Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 477 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 477 is a structured rule for the consideration of three bills: H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act; H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act; and H.R. 3463, a measure to terminate the Election Assistance Commission and end taxpayer financing of presidential elections and campaigns.

Not only do these bills show this House's commitment to small businesses, but they also demand that agency rulemaking be held accountable, reclaiming that authority that is vested here in this House.

H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, requires agencies to analyze the impact that a new regulation would have on small businesses before the regulation is adopted. By requiring all Federal agencies to obtain input and develop and conduct regular regulatory reviews of existing regulations, this bill, I believe, complements and codifies President Barack Obama's commitment in Executive Order 13563 that directs agencies to review their regulations and solicit public input.

H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, makes further positive changes. It reforms and modernizes the Administrative Procedure Act. It makes agencies more accountable and regulations more cost effective. In a recent study, Madam Speaker, that the Small Business Administration commissioned, they estimated the cost of the U.S. Federal regulatory burden at $1.75 trillion. Now, that's not to say there aren't benefits that outweigh that burden; but when the burden is that substantial, Madam Speaker, we have to have a process in place that balances those benefits and those burdens, and that's all H.R. 3010 asks to do.

Madam Speaker, time and time again the American people have demanded more accountability from their Congress, more accountability from their government. This collection of bills today not only provides that accountability of Congress, but requires that accountability of our executive branch agencies.

As we talk about accountability, Madam Speaker, it's important to note that these bills are paid for by terminating the Election Assistance Commission. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that was a commission created in 2002 that was supposed to sunset by 2005 and yet has continued even until today. That commission was set up in the aftermath of the hanging chads of the 2000 Presidential election to help States implement election reforms, to help States make sure the integrity of their electoral process was preserved. And yet today, 6 years after the expected sunset of that commission, we hear from our Secretaries of State that they no longer need that commission, that that commission is not providing useful benefits to them. By terminating that, we're going to save the American taxpayer more than $600 million over the next decade.

Madam Speaker, taken together, these three measures, H.R. 527, H.R. 3010, and H.R. 3463, help small businesses, increase agency transparency, and increase public participation in the entire regulatory process. They save money for hardworking American taxpayers and are positive reforms that this Congress can pass in a bipartisan way.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these underlying measures, and I hope they will support this rule so that we may consider them today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I look at the clock above your head. I think it's been about 11 minutes since my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz called for a toning down of the rhetoric and focusing more on policy. I don't think we were able to make it to minute 15.

I will quote my friend as he referred to Republicans: Either they don't care about the economy, or they are just acting for political gain.

Is that all there is? Either folks don't care, or they're just acting for political gain. It could be that their principles are different. It could be that their principles are different, but I don't actually believe that. I believe our principles are the same, because what these bills do is one thing and one thing only. Let's balance the regulatory burden with the benefits that it provides.

Madam Speaker, who is it in America that does not believe that balance is important in what we do here in Congress? I hear it back home all the time: Rob, balance. I want you to get things done, but I don't want you to get things done that are the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. I want you to come together and work on these issues.

Who is it, Madam Speaker, that does not believe that regulation to protect health and safety is important? I do. I come from one of the farthest right districts in the country. I believe health and safety are important things to regulate, but I believe we should balance those regulations.

When we doubled the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency between 2008 and 2009, where do you think that money went, Madam Speaker? The environment that I live in in Georgia was clean and thriving in 2008. But when you double the amount of money that you give to regulators, they have only one thing that they can do with it, and that's regulate more, regulate more.

We need balance, and that's all these bills are asking for. I have all the committee reports here, Madam Speaker, if any of my colleagues would like to come and look at them. There is not a line in any of these pages that says: Thou shalt not regulate. Not one. What they say is: Thou shalt regulate with balance--with balance.

A friend of mine was walking through the Occupy Atlanta protest the other day, Madam Speaker. A fellow came up and shook his fist at him. One of the protesters shook his fist at my friend and said, It's all about jobs. And my friend looked him in the eye and said, You know, you're exactly right. You should go out and hire somebody. You should go out and hire somebody. The fellow said, I'm not talking about providing jobs. I'm talking about I want a job myself.

Well, that's right. Every single bill that this Congress considers that helps job creators helps jobs.

We've got to end the rhetoric of loving jobs and hating job creators, Madam Speaker. There's only one opportunity that we, as Americans, have for employment, and that is finding an employer. And line after line after line of these bills say, before you punish American industry, make sure the balance is there, because, let's be clear, Madam Speaker, it's not that these jobs don't have to be performed.

Time and time again I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that we're not creating jobs. I, too, bemoan the fact that this administration has not created jobs. But that's not our only problem. Our problem is jobs that are leaving this country, Madam Speaker. Our problem is destroying even more jobs.

Industry is going to continue to operate around this planet. We can either embrace it here in this country in a balanced way or we can run them all overseas.

There's something that I believe we sometimes do disagree about here in this Congress, and that is that government cannot create jobs. Government can create an environment in which job creators can create jobs.

I cannot pass a bill in this Congress, no matter how hard I try, Madam Speaker, no matter how hard I work, that will make everybody in this country rich. I cannot do it. But this Congress has succeeded all too often at passing bills that can make everybody poor.

Balance, Madam Speaker, is what these bills contain. What this rule does--and it's important because it's a new operation that we're doing here in this House; and I'm very proud of it, and I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle are proud.

This is not an open rule today. I don't want to claim that it is. It's not on open rule. What we did, though, as the Rules Committee, is we asked all of our colleagues, anyone who has a proposal that they believe will make these bills better, send those amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. Anybody--Democrat, Republican--send those amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. This is what we did in the Rules Committee.

We received six Democratic amendments for H.R. 527, six ideas from the 435 Members in this House, six ideas for making these bills better. They all came from the Democratic side of the aisle, and we made every single one of those ideas available for debate here on the House floor today. You didn't used to see that. You didn't used to see it under Republican administrations. You didn't used to see it under Democrat administrations. That's what we're doing here today in a bipartisan way.

H.R. 3010, sent out a notice to the entire Congress, Send your ideas for making H.R. 3010 better. Send them to the Rules Committee so that we can consider them for consideration on the House floor. There were 12 ideas that were submitted, Madam Speaker--one Republican idea, 11 Democrat ideas. Three of those Democrat ideas were later withdrawn, said, We don't want to bring those ideas to the floor. So that leaves us with eight, and we brought all but one.

My colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), his amendment was not made in order because my colleague from Texas (Mr. Olson) had an amendment that was substantially similar, and knowing that time is valuable on the House floor, we wanted to consider all ideas, but not all ideas from everybody, each idea only once.

Seven Democratic amendments, one Republican amendment made in order because we invited the entire United States House into this process.

This is the time on the rule, Madam Speaker. I'm not here to debate the underlying provisions. We've provided time to do that. But I do want to defend this rule as an example of what we ought to do.

Is it a little more convoluted than I would have liked? Yes, it is.

Is it a little outside of my issue areas? Yes, it is.

But does it make in order all of the amendments that our colleagues want to submit? It provides for time for debate on every single idea submitted.

That's an important change in this House, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful that we've been able to do it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Even though I'm a freshman in this body, I have been working hard to try to find metrics by which I can judge what's happening here because this body is not like so much that happens back home. The metric that I have found while we're debating a rule is that the less folks are talking about the rule, I think the better job we did crafting it. I think that's right. Because if it was an awful rule, we'd spend our time talking about what an awful rule it is. When it's a pretty good rule, we spend our time talking about other issues on the floor.

I happen to agree with my friend from New Jersey. A thousand dollars for a family earning $50,000, that's real money. Now, I would say, though, to my friend from Massachusetts that if you take that $1.75 trillion burden that the Small Business Administration tells us is upon the American people because of regulations, that's actually $5,000 per person. That's $15,000 per a three-member family. And so yes, I agree with my friend from New Jersey that we should absolutely cooperate on focusing on those burdens. The burden we're focusing on today? Even larger, by orders of magnitude.

I'd be happy to yield.

My friend flatters me by thinking I have the answer to that information as a young freshman on the House floor, but I'll tell you this. I'll tell you that two things are true, and it is a puzzler for me on the payroll tax holiday that's gone on this year.

On the one hand I will tell you that Republicans are absolutely the party of lower taxes and not higher taxes and that actually speaks to this issue. We're also the party of making sure that we're paying for those commitments that we're making. Social Security is different from any other tax, and when I go and talk to my grandfather, he'll say, ``Rob, I want that Social Security. I paid into it all my life.''

Well, we're not paying into it right now. The proposal is not to pay into it next year, the proposal was not to pay into it last year. I'd be interested to ask my friend if he's prepared to support lowering those Social Security benefits because, again, this is something we're paying into.

I would say to my friend that the majority, again speaking out of school as a young freshman here on the House floor, but I know enough about my leadership to know the majority is absolutely committed to protecting and preserving Social Security not just for this generation but the next generation and beyond. And the question is going to be can we find a proposal, because the one that was passed last year was not a proposal that both lowered tax burdens and protected the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

We must be sure not to further bankrupt a program that we all agree is already going bankrupt. I look forward to that debate, Madam Speaker, between now and the end of the year.

And it's not just that tax that's expiring. I know my friend is also concerned about the Bush-Obama tax cuts that were extended in December of 2010 and wants to be sure that those will be extended in 2011 on into 2013.

I'll be happy to yield.

I would say to my friend that I happen to support up- down votes on all sorts of things. I'm an open rules guy, and I'm very proud of our Speaker who believes that the House works best when the House works its will. That's really one of the changes that I understand we've seen in this year that we haven't seen in years past.

I think that's important, Madam Speaker, for us to be able to bring those votes to the floor.

But it's also important to make sure that folks have all of the information in the same way that folks might be tempted to mischaracterize these balancing provisions that we're bringing forth today as some sort of Republican chicanery.

Folks might also be tempted to characterize something that is going to hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as being something that has no consequence at all. There really are consequences to this decision. And to say to my friend I look forward to a robust debate on that because it's an important issue for American families.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate that on H.R. 527, six Democratic amendments offered, six Democrat amendments made in order. The House works best when the House works its will. The rule today is providing that opportunity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker, to say I'm always happy to find things that I agree on with those across the aisle.

I'll say to my friend from California that we're both new in this House and that I spent my Saturday doing those very same things. My small business owners told me that very same thing, though they told me one more thing.

They said, Do get the foot of government off the throat of my small business. They did say, Rob, you cannot help me by doing more, but you can help me by doing less. You can help me by getting out of the way and by letting me do what I do.

The question then becomes how we get those customers in that store, and there are absolutely two visions for making that happen. We can either try to dispense more favors from Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker. We can try to pump more money that we don't have out of Washington, DC, money that we're borrowing from our children and grandchildren; or we can try to get folks higher- and better-paying jobs--more jobs--which is what this rule is about today.

We are running jobs out of this country. We are forcing jobs out of this country. The new report came out of over 150 nations, Mr. Speaker. We are number 69 in how easy it is for businesses to comply with their tax burdens, for example. Number 69. We should be the best place on Earth to do business.

What is it that raises salaries?

Sometimes my friend on the left suggests that we could just raise the minimum wage and just guarantee everybody money, but I don't believe we can. What we can do is give folks an opportunity to increase their productivity. No worker on the planet works harder than the American worker. No worker on the planet has more productivity than the American worker, and regulation after regulation after regulation slows the American worker down. If you want to put more money in the American worker's pocket, you let the American worker be more productive by providing some balance.

Again, nothing we're talking about today, Mr. Speaker, says thou shalt not regulate. We know we're going to regulate. What we're saying is, let's regulate with balance. Then my friend's small businesses and my small businesses will have those customers that they need to get this economy moving again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I could likely go back and forth all day long with my friend from Massachusetts believing that he loves workers more, with my believing that I love workers more and with his believing that to define ``loving of workers'' means we have to regulate them differently from Washington, D.C. For me, ``loving workers'' means we're going to free them to do those things that they do best, which is to produce.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I'm proud to be here with you today, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, that's why I came to Congress, and that is exactly what we're talking about in this rule today. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, you have seen with great concern what I have seen here today, and that is a complete disconnect, it appears, with my colleagues on the other side with the understanding that increasing regulation, needlessly increasing regulation, burdens the American worker, undermines the American economy, thwarts jobs. And I say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those things on which if we disagree we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because it is as clear to me as it is that the sky is blue that when you increase the regulatory burden you make the American family poorer for it.

I know I can't ask for a show of hands here, Mr. Speaker, but if I did and said, Who is it, who wants dirtier drinking water back home in their district? Who is it that doesn't drink from the same spigot as the rest of us? Who is it that doesn't shop at the same grocery stores as the rest of us? Who is it who doesn't drive on the same roads as the rest of us? We're all in this boat together. We're all this boat together, Mr. Speaker.

I come from the Deep South, and whenever we start talking about environmental issues, it always gets me so pumped up, because, dad gum it, nobody spends more time outside than I do. Nobody cares more about the environment than I do. And yet time and time again you hear that characterization that somehow asking for a balanced regulatory environment, a balanced regulatory environment, is somehow anti- environment or anti-American.

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, these bills before us today, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act, that's why I came to Congress. That is why I came to Congress.

We cannot make everybody rich, but we can make everybody poor. And when we regulate without regard to the benefits of that regulation, without regard to the burdens of that regulation, that's exactly what we do.

My friend quoted the OMB, talking about the values of regulations. I don't dispute that at all. I'm absolutely certain there are some regulatory initiatives that do, in fact, produce a benefit. All I'm asking for is that we balance that benefit with whatever burden it causes, because--and this is a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, but do folks honestly believe that the regulatory burden should exist irrespective of the benefits that it provides. That's what we do. In these two pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we ask regulatory agencies to examine those benefits and burdens.

Now, as my friend from Massachusetts talks about partisan politics, I come from a district that was a proud ``no'' vote on both the ridiculous stimulus bill from the Bush administration and the ridiculous stimulus bill from the Obama administration.

We are equal opportunity ``no'' votes on ridiculousness. And that is what we have here as we try to reclaim some regulatory authority from the executive branch agencies.

I'll be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Congress went a little light on President Bush. And I certainly believe the last 2 years of the Democratic Congress went a little light on President Obama. I think we have a constitutional duty to defend our legislative prerogative to make the rules that this Nation abides by, not an unelected bureaucrat downtown, but elected officials right here in Washington, D.C., here in the people's House, those of us who have to go home and subject ourselves to voters every 2 years. This is where that authority belongs. And we should have those votes. Yes and no, we should have those votes on whether or not that's our shared vision of America.

Now I'm going to get a little off topic, Mr. Speaker. It's clear to me that we're going to be talking about the payroll tax over the next week or 10 days. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to understand that's not a free discussion. Every penny that you choose not to deposit in the Social Security trust fund is a penny closer to bankruptcy the Social Security trust fund comes.

It's easy to say you're going to get something for nothing, but we're not. $15 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker; $15 trillion. We've already been giving away something for nothing for far too long. The question is how can we both help the middle class taxpayer with their tax burden and preserve Social Security for generations to come. It's not a freebie, Mr. Speaker. These are tough questions that require serious answers, not on a motion to recommit, not on a motion to instruct, but in thoughtful committee consideration.

I'll get back to the rule now because this has had thoughtful committee consideration. Both the underlying provision and the rule itself have gone through regular order. Mr. Speaker, there's no need to rush these bills to the floor. We can take them through the process to make sure that they are thoughtfully examined line by line by line. And these bills have been.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, that's all these bills are asking of our administrative branch agencies--that the regulations that they're promulgating be examined line by line by line to make certain that the benefits outweigh the burdens.

It's a surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's even something that we're arguing about today. I would have thought that this is common sense. Certainly in my district it's common sense. Perhaps other constituencies feel differently--balancing the benefits with the burdens. Don't let folks tell you, Mr. Speaker, that regulations come without a burden. I'll give you an example. I have a cardboard box manufacturer in my district, manufactures cardboard boxes. It may not be glamorous work, but it's important work. I was visiting the plant the other day. They said: Rob, when they were talking about the ethanol regulations, did they ever talk about the impact the ethanol regulations would have on cardboard box manufacturers?

I said I wasn't in Congress then, but I never heard about it.

They said when you decided that you were going to insert ethanol in every gallon of gasoline, you also decided you were going to raise the price of corn. And we use corn starch in the glue that holds our boxes together, and we use corn starch with our fiber to make our boxes stronger. And every time you pass a regulation that increases the use of ethanol and decreases the availability of corn to other sources, you raise the price of our boxes. You can produce boxes anywhere in the world; and if we can't stay competitive, we're going to lose this business overseas.

Mr. Speaker, there are unintended consequences to the work of this body every single day, and the arrogance to believe we can foresee them all astonishes me. We must understand our fallibility. We must understand that we cannot foresee all of those consequences.

So every time we have an opportunity to measure, Mr. Speaker, every time we have an opportunity to look at the pros and the cons to ensure that we're getting it right, Mr. Speaker, every time we pass a regulation, we steal freedom from someone somewhere. Understand that. Every time we pass a regulation, we steal freedom from somebody somewhere.

Our government is a social contract where we agree to give up individual liberty so we can exist collectively. We have public services for safety and fire, on and on and on. But every single one of those comes at the expense of personal liberty. But we have decided that the expense is worth it.

Mr. Speaker, these bills do that today: balance benefits and burdens, provide that information to the American voter, and let's make sure that what we're doing is worth it.

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of how one ought to do a rule, how one ought to open up the process, how one ought to encourage debate on all of the ideas that are brought to this House floor. I encourage strong support for this rule. I encourage strong support for the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is clear, when I have the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has an enormous history of commitment to small businesses, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, both former chairs, opposing this bill, then we obviously know that it is problematic.

What I know of small businesses is that they, frankly, want to have an anchor to promote and propel their business needs. The regulatory scheme and the underlying premise of this bill is to eliminate any anchor for our small businesses. And when you do that, you're clearly undermining their growth and opportunity.

I would add, as well, that I challenge as to whether or not this debate today creates any opportunity for small business, provides them access to credit, guarantees any loans, creates any jobs. Absolutely not, and it is absurd that we would suggest that agencies that are trying to promote small businesses are stopping small businesses and, therefore, we want to implode the regulatory scheme.

The APA provides an opportunity for due process through the court system. If our colleagues have problems with regulations, they can run to the courts. You don't have to implode the process to be able to address the problem.

Let's help small businesses, let's discuss how to create jobs, and let's vote against this legislation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise today to call upon the rational and reasonable thinking of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and really discuss an amendment that speaks the obvious.

The underlying bill puts into process a regulatory scheme that delays the implementation of regulations. Whether you agree or disagree with that approach, we all recognize that securing the homeland continues to be a top priority for this Nation.

I'm standing alongside some of our first responders looking over one of the Nation's major ports. Many who live in those areas recognize the vulnerability of America through her ports or aviation or mass transit or highways or bridges or dams.

Every moment after 9/11 is a new moment in this Nation. My amendment simply says to waive the provisions of this bill, H.R. 527, when it deals with homeland security.

I hold in my hand the National Security Threat List that lists the issues that our Homeland Security Department and intelligence communities have to address. The listing is not classified, so I will mention the many tasks that they have to address: terrorism, espionage, proliferation, the moving forward on the question of economic espionage, targeting the national information structure, cybersecurity. Why would we want to interfere with the movement of regulations to protect the homeland under the premise of this bill?

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that would waive the bill's provisions in light of protecting the homeland.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me again appeal to the bipartisanship of my colleagues. This is a very troublesome bill, and this bill interferes with the normal process, if you will, of dealing with the regulatory scheme. Although it's called the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I can assure you that the purpose of this legislation is, one, not to create jobs, and certainly not to help us secure the homeland.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process allowing special interest lobbyists to second-guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation. This is what Homeland Security regulations would have to go through.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and since my membership on the committee that was a select committee, we've overhauled the government in ways we've never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 are corrected.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved, for example, through the Port of Houston in 2010. That cargo has to be inspected. And the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. Just imagine a regulation dealing with the scanning or the security of that tonnage to be interfered with by H.R. 527.

If Coast Guard intelligence had evidence of a potential attack on the Port of Houston and they wanted the Department of Homeland Security to address it or they used a regulation or there was a regulation in process, then it would have to be stopped by this legislation.

It is important to recognize that homeland security is not security by appointment. It is not security by ``let me address regulations by having them vetted by H.R. 527.''

This is a commonsense amendment that simply says, as it deals with the homeland security or the securing of our Nation as we look to be better than what occurred in 9/11 where agencies were not communicating with each other, where the fault of the cybersecurity system did not work, and we had the heinous tragedy of losing 3,000-plus of our souls in New York City. As we see the franchising of terrorism where there is the shoe bomber and the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber, it's important not to have a fettered Homeland Security Department in a regulatory process that is stopped by overlying legislation.

This legislation is a job-killer, we already know. Let's not let it be a killer of Americans because it gets in the way of Homeland Security efforts doing the work that is necessary.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that asks simply for a waiver of this legislation as it addresses the question of securing the homeland and the regulatory scheme that is needed by intelligence agencies, our Border Patrol agencies, our TSOs that deal with aviation security, our cargo inspectors. As it relates to that work, our front line, let us waive this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. The bill would expand the number of rules covered by the RFA and requires Federal agencies to perform additional analysis of regulations that affect small businesses.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security and ranking member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency, which is why the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should be exempt from this legislation.

This bill delays the promulgation of federal regulations, and delays a Federal agency's ability to issue regulations when responding to an emergency and grants the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office of Advocacy additional authority to intervene in agency rulemaking, without providing additional funding. Further, H.R. 527 repeals an agency's authority to waive regulatory analysis during an emergency.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of Federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our Nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. The Department of Homeland Security cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how we protect our Nation. Continuing to make advances in homeland security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face.

Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. The Coast Guard, under the directive of the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with protecting our ports of entry. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people.

This bill expands the review that agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations and the review they must conduct of existing rules to include an evaluation of the ``indirect'' costs of regulations, and grants the SBA authority to intervene in agency rulemaking. The measure also expands the ability of small businesses and other small entities impacted by an agency's regulations to challenge those rules in court.

Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years to complete. Given the nature of its mission, the Department of Homeland Security is the last agency that needs to be subject to more levels of regulation and scrutiny. Some advocates groups also have expressed concern that by extending the rulemaking process, regulatory uncertainty could increase, which may make it more cost effective for agencies to seek enforcement through the courts, and thereby reduce the public's ability to participate in the process.

These costs add to the cost of doing business with the Department of Homeland Security, and eat away at the profits of our businesses, particularly our small businesses which often are not as equipped to absorb additional costs. Moreover, many businesses dealing with national security have higher costs because of expensive equipment, and as such are already working with lower profit margins.

The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations threaten the security, stability, and the delivery of vital services to the American people. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to slow the promulgation of regulations to a drip.

I have offered this amendment to mitigate the uncertainty regarding federal laws and rulemaking in the area of national security because of the increased urgency when dealing with these often sensitive matters. The Department of Homeland Security is the newest federal agency, and as such already is subject to pioneering levels of oversight and scrutiny.

I urge the Committee to make my amendment in order to ensure that life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I would like to think that our colleagues are in their offices communicating with their constituents and doing much of the work that we do and writing probably other great legislative initiatives, and they are paying attention to this debate and they keep hearing the words ``small businesses'' and they want to know why would any of us have a disagreement about small businesses when we have, I think, a consensus that small business are in fact the backbone of America; they are the job creators of America.

I recall many of us have initiatives. I have an initiative of visiting small businesses. Just a couple of weeks ago, I donned the clothing of a medical practice. I went to a beauty school and tried to do a little bit of hair design. I went to an energy company. I went on to a small export-import company, and I stood out as a safety officer for a construction company owned by a single mother.

So we all speak the language of small businesses. And you would think that my good friends on the other side of the aisle would have looked more closely at how damaging H.R. 527 is because, for those who may be listening in their offices and others, right now you have a three- agency framework of reviewing regulations dealing with small businesses.

Now you're going to include that all the agencies have to get into the act in stifling small businesses' activities and their growth and opportunity. Remember now, right now we have three, and then we're going to open up the lot so that every agency now has to go through a regulatory process to determine its impact on small businesses. It expands the use of small business review panels to review rules promulgated by all agencies to include all major rules, and some of these, of course, having the positive impact on our small businesses.

What is the significant economic impact? Nobody knows. It forces agencies to engage in wasteful, speculative analysis. It imposes an absurd and wasteful requirement on those agencies.

So I have a simple amendment. Ask the question beforehand: What is the economic impact of all of this vast new inclusion of other agencies to come down on our small businesses? It requires my amendment, a GAO study, to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect it will have on Federal agency rulemaking. Simple, bipartisan amendment, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Let me just continue looking for bipartisanship. I am hoping that I can convince my friend from Texas to not desire to have a can of worms, a potpourri of agencies coming out with the hand of oppression on small businesses.

This is a simple question that I'm asking. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, simply would be asking the question: What is the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities which will greatly slow down the rulemaking process and substantially empower other competitors to small business to throw sand in the gears of rulemaking that will help small businesses, women-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, disabled veterans?

What is the reason for not agreeing to an important study? It forces agencies to again engage in wasteful, speculative analysis, including an assessment of all reasonably foreseeable indirect economic effects.

We can do it ahead of time. Will this kill jobs is the question. It expands judicial review to include all agency actions and not just final agency action.

Mr. Chairman, can we not find an opportunity to come together on this? I would much rather have a report to tell me how many small businesses will shut down waiting for agency review of the rules that would be helpful to them.

Have we engaged with the Small Business Committee? Has anyone

asked the ranking member of that committee, even the chairman of that committee, who are champions of small business? I don't think I have seen the chairperson, but I have seen the ranking member, who listens to small businesses across the country. If there is a regulation that is going to help a small business, this bill kills it.

The small businesses are hanging on for dear life. Pass the rule. Pass the rule. Now you have put in all these agencies, dilly-dallying around trying to be able to find a way to stifle the growth of the small business.

Mr. Chairman, common sense tells Members that it doesn't hurt to have just this one bipartisan effort to get the answer of the economic impact beforehand. Down in Texas we say, close the barn door before the cow gets out, or the cart before the horse, the horse before the cart. We've got all of that. We've got confusion.

I am simply having a simple amendment that would allow the GAO to report on how we can better serve our small businesses and create the jobs that are necessary. I ask my colleagues, including Mr. Smith, to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the ``Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011.'' My amendment would require a GAO study to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect it will have on federal agency rulemaking. In addition, the report must contain information on the impact of repealing the ability of an agency to waive provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act when responding to an emergency.

This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 in such a manner that it would result in significant delays in the agency rule- making processes by mandating multi-agency analyses of both direct and indirect costs for rules proposed or finalized by a single agency.

My amendment simply requires that the Comptroller General, within 2 years after the enactment of the legislation, issue a report to Congress on the cost effectiveness of the changes implemented by this Act.

The report would list all additional costs and resources that each agency will have to expend to carry out this Act and the amendments made by the Act.

It would also show the effect of this Act and its amendments on the efficiency of the rule making process, including the amount of time required to make and implements a new rule.

This study would report on any impact that this Act or its amendments would have on the ability to implement new agencies in the event of an emergency. Lastly, this study would examine the overall compliance of agencies with the Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (RFIA).

By requiring that multiple agencies conduct detailed economic analyses of a rule proposed by a single agency, each agency will have to expend time and resources to uncover the indirect economic effects of the proposed rule. This is unduly burdensome on a process that is already sufficient in length, as rules currently require a 30 day period after publication prior to effectiveness.

There is one overarching problem with H.R. 527. Although it claims to make improvements, one thing it does not do is provide the needed clarification that the GAO has repeatedly pointed out, and that the agencies have asked for.

In the past, there have been GAO reports showing incidents of agency noncompliance with the current regulatory flexibility rules for rule making. The reports cited that this noncompliance is due largely to confusion surrounding the meaning of ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Agencies have expressed the need to better clarification of this clause to aide them in determining when rule making analysis and review is necessary.

Another part of this expanded review and analysis called for in H.R. 527 that concerns me is the potential it has to impede upon emergency rulemaking. Every so often, there are instances when an agency has to implement a new rule or regulation in response to an emergency. Under the current law, there is an exception allowing agencies to bypass the review process in the event of an emergency. The provisions of this bill cloud that exception.

Furthermore, the rule-making process is made more cumbersome and expensive by requiring multi-agency review. If the purported reason for amending the Regulatory Flexibility Act with this bill is to save the American taxpayers money by including provisions requiring analyses of direct and indirect effects of proposed rules, then it should follow that the costs of implementing such provisions should not outweigh the benefits they provide.

My amendment will ensure just that by requiring the Comptroller General to issue a report to Congress that includes (1) the additional costs and resources that each agency must expend to maintain compliance with this Act, (2) an analysis of the effect that this Act has on the efficiency of the rule-making process, and (3) an analysis of the potential difficulties that may arise in an emergency situation in which an agency must implement new rules.

If the process by which government agencies create rules is changed to require the disclosure of all costs associated with a proposed rule, then shouldn't the Act that makes such changes have its own costs to the American taxpayers disclosed? My amendment will ensure that this disclosure is made to the public upon this legislation's enactment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive rule--and

not only restrictive, but a very convoluted rule--and I rise in opposition to the three bills that would be made in order by this rule.

Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the Big 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. Those aren't my words, Madam Speaker. Those are the words of Bruce Bartlett, a Republican who worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul.

Think about what Mr. Bartlett is saying in his last sentence: ``Republicans would rather play political games instead of putting people back to work. They would rather fiddle while Rome burns instead of putting out the fire.'' And look at the Republican track record since the start of the 112th Congress: no jobs bills, not one. But we've found time to debate bills defunding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. There's no extension of the payroll tax cut or unemployment insurance, but we can spend hours debating the need to allow unsafe people the right to carry concealed weapons from State to State. No effort to take away tax breaks for oil companies who continue to make billions of dollars in profits each month, but we can find time to make our air dirtier and our water less safe by dismantling the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

Seriously, Madam Speaker, the agenda of the far right continues to dominate this House leadership, and that agenda is out of touch with the needs of the American people. We have a jobs crisis in this country. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is struggling. Yet the Republicans continue to side with the people who don't need any help. They killed the supercommittee because they would rather protect tax cuts for millionaires instead of dealing with the deficit. They are refusing to take up the extension of the payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year because they don't want their millionaire friends to pay just a little bit more.

Just look at what we're doing this week. We're going to consider anti-regulatory bills that will make our country less safe and our citizens less healthy. We're going to consider a bill that actually promotes putting more corporate money into the political system. And we're going to debate a bill that makes it harder for workers to organize. Not one of these bills will put people back to work. Not one of these bills will help struggling families keep their heat on during the winter. Not one of these bills will help repair our aging infrastructure.

To quote Mr. Bartlett again: ``People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.'' And that's the truth, Madam Speaker. Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer.

The President proposed--and I have cosponsored--the American Jobs Act. It's a proposal that would help put Americans back to work, would extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, would help repair our aging infrastructure, and would provide aid to cities and States so they don't have to lay off more teachers and more police officers and more firefighters.

It's a bill that is paid for. It doesn't add one cent to the deficit. And it's made up of measures that Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. Let me repeat that: what the President has proposed is a series of measures that Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. The idea that a program was good under President Bush but not under President Obama doesn't make much sense to me, but that seems to be the thought process that passes for governing under this Republican leadership.

So where's the Republican plan? They don't have one. It's not enough to cross our fingers and hope that our economy improves. It's not enough to close our eyes and wish that more people would find a job. Actions speak louder than words, and it is clear by the Republican leadership's actions that they don't care about the economy. Either that, or they are making a conscious decision not to act simply for political gain. Either way, Americans are hurting because of their inaction.

Madam Speaker, our economy is not where it needs to be. There are still too many unemployed people in this country. There are still too many people struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their bills and to put food on the table. But this notion that red tape is what's keeping our economy from getting off the ground and that thoughtful regulations are preventing people from getting jobs is just untrue.

We don't need to waste time debating bills that make our air and water dirtier and less safe. We don't need to waste our time with bills defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. We don't need to waste our time debating bills to reaffirm our national motto. What we need to do is to get this economy moving. What we need to do is create jobs.

Republicans have been in charge now for 330 days. That's 330 days without a jobs bill. It's not enough to call something a ``jobs'' bill if it doesn't put someone back to work. No, Madam Speaker, we need a real jobs bill. We need definitive action that shows the American people that we care about their well-being, that we understand what they're going through, and that we're here to help--in short, that we're on their side. The bills we will be considering this week just don't get the job done.

It's been 330 days, and Republicans still don't get it. I can't say that I'm surprised. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want my colleagues to understand that one of the amendments they didn't make in order was the amendment offered by our colleague, Congressman Johnson, which basically stated that if the experts conclude that a rule would result in a net job creation, the rule shouldn't be delayed and blocked by all the stuff that's in this bill because we need jobs right now. It's interesting that that's the one that my Republican friends chose to block because it has to do with jobs.

Another amendment that they blocked was one that I had offered. I've offered it many, many times in the Rules Committee, and that is to basically bring to the floor an amendment that would allow us to vote to strip big oil companies of taxpayer-funded giveaways--subsidies is what I call them. And I've tried to bring it up on the floor a gazillion different times in a gazillion different ways, and I'm always told that there's a germaneness issue. But yet what does the Rules Committee do? Oftentimes, it waives all the rules so that sometimes nongermane amendments can come to the floor.

I mean, when you talk about balance, the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing big oil companies that made over $100 billion in profit last year, that we're going to somehow continue taxpayer subsidies to these big oil companies, yet, when you look at the Republican budget that they passed, they find ways to balance the budget on every single program that impacts middle-income and low-income people in this country.

What they do is they choose to balance the budget by lowering the quality of life and the standard of living for everyday people and for those struggling to get in the middle. There's no balance here. There's no balance here.

And in terms of bipartisanship, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and he gave a speech in which he outlined his jobs bill, which included a number of initiatives, all of which had in the past enjoyed bipartisan support. But I guess because he's the President, he's a Democrat, Republican leadership doesn't want to have those debates here on the floor, give him any victories, because that might not be politically advantageous to them.

Let's be frank about what's going on here. In my opinion, this is about political opportunism. This is about the leadership of this House blocking important legislation to put people back to work just because they can, just because it's been proposed by the President of the United States.

We need to focus on jobs in this Congress. We need to be focused on helping people get back to work. I don't care what part of the country you're from, people are hurting, people are struggling, and they're looking for us to do something, something meaningful, not to bring bills to the floor like this that, in the scheme of things, mean nothing or to have these great debates over reaffirming our national motto or on bills that make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from State to State.

That we're debating those things when there are millions of people that are out of work, I think, is outrageous.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, said that his party likes to pay for things. That statement startled me a little bit because they didn't think it was important to pay for the Bush tax cuts, mostly for the rich, which have now bankrupted us. They didn't think it was important to pay for the Medicare prescription drug bill, which was a lot more expensive than they had promised and was not paid for. They don't think about paying for the two wars that we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We had balanced budgets when Bill Clinton left office. It was after that that everything got out of whack, and it was because of these tax cuts, which were mostly for the wealthy, and it was because of a prescription drug bill and two wars, all of which were not paid for. So I hope my friends on the other side have finally gotten religion on this issue in that it is important to try to pay for things as you go along and to embrace PAYGO as Democrats have done.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

I just want my colleagues to understand that, if we were to extend the payroll tax cut, according to Mark Zandi, who is a Republican economist who advised John McCain in his Presidential campaign, it would create 750,000 jobs. He also says that we're likely to go into a recession if the payroll tax cut expires, if my Republican friends don't allow us to have a vote up or down on it. I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an up-or-down vote on this and so that people will have an opportunity to make their views on this issue known.

The other thing is we've heard all this talk about what the cost of regulation is. Again, some of the numbers that have been touted here I question very seriously. OMB's calculations demonstrate that regulation has a positive net effect on the economy and not by a little. In 2008, the Bush administration's OMB estimated that regulatory costs for major rules were between $46 billion and $54 billion and that the benefits of those regulations were between $122 billion and $656 billion.

So it goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is what we should be doing on this floor today--debating a bill to put people back to work. We should be extending the payroll tax cut. We should also be talking about initiatives that the President put forward, these bipartisan initiatives. We should be doing things that will make a real difference in people's lives.

My friend talks about the American worker. There is no Congress, no Republican leadership in my lifetime that has been more hostile to the American worker than the leadership that runs this House right now, bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor to take away the rights of workers at every single level.

Do you want to know what one of the problems is with jobs moving overseas? It's that some of the incentives in our

tax laws have made it easier and even attractive for companies to pack up and go overseas and hire cheaper labor.

One of the problems with these series of bills that we're dealing with here today is that it will result in a rush to the bottom in terms of regulation--the lowest common denominator in terms of clean water and clean air standards--because, among other things, this legislation says that we should take into consideration the standards in other countries.

So China is going to now set our clean water and our clean air standards? Give me a break. Let's get real. Let's bring something to the floor that will make a difference in the lives of the American people, especially those who are unemployed. Let's bring a real jobs bill to the floor. Let's do something meaningful.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee whose amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which is opposed to this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3010--Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011

(Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 36 cosponsors, Nov. 29, 2011)

The Administration is committed to ensuring that

regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored

to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and

efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty.

Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House

passage of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. The

Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unprecedented

procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them

from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would

also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and

increase costs for businesses, as well as state, tribal, and

local governments, and further impede the implementation of

commonsense protections for the American public.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unnecessary

new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation.

When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, it must

already adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is

implementing. In many cases, the Congress has mandated that

the agency issue the particular rule or regulation, and it

often prescribes the process the agency must follow. Agencies

must also adhere to the robust and well understood procedural

requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and major

rules are subject to the requirements of other Federal

statutes such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. In

addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by

Executive Orders issued and followed by administrations of

both political parties. These require regulatory agencies to

promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination

that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs, to

consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory

flexibility. Lastly, final regulations are subject to review

by the Federal courts to ensure that agencies satisfy the

substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable

statutes and consider input from the relevant stakeholders.

Passage of H.R. 3010 would replace this time-honored

framework with layers of additional procedural requirements

that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to

execute their statutory mandates. It would require cumbersome

``formal'' rulemaking for a new category of rules, for which

agencies would have to conduct quasi-adjudicatory

proceedings. It would impose unnecessary new evidentiary

standards as a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the

regulatory process to unneeded rounds of litigation. Finally,

the Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine the

Executive Branch's ability to adapt regulatory review to

changing circumstances.

In these ways and others, the Regulatory Accountability Act

would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public

with basic protections, and create needless confusion and

delay that would prove disruptive for businesses, as well as

for state, tribal and local governments.

If the President were presented with the Regulatory

Accountability Act, his senior advisors would recommend that

he veto the bill.

Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we should be focusing on today--not guns, not abortion, not reaffirming our national motto-- jobs. We need to put people back to work. But that doesn't seem to be part of the Republican agenda, and it's hurting our country.

At the end of this year, as you have already heard during this debate, the payroll tax cuts signed into law by President Obama will expire. Without action, middle class Americans will see their taxes go up by a thousand dollars next year. Without action, GDP growth will fall by half a percent and will cost the economy 400,000 jobs according to the economic forecasting group Macroeconomic Advisers. Extending this tax cut is not just good for American families, it's good for the American economy. According to Ameriprise Financial, extending the payroll tax cut could add more than 1 million jobs to the economy.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation that we need to be debating, not right-wing, hot-button social issues or bills that, when you add it all up, don't mean anything to anybody in this country.

But where is this extension of the payroll tax? It's not in this rule? It's not in the majority leader's schedule. In fact, the Republicans seem to be ignoring this issue.

It's sad. It's sad that the Republican leadership would rather raise taxes on middle class Americans basically to protect tax breaks of millionaires. If there was a vote right now on a bill that was going to cut one penny, it was going to cost Donald Trump one penny more in taxes, the other side would be overfilled with speakers. But we're talking about middle-income Americans, struggling Americans, that if we don't act by the end of this year they will see a $1,000 increase in their taxes.

Now, we can change all that here today. We can change that here today and actually bring to the floor something that is meaningful. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year. If we don't pass an extension, all working Americans will get a little less in their paychecks beginning in January.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can make sure that working families do not see their payroll taxes go up while we're still struggling to recover from a recession. This is exactly the type of action that people all over the country are hoping this Congress will move on.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to begin our discussion this morning with the reference that Federal regulations impose an annual cost of $1.75 trillion on business. I would like the Members to know that the reference made to this study is the Crain study. I'd like to use the name so that you can track exactly what is being said about it.

The study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool. Who says this? They said it as a preface to the study itself. And for the benefit of the 433 other Members besides myself and the chairman, I am going to put this in the Record and also make it available to all of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.

The Crain study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool, and the Congressional Research Service, our own operation, criticized much of the Crain study's methodology and noted that the authors of the Crain study themselves told the Congressional Research Service that their analysis was not to be a decisionmaking tool for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the right level of regulation. So every time somebody mentions this study again on the floor, I am going to refer them to the Congressional Research study, which has never been disputed or declaimed by anybody.

In no place in any of the reports do we imply that our reports should be used for this purpose--that's the Crain study people themselves. That's not the Congressional Research study; that's the authors. And here is the Congressional Research study that I would like to introduce into the Record at this time.

[From the Congressional Research Service]

Analysis of an Estimate of the Total Costs of Federal Regulations

(By Curtis W. Copeland, Specialist in American National Government,

April 6, 2011)

[CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress--Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, www.crs.gov, R41763]

Summary

Some policy makers have expressed an interest in measuring

total regulatory costs and benefits (e.g., the Congressional

Office of Regulatory Analysis Creation and Sunset and Review

Act of 2011, H.R. 214, 112th Congress), and estimates of

total regulatory costs have been cited in support of

regulatory reform legislation (e.g., H.R. 10, the Regulations

from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, H.R. 10,

112th Congress). However, measuring total costs and benefits

is inherently difficult. This report examines one such study

to illustrate the complexities of this type of analysis.

A September 2010 report prepared by Nicole V. Crain and W.

Mark Crain for the Office of Advocacy within the Small

Business Administration (SBA) stated that the annual cost of

federal regulations was about $1.75 trillion in 2008. This

cost estimate was developed by adding together the estimated

costs of four categories or types of regulation: economic

regulations (estimated at $1.236 trillion); environmental

regulations ($281 billion); tax compliance ($160 billion);

and regulations involving occupational safety and health, and

homeland security ($75 billion). Some commenters have raised

questions about the validity and reliability of this

estimate.

For example, Crain and Crain's estimate for economic

regulations (which comprises more than 70% of the $1.75

trillion estimate) was developed by using an index of

``regulatory quality.'' One of the authors of the regulatory

quality index said that Crain and Crain misinterpreted and

misused the index, resulting in an erroneous and overstated

cost estimate. Other commenters have also raised concerns

about using the index to estimate regulatory costs, and about

the regression analysis that the authors used to produce the

cost estimate. Crain and Crain said that they believe they

interpreted and used the regulatory quality index correctly.

Crain and Crain's estimates for environmental, occupational

safety and health, and homeland security regulations were

developed by blending together academic studies (some of

which are now more than 30 years old) with agencies'

estimates of regulatory costs that were developed before the

rules were issued (some of which are now 20 years old).

Although the agency estimates were typically presented as

low-to-high ranges, Crain and Crain used only the highest

cost estimates in their report. The Office of Management and

Budget has said that estimates of the costs and benefits of

regulations issued more than 10 years earlier are of

``questionable relevance.''

Crain and Crain's estimate for the cost of tax paperwork

was based on data from the Internal Revenue Service and the

Tax Foundation, but OMB data indicate that the number of

hours of tax paperwork may be much higher than Crain and

Crain's estimate. On the other hand, the authors' assumptions

regarding the cost of completing the paperwork may be too

high. A threshold question, however, is whether tax paperwork

should be considered in the same category as regulatory

costs. OMB does not include tax paperwork in its annual

reports to Congress.

Crain and Crain said they did not provide estimates of the

benefits of regulations, even when the information was

readily available, because the SBA Office of Advocacy did not

ask them to do so. OMB's reports to Congress have generally

indicated that regulatory benefits exceed costs. Crain and

Crain said their report was not meant to be a decision-making

tool for lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in

choosing the ``right'' level of regulation. This report will

not be updated.

* * * * *

Policymaking and the Crain and Crain Estimate

As noted at the beginning of this report, Crain and Crain's

estimate that federal regulations cost $1.75 trillion in 2008

has been cited as evidence of the need for regulatory reform

legislation. However, Crain and Crain told CRS that their

report was ``not meant to be a decision-making tool for

lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing

the `right' level of regulation. In no place in any of the

reports do we imply that our reports should be used for this

purpose. (How could we recommend this use when we make no

attempt to estimate the benefits?)'' \103\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ E-mail to the author from Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark

Crain, March 7, 2011. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Crain and Crain suggest, information on regulatory costs

alone, whether for individual rules or for all rules in the

aggregate, provides only one piece of information that

Congress and other policymakers can use in determining how to

proceed. For example, even if all federal regulations did

cost $1.75 trillion in 2008 (which at least some commenters

believe may not be correct), if the monetized benefits of

those regulations were determined to be greater than those

costs, then policymakers may conclude that those costs were

(in the words of Executive Order 12866) ``justified.'' On the

other hand, if the monetized benefits of federal regulations

were estimated to be less. than the estimated costs,

policymakers may reach another conclusion, or may decide to

examine any non-monetized costs and benefits of

those rules. But a valid, reasoned policy decision can only

be made after considering information on both costs and ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

benefits.

The Center for Progressive Reform is another study that notes that the $1.75 trillion cumulative burden cited by the study fails to account for any benefits of the regulation. I am going to, at the appropriate time, introduce that into the Record.

The Congressional Research Service notes that the study's methodology is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs.

So I would urge the Members to be aware of what I am going to do during this debate the next time somebody names this study without naming the name of the study and the fact that it was put together by Mark and Nicole Crain, commonly called the Crain study.

The Congressional Research Service notes that the study's methodology is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs. The study relied on international public opinion polling by the World Bank on how friendly a particular country was to business interests and ignored actual data on costs imposed by the Federal regulation in the United States. The Congressional Research Service concluded that a valid, reasoned policy decision can only be made after considering information on both costs and benefits of regulation.

The next thing I would like to do is examine what seems to be a political or legislative strategy that is being used in this debate. You see, there are three bills that are antiregulatory bills--and there's no question or dispute about that--designed to slow or halt rulemaking and give industry more opportunities to disrupt the rulemaking process of the Federal Government. H.R. 3010, which we are taking up today, is one of them. H.R. 527, which we took up yesterday, is another one of them. H.R. 10, the king of all regulatory antiregulatory bills, is coming up next week, the REINS Act, which, for the first time in American history, determines that the Congress must also approve the rules of all the agencies, of which there are some 40 or 50.

And for the benefit of every Member of the Congress, I am getting together every agency that would now be involved and that would have to have their rules--believe it or not, this is not ``Saturday Night Live''--would come through the Congress. Can you imagine what that would do to our schedule?

These bills are blatantly and unhesitatingly designed to slow down and even halt all Federal rulemaking, thereby threatening public health and safety by undermining the agencies' ability to address a whole range of issues.

What about food-borne illnesses? What about toy safety? What about infant formula safety? What about financial security?

All three antiregulatory bills also give industry more opportunities to disrupt the rulemaking process. The bill under consideration now, for example, requires formal rulemaking and expands opportunities to challenge agency action in court. As if they need any help from the corporate lawyers that are all lined up to do their work at the present moment, but no, we want to give them more opportunities to go in court, as if they can't figure it out for themselves.

H.R. 527 of the previous day does this by expanding the use of small business review panels. The measure coming up next week would require Congress to approve all major rules. Not only do we have to do that, but we have to do it within 70 legislative days before they could take effect, effectively, of course, allowing industry to intervene in Congress to stop a rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the ranking member currently, the gentleman from California, George Miller.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The AFL-CIO has backed up what the ranking member, Mr. Miller, of Education and Labor has said. They warn that H.R. 3010 would upend more than 40 years of labor, health, safety and environmental laws, and threaten new needed protections. It would cripple the regulatory process and make protecting workers and the public secondary to limiting costs and impacts on business and corporations.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, November 28, 2011.

Dear Representative: When the Congress returns from the

Thanksgiving break the House is expected to vote on three

``regulatory reform'' bills--H.R. 10, the Regulations from

the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (the REINS Act), H.R. 3010,

the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the

Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. Each of these bills

would up-end the entire regulatory system making it

impossible for the government to protect workers and the

public from workplace hazards, dirty air and water, unsafe

drugs, tainted food and Wall Street abuses. The AFL-CIO

strongly urges you to oppose each of these bills.

The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA)--H.R. 3010--is a

particularly harmful measure. It amends the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), but it goes far beyond establishing

procedures for rulemaking. The RAA acts as a ``supermandate''

overriding the requirements of landmark legislation such as

the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and

Health Act. The bill would require agencies to adopt the

least costly rule, instead of the most protective rule as is

now required by the OSH Act and MSH Act. It would make

protecting workers and the public secondary to limiting costs

and impacts on businesses and corporations.

The RAA will not improve the regulatory process; it will

cripple it. The bill adds dozens of new analytical,

procedural, and judicial review requirements to the

rulemaking process, which will add years to the process. The

development of major workplace safety rules already takes 6-

10 years; the RAA will further delay these rules and cost

workers their lives.

The RAA substitutes formal rulemaking for the current

procedures for public participation for high impact rules and

for other major rules upon request. These formal rulemaking

procedures will make it more difficult for workers and

members of the public to participate, and give greater access

and influence to business groups that have the resources to

hire lawyers and lobbyists to participate in this complex

process. For agencies that already provide for public

hearings, such as OSHA and MSHA, the bill would substitute

formal rulemaking for the development of all new rules,

overriding the effective public participation processes

conducted by these agencies.

H.R. 3010 would subject all agencies--including independent

agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Consuumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB) to these new analytical and

procedural requirements. It would be much more difficult for

agencies to develop and issue new financial reform rules and

consumer protection rules required under recently enacted

legislation.

The REINS Act (H.R. 10) would radically alter the

regulatory process by requiring Congress to vote to approve

all major rules before they can go into effect. Rules not

affirmatively acted on by both the House and the Senate

within 70 legislative days would die. Under the REINS Act,

politics, not scientific judgment or expertise would dictate

all regulatory actions. Corporate opposition and influence

would swamp the public's interest and block needed

protections.

H.R. 10 is impractical, unworkable and unnecessary.

Congress has neither the time nor expertise to consider and

act on detailed, technical and scientific issues. Moreover,

Congress already has the authority to disapprove rules

through the Congressional Review Act or block their

implementation by withholding funding.

H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act,

expands the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

by covering regulations that may have an indirect effect on

small businesses and adding a host of new analytical

requirements that will make it even more difficult for

agencies to take action to protect workers and the public.

Virtually any action an agency proposes even a guidance

document designed to help a business comply with a rule could

be subject to a lengthy regulatory process. While the bill

purports to be focused on small business, it would cover more

than 99% of all employers, including firms in some industries

with up to 1,500 workers or $35.5 million in annual revenues.

This bill also creates a small business ``czar'' by

increasing the powers of the Chief Counsel of Small Business

Advocacy. This individual would become a super-regulator,

with new powers to review proposed regulations and suggest

alternatives. Agencies would be subject to review by both the

Office of Management and Budget and the Chief Counsel, adding

to regulatory delay.

H.R. 3010, H.R. 10 and H.R. 527 would further tilt the

regulatory process in favor of business groups and others who

want to stop regulations, and make it much more difficult for

the government to protect workers and the public. These are

dangerous proposals that will not create one new job or solve

any of the pressing problems facing our country.

The AFL-CIO strongly opposes H.R. 3010, H.R. 10 and H.R.

527 and urges you to vote against all three bills.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Government Affairs Department.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The distinguished ranking member of Agriculture wasn't here when the ranking member, Mr. Miller of Education and Labor, was here talking about the agricultural problems and the problems that H.R. 3010 presents to us.

What I would like to just ask the gentleman, yesterday the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of both grapes and tomatoes for salmonella contamination. Did the gentleman have some reservation or objection to this regulation that the FDA operated on?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

If you think that this bill should go further, then why would FDA need to have H.R. 3010 be made more likely to kill regulations that control jobs and health?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a ranking subcommittee member in Judiciary.

Would the gentleman yield to me for just a few seconds?

Would the gentleman from California tell me now or at some future time which health regulations he would like to get repealed or withdrawn?

So you don't have any complaint against FDA at the present time?

But you're okay with them?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 527.

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

America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the unemployment rate still at 9 percent. Jobs are the key to economic recovery, and small businesses are the primary job creators in America.

A study for the Small Business Administration found that regulations cost the American economy $1.75 trillion annually, or over $15,000 per household.

Mr. Chairman, while job creators suffer under the weight of these regulations, Federal employees are visibly writing even more to implement the mandates of new laws like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. The same study also found that the cost of regulatory compliance is disproportionately higher for small businesses. This hurts their ability to create jobs for Americans.

Last month a Gallup poll found that small business owners consider ``complying with government regulations'' as the ``most important problem'' they face.

On February 8, 2011, I introduced H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, to provide urgently needed help to small businesses. Mr. Graves and Mr. Coble are original cosponsors along with the bill's 24 additional cosponsors.

This bill primarily reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

It only requires agencies to do what current law and common sense dictate that they should be doing. Current law requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis so agencies will know how a proposed regulation will affect small businesses before it is adopted. But the Government Accountability Office has found in numerous studies that agencies are not always adhering to these laws.

For example, current law allows an agency to avoid preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis if the agency head certifies that the new rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. But these terms are not defined in the law, and agencies routinely take advantage of this and fail to prepare any analysis.

The bill fixes this problem by requiring the Small Business Administration to define these terms uniformly for all agencies. Also, it requires agencies to justify a certification in detail and to give the legal and factual grounds for the certification. And this bill restricts agencies' ability to waive the Regulatory Flexibility Act's requirements.

The legislation also requires agencies to document all economic impacts, direct and indirect, that a new regulation could have on small businesses. Agencies already must account for indirect economic impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. Small businesses deserve the same level of scrutiny.

This bill assures that small businesses will have a voice in the regulatory process. Currently, only three agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau must consult with small business advocacy review panels before issuing new major regulations. Building on this, the bill requires all agencies to use advocacy review panels.

Equally important, this bill strengthens requirements that agencies review and improve existing regulations whenever possible to lower the burden on small business. It enhances the Small Business Administration's ability to comment on and help shape major rules. It assures that the law is uniformly implemented so agencies can not interpret their way out of its requirements. And the bill improves judicial review.

Some critics of regulatory reform may claim that this bill undermines agencies' ability to issue new regulations. On the contrary, the bill only strengthens the existing law with carefully tailored commonsense reforms.

Especially in light of current economic conditions, this bill is a timely and logical step to protect small businesses from overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 recognizes that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators.

The economy is already on shaky footing. It is more important than ever for regulators to look before they leap to impose more regulations. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a former district judge and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close; so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Job creation is the key to economic recovery, and small businesses are America's main job creators. But overregulation kills jobs and is especially burdensome for small businesses. Anyone who doesn't believe that probably hasn't spent much time in the private sector. Even President Obama, who has not spent much time in the private sector, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and recognized that overregulation ``stifles innovation'' and has ``a chilling effect on growth and jobs.''

It has been 15 years since Congress last updated the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. Experience during that time reveals that further reforms are necessary. The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 makes carefully targeted reforms to the current law to ensure that agencies properly analyze how a new regulation will affect small businesses before adopting that regulation. In the current economic climate, with millions of Americans looking for work, we simply cannot afford to overburden small businesses with more wasteful or inefficient regulations.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I look forward to its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.

The amendment aims to require an agency to account for rules implementing the free trade agreements when the agency considers the cumulative impact of a proposed rule. I support free trade because I believe it is in the best interest of American business, workers, and consumers alike.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I may differ on this issue, but in the context of this amendment, that is beside the point. It can't hurt to make sure that agencies consider the impact of rules implementing the free trade agreements in their regulatory cumulative impact calculations. I don't think the analysis will show that free trade destroys American small businesses. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. But that isn't a reason not to do the analysis. We should know how these kinds of regulations contribute to the cumulative regulatory burden on small businesses.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment and hope to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania's support for the bill on final passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I am prepared to close; so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

The bill only requires agencies to do what common sense and current laws dictate they should be doing right now. The Department of Homeland Security is not exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Like other agencies, the Department should analyze how a new regulation will affect small businesses before issuing the regulation. If the Department needs to issue a regulation in a true emergency situation, such as one involving national security, it can already do so under the ``good cause'' exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Administrative Procedure Act. This good cause exception would allow the agency to bypass the analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as well.

As written, the amendment would exempt the Department from H.R. 527 but not from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, itself. The result of this would be two versions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act at play in the Federal Government--one for the Department and one for everyone else.

Small businesses do not need any more confusion and uncertainty when they are trying to participate in the Federal regulatory process.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, even the President and his regulatory czar, Professor Cass Sunstein, admit that over-regulation hampers job creation. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 is based on the fact that regulatory compliance is especially costly for small businesses, which are America's main job creators. In this economy, we have no room for error when it comes to over-regulation.

The bill ensures that all agencies follow the Regulatory Flexibility Act. H.R. 527 does not ask agencies to do anything that they should not be doing already right now.

There is no reason to create the blanket exemptions proposed by this amendment. There are no such exemptions currently in the Regulatory Flexibility Act for the categories of rules described in the amendment. Further, the amendment would create tremendous confusion among agencies and small businesses regarding which version of the law would apply to a future rulemaking. We need less confusion and uncertainty, not more, in the regulatory process.

If the amendment stems from a concern about the ability of agencies to make rules in emergency situations, I would note once again that agencies may avail themselves of the ``good cause'' exception to the notice-and-comment rulemaking process already in the Administrative Procedure Act. If an agency justifiably invokes this exemption, it will not have to conduct the analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to point out that the National Federation of Independent Business actually does support this legislation. I also would like for the record to show that a recent Gallup poll taken on October 24 of this year said that small business owners themselves cite ``complying with government regulations'' as their most important problem. Now, that's why we are here today.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it puts the cart before the horse. The reason we require agencies to conduct regulatory flexibility analysis is so the agencies and the public will know how a new regulation will affect small businesses before the agency issues the regulation.

The amendment would exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act any rule that would result in net job creation. We certainly know that regulations can destroy jobs. Even the administration acknowledges that.

Whether regulations can ever truly create jobs is another question all together. Assuming that a regulation could create jobs, an agency will not know this without analysis first, which is what the bill requires agencies to do.

There is no good reason to transfer this responsibility to conduct this analysis from the agency, themselves, to the Office of Management and Budget, as the amendment proposes.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary and would result in a biased study by the Government Accountability Office.

The study proposed by the amendment focuses excessively on costs to agencies to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and how the bill would affect agencies' abilities to pass new regulations. The study would not focus enough on how the bill would benefit small businesses and lead to better regulations, which is where our focus should be.

It is worthwhile to require agencies to finally comply with the law. That is especially true if it means that agencies will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and free small businesses to create jobs.

In the future, I certainly would like to know whether agencies comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by this bill, or whether they remain disobedient. This amendment, however, favors the idea that the bill places too heavy of a burden on regulators.

Fundamentally, the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses, not on agencies. Job creators, not job regulators, are the key to our economic recovery.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I oppose this amendment because it carves out an exception to the bill for regulations under the Food and Drug Administration.

If agencies were doing the depth of pre-regulatory analysis they are supposed to be doing under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we wouldn't be here today.

Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic recovery. To help small businesses--like minority-owned restaurants, for example--create jobs, we need to reduce, not increase, the regulatory burden on them.

The FDA is not currently exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, so it makes no sense to exempt the FDA from the bill, either.

This amendment also would create confusion within the FDA by exempting only its responsibilities under the Food Safety Modernization Act from this bill. There should not be two versions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in play at the FDA.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.