ross of Florida; H.R. 2308, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act by Mr. Garrett; and H.R. 1840, which is a bill by Mr. Conaway to improve consideration by the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the cost and benefits of its regulations and orders.

H.R. 6082 is a bill to replace the Obama administration's final offshore drilling plan announced on June 28, which keeps 85 percent of America's offshore areas off limits to energy production, with one that would establish a timeline for 29 specific leases, some of which are not open for drilling under the Obama plan.

The legislation would also require the Interior Department to prepare a multilease environmental impact statement for any leases required under the bill not in the June 2012 plan.

The remaining bills are rolled into one package; and while each has its own unique virtues, they're all intended to provide for Federal regulatory relief.

H.R. 373 is the culmination of nearly 5 years of work to build on the success of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, which is a bipartisan initiative that has not been modernized since its inception in 1995.

Given his express support for regulatory reform, my hope is that President Obama will support my bill, which incorporates many of his ideas, including those embodied in Executive Order 13563.

Mr. Speaker, so often we thank people for working on our legislation and for working in the Congress only at the time that they retire, but I want to give some thanks today for the hard work that's been done, particularly on H.R. 373. There's an enormous amount of work that has gone into bringing this bill to the floor.

I'd first like to thank Brandon Renz, my legislative director, who has worked with this for over 5 years. I thank Kristin Nelson and Peter Warren with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for providing the diligence and creative thinking needed to shape the product we're considering today.

I also thank Ryan Little, Austin Smythe, Daniel Flores, and Hugh Halpern for their help shepherding this bill through the various committees of jurisdiction. It's this kind of cooperation that's necessary to ensure the proper functioning of this legislative body.

I thank Chairman Darrell Issa for bringing this bill to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He is providing extraordinary leadership for that committee and our country. But it's my colleague and good friend, Congressman James Lankford, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, who is deserving of my most sincere appreciation and praise.

Mr. Lankford's dogged work and determination to build upon and improve on my initiative is only one demonstration of his keen intellect and exceptional legislative acumen. For a freshman with no prior legislative experience to have received such immense respect by peers of both parties further underscores his professionalism and amiable personality. Undoubtably, this House would be better off if it were filled with legislators as serious about seeking tangible solutions to problems as Mr. Lankford and Mr. Issa.

Mr. Speaker, it's on that note that I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out to my colleague from Florida that we certainly agree on our side of the aisle with Governor Romney that we need regulations. These bills don't do away with all regulations. Republicans know you need government. We just want some common sense brought into our government. We want a cost- benefit analysis done to rules and regulations.

After all, we're here, we're breathing the air, we're drinking the water, we're eating the food. Our children, our grandchildren are, too. It doesn't make any sense these tired old accusations against Republicans that we don't care anything about our environment or our food because we're here living with them, also.

I don't think the American people are going to buy the arguments that my colleague made.

I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, as I often do when I'm handling a rule, I have to make sure that the public understands the facts.

It's my understanding that the amendment that the gentleman spoke of that was adopted in the committee and then presented in the way that it was presented for this bill was not germane. I need to point out to the public that it was not the majority, it wasn't the Republicans, who decided the amendment wasn't germane. It is our Parliamentarians, who are nonpartisan.

I would now like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas, Representative Canseco.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of my bill, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, as I mentioned before. While working on this legislation over the years, I have come to appreciate that the subject matter is not one of the most thrilling ever to be considered by this House. In fact, I'm confident that reading a summary of my bill would provide an effective remedy for even the most stubborn case of insomnia.

Some have compared observing the legislative process with that of making sausage. Admittedly, in the case of my bill, it more closely resembles watching paint dry. Nor do I expect many in the media will sell many advertisements dissecting legislation entitled the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. However, this certainly does not diminish the meaning or value of this important work.

By collaborating with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we've worked to create a comprehensive legislative package that promotes the principles of good government, accountability, and transparency that my constituents sent me to Congress to represent. These principles have been a top priority of mine throughout my legislative career, starting in the North Carolina State Senate.

Very simply, H.R. 373 advances these priorities by drawing upon bipartisan initiatives to expand access to information. The legislative text, itself, identifies the stated purpose of H.R. 373 as improving:

the quality of the deliberations of Congress with respect to

proposed Federal mandates by providing Congress and the

public with more complete information about the effects of

such mandates, ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates

only after focused deliberation on their effects while

enhancing the ability of Congress and the public to identify

Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on consumers,

workers, employers, small businesses, and State, local, and

tribal governments.

But it does so much more than that. The strength of the bill is that it serves to inform more fully decision-makers engaged in the policymaking process while letting affected State and local governments and those in the private sector who must put Washington dictates into practice know what's coming and better participate in the process.

Many provisions of the bill simply codify, clarify, and streamline existing practice. Others enhance the purpose of UMRA by applying its disclosure requirements to more circumstances while initiating more complete, detailed, useful, and accurate cost estimates to expose otherwise hidden costs. Yet others still protect legislative intent by closing loopholes in current law, allowing enterprising rule-makers to circumvent disclosure requirements while imposing costly mandates.

All of these provisions are harmonized in a way that provides something for everyone--which, unfortunately, is a rare legislative virtue--yet underscores the unique opportunity Members of both parties have to vote for a modest, yet effective legislative solution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

That would be fine with me, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is prepared to close. I will have some more comments to make, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, the various elements of the comprehensive reform contained in title IV of the underlying bill can be overwhelming, which is why it may be helpful to elaborate on the purpose of some of the most prominent individual provisions within the package.

In that light, it is important for the American people to understand the oppressive nature and full scope of the costs associated with complying with Federal mandates.

As a former small business owner, I experienced a myriad of costly, overly burdensome Federal mandates, and I hear from my constituents every day about the challenges that they face in dealing with them.

In my position as chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, I have become familiar with an example of a ridiculous rule that will unnecessarily complicate student access to higher education. As we all know, in recent months, students and families have urged Congress to act to stem the ever-increasing cost of higher education. In response, the Obama administration has offered several proposals claiming to reduce student loan debt and rein in tuition. However, these initiatives only further entrench the Federal Government in the affairs of States and institutions.

In response, higher education officials are crying foul over a 2010 Department of Education rule establishing a Federal definition of a credit hour. Higher education personnel believe this regulation will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional Federal overreach into higher education. As we've seen many times before, onerous Federal regulation always come with a price, which in this case is paid by students or their families.

It's time to take a comprehensive view of the problems facing our Nation's higher education system and eliminate burdensome Federal regulations that pile unnecessary costs on institutions and students. Rather than getting the Federal Government further entrenched in higher education, we should be working together to remove costly mandates that pile unnecessary financial burdens on colleges and universities.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a statement from the 2012 edition of ``Ten Thousand Commandments'' issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute relative to the explosive growth of regulations by Federal agencies in the past 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that Republicans, contrary to what our colleagues have said across the aisle, are not opposed to all regulations and rules. We are not opposed to government. We understand that we have to have government in order to have a civil society. We understand that we have to have regulations to protect us in some cases from each other and to make sure that we have an orderly society.

We live in the greatest country in the world, Mr. Speaker; and we got here not because of the government, but we got here because of the hardworking Americans who have good values, who love this country and want to see it continue to thrive. We can count on those hardworking Americans to do the right things in almost every case. What Republicans want are commonsense regulations, and we want to stop the flood of regulations that have come particularly from this administration. And the materials that I have submitted to the Record, Mr. Speaker, will document the unnecessary rules and regulations that have come, particularly in this administration.

We have heard today many reasons for Congress and President Obama to pursue Federal regulatory reform as a cost-free way in which the Federal Government can promote economic growth. We have the worst deficit, the worst debt we've ever had in this country. We have an unemployment rate that is stifling economic growth. What we're proposing here today will help our economy, will help revive our economy, and will bring jobs to this country.

This legislative package, with the passage of this rule, represents a variety of ways we can move towards these ends. As Americans look to Congress for innovative solutions to spur private sector job growth, I call on my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

The 2011 Federal Register stands at 81,247 pages. That

number is just shy of 2010's all-time record-high 81,405

pages. These years are the only two in which the number of

Federal Register pages topped 81,000.

In 2011, agencies issued 3,807 final rules, compared with

3,573 in 2010, a 6.5-percent increase.

Proposed rules appearing in the Federal Register increased

even more than the number of final rules, from 2,439 to

2,898, an 18.8-percent increase that signals a likely future

rise in final rules.

Although regulatory agencies issued 3,807 final rules in

2011, Congress passed and the president signed into law a

comparatively few 81 bills. Substantial lawmaking power is

delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies.

Of the 4,128 regulations now in the pipeline, 822 affect

small businesses and 212 are `economically significant' rules

wielding at least $100 million in economic impact. That

number represents a 32.5-percent jump over the 160 rules five

years ago, in 2006, and a higher level than any year of the

past decade except for the 224 rules in 2010.

The number of final `major rule' reports issued by agencies

and reviewed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

has grown. The 99 rules of 2010 represented the highest

number since this tabulation began. Five years ago, there

were 56 such reports.

The five most active rule-producing agencies--the

departments of the Treasury, Commerce, the Interior, and

Agriculture, along with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)--account for 1,733 rules, or 42 percent of all rules in

the Unified Agenda pipeline.

The government's reach extends well beyond the taxes

Washington collects and its deficit spending and borrowing.

Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic

regulations cost hundreds of billions--perhaps trillions--of

dollars every year over and above the costs of the official

federal outlays that dominate the policy debate.

Economics 101 on tax incidence explains how and why firms

generally pass along to consumers the costs of some taxes.

Likewise, some regulatory compliance costs that businesses

face will find their way into the prices consumers pay and

into wages earned.

Taxation and regulation can substitute for each other

because regulation can advance government initiatives without

using tax dollars. Rather than pay directly and book expenses

for new programs, the government can require the private

sector--as well as state and local governments--to pay for

federal initiatives through compliance costs.

Because such regulatory costs are not budgeted and lack the

formal public disclosure of federal spending, they may

generate comparatively little public outcry. Regulation thus

becomes a form of off-budget or hidden taxation.

As the mounting federal debt causes concern, the impulse to

regulate instead can also mount. Deficit spending, in a

manner of speaking, can manifest itself as regulatory

compliance costs that go largely unacknowledged by the

federal government. Worse, if regulatory compliance costs

prove burdensome, Congress can escape accountability by

blaming the agencies that issue the unpopular rules.

Openness about regulatory facts and figures is critical,

just as disclosure of program costs is critical in the

federal budget . . .

[But] Disclosure of and accountability for regulatory costs

are spotty. This allows policy makers to be reckless about

imposing regulatory costs relative to undertaking ordinary--

but more publicly visible--government spending.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 738 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

Sec. 3

It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent

resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die

unless the

House has been notified that the President has signed a bill

to extend for one year certain expired or expiring tax

provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers with income

below $250,000 for married couples filing jointly, and below

$200,000 for single filers, including, but not limited to,

marginal rate reductions, capital gains and dividend rate

preferences, alternative minimum tax relief, marriage penalty

relief, and expanded tax relief for working families with

children and college students.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to address the House tonight. I appreciate the time and consideration that we will have, the opportunity to visit with the American people about some of the biggest issues we are facing as a Nation.

I thought I would start with highlighting an article that appeared July 18 in Politico. The headline of this bill is: ``President Obama's job's panel, missing in action.''

The first paragraph of this Politico article says:

President Barack Obama's Jobs Council hasn't met publicly

for 6 months, even as the issue of job creation dominates the

2012 election.

So we know that the economy is suffering. We know that unemployment continues to burden this country. But the fact is even the President and his Jobs Council isn't taking the issue seriously enough to make sure they're meeting regularly to talk about what's important for the American people.

Tonight as we talk about those issues that are important to the American people, I want to talk about the issue of regulations and how the issue of regulations, whether it's a large business or small business, are affecting the ability of businesses to hire around this country to get people back to work because we are indeed becoming a regulation nation.

The effort continues this week for House Republicans to ensure that government doesn't stand in the way of America's job creators. Washington doesn't need more regulations, we need smarter regulations.

Tomorrow, we will be considering H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which is a package of proposals aimed at providing regulatory relief from the red tape that continues to burden our small businesses. This package imposes a moratorium on any new regulation until unemployment drops below 6 percent nationally. It's been over 3 years since our unemployment has actually dropped below 8 percent. This is the 41st month in a row where unemployment in this country has been at or exceeded 8 percent. This bill aims to curtail the practice of midnight regulations, regulations that are promulgated from the day after the November election through January 20, the day of the presidential inauguration, and highlights the increasing concern of ``sue and settle'' agreements.

As a Member of Congress, I try to vote the right way and push forward the right Federal policies and practices so that businesses can operate more effectively without the hand of government guiding it. I wanted to break down some of the barriers throughout the night that are truly affecting job creators and their ability to hire to make this country work. I thought I would just talk a little about current events across the Nation. Some of these are State regulations, and some of these are local regulations. There is a Forbes article printed last year on August 3, 2011, ``The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands'' about regulations that required a child's lemonade stand to cost $400 in permitting alone, bake sale busts across the country because regulations don't allow for children to have bake sales, and Big Gulp attacks in New York as the mayor attempts to regulate the size of pop that people can buy.

Some of these are Federal regulations, and some of these are State regulations. But the fact of the matter is this Nation faces a greater and greater challenge in becoming a regulation nation that hurts job creators and our ability to pull ourselves out of this economic slump.

Tonight I'll be joined by Members of Congress from across the United States, from Indiana to Alabama to Arizona and beyond, to focus on those issues that are important to our Nation's small businesses and job creators.

With that, I would like to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Alabama who has been working tirelessly to make sure that her constituents have the opportunity they need to get back on their feet again when it comes to our economy.

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama, and The Economist article, I've got a copy of it here as well, this is not exactly the bastion of conservatism that Republicans hold up all the time to highlight their beliefs. This is the Economist dated February 18, 2012, headline as you stated, ``Over-regulated America.'' And just to share one little factoid from this report that The Economist put out here, it says a study from the Small Business Administration, a government body, found that regulations in general add $10,585 in costs per employee per year--$10,585 per year per employee is the cost of regulations. If you're a business that's just getting started, or if you're struggling to balance the books and make sure you are able to continue into next year, here's the cost, $10,585 per employee.

You're exactly right, the punitive approach to regulation that's not actually trying to make a business improve, it's not trying or concerned with safety, but it's more concerned with the number of tickets or violations that they write, the number of fines that they can collect.

I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) has a lot of insight on this. You talk about a State that has seen some incredible challenges over the years as it comes to the economy, but certainly rebounding now under great leadership of Mr. Young himself as well as a great Governor, Mitch Daniels. I certainly look forward to the comments you have tonight.

I want to just ask a quick question about something that you said there. I believe you said, since 2008, 34,000 regulators have been hired by the Federal Government?

These are individuals whose sole job it is is to write new regulations; 34,000 new people to write new regulations.

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for making the point, especially on the issue of farm dust.

I can remember a committee hearing we had a month ago where the assistant administrator of the EPA was asked directly whether or not the EPA regulates farm dust, and she denied that the EPA is going to regulate farm dust. But when she was asked whether or not the EPA regulates dust from farms, the answer was yes. Now, only in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, can farm dust and dust from farms be two different things.

But somebody who has also been standing the line to make sure that they are fighting for America's job creators, somebody who's been doing the hard work it takes to get this economy back on track, and somebody who has experience himself as a job creator, running a small business, putting people to work, is our colleague from Colorado, Scott Tipton, who has worked tirelessly to make sure that this country's policies reflect a nation of job creators instead of a nation of bureaucrats.

With that, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for joining us tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

And again, I will highlight some of the statistics that he pointed out. And the gentleman from Colorado can correct me. You said $1.75 trillion cost of regulations. That's per year?

And that's just money that businesses are using to comply with more and more regulations that are in place every year by the Federal Government.

And I would point out, too, as the gentleman has mentioned, the cost of regulations and the time that regulations take, this is a--again, going back to that same economist article talking about the issue of overregulated in America. And it talks about how every hour spent, every hour spent by a doctor in this country today, under the President's health care bill, when a doctor meets with a patient for an hour, that doctor, that health care clinic, that hospital, is going to spend at least 30 minutes filling out paperwork and forms. So the doctor meets for an hour with the patient; they're going to be spending at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour.

You talk about regulations. That's what the President's health care has brought us.

And I know the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle) has been a champion for job creators in his State. The next speaker tonight is Ben Quayle from Arizona, who's going to talk, amongst other things, about a bill that he has introduced, H.R. 3862, to get to the very heart of some of the challenges that we face when it comes to protecting America's job creators and making sure that we're not strangling our job creators through regulations. I look forward to his comments tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

You mentioned at the beginning of your comments tonight the President's statement that, if you have a business, you can thank government for that.

Have you ever had a small business owner or somebody who opened a business call you and thank the government for building his business? I don't know. I certainly have never had that.

And $1.75 trillion is the yearly cost of regulations. If you were to hire 35 million people at $50,000 a year, that would equal $1.75 trillion. $1.75 trillion could hire 35 million people at $50,000 a year.

Again, thank you for sharing that story with us about a manufacturer of a restaurant--a food business, I guess, operator--that is ready to create jobs if it could just get government out of the way and let it do what it does best, which is run its own business.

I am pleased tonight that we are joined by the gentlelady from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, who is a champion on the House floor in making sure we are doing just that--getting government out of the way and letting America work.

I thank the gentlelady.

In going back to some of the comments that have been made tonight, the gentleman from Indiana talked about the 34,000 new rule makers--the people who have been hired to do nothing but write rules. I live in a town of about 3,000 people, so 34,000 people is a heck of a lot more than I have in my hometown, and they were all hired to write regulations. The gentleman from Arizona talked about 82,000 pages.

To the gentleman, I think that was 82,000 pages of regulations in 2012 alone?

2011. So that's 82,000 pages of regulations written in 2011.

During the first 3 years in office, the Obama administration unleashed 106 new major regulations that increased the regulatory burdens in this country by more than $46 billion annually. I want to share with you a statement that the President, himself, made. This is a statement that he made recently, saying:

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

Yet here we are increasing regulations by this President, by this administration.

We continue to hear testimony before our committees that talk about how for every $1 million you spend on regulations, it creates 1.5 jobs, as if regulations and adding burdens to business is actually job creation in and of itself.

It's one of the greatest frustrations I have. You're talking about major regulations and their impact on job creation and impact on jobs, and yet this bureaucrat admitted that they don't take into account in the economic analysis they carried out, they don't take into account the impact on jobs.

Somehow they have cost and benefits, yet they consider their economic analysis complete, even though it doesn't take into account jobs.

I often tell my constituents a story about my great- granddad when he came to Colorado and opened up the farm equipment dealership that still remains in our family today. I tell the story about how they came to our hometown, a small town, and they built their business. I talk about how my wife and I wonder if our children are going to be able to have the same opportunities that he did to start a business of their dreams. I don't think they ever imagined that the government would be considering prohibiting a 16-year-old from working on their uncle's farm. I don't think they ever imagined that the government might try to require dairies to build berms around the cows in case there was a milk spill. I don't think they ever would have imagined a world where the government would introduce, as a result of litigation, a proposal that could wipe out 25 percent of our electricity generation just because they decided this regulation has to go into effect because of a lawsuit that they agreed to settle, and the cost that that will force upon America's job creators.

Again, we get back to this notion of the millions of people in this country that are unemployed. We get back to the very simple fact that one out of every two college graduates today is either unemployed or underemployed. Our Nation has seen unemployment rates at or above 8 percent for 41 months in a row. All while the promise of the President's stimulus bill said we're going to solve these problems, unemployment is going to be drastically reduced, we're going to create energy opportunities by giving millions and millions of dollars in loan guarantees to companies that go bankrupt. Yet, we have job creators in Indiana ready to hire, but they can't get the money that they need because of regulations. We have a government that would rather give loan guarantees to companies they know are going to fail than to actual job creators that are already succeeding.

And I would like to ask the gentleman from Colorado tonight--you know, the gentleman from Indiana mentioned the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. This is the idea that we put a freeze on regulations when the economy's down, but it is specifically about the REINS Act.

You know, the REINS Act that we talked about earlier this year was a bill that we passed that said, if a rule or regulation has a certain economic impact on our economy, then it has to come back to us to say whether or not this is something that we need to pass on to America's job creators.

When we served together in the State legislature, every year we worked on the rule review bill. And the gentleman from Colorado will recall that this was a bill that came up to us, and we got to look at the regulations and give them a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether or not we thought the executive agency had gone too far, whether we thought they were doing the right thing.

And again, this is just one way for us to say, hey, let's do what's right for America's job creators.

And I think the gentleman from Arizona brings up a good point because the President likes to blame Congress for not increasing taxes or for spending enough money. But we know that this President is in charge of his executive branch agencies, that he's the one who appointed his cabinet, approved by the Senate. He could just pick up the phone, as you said, call, and say, Let's make sure we're making it easier for businesses, not more difficult. And again, it's an incredible, incredible opportunity that the President has to stand up and lead. But it goes back to that very issue: he's required to stand up and lead.

The gentleman from Indiana brings up a great point. And as I mentioned earlier tonight, there was an article in Politico that was printed last week. The President's jobs council hasn't even met for 6 months. I don't know if they have given up or if he just is afraid that they may not support his policies.

I want to thank my colleagues from Indiana, Alabama, Colorado, Arizona, and North Carolina who stood on the House floor tonight talking about what we could do to get this country moving again, what we could do to unleash the innovators and the entrepreneurs across this country.

We face a lot of challenges. We know that we face insurmountable debt that we must address. We know this country faces spending challenges each and every day. But we can't build a long, sustainable economy unless we get America's job creators back on their feet.

The Small Business Administration recently released a study that said, per employee, small businesses face regulatory costs 36 percent higher than large businesses. It's now easier to start a business in Slovenia, Estonia, and Hungary than in America.

The message that we join together tonight to send to our job creators is that we stand with you. We stand with businesses across this country who are struggling to hire that next person, to make sure that they have the opportunities that the people who started their businesses did, to make sure that the generations that follow have the same opportunities as the generations before them.

So I want to thank my colleagues again for joining us tonight and to

make sure that the American people know that we, indeed, have a jobs plan. And tomorrow, when we pick up, again, a debate to talk about America's job creators, that we will talk about how we can get this economy moving forward again. And we will be voting on H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, that every vote we take on it will be made with one purpose: to get this country moving again and to get our economy back on track and to get America's job creators hiring once again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived measure which will do nothing to promote small business growth. Small businesses everywhere need help. They require affordable credit and greater demand for their services. Yet today we are focused on legislation that does nothing to address these challenges and, instead, pushes an extreme agenda.

Despite what some assert, regulation is not among entrepreneurs' top concerns. In fact, surveys note that 85 percent of small business owners believe regulation is necessary. And I have with me a survey that was conducted last February by the American Sustainable Business Council, and I will enter this survey into the Record.

Opinion Polling: The Economic State of Small Business

[Feb. 2012]

(By the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance,

and Small Business Majority)

Summary

In January and February 2012, the American Sustainable

Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business

Majority released polling that asked small employers across

the country about key issues impacting the small business

community. These included access to credit; proposals in the

American Jobs Act to boost the economy; regulations; taxes;

and money in politics. Respondents were politically diverse:

50% identified as Republican, 32% as Democrat and 15% as

independent.

The poll found nine in 10 small business owners have a

negative view of the role money plays in politics. The

results showed 90% of small business owners see the

availability of credit as a problem for small business and

they strongly favor increasing the lending authority of

community banks and credit unions. We also learned that

entrepreneurs support current proposals being debated in

Congress that aim to boost the economy and create jobs,

particularly investments in infrastructure.

The polling revealed that consumer demand--not regulation--

is small business owners' greatest concern. In fact, 86% see

regulation as a necessary part of a modern economy and three-

quarters believe it is necessary to level the playing field

between small and large businesses. Lastly, 90% of small

business owners believe large corporations use loopholes to

avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay, and three-

quarters say their own business suffers because of it.

Below are the extended main findings of the poll.

Methodology

The poll reflects an Internet survey of 500 small business

owners across the country, conducted by Lake Research. It has

a margin of error of +/-4.4%. The survey was conducted

between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. Researchers

used a random sample of small business owners obtained from

Harris Interactive, with additional samples from InfoUSA.

Money in Politics

Polling results that revealed small business owners'

attitudes toward money in politics and the Citizens United

decision were released on Jan. 18.

Small business owners view the Citizens United decision as

bad for small business: 66% of those surveyed said the two-

year-old ruling that gives corporations unlimited spending

power in elections is bad for small businesses. Only 9% said

it was good for small business.

Small business owners have a negative view of the role

money plays in politics overall: 88% of respondents view the

role money plays in politics negatively; 68% view it very

negatively.

Access to Credit and Proposals to Boost the Economy

Poll results that revealed small business owners' attitudes

toward credit availability were released on Jan. 26, 2012 in

conjunction with results showing their views on proposals in

the American Jobs Act.

Small business owners say access to credit is a problem:

90% of respondents agree the availability of small business

loans is a problem, and 60% have faced difficulty themselves

when trying to obtain loans that would grow their businesses.

Small business owners agree it is harder now to obtain

loans: 61% of respondents say it is harder now than it was

four years ago to get a loan.

Small business owners support making it easier for

community banks and credit unions to lend more: 90% of owners

support making it easier for community banks and credit

unions to lend to small businesses, and more than three-

quarters, or 77%, support creating incentives for community

banks to lend more. By more than a 2:1 ratio, respondents

support increasing credit unions' lending cap from 12.25% to

27.5% of a credit union's assets.

Support for reforming and regulating credit cards is

extremely high among small business owners: 82% support

tighter credit card regulations, such as clearer disclosure

of terms and caps on interest rates, including 47% who

strongly support these regulations; 52% of entrepreneurs have

used credit cards to help finance their own business.

Respondents favor reducing collateral requirements: 60% of

small business owners support reducing collateral

requirements so loans can become more accessible.

The housing and mortgage crisis has harmed consumer demand

for small businesses: Almost three-quarters of small business

owners, or 73%, feel their business has been hurt by a drop

in consumer demand stemming from the housing and mortgage

meltdown.

Small business owners believe reducing the principal on

underwater mortgages will boost spending: 57% of respondents

agree reducing the principal on underwater mortgages to the

current market value would boost consumer spending, helping

small businesses regain their vigor through increased

profits.

Small business owners strongly support investment in

infrastructure: 69% favor investing $50 billion in

infrastructure projects that would create jobs.

Entrepreneurs favor creating a nationwide wireless network:

59% of those surveyed are in support of creating this kind of

network and expanding access to high-speed wireless services.

Regulations

Polling results that revealed small business owners'

attitudes toward government regulations were released on Feb.

1, 2012.

Weak demand is small business owners' biggest problem: 34%

of respondents said weak demand is their biggest problem,

while 15% cited the cost of health coverage and other

benefits. Only 14% said it is the level of government

regulation. The level of taxes came in fourth place with 12%

and competition with larger companies garnered 10%.

Small business owners believe eliminating incentives to

move jobs overseas would do the most to create jobs: 24% of

small business owners said eliminating incentives for

employers to move jobs overseas would do the most to create

jobs, and 14% called for tax cuts. Thirteen percent of

respondents said increasing consumer purchasing would be the

biggest job creator and 12% believe

jobs lie in improving infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Only 10% of respondents said reducing regulation would do the

most to create jobs.

Small business owners see regulations as a necessary part

of a modern economy and believe they can live with them if

they're fair and reasonable: 86% of small business owners

agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern

economy, and 93% of them agree their business can live with

some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable.

Small businesses believe some regulations are needed to

level the playing field with big business and that

enforcement should be just as tough on large corporations as

it is on small businesses: 78% of respondents said some

regulations are important to protect small businesses from

unfair competition and to level the playing field with big

businesses. Additionally, 95% believe the enforcement of

regulations should be at least as tough on large corporations

as it is on small businesses. Another 76% of respondents

believe regulations on the books should be enforced.

Respondents feel strongly that specific regulations play an

important role: 78% believe policies are needed to hold

health insurance companies accountable so they don't increase

insurance rates by excessive amounts; 84% support policies

that ensure food safety for businesses and customers that buy

or sell food products and 80% support disclosure and

regulation of toxic materials.

Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79% of

small business owners support having clean air and water in

their community in order to keep their family, employees and

customers healthy, and 61% support standards that move the

country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.

Small business owners believe in streamlining the process

for regulatory compliance and documentation: 73% of

respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic

filing of government paperwork.

Taxes

Polling results that revealed small business owners'

attitudes toward taxes were released on Feb. 6.

Small business owners overwhelmingly believe big

corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small

businesses have to pay: a sweeping 90% believe this to be

true; 92% say big corporations' use of such loopholes is a

problem.

Nine out of 10 small business owners say U.S. multinational

corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S.

profits to offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem:

91% of respondents agreed it is a problem, with 55% saying it

is a very serious problem.

Majority of small business owners say their business is

harmed when big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes:

Three-quarters of respondents agree that their small business

is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid

taxes. More than one-third say it harms their business a lot.

Small business owners say big corporations are not paying

their fair share of taxes: 67% believe big corporations pay

less than their fair share of taxes. An even bigger majority,

73%, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair

share.

Small business owners say households making more than $1

million a year pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58%

of owners say households whose annual income exceeds $1

million pay less than their fair share.

Small business owners support a higher tax rate for

individuals earning more than $1 million a year: 57% of

respondents agree that individuals earning more than $1

million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income

over $1 million. Only one small business owner out of 500

polled reported their annual household income to be more than

$1 million.

Four out of five small business owners disapprove of the

``carried interest'' loophole that gives hedge fund managers

a big break on their taxes: 81% of small business owners

favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income

tax rate, with a top bracket rate currently set at 35%,

rather than the 15% capital gains rate--with 61% strongly

supporting this change.

A majority of small business owners believe Congress should

let tax cuts expire on taxable household income exceeding

$250,000 a year: 51% of respondents believe Congress should

let tax cuts on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a

year expire (40% said they should be extended).

About the Organizations

American Sustainable Business Council

The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of

business organizations representing over 100,000 companies

and 200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for public

policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global

economy including strategic investments in workforce and

infrastructure; standards and safeguards that promote

innovation, prevent abuse and protect critical resources; and

a new sustainable economic model that fosters a growing,

economically-secure middle class. www.asbcouncil.org

Main Street Alliance

The Main Street Alliance is a national network of small

business coalitions. MSA creates opportunities for small

business owners to speak for themselves to advance public

policies that benefit business owners, their employees, and

the communities they serve. Making health reform work for

small businesses is a top priority of the MSA network and its

state coalitions. www.Mainstreetalliance.org

Small Business Majority

Small Business Majority is a national nonpartisan small

business advocacy organization, founded and run by small

business owners, and focused on solving the biggest problems

facing America's 28 million small businesses. We conduct

extensive opinion and economic research and work with small

business owners, policy experts and elected officials

nationwide to bring small business voices to the public

policy table. www.smallbusinessinajority.org

This survey says that eight out of 10 think regulations have a role to play in leveling the playing field between small businesses and larger competitors that seek an unfair advantage.

Even surveys by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, who, themselves are vehemently against regulation, they find that small businesses rank economic uncertainty and poor sales, respectively, as the most important concerns, not regulation.

There are a number of proposals that this House could pass to generate demand for small company services and empower them to hire. Tax credits for new employees, expanding payroll tax cuts, and extending tax cuts for working families all come to mind.

Let's reject this legislation and move on to a real small business jobs act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the national unemployment rate above 8 percent for over 40 months. The President promised that his $800 billion spending bill would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, the spending bill only added to the deficit, which has doubled under this administration.

More than 12 million Americans are out of work, 700,000 more than when President Obama took office; and the median income of American families has dropped too.

The President's economic policies have failed, and his regulatory policies have made the economy worse. A recent Gallup poll found that among the 85 percent of U.S. small businesses that are not hiring, nearly half cited ``being worried about new government regulations'' as the reason.

President Obama has turned America into a regulation Nation. A Heritage Foundation study found that in his first 3 years in office, President Obama implemented 106 major rules that imposed $46 billion in additional annual regulatory costs on the private sector. That's a new record.

The President promised in his 2011 State of the Union address to fix ``rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses,'' but he has gone in the opposite direction. We need to encourage businesses to expand, not tie them up with red tape.

Today, Congress continues to fight the constricting red tape that comes from Washington by offering commonsense solutions that deserve bipartisan support. And that's what we do today.

Members of the Judiciary Committee introduced three of the titles in the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Mr. Griffin's Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act gives small businesses a much- needed break from new regulations that cost the economy $100 million or more until the unemployment rate stabilizes at 6 percent.

The Freeze Act is narrowly tailored to stop unnecessary economically significant regulations. It contains reasonable exceptions, such as health and safety, criminal or civil rights laws, trade agreements, and national security. The Freeze Act gives job creators confidence about future regulatory conditions, which will encourage them to make the investments that will jump-start our economy.

The RAPID Act, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), helps to create jobs as it streamlines the Federal environmental review and permitting process. It draws upon established definitions and concepts from existing regulations and even from the administration's own recommendations.

Employers and investors can't move forward without necessary permits and without confidence in the process. The RAPID Act establishes reasonable, predictable deadlines for agencies to complete the permit review process and for lawsuits to be filed afterwards.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, introduced by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), ends the abuse of consent decrees and settlements to require more regulations.

For many years, regulatory advocates and agencies have used consent decrees and settlements to establish new rules in secrecy, outside the regular rule-making procedures that provide for transparency and public participation. The ``sue and settle'' approach has enabled agencies to impose higher costs and avoid accountability since they can claim ``the court made us do it.''

Mr. Quayle's legislation makes sure that the public and those affected by regulations have a say in these decrees and settlements. It also requires greater judicial scrutiny and helps to prevent an outgoing administration from unfairly setting its successor's agenda through consent decrees. These and all of the titles of the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act provide needed relief to small businesses.

Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. This legislation frees up businesses to spend more, invest more, and produce more in order to create more jobs for American workers. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no idea whether we have more or fewer regulations than other countries. I do know this: we have far more regulations today than we had 3 years ago. And I also know that the Obama administration has set a new record in the number of expensive, unnecessary regulations that it has suggested and implemented.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee.

If the gentleman would yield to me, I would be happy to try to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to a question that the gentleman from Michigan posed a few minutes ago.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to include for the Record an article from earlier this year that appeared in The Economist magazine. This is a magazine that is one of the oldest, most respected sources of news and analysis, and it is favorably disposed toward the Obama administration. But it published an article detailing how the Obama administration systematically manipulates the cost-benefit analysis in agency rulemaking.

This manipulation deliberately inflates benefits and minimizes the cost, the article says. The Economist goes so far as to call the administration's cost-benefit analysis ``highly suspect'' and ``subject to the whims of the people in power.''

[From the Economist, Feb. 18, 2012]

Measuring the Impact of Regulation

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

under Barack Obama

Washington, DC: In December Barack Obama trumpeted a new

standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule,

he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths,

heart attacks and asthma cases. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up to $90

billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr.

Obama took a swipe at past administrations for not

implementing this ``common-sense, cost-effective standard''.

A casual listener would have assumed that all these

benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury

explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths,

heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary

benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from

concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the

principal target of the rule: namely, fine particles.

The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem

arcane, but matters a lot. When businesses complain that Mr.

Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers

respond that those costs are more than justified by even

higher benefits. His Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out of the

federal apparatus, reckons the ``net benefit'' of the rules

passed in 2009-10 is greater than in the first two years of

the administrations of either George Bush junior or Bill

Clinton.

But those calculations have been criticised for resting on

assumptions that yield higher benefits and lower costs. One

of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary

benefits, or ``co-benefits'', such as reductions in fine

particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury.

Mr. Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been

included in regulatory cost-benefit analysis. The logic is

sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to

save money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get

more exercise. Both sorts of benefit should be counted.

The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-

benefits play in assessing Mr. Obama's rule-making. Fully

two-thirds of the benefits of economically significant final

rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to reductions in

fine particles brought about by regulations that were

actually aimed at something else, according to Susan Dudley

of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under

George Bush (see chart). That is double the share of co-

benefits reported in Mr. Bush's last year in office in 2008.

If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it would

surely be more transparent and efficient to target them

directly. As it happens, federal standards for fine-particle

concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely claims

additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well

below levels the current law considers safe. That is dubious:

a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of

such low concentrations.

Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is

its heavy reliance on ``private benefits''. Economists

typically justify regulation when private market

participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity,

generate costs--such as pollution--

that the rest of society has to bear. But fuel and energy-

efficiency regulations are now being justified not by such

social benefits, but by private benefits like reduced

spending on fuel and electricity.

Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit

analysis but Ms. Dudley's data show that, like co-benefits,

their importance has grown dramatically under Mr. Obama. Ted

Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes that private

benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and shorter

refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in

lifetime benefits claimed for last year's new fuel-economy

standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for

92% and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency

standards for washing machines and refrigerators

respectively.

The values placed on such private benefits are highly

suspect. If consumers were really better off with more

efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a

prod from government. The fact that they don't means they put

little value on money saved in the future, or simply prefer

other features more. Mr. Obama's OIRA notes that a growing

body of research argues that consumers don't always make

rational choices; Mr. Gayer counters that regulators do not

make appropriate use of that research in their calculations.

Under Mr. Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance

the benefits of rules but also reduce the costs. John Graham

of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr. Bush, cites the

new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that

electric cars have no carbon emissions, although the

electricity they use probably came from coal. They also

assume less of a ``rebound effect''--the tendency of people

to drive more when their cars get better mileage--than was

the case under Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the

opposite bias: understating benefits and overstating costs.

At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to

reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had

fewer years left to live; it eventually backed down. Mr.

Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the

risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more

horrifying way to die than others.

More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such

controversies. Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a

liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done

through the creation of a non-partisan congressional

oversight body using the best evidence available to vet

regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets

fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to

see if the original analysis behind them was still valid.

Rule-making would still require judgment, but it would be

less subject to the whims of the people in power.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of the legislation we consider today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of the RAPID Act, which is a part of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, which is a part of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I'd like to address process just very briefly, and that is that, when we began this session of Congress, we were advised by our Republican colleagues that we were going to bring up each measure individually and discuss them. This is a structured rule that does contemplate the opportunity for many Members to participate, but it isn't an open rule. What it is is it's a measure as the base bill that has cobbled to it six distinctly different measures--evidenced by the number of thank- yous that had to come from Dr. Foxx to the various committees.

I do agree with the one, Dr. Foxx, where you thank the young man for creative thinking. This is out of the box when it comes to us as far as process is concerned being creative. Cobbling six pieces of legislation--with another to make seven--is a bit much.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Act of 2012, and H.R. 6082, which has such a long and convoluted name that the cost to the government to simply print the bill may require the Republican majority to raise the debt ceiling.

What the red tape bill should be called, Mr. Speaker, is the ``Eliminate the Government's Ability to Protect Its Own Citizens Act of 2012,'' because that is what the radical legislation--creative, though one may think it is--aims to do.

Under this legislation, Federal agencies would be prohibited from issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate falls below 6 percent.

And I defy any economist or anybody else in the world to tell me when that's going to be in an economy such as the one that we have. So too, would new regulations be prohibited between Election Day in early November and Inauguration Day in late January.

For the past 2 years, the Republican majority has been spending its time doing everything, it seems to me, to crash the economy by defaulting on our debt, eliminating the greatest health care protections made in decades, and turning sensible decisions about women's health care into a fantasy of religious persecution.

But now it appears that perhaps struggling Americans have finally managed to capture the Republicans' attention, except that the majority's response is not to make the kind of investments that will actually create jobs, but, instead, to gut the Federal Government's efforts to protect the health and safety of American citizens.

I realize that in the fantasy world inhabited by some far-right ideologues allowing polluters to run amok is tantamount to creating jobs, allowing corporations to pursue fantastic profits at the expense of public health and safety is somehow good governance, and enabling the middle class to fall farther and farther behind the ultra-wealthy is somehow a shining example of the American spirit.

But I have to ask, under this legislation, where will these new jobs come from?

I suppose we'll need more doctors to care for sick children, since the FDA will be prohibited from monitoring the safety of baby formula. We will need caregivers, I'm sure, willing to provide free care for older Americans, as Medicare will be unable to change its payments to providers. And we'll need new water treatment plant workers, as corporate polluters will have increased freedom to dump harmful chemicals into our drinking water, as they have for years.

If I sound extreme, Mr. Speaker, it's because this bill is extreme. A blanket prohibition on new regulations is not any kind of solution to grow our economy. The FDA, the EPA, and the Veterans Administration, these agencies are not responsible for the failure of our jobless recovery.

What is irresponsible is the failure to address the real needs of the American people. Rather than preventing the Federal Government from ensuring clean drinking water, we ought to be investing in the infrastructure that makes clean drinking water possible and that desalinates salt water.

We ought to be investing in economic development projects, in the national infrastructure, in clean energy technology, in education, and in the kinds of programs that support those Americans who are struggling the hardest. Rich CEOs of big polluters aren't one of those that are in need.

But speaking of rich CEOs out of touch with everyday Americans, it was Mitt Romney who said in 2009 that, ``You have to have regulation.'' He said that regulations need to be modernized, reviewed, and effective, and that Republicans ``misspeak'' when they say they don't like regulation.

I guess what Mitt Romney calls ``misspeak'' other people might call ``outright ridiculous'' because that is what the ideology behind this bill is. It is as ridiculous a notion that yet more drilling for oil will somehow--drilling in these places where companies like BP can cause the kind of incidents that we saw in the gulf--that somehow this is going to benefit the country. It won't.

The other bill to be considered under this rule is just the latest manifestation of the Republican energy doctrine: ``Only drilling, all the time, and everywhere.'' This legislation does exactly two things. It tears up environmental protections, and it further enriches oil company executives.

The House, under the Republican majority, has taken 142 pro-oil-and- gas drilling votes this Congress. Using the hourly cost of voting in the House, as calculated by the Congressional Research Service, the more than 90 hours we have spent debating these measures that everybody in this House knew were going nowhere when they left this House, we've spent $54 million of the taxpayers' money debating, and these are the people that would tell me they want to cut costs.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there's always a chance that the Republicans will achieve success the 143rd time and additional hours that they try something. But once again, the majority's efforts reflect a dogged determination to rely on an outdated ideology that seeks only to reward the wealthiest corporations.

We are already drilling at historic levels in this country. The United States is home to more offshore drilling rigs than the entire rest of the world combined. Seventy percent of offshore areas currently leased are not even active yet.

This legislation isn't going to change the price of fuel for the average American. It does not mandate that oil drilled in the United States--Mr. Markey brought an amendment that allowed that if it's going to be drilled here, it ought to stay here. But this legislation doesn't allow for it to even be sold in the United States.

In fact, oil will simply be shipped out to the highest bidder, similar to what's going to happen with Keystone when it's completed, on the world market, generating enormous profits for the oil companies while sticking the American public with the bill.

I recently saw an editorial cartoon by Joel Pett. And in the cartoon, a man stands up at a climate change summit and asks, what happens if climate change is, indeed, a hoax, but we achieve energy independence anyway, that we preserve the environment anyway, that we create green jobs anyway, and livable cities, and have cleaner air and water. The answer, of course, is that we will all be better off.

Republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands all they want, but pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and into the atmosphere will not sustain the American economy, nor provide the kind of economic prosperity that will benefit all Americans. And as I've said before, and I repeat again, I'll be the last person standing against drilling offshore of Florida.

At the same time, preventing the Federal Government from acting on behalf of public health and safety will not create new jobs. It won't return the unemployment rate to 6 percent, and it won't send a signal to the American public that their elected Representatives are ably minding public resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend and colleague from Florida that when he speaks about 120,000 jobs that may have been created, Governor Rick Scott categorically rejected money for light rail between the I-4 corridor of Orlando and Tampa that would definitely have produced 18,000 jobs.

You can't have it both ways. You can't one minute say that you don't want something, and then the next minute say that some fictional number is going to take place that's a magic bullet. We worked hard to get that money appropriated. The last statement that he made was that you can't give something unless you get something. Well, they got from Florida, and that money went to the east coast corridor, to California, to Illinois. I'm not certain about whether any of it went to Kentucky, but I'm sure that the next speaker would be prepared to address that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), whose State did benefit from that money that was to go to Florida, as appropriated.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlelady that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We could go back to the days when government was helpless against the robber barons who abused our public resources. We could go back to the days when citizens had no recourse against corporations who valued profit above individual health and safety. And we could go back to the days when unelected oligarchs drove this Nation's destiny, rather than democratically elected governments representing the interests of the American public.

Prohibiting Federal agencies from carrying out necessary and essential public protections will not create new jobs. It will not boost our economy. It will not protect the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Americans in a time of extraordinary uncertainty.

Drilling for oil everywhere and anywhere is not a solution. It won't even provide much benefit, unless you consider further enriching oil executives to be a benefit for millions of struggling Americans.

What Americans need is government that is willing to invest in its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law.

We have an opportunity to extend the middle class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000. This should not be a partisan fight; this is what we were elected to do. We should not adjourn into August recess while American families across this country are trying to make ends meet. It is imperative that Congress act on behalf of families across this Nation and bring them the certainty and security that their taxes will not go up in 6 months.

I don't know about all of my colleagues here, but I have had the misfortune of having been involved in lame duck sessions; and the one that is coming up where we are about to go off the cliff is going to be brutal for some of the newcomers in this institution who do not understand that it seems to be a methodology to wait until the last

minute before we do something. We can do it in August. We can give 98 percent of the American people certainty about their taxes and be assured that if they make less than $250,000 their taxes will not go up in December, or that their taxes will not be leveraged so we can avoid seeing to it that the Bush tax cuts on the 2 percent of Americans that are even concerned about the little bit of money that each one of them would have to provide in order for us to ensure safety for children, education for children, safety for old people, and understanding that the middle class has this great need.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.