Directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 73 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 73 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H. Res. 72. It provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate, divided by the committees outlined in H. Res. 72, and provides the minority a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This legislation is simple, direct, and easy to understand. The text of the three-page bill was posted last week on the Rules Committee Web site. This legislation is an attempt and an effort to provide more transparency and accountability in the government regulatory process, something that my colleagues and I have called for numerous times over the last two Congresses.

The legislation before us today calls for 10 House committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effects on destroying jobs and economic growth.

With the current high unemployment rate, it is essential we do everything reasonably possible that we can to look at and to reduce government rules and regulations that impede job creation and economic growth, that discourage innovation, hurt or harm global competitiveness, limit credit, create economic uncertainty, impose unnecessary paperwork and cost on small businesses, and that result in large-scale and often unnecessary unfunded mandates on employers.

That is exactly what this legislation would do, and we are on the floor today to talk about this as an important component of allowing America to get back to work and to highlight these rules and regulations that stifle not only investment but also job creation.

Every single Member of Congress understands and believes that regulations are needed to provide the rules, safety, and structures for this society to function properly. While regulations are important, they can also cross that fine line and can become too burdensome. It is essential to strike a balance to ensure that the imposed rules and regulations do not lead to higher costs and less productive societies.

The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final regulations each year with about 500 to 700 that are reviewed by the White House.

According to a recent report from the Small Business Administration, the total cost of Federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion a year from the U.S. economy; $1.75 trillion is what this burden is on the free enterprise system. Additionally, the study shows that regulatory and paperwork costs were found to be more onerous for smaller firms than their larger counterparts. More specifically, the costs of regulations per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585, a 36 percent difference between the costs incurred per employee by a larger firm.

This is absolutely outrageous. This is outrageous because small business is the backbone and the engine of our economy. It represents 99.7 percent of all employers. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration, have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years while employing over half of all private sector employees. One of the fastest ways to put Americans back to work, Republicans believe, is to limit the regulatory expenses that these small firms have to comply with simply to satisfy Federal Government regulations.

Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. Regulatory burdens are hindering investment and innovation while eroding some of the most basic and fundamental freedoms in America. Congress and this administration must work together to do more than prevent harmful new regulations. They must also review, study, and eliminate unnecessary rules that are already on the books.

On January 18 of last month, President Obama signed an Executive order to provide a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations. In an op-ed placed in the Wall Street Journal last month by the President, he clearly states that ``sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect upon growth and jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, I applaud and I appreciate the President for recognizing this, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand what we are attempting to do today, and that is to support as best as we can not only the ideals that the President talked about but also a focus on these rules and regulations that stifle innovativeness, create costs, and ruin jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, while the President is now taking a step in the right direction when it comes to regulation, in the last fiscal year alone the Obama administration unleashed 43 major new regulations that will cost America more than, new, $28 billion annually. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, from raising the price of cars, where we buy food, where we eat, and every single one of these stands in the way of making the free enterprise more efficient and somehow does not help in creation of jobs.

The President will have to take a step back from some of the major bills that he signed last year, and I believe he can do that by employing the ideas that he had in this op-ed. He can do something about it, and that is join Republicans who today are attempting to work with the President. If the President is serious about reducing regulatory burdens impacting every American, we can do this job together. Fifteen of the 42 regulations proposed last year were from the Frank-Dodd financial regulatory bill. Another five stemmed from the ObamaCare bill, and 10 others come from the Environmental Protection Agency, or what is known as the EPA, including the first mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

The annual compliance costs constitute only a part of the economic burden of regulations on business. Many of these new rules curtail the purchase of new equipment, conversions of industrial practices, and are about revising data collection and reporting procedures. One example is the new restriction on short sales from the Frank-Dodd bill that requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to make modifications to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms for gathering and managing this information that will cost over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, that defies balance and I think ultimate accountability of what the regulations should be about.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to direct our committees to take the first step in reining in Big Government, reducing our deficit, and encouraging job growth and economic prosperity. This simple bill is three pages long, and it shines the light on the regulatory process and provides the necessary transparency and accountability on Federal agencies that has been lacking for years.

My Republican colleagues and I remain committed to putting America back to work through creation of new jobs. This legislation is a way to be a part of that good start. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend the gentleman from Florida. I would like to state that the bills we have done in the Rules Committee during these 12 bills have been about original jurisdiction by the Rules Committee, which is what this bill is. This bill is a jurisdictional issue where the Rules Committee, through the legislation that my name sits on as the chief sponsor, is directing other committees to have hearings, to be part of an open process, to do the things that will be necessary not only for minority participation but any Member who chooses in these committees to come and have their voices heard, for hearings to be held, for thoughtful people across this country to come and provide us information about the way they see the regulatory burdens that are being placed upon them. If someone thinks that what we are doing today is all about trying to stifle regular order, it's completely the opposite. Nine-and-a-half hours of debate, which is unheard of for a three-page bill, is all about regular order and is exactly what I've been arguing for for years. That's what the Republicans are delivering today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Notwithstanding that the gentleman brought up some good ideas about job creation, I would like to just put it into some bit of context. Today what we are trying to do is to gather steam behind rules and regulations that stifle the ability for the free enterprise system to employ people. But in the larger scheme of things, our friends on the other side are upset because what we as Republicans are going to do is to find a way to live up to our campaign promises to cut spending during the year by $100 billion.

Now some people say, oh, that's not enough amount, or it's too big of an amount because it will mean all these draconian cuts across the government. Well, I would remind this House that $100 billion is a small part of the $3,000 billion spending plan that the Congress has already given to government--$3,000 billion--and what we are talking about not just today and not just over the past few weeks but taking $100 billion and trying to take that as a burden off the American people. The reason why is because 30 percent of all government spending today or more ends up as debt, meaning that we have to borrow it from somebody else.

``But this is so important, we've got to make sure we do it.'' Well, Republicans disagree. We think not only a review of regulatory process but a review of spending is important in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I refer to what might be a sheet of paper that was in print described as Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations. Within this paper, there is a paragraph, a short paragraph that I would like to read which perhaps embodies exactly why we are here today:

``Business leaders say government regulations, including those being written for health care overall and financial reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high unemployment.''

In fact, the Department of Treasury describes where we are as chronic unemployment for today and our immediate past for as far as the eye can see. Last year at some point even the longest projection by this government showed no net new job creation. That is what Republicans have inherited. We intend to be serious about what we're doing, and we intend to make sure that the American people see this for what it is, and that is an opportunity by Congress to work on the issues that they're demanding.

[From FoxBusiness.com, Jan. 18, 2011]

Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he would order a

government-wide review of regulations with the goal of

eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the U.S.

economy less competitive.

In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Obama said

some government regulations have placed ``unreasonable

burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and

have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.''

He said he would require that in the future government

agencies ``ensure that regulations protect our safety, health

and environment while promoting economic growth.''

The president has recently ratcheted up efforts to soothe

relations with the business community, after alienating

corporate America through rhetorical attacks against Wall

Street and an agenda heavy on regulation.

Business leaders say government regulations, including

those being written for the healthcare overall and financial

reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high

unemployment.

``It's a review that will help bring order to regulations

that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result

of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both

parties and the influence of special interests in Washington

over decades,'' Obama wrote.

Noting that small businesses create most new jobs in the

economy, he said he would direct the government to make a

greater effort to reduce the burden regulations place on

them.

While vowing to eliminate rules that are ``not worth the

cost, or that are just plain dumb,'' the president said his

administration wouldn't shy away from writing new rules to

address obvious gaps in government oversight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I will tell you that he is so pleased that we have not only this bill that has been brought to the floor, but he is so pleased that we are taking the time to speak about the facts of the case. And one fact is that the first bill that we took up was the bill to repeal ObamaCare. It had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. It had everything to do with a bill which has caused an amazing number of regulations.

And I would like to quote, if I can, a fact that, since the passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is known as ObamaCare, has added 6,123 pages of regulations, and the Federal Register has printed those just over the last 9 months. Secondly, according to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually, which is nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected last year. That means that the ability for a person to have to fill out all of their paperwork, the cost of that is twice what we even collected in taxes. There is a balance here that's been overrun.

House Republicans: Identifying and Removing Onerous Job-Destroying

Regulations

This week, House Republicans are bringing a resolution to

the floor directing the committees to inventory and review

federal agency rules and regulations that may unfairly harm

the ability to create jobs and grow the economy.

While the nation suffers from 21 straight months of

unemployment at 9 percent or higher, President Obama and

congressional Democrats have doubled down on their strategy

to burden job creators with more government red tape.

With the U.S. economy struggling and American families hard

pressed to pay their bills and put food on the table, the

costs of federal regulations have never been more

significant. The fact is that federal regulations increase

the cost of doing business and destroy jobs.

Undue and archaic government red tape takes money out of

the hands of families and businesses. Agencies should not be

authorized to heap billions in new added costs on the economy

without reducing another burden elsewhere.

Job-Crushing Regulations--By the Numbers

During the Democrats' leadership of Congress, unemployment

skyrocketed from 4.6 percent to 9 percent as the economy has

lost more than 6.8 million jobs.

With 243 expected rulemakings from the Democrats' permanent

bailout of Wall Street law, and the inestimable number of

regulations to come from ObamaCare's government takeover of

healthcare, the President's newfound concern for the

regulatory burdens facing employers does not match his

actions over the past two years.

The Obama administration has not shied away from flexing

its regulatory muscle since taking office. A recent study by

the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major

regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total

economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at

least 1981.

Since passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) has added 6.123 pages of

regulations and Federal Register notices in just its first

nine months.

According to a September 2010 report from the Small

Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to

$1.75 trillion annually, nearly twice as much as all

individual income taxes collected last year.

Who Is Paying for this Reeulatory Burden? America's Small Businesses

and American Workers

The cost of regulations is felt even harder by America's

small business owners, the engine of our nation's economy.

According to the Small Business Administration, the average

small business with less than 20 employees faces a cost of

$10,585 in federal regulations each year per worker they

employ.

Businesses with fewer than 20 employees spend on average 36

percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with

federal regulations. These small employers represent 99.7

percent of all businesses and have created 64 percent of all

new jobs over the past 15 years.

The cost of federal regulations to small businesses must

either be passed on to the consumer or workers, either in the

form of lower wages or a shortage of jobs that would have

been otherwise paid for with money spent complying with

federal regulations. Imagine if small businesses could put

the $10,000 they spend on federal regulations directly back

into new jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) coming down to the floor. I would like to let him know that we are doing 9\1/2\ hours of debate, and at the end there will be an opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions that has been lacking for the previous 4 years by my colleagues on the other side, that they extended to us. So you will have every single opportunity, if you want, just to use your brainpower and put together that great jobs bill that you want to talk about.

But I would say to the gentleman, we have chosen to talk about the things which stifle jobs, and we believe that as we talk about these that a lot of the American people will get it. For instance, if you lived out in the country--I will just bring up one example.

The EPA has issued a draft policy doubling the stringency of the standard by which dust is regulated--dust. Now, the Speaker would understand dust because he is from a rural State. I understand dust from some perspective, being from Texas. But the EPA regulates dust, and they are going to issue a draft policy--or already did--that doubles the stringency of the standard. Many farming activities kick up dust: tilling the field, operating a feed lot, driving farm vehicles, even dusty roads.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

I continue to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman engaging me. I would also make my point that the economic impact of the regulation of dust that it will have on farmers, that it will have on people who live in rural areas, is enormous. And this is part of that overall cost. It's not a hidden cost; it's a real cost that makes us unproductive and costs consumers a lot of money. And this is the kind of discussion we're going to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to be here today on this important bill. What I want to say to you is continually we need to make the point that this bill is all about referring to committees the opportunity for them to look at onerous rules and regulations.

I would like to bring up just one more burdensome regulation. Milk contains animal fat, and the EPA has suggested that milk storage could be regulated under the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks. It is estimated that it would cost U.S. dairy farmers thousands of dollars to come into compliance with such a regulation that would be exactly the same as large oil tanks. The EPA, only after congressional pressure, has signaled that it would finalize an exemption for milk. However, it has yet to do so and continues to drag its feet. Meanwhile, farmers are having to face what is a burdensome regulation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Big Government is still alive and well on the floor today. Big Government is going to spend people's money from back home. Spending, spending, spending--all about the government.

Well, that's why the Republican Party is the majority party on the floor of the House of Representatives now, because the American people saw the effects of huge government, bigger government, and rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, you heard me earlier say that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to putting Americans back to work. We believe that what happens in Washington can aid and help the free enterprise system by telling the story, putting the spotlight, showing the light of day on the rules and regulations that are costing business $1.7 trillion a year, which takes resources away from the activities that they would have of job creation and keeping our job growth, innovation, and our economy stable.

While small businesses are getting hit harder than any other firms in the United States, now is the time to provide that relief to these businesses so that they can reinvest in themselves, create jobs, and level out the economy. This Republican Congress remains committed to scaling back some of the 43 major regulations imposed in the last year by the Obama administration that would add $28 billion annually.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious to me that we must do better.

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

An Amendment to H. Res. 73 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the

Build America Bonds program. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority

Leader or their respective designees. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-

minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2--of this

resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the

Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

110th and 111th Congresses.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 73, the rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 72, which directs certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The resolution isn't objectionable in and of itself. We all agree that regulations that do more harm than good should be eliminated. The President has said that, Democrats have said that, and Republicans have said that. And the rules of the House already require committees to carry out this sort of oversight. So I question, Mr. Speaker, why my friends on the other side of the aisle insist on spending 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution that is entirely redundant. We're committing the same offense that Republicans claimed to abhor about government: wasting time, effort, and taxpayer dollars.

Devoting 9\1/2\ hours to this exercise is squandering yet another opportunity. We could be using this time to pass legislation that will create and retain jobs right here in this country instead of telling the committees of jurisdiction to continue to do what they are already mandated to do. What's next, Mr. Speaker? Nine-and-a-half hours of debate instructing the House to close for Thanksgiving or Christmas?

Republicans marched into the majority over a month ago vowing a laser-like focus on job creation, and they've done nothing towards that end since. Today's debate is yet another reminder that Republicans care more about their lockstep, anti-government ideology than they do about getting down to the business of improving the lives of hardworking Americans.

Democrats did offer to improve today's rule by adding language instructing the committees to make job creation legislation their highest priority and for such legislation to be considered under an open amendment process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Democrats made the effort to work in agreement with Republicans on this matter and to ensure that this body emphasizes legislation to create jobs and improve the American economy, but the Republicans said ``no.'' They said ``no'' to working with Democrats. They said ``no'' to prioritizing job creation. They said ``no'' to fulfilling their promise for an open and transparent legislative process.

My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) declared at the end of last year that, and I quote him, ``Open rules will make a triumphant return to the House floor,'' unquote, and that all Members, and I quote him again, ``will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislative process.''

The House has been under Republican control for 5 weeks. In that time, we have voted on 11 bills. None of those bills went through their respective committees and none of those bills had actual open rules. One had a modified open rule. That's not very triumphant in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

It is already the second month of this Congress and Republicans are still dodging a real debate on real legislation that will create real jobs and improve the American economy. And Republicans are still refusing to address exactly what these cuts will mean to the lives of the American people. Which regulations do Republicans propose to get rid of? The ones for clean drinking water? The ones preventing financial abuse on Wall Street? I was here, Mr. Speaker, along with my friend on the other side of the aisle when Republicans assumed control and that we did not provide the necessary regulation at the Securities and Exchange Commission. I for one thought when a friend of ours who served with us went to be the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission that finally we would get some regulations there. We did not get regulations. What we got--and there's no secret about this, no finger to point at anybody--the simple fact of the matter is by not having adequate regulation of Wall Street, this country came to the brink of disaster in November of '08. Do they want to get rid of the ones that protect against massive oil spills and mine collapses?

So far this year, Republicans have moved to repeal health care, they've moved to restrict a woman's right to choose, and they've moved drastically to cut spending for a huge range of essential government services that ensure public safety, economic opportunity and national security. It seems the Republicans want to use their majority to settle old scores. But I don't think that's what the American people have in mind as a national priority.

Republicans seem to think that if we spend 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution

that simply remarks on what House committees are already doing, they will suffice to convince the American people that Republicans have a plan for improving the economy.

It is clear that this resolution is really about demonizing Federal regulations. But the Republicans ignore the benefits of regulations, the importance of protecting existing jobs, and the necessity of leveling the playing field to ensure economic growth and prosperity for all Americans. If our constituents had the choice of whether to spend this time practicing our rhetorical skills or actually passing meaningful legislation that creates more jobs, I believe they would vote for jobs. Let's get back to what the American people need from us, and that is to improve the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides the remaining amount of time?

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rules to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.

To explain that further and to explicate as she so desires, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend, Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee, the chairman and two other Members cited repeatedly the January 18 article offered by President Obama that appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Interestingly, they leave out one section of what the President did, in fact, say. They do say, and I agree that he said in the article, ``Sometimes those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' That is where they stop. But the President in that article goes on: ``At other times, we fail to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences.''

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, earlier I began by saying what a lack of regulation caused at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The President, in The Wall Street Journal article, says, ``Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis, from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression.''

Now, that began before Barack Obama was President of the United States. Most of us, especially those of us on the floor that are senior Members, were here in November when Secretary Paulson came here and cited with 3\1/2\ pages in his hands that the whole financial system of this country was about to collapse; and I, along with countless others, thought that that was the case, and we worked in a bipartisan fashion, I might add, to do what we could to shore it up.

``Over the past 2 years,'' the President said, ``the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance, and today I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.''

Then what else do we need? Here is what we did one month ago, just one month ago. We approved the rules under which committees must, and I repeat, one, lay out a written plan for overseeing Federal regulations; and, two, conduct oversight through hearings and investigations and provide the American people a written report on the results of that oversight twice a year.

The rules even specifically tell committees to review, and I am quoting from the rules that we passed for the House of Representatives for the 112th Congress, they tell the committees ``to review specific problems with Federal Rules, regulations, statutes and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary or nonsensical, or that impose severe financial burdens on individuals.''

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange, then, that we would come here today and say that we are doing something constructive and substantive for the membership. My friend Mr. Sessions said earlier that we're going to give every Member of the House of Representatives who so chooses during that 9\1/2\ hours an opportunity to speak out on the regulations and to have what they would offer to the committees for regulation oversight. But what he fails to say is that we're proceeding under a closed rule.

Now, it isn't that the American public always understands this Washington inside-baseball closed rule, open rule, modified rule. He was going to fix it, he says, by offering the Democrats a motion to recommit, as if that would then provide all the substantive input that Members could have. One of the reasons we have a Rules Committee is so that Members of the House of Representatives can come to the Rules Committee to offer amendments to proposals. The proposal that we are here on today is regulatory reform. Not one amendment was permitted nor will be permitted under this rule. We can come down here and talk all we want, but it won't change anything substantively about this rule. As I have indicated, Democrats are not opposed to conducting proper oversight. If there are superfluous or excessive regulations clearly of no benefit to the American people, then we ought to take a hard look at how best to eliminate them.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Sessions, as a matter of comity, it was pointed out to me by the chairman that I could have asked him. I was of the opinion that the Speaker would give the direction you did, and therefore I apologize to Mr. Sessions for that.

But Democrats now stand for the wholesale undertaking of what is necessary to provide essential public safety measures and crucial economic benefits. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that prevent polluters from dumping toxic waste into drinking water resources. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that prevent Wall Street greed from forcing people out of their homes. And Democrats will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules which ensure that Americans can purchase food at the grocery store without worrying about getting life-threatening illnesses.

While we won't object to Republicans wanting to debate the efficiency of Federal regulations, we do object to spending 9\1/2\ hours debating what everyone has already agreed to. House committees are already required to conduct oversight. They already examine Federal regulations. And they already promulgate legislation making changes to Federal law. Wasting this body's time debating this matter only serves to underscore that Republicans still have no plan for improving the economy and no interest, it does appear, in prioritizing legislation that will create jobs and best serve the American people.

In the 9\1/2\ hours this body will debate today and tomorrow this entirely unnecessary, inconsequential resolution, not a single regulation will be improved, not a single law will be changed, and not a single job will be created. The American people watching know that this is simply a waste of time. They know it is nothing but empty rhetoric. And they know that a 9\1/2\-hour ideological rant is no replacement for the job-creating measures our Nation so desperately needs.

If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the pending resolution, particularly with respect to the effect on jobs and the economy.

My colleagues on the other side are going to oppose this effort, claiming we are seeking to strip basic public health and safety protections. No one is in favor of hurting those in those areas, but that is not the purpose of us being here today.

We have had numerous hearings over the last couple of days on rules and regulations and how they hurt job creation. This gives power back to the committees to then do that, fine-tooth comb through rules and regulations and address what the President talked about in his State of the Union; where there are rules and regulations that don't make sense, we need to eliminate them, because we need to focus on job creation. We can't regulate existing businesses into the ground on the hope that better ones will come later. We must protect the jobs currently we have and open the doors for new businesses as well.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, I am particularly interested in the activities of the EPA. I am going to talk about three examples, one we heard yesterday in testimony.

United States Steel came before us and said imagine a regulation where we have to decrease the heat in the preparation of steel to comply with NOX, but as we move to EPA rules and regulations on greenhouse gasses we actually have to use the same process and heat

that process up. So U.S. Steel will be caught in a catch-22. Under one reg, they have to keep the heat low to comply with nitrous oxide regulations; on the other hand, in the same process, they have to heat it up to meet the greenhouse gas rules.

Now, what is a steel company going to do? They are going to move to China. You can't develop rules and regulations that cannot be complied with by existing known technologies, and that was just a perfect example.

Another one that I find, and a lot of these things not only hurt jobs, but they are going to hurt the environment. The example is the redefinition of used oil as a solid waste. Now, this sounds like, what are they talking about?

Many of us, and there are times when many of us, when we were young, we changed our own oil. We would get underneath the car, pull the plug and drain the oil. Fortunately, in today's world, you can take it to an auto repair shop, you can take it to maybe a parts store, and you can then recycle that used oil.

Not if the EPA has its say, because what they do in the redefinition of this is the only way you can dispose of this off-brand, off-used oil is to burn it. Oh, that is real great for the environment, burning the used oil. And what will the home do-it-yourselfer do? They are probably going to pour it on the ground. So EPA regs not only hurt job creation, but they have a great effect in hurting and harming the economy.

The next one, one of the issues we will address next week in the committee is coal ash byproducts. This is another one that is curious in which the EPA is trying to meddle in. Despite EPA's own testing and admittance that these coal byproducts do not qualify as hazardous waste based on their toxicity, EPA wants to label them as toxic material.

What does that mean? Any byproducts used will then be required to be disposed of in special landfills or dumps and not recycled. Coal ash can't go into concrete. Gypsum can't go into wallboard. Wallboard that has to be disposed of or you are going to remodel your home, what happens to that wallboard? The cost of doing business increases, and these all are things that hurt job creation.

We applaud President Obama in his State of the Union when he says there's too many regulations and we need to ease the regulatory burden. That's the importance of what we're doing here--one of the few things we agree on with the administration. And this will allow us committee by committee to go through the process and identify those hindrances and start to move legislation to address those.

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

I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Joe Pitts.

It is business that creates jobs. Easing the regulatory burden helps create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Bono Mack, who is the chairman of the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Chairman Stearns.

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

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

We don't care which administration created all these burdensome regulations. If they do not protect public health and harm job creation, we want to review them. I don't see what's the big damage of that, and every time you hear the word ``incentives'' you know what that means? Tax dollars. That means borrowing money from China to incentivize who knows what.

We want capital formation through the private sector to create jobs. The government can no longer do that.

I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who is the vice chairman of my subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues, we'll have a chance next week to vote on greenhouse gas regulations, which will kill jobs. Those bills are coming.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Ohio who is from the largest manufacturing district in the country, Mr. Latta.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the vice chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston (Mr. Olson) the former Navy fighter pilot.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to one of our new colleagues from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

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

I'm glad my colleague talked about the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was passed in the 1990s, and it identified six criteria pollutants. And we know a lot of what those are--nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter. Carbon dioxide was never identified in the law. In fact, Chairman Emeritus Dingell said numerous times the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate carbon.

Even as the EPA now moves in the direction of climate, they've changed the rules. They are not complying with the Clean Air Act because of their tailoring rule, thus picking winners over losers.

If we go down the road to regulate carbon, we raise the cost of creating jobs. Jobs move overseas. That's what the Waxman-Markey debate was last year. That's why the majority last year could not pass a bill to regulate carbon, because of the impact on jobs.

So why are we here?

We're not trying to end regulation. We're trying to make sure that there's an economic analysis on what occurs on jobs. What's the job impact?

Administrator Jackson, throughout the entire process, could not tell us. In fact, they only do it in silos and never the cumulative effect of what are the jobs lost based upon regulation.

What is the compliance cost?

We ought to know that because the more there is a requirement to comply with the rules and regulations when we're competing against China, who has no rules and regulations, we are less competitive, we lose jobs.

Is it so harmful to ask where's the benefit, a cost-benefit analysis of all these regulations?

So we'll get a chance. I know I was asked by the other side earlier in the debate, where is the legislation to affect rules and regulations that will create jobs?

Well, it's coming next week, and it's the greenhouse gas rules and regulations, which does not affect the Clean Air Act, which does not change, after all their portrayals on dirty air, it does

not affect a single criteria pollutant in the Clean Air Act.

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

I was expecting a few Members, but I don't expect them to come now.

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a great debate. And Diana DeGette is a great friend of mine. We've served here in the Chamber for a long time. And I think it's good for the public to understand that we can have strong disagreements without being disagreeable. And I'm probably one of the strongest, outspoken loudmouths on the committee. And I have been recently. But I think it's also good to know that we can continue, even on very controversial issues on life. She has very strong opinions, and I have very strong opinions. But Congresswoman DeGette has my respect, and she's a friend.

During last fall, businesses kept coming to me and saying, all we want to be is left alone. That's really part of this debate.

The Democrat majority, in fact, in the last 2 years, they had the whole shooting match. These are the same debates you had about us. You could have addressed the regulatory burdens on business, but you didn't. You had the House, you had the Senate, you had the Presidency. Not one bill to ease the regulatory burden.

So now the pendulum has shifted. We're into job creation. One of the burdens of job creation is excessive regulation. Businesses want to be left alone. There's too much uncertainty.

What have we done to bring to the floor to help provide certainty? We voted to repeal the health care law. If you want to talk to businesses, both large and small, one of the biggest things that has created uncertainty is Obamacare. And that was on the floor.

The second thing that created the most uncertainty is climate and a carbon tax, raising the cost. That's going to come to the floor.

So here are two major provisions passed in this Chamber, hurt jobs, we get a chance to address on the floor. And so this is an important exercise. We're going to be doing it in the committee. We've had four hearings in the committee on issues all around the regulatory burdens.

I gave you the example of U.S. Steel. Here they've got a NOX requirement so they keep the burners on low. But a carbon requirement would require that the burners are on high. How do they comply? I'll tell you how they comply. They move the steel mill to a country that does not have those regulations. Or we import it.

Should we look at these and address these? The answer is yes.

I see my colleague from Louisiana has shown up. If my colleague from Colorado doesn't mind, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in calling up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds, later.

Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to watch this debate because what you see here is that we are talking about jobs. The American people want us to create jobs now. And what you see on the floor of the House now today and tomorrow is a make-work project.

The Republicans have no job initiatives; so they need to fill time, and they're filling time with a resolution that we all recognize the committees have the jurisdiction to do, and some of the committees already have.

We should subject every dollar, every initiative to the harshest scrutiny to make sure it fills its purpose, that we bring common sense to what we are doing. But we don't need to spend 10 hours on the floor of the House because we have no job proposal on the side of the Republicans and make it look as if this is a job creation bill.

This is a make-work product for Republicans who are without an agenda for job creation. However, we hope they will join us in renewing the Build America Bonds to build America to create jobs now.

In every district nationwide, our constituents, many of them struggling without a paycheck, tell the same story. They're waiting for us to create jobs, to focus on jobs and economic growth before we do anything else. Today I rise to echo their call and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of America's families and put people back to work.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama encouraged us to do what it takes to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. In that statement he continued his job-creating initiative. From day one, President Obama has been a job creator. We had to dig our way out of a deep recession, but, nonetheless, the Recovery Act created or saved over 3 million jobs, and other initiatives like Cash for Clunkers and other initiatives that this Congress took, working with President Obama, spared us an even worse unemployment rate.

Now, that isn't good enough if you don't have a job. And it isn't good enough for us who are responsible for creating them. And that is why the effort that the President started at the beginning of his administration, reiterated in his State of the Union address, starts with creating more jobs here at home, and in this Congress there should be no higher priority. Yet, the Republican leadership has not met that challenge.

Since taking charge of the House more than 1 month ago, they have yet to propose a single jobs bill. They have yet to unveil a concrete plan, and Americans are still waiting.

This week is no different. Instead of focusing on job creation, this Congress is spending 10 hours on the floor, a filler, as concrete evidence of the fact that they have nothing else to fill the time with, directing our committees to conduct oversight, a very appropriate instruction. The committees are already doing that.

These committees don't need a partisan resolution in order to start their work, and this House does not need a long floor debate that only diverts us from our purpose, which is to create jobs.

Instead, we should focus on investments that work, that create jobs, that build America and grow our economy. And that is why we are proudly putting forth the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act. This legislation would leverage public dollars probably 40 to 1: For every public dollar spent, $40 of investment to strengthen the private sector and spur job creation at

home by supporting projects to rebuild schools and transit projects.

Last week we had a hearing on this subject following the President's State of the Union address and his pronouncements about innovation, education, infrastructure, et cetera. We had a hearing on infrastructure to which the Build America Bonds directly relates. A representative of the Society of Civil Engineers told us that our country has trillions of dollars of deficits; that our roads and bridges get D's and C minuses in terms of their safety and effectiveness.

In addition, our water projects, some of them are ancient, made of brick and wood, and that's a health problem.

In terms of innovation for the future, our investments in infrastructure such as broadband are also essential to the growth and creation of jobs in our country. And so there's every reason for us to do this in the best of times. But we're not in the best of times. And so in this not good time, as far as jobs are concerned, it's absolutely essential that we make a decision as a Nation to put forth the greatest social initiative ever, job creation.

The initiative to Build America Bonds and leverage dollars for encouraging the private sector has the support of mayors, governors, and local businesses. It is good for taxpayers, using Federal investments, to unleash billions from private businesses in our neighborhoods. That's why Governor Martin O'Malley came to testify for this, and Mayor Nutter of Pennsylvania, giving us their direct experience on what a difference the Build America Bonds initiative, which was in the Recovery Act, makes, and which needs to be renewed.

Most significantly, Build America Bonds keeps our promise to stay focused on jobs, and it helps put Americans back to work.

Both parties agree that we must stay focused on reducing our deficit, and that's exactly what Build America Bonds do. You cannot achieve the goal of deficit reduction unless you invest in growth and job creation. Vigorous oversight is critical to that effort, and Democrats remain committed to doing our part. We are ready to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, and obsolescence in our budget, and we would subject every dollar, taxpayer dollar, to the harshest scrutiny.

We are prepared to make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order, but we will not sacrifice key investments that are helping our economy grow, our small businesses expand. And we need to make more investments in small business, not less, and help our workers find jobs.

We said from the beginning of this Congress Democrats will measure every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. The resolution before us today does none of the above.

I think it's interesting just to make a contrast between the first month of this Republican majority and our first days here in the Congress. Most of what we proposed is along the line, some of it signed by President Bush in a bipartisan way.

H.R. 1 enacts the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This is 2007. The 9/11 Commission recommendations had not been enacted by the Republican Congress. We know our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. H.R. 1, now the law of the land.

Raise the minimum wage. Economic fairness. It hadn't been raised in over a decade of Republican rule, and we raised the minimum wage and it became the law. Making college more affordable, which is now the law of the land. We also had the Energy Independence Act as part of our Six for 06, much of which is signed into law by President Bush at the end of that Congress and his term.

A couple initiatives did not become law. One of them was to remove the subsidies we give to Big Oil to give them an incentive to drill. Big Oil, which has made $1 trillion in profit over the last 10 years, does not need billions of dollars in taxpayer money to have an incentive to drill for oil.

And so on this side, H.R. 1, instead of enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, lowering the minimum wage, making us more energy independent, making college more affordable, H.R. 1: repeal the health care bill. No prospect of success in doing that, no hearings leading up to it; but, nonetheless, a filler for the floor, red meat for those of the health insurance industry, which opposes giving leverage to America's patients and consumers by saying that they will not be deterred from having coverage because they have a preexisting medical condition, or keeping kids on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old. That's what they wanted to repeal. Again, red meat for the industry, for the special interests, no jobs for the American people.

In the weeks ahead, we must renew our focus on job creation. Let's vote on bills that grow our economy through innovation, public-private partnerships, and tackle unemployment head on. Together, we can help Americans create jobs, rebuilding America in a very green way; and the technologies we will develop will make us and keep us number one, investing in transportation and manufacturing and clean energy and new technologies and industries and in small businesses.

As my colleague Mr. Hoyer reminds us every minute: If we make it in America, America's families can make it in America. Let's set our path on doing that, instead of frivolously using 10 hours that are unnecessary, but they are for only one purpose: you have nothing else to offer.

Today, we can keep our recovery on track and put Americans to work. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, not that we don't think we should subject regulation to scrutiny, but because we think we shouldn't waste the public's time on this when it's already being done in committee and we should be having a debate, a lively debate, on what the best approach is to create jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit, and strengthen the middle class.

I thank the gentleman for the generous grant of time.

So here we are trying to fill up space while America is in crisis. Now, why do I say that? One of the most important and ongoing obligations of the United States Congress is oversight. We don't need to pass a meaningless hortatory resolution to tell the committees to do oversight. I've observed a number of the Republican-led committees are already vigorously engaged in oversight. I held dozens of hearings in oversight of the bureaucracy and programs when I chaired the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. That's something we have not done enough of and we should do more of. But spending 10 hours on the floor instead of a few hours marking up some bills that could create jobs in America is a waste of time and meaningless.

We had two commissions that were named when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in the Bush era. Both of those commissions, Republican-led, Republican-authorized commissions, came to the same conclusion: We are dramatically underinvesting in our Nation's infrastructure. We are becoming Third World: 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System need substantial repair or replacement; 40 percent of the pavement on the National Highway System fair or poor, causing blowouts, axles broken, accidents. It's a mess. Talk to anybody. A $60 billion backlog on capital investment in our transit systems. And you know what? When we make these investments, there's a great thing about it. We have strict buy America requirements--buy America requirements I intended to make more strict, and I hope the Republicans will now that they're in charge, when we reauthorize the Surface Transportation Bill.

You get a phenomenal multiplier of jobs out of those investments. Instead of the stupid stimulus bill we passed, if we had taken one- fifth of the money that went into that stimulus bill and we had invested it in surface transportation in this country, we could have created another couple of million jobs a year; because they aren't just jobs of people out there building the bridges and the highways and those sorts of things; they're the people that make the things that we use to build the bridges and highways--the steel industry. They're the people who make the tires for the buses or the engines for the buses or the streetcars that we now make in Oregon again, made in America for the first time in 70 years. A huge multiplier effect. Inadequate.

So what they said is, the amount of money we're currently investing won't even keep the Eisenhower-era system up. Now the Republicans are refusing to look at enhanced investment in transportation infrastructure, and we haven't even begun a discussion of authorizing that legislation.

As for the Federal Aviation Administration, we are wasting billions of gallons of fuel and people's time in the air because we don't have an adequate aviation system in terms of air traffic control and the tools that our controllers need. They're focused on the controllers: Oh, those controllers, they just earn too much money.

They're working with 1950's equipment. You can't get vacuum tubes anymore.

Let's focus on the things people need in order to do the jobs more efficiently, to get our planes where they're going as safely as we do today but more efficiently. Let's stop the congestion in the skies. Allow our airports to expand. Get the jobs out of construction. Let's talk about those things.

Today, the Democrats introduced a bill, our first major bill, H.R. 11, to authorize more Buy America Bonds. Now, this doesn't cost the Federal Government anything in the end. What we are trying to do is help the local jurisdictions, the States, and others who are strapped now--their bonding authority is either tapped out or they don't have good credit because of other problems--to do needed projects and give it to them at interest rates they can afford. Yeah, there's a little subsidy there in the interest rate--but guess what? With the jobs we generate, we're going to get more than that back in the taxes.

The best way we can deal with the deficit in this country is to put Americans back to work. Thirty to 40 percent of our deficit could be dealt with if we had full employment and reasonable rates of taxation like in the Clinton era. But no. The Republicans want to sit here and pretend they really care about these things.

We're going to get rid of those job-killing regulations and we'll start to do something new--oversight.

Well, good as to the oversight. You're already authorized to do oversight. Don't pretend you aren't, and don't pretend that this meaningless resolution is going to make any difference at all. Why are we wasting this time? Why are we wasting this time? Because you want to put on a show. Well, good for you. You're putting on a show. You're in charge. You can put on a show whenever you want, but someday, you're going to come to account for it, and if you haven't delivered on the jobs, and

you're not doing much so far that I've seen to produce any jobs. You can pretend this is about jobs.

What this is really about is your day-in, day-out agenda, which is big business. This isn't about independent truckdrivers who struggle to make a living. This isn't about small, independent businesses that go out and get contracts through the States with Federal money to build highway projects and some of the paperwork they have to deal with. I'm all with you on that stuff. Let's streamline that stuff. Let's get rid of that junk.

Just today, I had some people in my office who I've helped to get some money to reopen a rail line that was closed by some hedge fund in my district that bought it out, and they're being hung up on getting a Federal grant, which I helped them get one of those horrible earmarks we get around here to further enhance that short rail line, by some paperwork at the Fish and Wildlife. It just happened that the regional guy from the Feds for Fish and Wildlife was there in my office to talk to another staffer. I put them together, and we solved the issue in a couple of minutes, but it shouldn't have happened. We can streamline the paperwork. We can do that in a transportation bill and deal with those sorts of things.

So if you want to do real stuff to help real people, small business, Main Street, I'm with you, but not if this is yet another ruse to either engage in some sort of political, you know, pursuit of the administration, or if it's just something else to help your big business allies or something else to coddle Wall Street. Get rid of those burdensome regulations on Wall Street. Why, they can regulate themselves. Look what a great job they did over the last 10 years in regulating themselves. Well, they did crater the U.S. economy and the world economy and cost a few million people their jobs, but they would never do anything that would jeopardize our country.

Those burdensome regulations on Wall Street. Those burdensome regulations on BP. My God, how can we have those burdensome regulations on those big oil companies? Just free them up. They'll drill safely anywhere and everywhere, and there will never be a problem.

We had crappy regulation. Let's fix that. But we need regulations to avoid abuses. Don't pretend that we don't. Don't pretend that big business won't choose to abuse the privilege if we don't regulate them properly and smartly.

Do you want to have an aviation industry further deregulated? Let's deregulate safety. Let's get rid of those troublesome inspectors and all that stuff that goes on. No one would ever fly a plane that isn't safe. They wouldn't ever engage in cutting corners. Whoops. That already happened a few times in history, didn't it, during the deregulatory binge in the Reagan years.

So if you want to focus on meaningless, bothersome, trivial regulations, things that impede real working people, small businesses, truckers, other people who use our transportation system, the general aviation pilots, you know, and the airlines, great. But if it's just another hortatory thing, which it seems to be, or another gift to your big business allies, forget about it.