Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2038) to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2038, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, every Member of this House has sworn a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the office to which they have been entrusted by their constituents. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act, goes to the heart of what it means to faithfully execute public office.

The government exists to promote the public good, not to enrich government officials and employees. Those who are entrusted with public office are called public servants because their work should always serve the public rather than themselves. No one should violate the sacred trust of government office by turning ``public service'' into ``self-service.''

The risk of government self-dealing is heightened by the huge growth in recent years of the Federal Government and its increasing entanglement with the private economy. The risk of self-dealing increases when the government undertakes to spend nearly $1 trillion in stimulus money on private companies like Solyndra, or when the government inserts itself into the one-fifth of our economy represented by health

care and dictates the terms of private insurance policies.

The decisions made by Big Government can have big money consequences. Big Government can move markets. That's why we need strong rules to reassure the public that decisionmakers are not enriching themselves by investing based on insider knowledge of government policies.

This is the goal of the STOCK Act, and the House version of the STOCK Act achieves this goal. It strengthens the Senate proposal by expanding the scope of the bill to require more disclosure and prevent all office holders from profiting from insider information.

The House bill expands the legislation so that the ban on insider trading applies to all legislative, executive, and judicial branch officials and their staffs. The American people deserve to know that no one in any branch of government can profit from their office. All three branches should be held to the same standard because all three branches must be worthy of the public's trust.

And the bill ensures that Members of Congress who commit a crime do not receive a taxpayer-funded pension. The STOCK Act clarifies that Members of Congress and other government insiders have to play by the same rules against insider trading that have applied to the private sector for nearly 80 years.

Under the House bill, no Federal Government official may use nonpublic information which they learn about by virtue of their office for the purpose of making a profit in the commodities or stock markets.

The bill strengthens financial disclosure rules for public officials. Financial disclosure forms will be made publicly available in searchable, downloadable databases on government Web sites.

The bill requires prompt reporting of significant securities transactions by key legislative and executive branch officials. This will bring the financial dealings of public servants into the light of day.

The STOCK Act also strengthens disclosure of officials' mortgages so that public servants do not receive special rates and offers by virtue of their office.

The bill expands the list of crimes that result in a forfeiture of government pension rights, and it prevents Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from paying lucrative bonuses to the executives who bear so much responsibility for the housing crisis.

The House bill adds a provision to prevent government officials from receiving special early access to the initial public offerings of stock, which can result in major profits for the well-connected.

The bill requires executive branch officials to disclose their negotiations for private sector jobs, just like legislative branch officials do under current law. And the bill makes it a crime for executive branch officials to pressure private businesses to hire employees of a certain political party, a government law that currently only applies to Congress.

The STOCK Act increases disclosure and accountability for every branch of the Federal Government and ensures that public servants don't breach the trust of the American people.

Madam Speaker, for all the above reasons, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) who's an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my Texas colleague, Mr. Canseco, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and also chairman of the House Administration Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration Committee.

I am afraid I will have to object. The gentleman's time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, billionaire Warren Buffett's longtime secretary has become a symbol in the current Administration's fight over the tax code and economic fairness. While she was the President's chief stage prop in a show of the alleged unfairness of our tax system, this is hardly the truth.

The national media have painted this as a case of the little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss. Thankfully, Forbes and a few media outlets have researched the facts. By reviewing the Internal

Revenue Service's own detailed tax tables by income level, Forbes has determined she likely makes between $200,000 and $500,000.

The national media have not done their homework on Mr. Buffett's longtime secretary. They have misled the American people on the important issue of income taxes and capital gains investments that help create jobs. We need to remind the national media of their obligation to provide the American people with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1059) to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the motion to concur currently under consideration.

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

I support H.R. 1059 and thank Mr. Conyers for sponsoring it. I also thank Mr. Cohen of Tennessee and Mr. Johnson of Georgia for serving as cosponsors.

H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal, providing security for Federal judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of those officials. However, Congress enacted legislation that allows the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report where the release of the information could endanger the filer or their family.

Those who seek to harm or intimidate Federal judges might use a disclosure form to identify where someone's spouse or child works or goes to school on a regular basis. Individuals targeting judges for harassment have also been known to file false claims on property owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such property.

The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on Financial Disclosure the responsibility to implement the financial disclosure requirements for judges and judicial employees under the Ethics in Government Act. The committee monitors the release of financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute.

In consultation with U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also reviews and approves or disapproves any request for redaction or statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release of the information could endanger the filer and their family. Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which redaction is sought.

The law has worked well through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001; but it expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act, an outcome that is unacceptable.

Last year the Marshals Service investigated and analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to judicial officials, nearly three times as many threats as recorded in 2003. And there were more than 3,900 incidents and arrests at U.S. court facilities in 2010.

Financial disclosures help maintain an open and transparent government, but government transparency should not come at the cost of personal security for government officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity of our courts; and that means ensuring the security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats.

The Senate made two minor amendments to the bill, which we accept. The first amendment involves an annual report that the administrative Office of the U.S. Courts submits to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The report summarizes the redactions made in the preceding year and explains why they were made. The first amendment mandates that the report also be sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. The second amendment sunsets the redaction authority after 6 years, in 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1059, as amended by the Senate, and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction authority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, Professor Tim Groseclose of UCLA has recently published a book, ``Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.'' He uses clearly defined quantitative measures to evaluate the bias of media outlets.

In ``Left Turn,'' he scientifically measures the political content of media outlets and converts that content into a slant quotient of an outlet. To measure the bias, he compares slant quotients of news outlets to the political quotients of the typical American voter and political leaders.

Groseclose concludes that the great majority of all national media outlets have a liberal bias. He also points out the conservative bias of a very few outlets, but he determined their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most national media.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Groseclose also cites evidence that the media has shifted the political views of Americans and caused them to be more liberal. So media bias is both real and unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 313) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 313, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

H.R. 313, the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and me, closes a loophole in Federal law.

Drug traffickers are currently exempt from prosecution in the United States when they conspire to traffic drugs outside of the United States. This bill clarifies Congress' intent that the drug trafficking conspiracy statute should be given extraterritorial application. A Federal criminal case demonstrates how the loophole is being exploited.

In 1998 two individuals conspired with members of a large Colombian drug trafficking organization and a Saudi Arabian prince. The goal of the conspiracy was to traffic 2,000 kilograms of cocaine, worth over $100 million, from South America to Europe. Several meetings among the coconspirators occurred in Miami, Florida, and elsewhere around the world. Specifically while in Miami, they planned in detail to purchase the cocaine in Colombia and ship it to Europe for distribution.

The prince used his royal jet under the cover of diplomatic immunity to transport the cocaine from Venezuela to Paris, France. Although part of the cocaine was seized by law enforcement authorities in France and Spain, about 1,000 kilograms of cocaine were distributed and sold in the Netherlands, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe.

In 2005 two of the conspirators were convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy in the Federal district court in Florida, and each was sentenced to over 20 years in prison. However, in 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated their convictions. The court reasoned that there is no violation of Federal law when, absent congressional intent, the object of the conspiracy is to possess and distribute controlled substances outside of the United States. This is true even though meetings and negotiations to further the crime occurred on U.S. soil.

Crime is usually a territorial issue, specific to the place where the crime occurs. However, drug trafficking is inherently global in nature now more than ever. In fact, two other provisions of the Controlled Substances Act are already explicitly extraterritorial as they relate to narcoterrorism, terrorism financed through drug trafficking and the foreign manufacture of drugs for importation into the United States. The primary anti-money laundering statute used in drug trafficking cases is also extraterritorial.

Three years ago, Congress enacted the Federal Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act in response to the increase in use of vessels to traffic drugs around the world. Congress gave this law express extraterritorial effect.

Congress stated ``that trafficking in controlled substances aboard vessels is a serious international problem and is universally condemned. Moreover, such trafficking presents a specific threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States.''

The United States is a signatory to two major international drug- control treaties. Of the 194 countries in the world today, 184 are parties to the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which acts as the foundation for most of the world's drug trafficking laws. Drug trafficking is a global problem, universally condemned by law-abiding nations.

Some argue that a person should not be subject to the new conspiracy offense created by this bill unless his conduct is expressly illegal in every country where the drug trafficking occurs. Such a requirement is rarely, if ever, imposed on extraterritorial statutes.

In fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proponents of a number of extraterritorial laws that contain no requirement that the conduct be illegal in the country where it occurs. Such crimes include genocide, the recruitment or use of child soldiers, or the use of semi-submersible submarines.

These laws are significantly broader than the bill before us today because they do not require any illegal conduct to occur inside the United States. H.R. 313, however, does require that the conspiracy to traffic drugs take place here in the U.S. This legislation is narrowly tailored to reach drug trafficking conspiracies that occur on U.S. soil, but which promote the global distribution of drugs. To require the government to prove that the crime violated foreign law would also render this law essentially ineffective.

Drugs are not simply manufactured in one country and sold in another. Drug shipments make several stops along the way to their final destinations. For instance, cocaine is manufactured and processed in Colombia. It will likely be shipped by ground to Venezuela. It may then be put in a shipping container, transit several Caribbean islands, and then be sent to Africa or Europe. It could be off-loaded in Spain, divided up into smaller, but substantial, shipments and wind up in a dozen European countries. The proceeds from this multi-million-dollar shipment will make their way through the banking systems of a dozen other countries before being delivered to Colombia.

The government should not be required to prove that each of these acts violated each country's laws to prove that the traffickers plotted their conspiracies inside the U.S.

This bill, as amended in the Judiciary Committee with unanimous bipartisan support, excludes conspiracies to possess drugs. This legislation aims to eliminate the safe harbor for drug traffickers and distributors whose primary motive is financial gain. If we do not pass this bill, we continue to invite drug traffickers to plan their schemes within our borders.

The United States should not provide a safe haven for the world's drug traffickers to plot their international drug trafficking operations. This commonsense bill prevents drug traffickers from benefiting from their legal exemption from prosecution, and it tells drug traffickers not to plot their illegal activities in the U.S. If they do, they will be brought to justice.

I do want to thank Mr. Schiff again for sponsoring this legislation with me, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, October 26, 2011.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing concerning H.R. 313, the

``Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011,''

which was ordered to be reported out of your Committee on

October 6, 2011. I wanted to notify you that the Committee on

Energy and Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 313 so that it

may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for

consideration.

This is being done with the understanding that the

Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its

jurisdiction, and the Committee will not in any way be

prejudiced with respect to the appointment of conferees or

its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar

legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding, and ask that a copy of our exchange of

letters on this matter be included in the Congressional

Record during consideration of H.R. 313 on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me try again to address some of the concerns of two of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I want to reemphasize that extraterritorial laws do not require that the conduct be illegal in foreign countries.

Congress has enacted numerous laws with extraterritorial effect. Our decision to do so rarely, if ever, hinges on whether the conduct is also criminalized in the foreign country.

Once again, terrorism, drug-related money laundering, genocide, child soldiers--these are all extraterritorial offenses that do not require that the conduct also be against the law in a foreign country.

Moreover, most extraterritorial statutes don't even require that the criminal engage in any illegal conduct inside the United States either. If they engage in terrorism or money laundering or genocide in a foreign country and simply come into the U.S., they can be prosecuted.

The issue of conduct being criminal in a foreign country is not addressed in extraterritorial laws but in extradition treaties.

Also, extradition treaties do not require that conduct be illegal in foreign countries. Before the U.S. can extradite anyone for violation of U.S. law, it must first establish ``dual criminality'' as required by most extradition treaties.

Dual criminality is the principle that a crime in one country has to be a crime in a country extraditing you.

If a drug trafficker engages in a conspiracy here in the U.S., but is later apprehended in a foreign country, the government will have to establish that dual criminality to extradite him back to the U.S.

The extradition laws and treaties among the countries of the world properly provide for this. This principle is rightly excluded from this legislation because it already exists in Federal law.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to also emphasize that the Obama administration clearly supports this legislation. The Department of Justice supported similar legislation in the last Congress, and the Department of Justice stands by its position, as expressed in the 2010 views letters, and supports this legislation tonight.

I urge my colleagues to support this very strong bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.

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

The American people today have been hit by an onslaught of unnecessary Federal regulations. From the Obama administration's health care mandate to the increase of burdens on small businesses, government regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation.

By its own admission, the administration is preparing numerous regulations that each will cost the economy $1 billion or more per year. Its 2011 regulatory agenda calls for over 200 major rules which will affect the economy by $100 million or more each every year.

Employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, are rightly concerned about these costs and the costs that regulations impose on their businesses. In a Gallup poll conducted last month, nearly one- quarter of small business owners cited compliance with government regulations as their primary concern. That should motivate us to take action today.

Rather than restrain its efforts to expand government, the administration now seeks to accomplish through regulatory agencies what it cannot get approved by Congress. The REINS Act gives the people's representatives in Congress the final say over whether Washington will impose major new regulations on the American economy.

More than once this year, the President himself has talked about the dangers that excessive regulations pose to our economy. He has called for reviews of existing regulations. He has professed a commitment to more transparency. The President has stated that ``it is extremely important to minimize regulatory burdens and avoid unjustified regulatory costs.''

Unfortunately, the President's actions speak louder than his words. But rather than make good on its statements, the Obama administration has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the previous administration over a similar time period. And the White House has admitted to Congress that, for most new major regulations issued in 2010, government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits.

It is time for Congress to take action to reverse these harmful policies. With the REINS Act, we can hold the administration accountable for its unjustified regulatory assault on America's job creators; and we can guarantee that Congress, not unelected agency officials, will be accountable for all new major regulatory costs.

The American people want job creation, not more regulation. The REINS Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations that burden America's businesses and job creators.

I thank Mr. Davis of Kentucky for introducing this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support the REINS Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to set the record straight. The bill is not antiregulatory but pro-accountability. It will enable both Republican and Democratic majorities in Congress to make the final calls on major regulations that come from administrations of either party. Majorities of either party can be expected to approve regulations whenever appropriate, but the key is that Congress always be held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for yielding me time, and I also thank him for offering this amendment.

The bill restores to Congress the accountability for the regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. As Congress makes those decisions, one of the most important facts to consider is whether new regulations produce jobs or destroy them.

The amendment guarantees that when agencies submit new regulations to Congress, their cost benefit analyses will be made available.

The amendment also assures that agencies will specifically identify regulations' impact on private and public sector jobs. With that information, Congress will be in a position to determine whether to approve the rules. And the American people will be in a postilion to hold Congress accountable for those decisions.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

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

The amendment carves out of the bill regulations that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines will lead to net job creation.

The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives OMB to manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too often, OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement.

In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so by destroying real, existing jobs and ``creating'' new, hoped-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. For example, some Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules will shut down existing power plants. EPA and OMB may attempt to justify that with claims that more new, ``green'' jobs will be created as a result.

In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the jobs winners and the jobs losers. And there is no guarantee that all of the new, ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist.

The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose between new jobs and old jobs.

Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It chooses the way the Framers intended, in which accountability for laws with major economic impacts rests with Congress. It rejects the way Washington has operated for too long, where there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials.

The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

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

The amendment leaves it to each agency to determine how it will conduct cost-benefit analyses of new regulations. This is regrettable. Each agency will be tempted to design rules that it can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs.

The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December 2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost- benefit analyses. This improves quality and prevents deceptive actions by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.

Similarly, under Executive Order 12866, the President has long required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. The amendment undermines that requirement, too.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding me time.

I share my colleague's desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to major regulations and appreciate his interest in the subject.

I know that recent major regulations have hit West Virginia and the gentleman's constituents particularly hard. The Environmental Protection Agency's major regulations that affect energy sources and power production are among the most troubling.

I look forward to continued discussions with the gentleman on these and other issues of interest to him.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air.

In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully implement Congress' intent.

A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio.

Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of hazardous air pollution.

Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time.

When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board.

In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major rule.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

The amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from Congress' authority to approve regulations under the REINS Act. That shield should be denied.

For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the REAL ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues to extend the deadline.

Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush Administration's ``no-match'' rule. That regulation helped companies to identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law.

When the Obama Administration issued its rule to repeal ``no-match,'' it put the interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.

This is the kind of decision making that takes place at the Department of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can to reassert its authority over the legislative rulemaking functions it has delegated to DHS. The REINS Act is available to do that.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the Pew Research Center has found that negative opinions about news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs. In their poll, 66 percent of those surveyed stated news stories are often inaccurate, and 77 percent think that news organizations seem to favor one side over the other. And in a recent Gallup poll, Americans were asked how much trust and confidence they have in the mass media. A majority, 55 percent, responded ``not very much'' or ``none at all.''

Three years ago I started the Media Fairness Caucus in Congress. This caucus helps encourage a free and fair media as our Founders intended. The purpose of the caucus is not to censor or condemn but to urge the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession and to provide the American people with the facts, balanced stories, and fair coverage of the news.

Our national media should be held accountable for their performance, just like any other institution. We need to remind the media of their profound obligation to provide the American people with the facts, not to tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1021) to prevent the termination of the temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial districts, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1021, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

One of the results of a slack economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, over the past 3 years, the number of bankruptcy petitions filed in bankruptcy courts has doubled. While recent data show that the volume of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work.

Bankruptcy judges are critical to the operation of our Federal bankruptcy courts. The important bankruptcy reforms Congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse; and large, complex chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed mega-case of American Airline, are time intensive for our bankruptcy judges.

In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported a bankruptcy judgeships bill that would have created new permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to permanent status, and extended temporary judgeships. The House passed that bill, but it did not pass the Senate.

As a result, several temporary judgeships are in danger of being unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy. But the need for bankruptcy judges remains high.

I introduced the legislation under consideration with the ranking member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen, the chairman of that subcommittee, Howard Coble, and the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.

This bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy in those districts during the next 5 years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement, or resignation.

Congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession; but Congress should also conserve Federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. H.R. 1021 authorizes a 5-year extension, which preserves Congress's ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years.

Time is of the essence. I urge the Senate also to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficiency.

I want to thank the bill's cosponsors for their bipartisan support.

One of the results of the slack economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, over the past three years, the number of bankruptcy petitions filed in bankruptcy courts has doubled. While recent data show that the volume of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work.

Bankruptcy judges are critical to the operation of our federal bankruptcy courts. The important bankruptcy reforms Congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse. And large, complex chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed mega-case of American Airlines, are time-intensive for our bankruptcy judges.

However, no new bankruptcy judgeships have been created since 2005. At that time, Congress created temporary judgeships so that it could periodically review the caseloads in each district and assess whether the temporary judgeship was still needed. Permanent judgeships have not been authorized since 1992.

Every two years, the Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a report to Congress that details the judicial needs of each district. The Conference evaluates need based on a ``weighted caseload'' analysis. The 2011 weighted caseload statistics demonstrate that judges are desperately needed in many districts.

In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported a bankruptcy judgeships bill that would have created new permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to permanent status and extended temporary judgeships. The House passed that bill but it did not pass the Senate.

As a result, several temporary judgeships are in danger of being unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy. But the need for bankruptcy judges remains high.

I introduced the legislation under consideration with the Ranking Member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen; the Chairman of that subcommittee, Howard Coble; and the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.

This bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy in those districts during the next five years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement or resignation.

Congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession. But Congress should also conserve federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. H.R. 1021 authorizes a 5-year extension, which preserves Congress's ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years.

The relief a debtor receives from the bankruptcy system is extraordinary; they either reorganize their debts on more favorable terms or they get a complete discharge of all their prepetition debts. All except the poorest of debtors pay a fee to file a bankruptcy case and receive these benefits.

I believe it is fair to use debtors' filing fees to pay for the costs associated with our bankruptcy judges. This legislation, as amended, raises the filing fee on chapter 11 reorganization cases from $1000 to $1042--a modest 4 percent increase. As a result, this bill does not increase direct spending by the federal government.

Time is of the essence. I urge the Senate also to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficiency.

I thank the bill's cosponsors for their bipartisan support.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2011.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing concerning H.R. 1021, as

amended, the ``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act

of 2011,'' which is scheduled for Floor consideration the

week of December 5, 2011.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains

jurisdiction over revenue measures generally. H.R. 1021, as

amended, contains a provision that raises revenue by

increasing the Chapter 11 filing fees for the operation and

maintenance of the courts of the United States, which falls

within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

In order to expedite this bill for Floor consideration, the

Committee will forgo action on the bill. This is being done

with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or

its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar

legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1021, as amended, and

would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this

matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3010.

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

Employers across America face an avalanche of unnecessary Federal regulatory costs.

Federal regulations cost our economy $1.7 trillion every year, over $15,000 for each household, according to the Small Business Administration. Yet the Obama administration seeks to add billions more to that cost.

The administration's record-setting issuance of major regulations is particularly troubling. By its own admission, the administration's 2011 regulatory agenda contains 200 regulations that typically will affect the economy by $100 million or more every year.

For employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, the impact of these costly regulations is clear. Government regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation. Faced with huge, new, regulatory burdens and uncertainties about what will come next, employers slow down hiring, stop investing, and wait for a bill from the Obama administration.

What enables the administration to issue so many new regulations with so little regard for their costs is the outdated Administrative Procedure Act. Enacted in 1946, the APA's minimal limitations on rulemaking have hardly changed in decades and do nothing to control costs.

The Regulatory Accountability Act fixes this problem by bringing the APA up to date. Under its commonsense provisions, agencies are required to assess the cost and benefits of regulatory alternatives. Unless interest of public health, safety, or welfare requires otherwise, agencies must adopt the least-costly alternative that achieves the regulatory objectives Congress has established.

The Regulatory Accountability Act has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, including from a number of House Democrats who have cosponsored the bill. In large part, this is because its provisions are modeled on the Executive orders that presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have issued to compensate for the APA's weaknesses.

Opponents of the act claim that it requires the benefits of all new regulations to exceed their costs. They argue that as a result the act will prevent Federal agencies from issuing important new public health, safety, and welfare regulations. This is false.

The Regulatory Accountability Act only requires agencies to adopt the lowest cost regulatory alternative that achieves the agency's statutory objectives. This assures that agencies will achieve all of those objectives but with much lower costs.

Opponents also assert that the act's new procedural requirements will halt all Federal rulemaking, but the act primarily codifies existing Executive order principles and practices under which agencies have been able to issue regulations for years.

The act's few additional requirements all are streamlined. They will improve the quality and lower the cost of regulations, but they will not unduly delay them. The act increases the transparency of the rulemaking process with more advance notices of proposed rulemaking, more opportunities for public comment, and more opportunities for public hearings. This will lessen the influence of all special interests.

The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the greatest opportunity yet for Republicans and Democrats to join together and lower the job- killing cost of regulations. And it allows costs to be lowered while it assures that all of Congress' regulatory objectives are, in fact, obtained.

The bill also provides a clear opportunity for the votes of Democrats in Congress to match President Obama's words on regulatory reform. In his State of the Union address, the President said that ``to reduce barriers to growth and investment, when we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them.''

In Executive Order 13563, the President said that ``our regulatory system must promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation; must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas; must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends; and must take into account benefits and costs.''

The President was right. And the Regulatory Accountability Act does all those things.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Regulatory Accountability Act.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, November 17, 2011.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On November 3, 2011, the Committee on

the Judiciary ordered H.R. 3010, the ``Regulatory

Accountability Act of 2011,'' reported to the House. Thank

you for consulting with the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform with regard to H.R. 3010 on those matters

within the committee's jurisdiction. I am writing to confirm

our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Here is another poll that I'm going to cite that will support what this administration's own Small Business Administration has found about the cost of these regulations. This is an article by the Gallup Poll. The article is dated October 24, 2011, just a few weeks ago. Here's the headline on the article: ``Government Regulations at Top of Small- Business Owners' Problem List. One in three small business owners are worried about going out of business.'' The article was written by Dennis Jacobe, chief economist.

Here's the first line and the finding of the Gallup Poll: ``Small- business owners in the United States are most likely to say complying with government regulations, 22 percent, is the most important problem facing them today; followed by consumer confidence in the economy, 15 percent; and lack of consumer demand, 12 percent.''

Mr. Chairman, arguably, the administration is responsible for every one of these problems because of the administration's policies.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Unfortunately, we hear a lot of words that are really irrelevant to the bill that we are considering here today. Once again, let me repeat that the Regulatory Accountability Act only requires agencies to adopt the least-cost regulatory alternative that achieves the agency's statutory objectives. It therefore assures that in all instances agencies will achieve those objectives, whether to protect public health, safety, or welfare or to satisfy some other statutory purpose.

The RAA's key contribution is to require that, once agencies have identified means to achieve their statutory objectives, they will simply choose the means that impose the lowest cost. I don't know how anyone could object to that. This creates a positive cycle in which agencies and regulated entities compete to identify innovative, least- cost means to achieve statutory objectives while they simultaneously produce the most benefits.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I realize some people want to close their eyes and close their ears so they don't see or hear the facts. There's an old adage that none are so blind as those who don't want to see the wisdom of the facts.

Mr. Chairman, despite the sound and fury that we've heard, let me repeat a fact; and the fact I want to repeat is this: that the bill always allows agencies to meet statutory objectives. If, for example, only one rulemaking alternative meets statutory objectives, the agency may adopt that alternative, even if its cost exceeds its benefits.

The bill generally requires agencies to adopt the least costly alternative that meets statutory objectives if more than one alternative meets those objectives. Agencies may adopt more costly alternatives to protect public health, safety and welfare, including workers' safety, however, if the benefits of the more costly alternative justify their costs, and the agency is acting to protect the interest of public health, safety or welfare that are within the scope of the statutory provisions that authorize the rulemaking.

As a result, many workforce safety, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other public health, safety and welfare regulations on the books still could have been adopted under the bill, even if they were not the least costly alternatives.

The difference is agencies would have done a better job of assessing whether those regulations really were the best ones to adopt and would have had a greater incentive to look harder for the alternatives that achieved the most benefits for the lesser costs.

Further, the bill does not invite courts to immerse themselves in the weeds of whether agencies have satisfied every jot and tittle of how best to perform a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it asks the courts to enforce the bill's least-cost standard, and allows the courts to defer to agency cost-benefit analyses that comply with guidelines from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

As the DC circuit most recently demonstrated in Business Round Table v. SEC, the courts know well how to enforce requirements that agencies weigh the economic impacts of regulation without immersing themselves in endless arguments over every fine point of economic analysis. So the bill will actually decrease litigation.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is really just a litmus test for all Members of the House as to, not whether they want to implement regulations or not, but whether they want to do so in the least costly manner possible. Again, I don't see how anyone can rationally oppose the objective of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), also a member of the Ag Committee.

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

Our troubled economy forces many Americans to tighten their financial belts as they enter this holiday season. It is especially frustrating that the typical American worked more than 2 months, about 77 days, this year to pay for the cost of government regulations alone.

For the unemployed, the news is even worse. Official unemployment has hovered around 9 percent all year. When the unemployed and underemployed and those who no longer seek employment are counted, the effective unemployment rate reaches almost 16 percent.

But rather than add much-needed jobs to the economy, the Obama administration has only added job-killing regulations that burden businesses and stifle economic growth.

The administration counted 410 new major rules in its regulatory agendas for 2010 and 2011. Mr. Chairman, that is four times the number of major rules than during the first 2 years of the previous administration. In addition, the White House has reported to Congress that, for most new major rules issued in 2010, the government failed to analyze both the costs and the benefits. Many more major regulations are now in the works, and there is no assurance that the administration will adequately consider their costs and benefits either.

The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the cure for this epidemic of regulatory costs. It is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that requires agencies to do a better job of determining whether new regulations are really needed; and when regulations are necessary, it requires agencies to find the lowest cost alternative to achieve its goals. In other words, you can still achieve the goals but in the least costly way possible.

The Regulatory Accountability Act will not stop Federal agencies from issuing needed regulations, but it will stop them from imposing unjustified regulatory costs. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I look forward to its final passage.

With that, I yield to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will add that Allie Halataei has also served us well on the Judiciary Committee for 6 years. She has been on my personal staff for 2 additional years. She has also been a deputy chief of staff for the full Judiciary Committee in addition to having served previously on the Immigration Subcommittee.

We value all of her expertise, her talents, her dedication, and her conscientiousness. All of those wonderful attributes are going to be missed, but we do wish her well in her next position.

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

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

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

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

This amendment, regrettably, seeks special consideration in rulemaking for a handful of groups; but the bill seeks to declare no favorites and gives no special policy treatment to any group. Instead, the bill creates an even-handed procedural reform that benefits all groups with greater transparency, accountability, and public participation in rulemaking.

Perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that regulatory outcomes not shortchange the needs of seniors, veterans, and lower income families; but the bill already assures that these groups and all others will obtain the protection they need.

The bill always allows agencies to achieve the regulatory objectives that Congress has set. Generally, if an agency can reach the goal with a lower cost

regulation, though, of course it should; but if a costlier regulation is needed to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, including protecting seniors, veterans, and low-income families, the agency can adopt that regulation.

The agency just needs to show that the benefits justify the additional costs and the interests protected fall within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the rule.

In this reasonable, balanced way, the bill guarantees statutory objectives will be met while we at least achieve real regulatory cost control. That is a win/win solution for everyone in every group.

The Federal Government does not always need to do something more costly for special groups. It needs to always do something more cost- effective for everyone. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

One problem in rulemaking is the practice of agencies to negotiate regulations behind closed doors with a few interested parties, then propose and adopt a predetermined rule.

To help cure this problem, the bill requires advanced notice of major and high-impact rules that agencies may propose. These are the rules that cost $100 million or $1 billion or more respectively.

The advance notice requirement ensures that those who bear the costs of these high-cost regulations have an opportunity to shape agency decisions before they become entrenched in predetermined rulemaking proposals. It also dramatically increases the transparency of the most important agency rulemakings; and, of course, if emergency rules were needed, advance notice may be waived.

The amendment, on the other hand, makes advance notice discretionary, not mandatory, with the agencies. That guarantees that advance notice will rarely be used. It eliminates much needed transparency, and it only helps those who negotiate rules behind closed doors, then ram deals through the rulemaking process, ignoring public comment.

The amendment may arise from a concern that advance notice not unduly slow down emergency rules. If that is the case, there is no need for concern. Like the existing Administrative Procedure Act, the bill allows agencies to issue emergency rules before they complete ordinary procedure.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It hurts the bill. It hurts the process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

The amendment carves out of the bill essential sectors or regulation and guidance. These include all rules and guidance documents on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water, and clean air. In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the most cost without producing enough benefits. A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve; at most, just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. That's a cost-to-benefit ratio of almost 1,200:1.

Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the bill's provisions to prevent excessively costly rules like this. The bill always allows agencies to achieve the statutory objectives Congress has set. Those objectives include protection of food, workplace, and consumer safety, as well as of clean air and clean water. All the bill requires is that agencies consider the cost and benefits of regulatory alternatives and, wherever possible, adopt the least-cost regulation that achieves that goal.

If a costlier rule's benefits justify its additional cost and the rule is needed to protect public health, safety, and welfare, the agency may adopt it. The agency just needs to show that the public health, safety, and welfare interest it seeks to protect are within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the regulation itself.

That is balanced reform that protects public health, safety, and welfare and the American economy and the American taxpayers and the small business owners of America.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from New York have any time remaining?

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

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

The amendment creates a special carve-out from the legislation's requirements for regulations and guidance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulation of the nuclear power industry, however, should go through the same rulemaking process as other regulations. In this way, all interested parties will have the best opportunity to test their assumptions about nuclear power and nuclear waste.

Perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that the legislation could prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing emergency rules and guidance or rules that adequately protect public safety. That concern, however, is unfounded. The legislation preserves agencies' ability to make interim-final rules for ``good cause.'' This exception certainly would cover emergency rules from the Commission.

The bill also allows agencies to adopt alternatives to least-cost regulations if interests of public health, safety, or welfare require costlier rules. Only two conditions need to be satisfied: First, the costlier rule must produce benefits that justify the additional cost; second, the benefits must serve public health, safety, or welfare interests within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the regulation.

Surely the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and any other agency can adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare within those conditions.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

This amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security from the bill's urgently needed rulemaking reforms. There is no good reason to provide that shield.

For example, take the Department's rules to extend compliance deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the Real ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, the Department of Homeland Security continues to extend the deadline. Clearly, the Department of Homeland Security should not be exempt from the bill's provisions.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me time, and I also want to thank him for his sponsorship of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our immigration system should be designed to benefit Americans and our economy. And this bill introduced by Congressman Chaffetz does just that, and I'm happy to be a cosponsor.

The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that the total number of family-sponsored and employment-based green cards available to natives of any one country cannot exceed 7 percent of the total number of green cards available each year. Because of these annual numerical caps on green cards and the fact that some countries have more of the skilled workers that American employers want, natives of these countries must often wait years longer for green cards than natives of other countries.

For foreign professionals with advanced degrees and aliens of exceptional ability, green cards are now immediately available to approved applicants from most countries. However, because employers seek so many workers from India and China, the per-country caps result in green cards only being available to these individuals who first applied before November 2007, 4 years ago.

For foreign professionals with bachelor's degrees and skilled workers, green cards are now available to applicants from most countries who first applied on or before December 2005. However, for the same reason, because employers seek so many workers from India and China, the per-country cap results in green cards only being available to those from China who first applied before August 2004 and for those from India before July 2002.

Similar per-country caps exist in the family-sponsored green card categories. That's why natives of most countries who are siblings of U.S. citizens will get green cards only if they first applied before June 2000, 11 years ago, and the siblings from the Philippines have had to wait since 1988.

H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, eliminates the employment-based per-country cap entirely by fiscal year 2015. It also raises the family-sponsored per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent. This legislation makes sense. Why should American employers who seek green cards for skilled foreign workers have to wait longer just because the workers are from India or China? American business employers have already proved to

the U.S. Government that they need these workers, that qualified workers are not available, and that American workers will not be harmed.

It makes sense to repeal the employment-based per-country caps. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3012. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 394) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, to the end that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 1 and concur in Senate amendment No. 2 with the amendment I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1637) to clarify appeal time limits in civil actions to which United States officers or employees are parties, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 2, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Yesterday, we began debate on the balanced budget amendment, debate that I hope culminates today with a bipartisan two-thirds vote in its favor. The American people of all political stripes and from all walks of life demand we pass this amendment. Recent polling by CNN indicates that a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget garners more than 70 percent support among men, women, whites, nonwhites, every age group, every income level, and people from every region of the country. Why do Americans overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment? Because they understand that unending Federal deficits wreck our economy and steal prosperity from future generations.

President Obama has set the wrong kind of new record. The national debt has increased faster under his administration than under any other President in history. This runaway government spending paralyzes the job market, erodes confidence among America's employers, and has caused the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

The balanced budget amendment is not an untested idea. Forty-nine States

have some form of a balanced budget requirement. We are overdue to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We must stop the flood of deficit spending that threatens to drown future generations of Americans in a sea of debt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman an extra minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Canseco), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) control the balance of my time.