believes, in august -- in 2002 that the shale in the pennsylvania area only contained about two trillion cubic feet of gas. well today, through the hard work of americans and private industry, we have realized that there are 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. . in the guffle of mexico in the 1980's -- mexico in the 1980's, there was an assessment that believed only 6.25 billion of oil was located in the gulf. but yet today 15.5 billion barrels have been produced. the problem is is that it takes a while for private industry to recognize where these resources

are. to be able to find them, to explore for them, and then to determine how much is in the ground. so that takes time. what the president does is he takes those properties, those federal lands, those federal properties off the table and doesn't allow those companies to go out and explore to determine whether or not we can actually be energy independent. which everyone here on both sides of the aisle continues to come up to these microphones and claim they want. we can do that. and all we are asking in our plan is that we allow these properties to be surveyed and looked at and made available. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman two additional minutes. mr. landry: make these properties available so that private industry can come in and determine the amount of reserves that can be extracted out of the

ground and given to americans to reduce their overall energy consumption. madam speaker, i will tell you that what the president does is fail the american people when it comes to creating jobs and lowering the cost of energy, not only at the gas pump, but in their electric bills, in the manufacturing centers around this country, in the steel mills, in every sector of this country that uses energy. the failure for us to tap into our resources, to review and get a solid assessment on the amount of resources available to the american people is being missed here. so i certainly hope that members would reject the president's plan and take up our plan which is going to expand the amount of federal properties available to

explore for oil and gas and lower the cost and create jobs for all americans. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts will control the time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the chair. mr. speaker, yesterday the majority brought to the floor a bill that would replace the interior department's five-year offshore drilling plan. today the majority is bringing a bill to the floor that would require the interior department to conduct the offshore drilling plan it is already doing. now, why would we be taking up a bill to replace the plan yesterday and a bill to implement the plan today? is it because the majority is having buyers remorse about their own bill that would put

drill rigs off of the beaches of california, beaches of maine and new hampshire and massachusetts and connecticut and new york and new jersey and delaware and maryland, virginia, are they having remorse putting all those rigs out there off of the beaches, no new safety procedures adopted post-b.p. spill? overnight have they had some regrets? conscience stricken. perhaps that's not a good idea. that would be great, hopeful sign, i think, for all of us who care about the environment, care about safety, care about protecting the beaches and the fishing industries of our country. or is it because they were so compelled by arguments that the democrats made during the debate on the floor yesterday that they now intend to reverse their

position and actually support president obama's offshore drilling plan that makes 75% of all of our oil and gas resources available for drilling while protecting the east and west coasts? i don't think so. because i am quite certain that the chairman of the committee intends to vote against his own bill here today. and the only reason the majority is bringing this bill up is to defeat it. it appears that the majority's dislike of president obama is so great, so overwhelming that they are about to actually vote against more oil and gas drilling off shore even in an era where president obama has already demonstrated his commitment to drilling. there are more rigs out drilling now in the united states than all the rest of the world combined. we are at an 18-year high in

production of oil in the united states. you have to go all the way back to 1993 to find a day where there was more oil being produced on a daily basis than today. we have reduced our oil dependence, that is how much we have to import from overseas, from 57% when george bush was president just four years ago, down to only 45%. during the obama administration. thank you, president obama. thank you for the fantastic job you are doing in reducing our dependency upon imported oil. that is something that did not happen during plush's -- president bush's years in office. we are at an 18-year high for oil for development. we are at a point where we have reduced our dependence upon imported oil from 57% down to 45%, just in 3 1/2 years since president obama was sworn in. we have more rigs than the whole

rest of the world combined drilling for oil here in the united states. quite a record. and we thank you, president obama, for your excellent job. but we know what the majority, we know what the republican majority is trying to do here today. they are trying to remessage here that somehow or other president obama hasn't done a historically good job. the majority is about to make their own history here. rewrite history. they are so bent on voting against president obama that they are going to actually oppose the policy they hold most dear, more drilling. we appear to have found the one thing that could stop the majority from voting for drilling over and over again this. would be like red sox fans rooting against the red sox because they signed derek jeter. all of a sudden they would want to not support it any longer, huh? and the majority is putting this bill on the suspension calendar today even though we know they

have no intention of supporting it. so why are we here? why are we wasting the time of this house when there are so many other pressing issues facing the nation? we should be focusing on creating jobs for our constituents, on passing a farm bill that helps farmers who are being harmed by drought, taking action on a spending and tax plan to avert going off the fiscal cliff of sequestration. but are we doing any of those things? no, we are not. the majority is not only asking us to suspend the rules and pass this bill, they are asking us to suspend reality. they are asking us to suspend the reality that president obama has reduced our dependence on oil from 57% down to 45%. that we are at an 18-year high in oil production in our country. that we have 50% more floating drilling rigs operating in the gulf of mexico than we did

before the b.p. spill. let me say that again, there are 50% more floating drilling rigs operating in the gulf of mexico than before the b.p. spill. and we have -- we ignore drilling going on in the whole rest of the world combined. the reality is that president obama is about all of the above, and that's his energy plan. but the republicans keep bringing out things that really make the oil industry happy but towards the goal of killing the wind industry, solar industry, because they are doing nothing for those industries. that agenda is oh so clear. it's transparently clear what this agenda is, and we actually support an aye vote on the president's plan and a no vote on the republican plan. we should not be drilling off of the beaches of our country when 75% of all the oil and gas resources have been made

available and the oil industry hasn't even begun in a significant way to capture all those opportunities. at this point i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i have no more requests for time other than my close. if the gentleman is prepared to close, i am prepared to close also. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i am the final speaker on my side as well. so if it would be all right i would yield to myself the balance. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from massachusetts has up to 4 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. markey: i yield myself -- mr. hastings: i have one more beyond me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. mr. markey: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i am very pleased to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is

recognized for one minute. mr. landry: madam speaker, i just wanted to take a moment to discuss with my good friend from massachusetts some of the statistics that he was laying out for the american people here on the floor. the problem is that we are lacking the demand for energy right now because people are out of work. because of high unemployment, people are not driving back and forth. that means they are not utilizing gasoline. so he's right. the amount of oil that we are having to import today has been reduced because people are out of work. now, what happens if, this is a big if, we can crank this economy back up? and we can do what everyone here wants to do and that is to create jobs. the problem is that if we start cranking this economy up and we don't have a solid energy policy

in place, gasoline prices are going to rise, and we are going to end up back in a recession. so i would like the gentleman from massachusetts to join me in saying, you know what, we are going to put the country on a sustainable path. we are going to ensure when americans get the jobs that we are going to help create here, we are going to make sure that the economy can continue. we are going to make sure that that economic expansion is going to last a long, long time. so again, i would urge the gentleman to reject the president's plan, join us, give private industry an opportunity to see what is out there. for once and for all, remove the shackles that america is chained to opec and let us be truly energy independent. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts . the gentleman from massachusetts once again is recognized for up

to 4 1/4 minutes to close. mr. markey: i thank the chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. you know, all you have to know about the political nature of this bill and the next bill that we are going to be voting on that allows for drilling off of the beaches of massachusetts and southern california and maine and maryland, new jersey without new safeguards being put in place, is that they kind of pick a whole bunch of states that are on the atlantic ocean and the pacific ocean, but they leave out one state. why did they leave out that state? i wonder why they left out florida. why isn't florida on the list? why did they exclude that one state? out of their systematic goal of increasing energy independence

and compromising, if necessary, the beaches of all of these other states to help exxon, mobile, b.p., and shell drill off of our coastline? why don't they want to drill off of miami beach? why don't they want to drill off of jacksonville's beaches? why don't they include florida? hmm, gore vs. bush. florida could decide the presidential race. oh, the republican convention is in florida this year, oh. they don't want a million people coming to protest the drilling off of the beaches of florida? oh. that makes a lot of sense. no, that's good justification for excluding florida, but not

massachusetts, not maine, not maryland, not virginia, but florida. they're out. so i happen to know about the blatant political nature of these bills is that they are intended to embarrass president obama just as he has proven he's a historically successful president in increasing oil production in america, he's reduced oil dependence, overseas source from 57% down to 45%, something george bush never did. in fact it spiked to 57% under his watch over eight years. that's a long time to get something done on that front. . and has 50% more rigs in the gulf of mexico. and so this is really all about politics. 131 votes out here to help the oil and gas industry. no votes out here to help the

wind and solar industry. and the storyline continues, even up to the point where they exclude florida. i mean, it's so nakedly obvious what is happening here. in terms of the political nature of what the republicans are doing on this subject. but, please, for the sake of the country, can we get to an all-of-the-above strategy? can we get to something that actually has you saying positively what you're going to do about the renewable energy that we have in our country, that can make it possible for us to say to opec totally that we don't need your oil anymore than we need your sands? can we actually say that? can we agree upon that? that it's a common goal and we can find a way of giving the incentives to the wind and solar industry in the same way you do over and over again, want to give to the oil and gas industry? please, let's work together as a

common goal, as a country to accomplish that goal. let's not just favor oil and gas. let's have an agenda that includes all of the above. because today is just another repetition of this same syndrome that has an ancestor worship at the alter of oil and gas, that plagued us in the 20th century but he can alleviated if we put together the agenda of the majority -- if we work together. and i urge an aye vote on this suspension bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized for up to 4 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: i thank the madam speaker and i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: first of all, i want to tell my good friend from massachusetts that i was hoping he would thank me for introducing the bill because now he has an opportunity to vote for the president's plan and i

already mentioned that i was going to vote against it. i was very forthright. but now the gentleman does have an opportunity to vote for the president's plan. so i wish that he had thanked me for that. but i want to say this, madam speaker. we already know that americans want to be less dependent on foreign energy. the republican plan obviously does that. americans also want to have parts of the economy to start growing. energy production is a way to jumpstart our economy with a good -- with good american jobs. so those are all givens. but the rhetoric sometimes coming from the other side is, why are some areas emphasized and some areas are not? because we use a very, very no-novel approach to where we should sell leases and explore for oil. and that is very simply where we think the resources are. and then people will bid on that and take a chance to see if

there are resources, if there are, they'll drill, and the federal treasury and the american people benefit. and a good case of that by the way, mr. speaker, is in southern california, because reference has been made several times to southern california and specifically to santa barbara, california, the santa barbara channel. now, the state lands commission says that there are 1,200 natural occurring seeps in the santa barbara channel. and it's estimated that coming out of these naturally occurring seeps in the santa barbara channel is 55,000 barrels a year, each year, and experts have concluded that that amount of seep could be translated into enough fuel to fuel the energy for santa barbara county for 7 1/2 years. now, that is a lot of oil. and we believe the opportunity

ought to be to go, again, with the novel approach where the oil is. that's why our approach says, ok, let's open up all these areas, let's allow the private sector to ascertain if they want to make -- to pay somebody for a lease, to develop those resources. that is the essence of what this debate is about. let me conclude this this way, mr. speaker. the fact is that the president's plan reinstates the moratorium that existed going up to 2008. the american people demanded that be lifted with $4 gasoline, but this see essentially reinstates that. -- but this essentially reinstates that. i think that's the wrong policy. we have the ability to vote on two proposals. one that does create american energy and american jobs, or one that maintains the status quo. in fact, it doesn't even do that. it goes back and re-establishes a moratorium and locks up 85% of our resources. so i urge a no vote, a no vote

on this suspension bill and a yes vote on the subsequent bill that we debated yesterday, 6082, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on h.r. 6082. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 738 and rule 18, the chair declares the committee in the whole house for the further consideration of h.r. 6082. will the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, kindly retake the chair? the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 6082, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to officially replace within the 60-day congressional review period uned -- under the outer continental lands shelf act president obama's proposed final outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program, 2012 through

2017, with a congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and gas, natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation and increase domestic energy production to ensure a more secure energy future in the united states and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, july 24, 2011, a request for a recorded vote -- 2012, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in part c of house report 112-616 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of house report 112-616 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. holt of new jersey. amendment number 4 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 5 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 6 by mr. holt

of new jersey. amendment number 7 by mr. hastings of florida. amendment number 8 by mr. hastings of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 112-616 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 112-616 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 159, the --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 153, the nays are 253, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 112-615 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 11-616 a -- 112-616 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 158, the nays are 262.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 112-616 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 112-616 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a record the vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189, the nays are 252. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part c of house report 112-615 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were

postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part c of house report 112-616 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a record vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177. the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 112-616 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part c of house report number 11-616, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of requested for recorded vote will stand and be counted a a sufficient number

having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 158. the nays are 256. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on

amendment number 8 printed in part c of house report 112-616 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in part c of house report number 112-616, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will stand and be counted. al a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150. the nays are 275. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the

committee does rise. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: madam speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 6082 and reports to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 6082 and pursuant to house resolution 738 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole.

under the rule, the previous question is ordered. in a separate vote demand on -- is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to officially replace within the 0-day congressional review period under the outer continental shelf lands act president obama's proposed final outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program, 2012-2017, with a congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation, and increase domestic energy

production to ensure a more secure energy future in the united states, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their seats, take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. slaughter: in its present form, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. slaughter of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. 6082 to the committee on natural resources with

instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following, section, prohibition on issuance of leases with respect to iran and syria. no lease may be issued under this act to any person, including any successor, assigned, affiliate member, or joint venturer with an ownership interest in any property or project any portion of which is owned by such person that is in violation of, one, the iran sanctions act of 199650 u.s.c. 1701 note or the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010, 22 u.s.c. 8501 or two, the syria accountability and lebanese could have rent restoration act of 2003, 2 u.s.c. 2151 note. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. miss slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to introduce the final amendment to today's bill. the amendment is powerful in its purpose. may we have order, please. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their seats and take their conversations off the floor. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: my amendment simply states that no company that violates the iran sanctions act and the syrian accountability act will be allowed to profit from any oil leases in today's bill. the amendment will help to ensure that no company that

helps to prop up these oppressive and destabilizing regimes can benefit from today's legislation. currently the united states government is imposing sanctions on 13 companies who main tain substantial business dealings with iran. in addition, the threat of sanctions is hanging over other companies that continue to do business there. in total, more than 16 oil companies remain active in iran. these companies are defined in the international community and helping to empower an iranian regime that exports terrorism around the world, seeks nuclear weapon capability, and threatens the security of the entire middle east, especially our ally and friend, israel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order.

the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: with the threat from iran continuing to grow, it is vital that congress respond with prudent and effective action. . with regard to syria's existing sanctions, thanks to the sanctions in syria, oil production dropped by 60,000 barrels a day in 2011. as companies cut ties with the government and exited the country. despite this pressure, more action is needed, and my amendment will be a responsible next step to ensure that nothing in this bill will empower president assad's continued war against the syrian people. madam speaker, for the last two years, we put the needs of special interests, especially big oil, before the needs of our country, our people and our

allies. over the last two years, the majority has voted more than 140 times to benefit big oil. today should not be another one. instead of passing the bill to create jobs, we propose yet another bill to serve big oil interests. if we're going to move forward where such a giveaway is vital, make sure that no profit is derived from today's legislation goes to prop up nations who would harm our national security interests or those of our ally, israel. it's up to this congress on both sides of the aisle, will we sacrifice the interest of israel and the syrian people by passing legislation that could benefit two of the most oppressive and destabilizing regimes in the world, or are we going to stand with our friend and ally israel and protect the people of syria? with both the iranian and syrian regimes threatening our allies and thousands of innocent people in the middle east, i believe it's high time

the united states congress moves to further protect israel and people of syria. once again, if my amendment is adopted, the house will proceed to final passage of the bill. i urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment today, and it is an important amendment and put our national interests before the wishes of big oil. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: madam speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this is not a foreign policy bill. this is a bill about american

jobs and american energy. and these subjects that are brought up in this motion to recommit are covered in other areas as they should be. for example, the iranian issue is covered in stand-alone bills, as it properly should be, but this continues to be an attempt of the other side to change the subject away from american energy and american jobs. the president is talking about american energy, and i have said on a number of occasions that the president likes to give speeches but virtually every time when he does on offshore energy his actions are 180 degrees from his rhetoric. so this bill that we have under consideration today, h.r. 6082, challenges the president to live up to his rhetoric. in his speeches, the president

says, yes, we can. hope and change. move forward. believe in america. well, to those who say that the house and the senate should not act on a 60-day review of the president's plan, i say, yes, we can. let's just not hope for better, let's move the country forward. let's change president obama's plan to a real pro-energy, pro-jobs offshore plan that truly believes in america. oppose this motion to recommit. vote for the bill and vote against the suspension. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered and the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. and members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 6082, if ordered, and suspension of the rules and passage of h.r. 6168 and h.r. 459. this will be a 15-minute vote. a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 240. the motion is not agreed to.

the question is on the passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 253. the nays are 170. the motion is agreed to. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6168 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6168, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to implement the proposed final outer continental shelf and oil and gas leasing programs 2012-20s17, in accordance with the outer continental shelf lands act and

other applicable laws. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 164 and the nays are 261. 2/3 of those not responding in the affirmative, the rules are not suspended and the bill is not passed. the unfinished business is on the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. issa, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 459, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 441, h.r. 459, a bill to require a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal reserve banks by the comptroller general of the united states before the end of 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended.

members will record their votes by electronic device. and this will be a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 327. the nays are 98. zero recorded present. 2/3 having responded in the

affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed shes and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 25, 2012, at 11:33 a.m. that the senate passed senate 2090. appointments, state and local law enforcement congressional badge of bravery board, federal law enforcement congressional badge of bravery board, public safety officer medal of valor review board. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks including extraneous materials on h.r. 4078. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 738 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4078. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4078 which

the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0%. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not compete two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa. mr. issa: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. issa: thank you. job creation is rightfully the top of americans' agenda. americans know that as long as the unemployment rate stays high

, wages are stagnant and more than 12.7 million americans seek jobs they cannot find. more than 42% or nearly six million of those americans have been unemployed for more than six months. madam chair, the verdict is in, the president's stimulus plan has failed, while costing over $1 trillion and still counting, those jobs that were created were short and they too are disappearing. ultimately small business will create the engine going forward. today's bill in fact is designed specifically to give confidence to america's business creators, ones that we have heard from on the committee for more than 18 months, the opportunity to take a breath, evaluate what is the lay of the land and go forward with a business plan, no longer worrying that out of the blue will come major regulatory changes, ones that were unforeseen just a little while ago, that ultimately change

their plans, change their ability to make a profit. whether it's the president's a.c.a. or obamacare or smaller hundred million, two hundred-million, billion-dollar regulations, this uncertainty has put dollars on the sideline. today our effort through more than seven different elements of the titles of the bill, our effort will be to ensure that we do not propose without serious consideration new regulations. the president himself will produce -- while producing more than 106 major rules costing more than $46 billion has said we may be overregulated. his own chief spokesperson has said that in fact regulations can cause -- cost jobs. so, madam chairwoman, it is extremely important that we understand that we must have regulatory certainty, something we will only have by the passage

of today's bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you. now as a member of congress, con strant principle of my own public career has been a deep suspicion of political legislation that employs arbitrary, across-the-board mechanisms that make for good talking points but terrible policy. such messaging bills make a mockery of the legislative process and unfortunately h.r. 4078 is just such a bill. to understand the absurdity of this bill, consider the proposal to ban any new regulations based on the nation's unemployment rate, actually with a typo in the bill, it's the employment rate, but for starters, there is

little or no evidence correlating regulation to private sector hiring. however, there is considerable evidence showing that blocking important health and safety regulations will have a negative effect on all seniors, children, veterans, consumers, not to mention the private sector itself. as written, the legislation prohibblets any new regulatory action -- prohibits any new regulatory actions until the employment rate falls to 6%. meaning unemployment would have to reach 94% before agencies could issue new regulations. the effect of that language, coming from a crowd that was just a few years ago talking about read the bill, means we would never update medicare payment rates for doctors, bank lending protections for families or food safety protections for consumers. no doubt our republican colleagues attempted for this moratorium to apply so unemployment falls to 6%, which would still block regulations for the foresouth korea seeble future. what is absurd about the premises that the department of

labor, for example,s would able to update the exposure safety standards to adequately protect the health of workers exposed to a toxic substance linked to lung cancer and other chronic and fatal diseases based on the .1% squing in the unemployment rate. the same would be true for veterans benefits act. bipartisan legislation that passed in the last congress with no opposition under this bill when the unemployment rate is 6%, the department of veterans affairs would be able to take, quote, significant regulatory action, meaning implementation of the enhanced disability compensation benefits for veterans experiencing difficulty using prosthesis, for example, after the loss of limbs or our veterans in need of extensive care because of post traumatic stress sin droll am -- syndrome. however, if the unemployment rate is 0.12% higher, just 6.1% instead of 6%, h.r. 4078, the bill we're debating right now,

would prohibit the veterans administration from improving care for those veterans. think about that. in voting for this bill, members are endorsing a world view that a .1% swing in unemployment ought to determine whether the federal government can issue rules that benefit veterans with catastrophic injuries. updating medicare payments for doctors, assisting students with loan debt, or providing families peace of mind that the peanut but ther in their pantry will not poison their children. any law that results in such absurd outcomes is deeply flawed and misguided. far beyond the typo. in fact, the bill as written would even prevent those rules that would save money from being implemented. whether one advocate hates all regulations, surely we can all agree that the bizarre, capricious and unjust outcomes that h.r. 4078 this bill, would lead to are the hallucinate

marks of careless doctor hall marks of careless policy based on ideology, not under public policy, not on good governance. as former republican congressman of new york stated in a recent op ed piece in "the new york times," i believe, on h.r. 4078, he said, it is difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of this house bill. that was from a republican former colleague in this body. i remind my republican colleagues that one of the first executive orders issued by president obama required agencies to ensure that their regulations are indeed cost effective. of course that doesn't fit their narrative. neither does it fit the fact that the obama administration's actually issued fewer final rule regulations than the bush administration did in its first term. i urge my colleagues to join me in restoring sanity to the policymaking process in this house by opposing this extreme measure and i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, madam chair. i trust the gentleman from virginia is well aware that the typegraphical error in the bill under consideration was in fact a mistake done by professional staff and although unanimous consents are not permitted in the committee of the whole, i would ask the gentleman from virginia if he would be willing or -- let me rephrase that, he would not object to a unanimous consent in the house to make the correction in what was clearly a typographical error made by nonpartisan professional staff at the leg council's office. mr. connolly: is the gentleman yielding to me for an answer? mr. issa: yes, i am. mr. connolly: this member will reserve the right to object at the appropriate time. mr. issa: reclaiming my time. nothing could be more insincere than to pick on professional

staff on a typographical error. if we have to make a rule -- go to the rules committee, i guess we will, but i'm really sorry to see that kind of and at tude on what the gentleman and all of us know was simply a typographical error. with that i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin -- mr. connolly: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: did this member here, the distinguished chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, characterize a member as insincere? the chair: the chair cannot interpret remarks that were made by another member. the chair cannot interpret remarks that were made by another member. mr. connolly: i'm not asking for an interpretation, madam chairwoman, i'm asking whether he in fact said it. the chair: the matter that could be addressed by debate. mr. connolly: i would ask the

chair to remind members of personal characterizationses on how it's. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the gentlelady. i meant nothing other than i was shocked that the gentleman would say that he would reserve time on what was clearly a typographical error. with that i recognize the gentleman from wisconsin for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. kind: thank you, madam chair. and thank you for yielding. i rise today in support of this legislation which includes a midnight rule relief act that i authored earlier this year. i'd like to take just a moment as a former small business owner to talk a little bit about the impact of regulations. because we'll hear from our colleagues on the other side that no evidence that regulations effect hiring, doesn't effect startups -- affect startups, that if we do these things, that the whole environment's going to go down the hill and the whole country's going to end here because of the

fact that the federal government can't control every minutia of our lives. i would say this, madam chair, that i believe rather than a big government, i believe in a big free individual. i think a little bit, as i tell my story today, about my father, who had started our roofing company in 1958, and there were a few rules of the road then. there were certainly rules of the road, there were rules put in place. there have now since that time been thousands and thousands and thousands. there's been a lot of discussion in this chamber about the gap between the rich and the poor and how the middle class is getting squeezed. i just wonder, if we ever think that maybe the middle class is getting squeezed but they're getting squeezed by their government. mr. ribble: not getting squeezed by rich people, they're not getting squeezed out of it by opportunity. they're getting squeezed out of it by government that no longer lets them pursue the american dream. sometimes i feel that the other

side wants them to pursue their dream, that our government wants to dictate what the dream ought to be for the american citizen. my father had his own dream. he was a milkman in the 1950's after he came home from world war ii. as a u.s. marine. he had six sons and late air do notted two girls, i'm the youngest of eight. and there were many, many times in my life, in my -- and my father, as he tried to make a better, not just a better dream for himself, not just to live out his hopes and dreams and aspirations, but to build a better future for me, for my family, for my children and for my grandchildren, as he started our family business, i wonder if today he could even do it. he had no money, he was delivering milk at the time. one of the lowest paid jobs out there at the time, in 1956. he put an ad in the paper and tried to find work and he

decided that he would go in the roofing business. and through pure grit and determination and hard work he started his own company, he was able to do that because all the barriers that have been put in place by this overreaching government weren't there. he had a customer of ours, of his, actually, i was just a child, tell him he ought to name the company security roofing because they felt secure in his hands. that customer was well aware of the fact that they were -- that my father's providing a service for them, that they were willing to transact money for. and it was a fair transaction of goods. and if my father had cheated them, his reputation would have went down and he wouldn't have been able to sustain himself. he built his company on fairness. he built his company in honesty and integrity and the government wasn't in the way. and now today, imagine some unemployed worker thinking about

starting his own landscaping business, his own roofing company, a young college graduate, a young woman who wants to be a beautician and start her own beauty shop. we have this complex maze of rules and regulations and licensers and all these things that we think have made life better but have taken freedom and crushed the american dream. that's what this bill is about. it's about for a moment of time, it's about incentivizing this government to remove the barriers and obstacles, get them out of the way and say to the american people, there will be no more for a period of time until unemployment reaches this level, 6%. we are not taking away rules. we say there won't be new ones for a time being. also, this bill will stop the president of the united states, both republicans and democrats,

from during a lame-duck session, whether they have been fired or extended during their careers, to not promulgate a bunch of rules and regulations but during a lame-duck session. we've seen a massive increase of rules and regulations during that period of time. 17% in the three months following an election where parties change hands. the number of major rules issued during bill clinton's midnight period total 3 1/2 times more than the average number issued during the same calendar period in the other years of president clinton's second term. president bush wasn't better. his was 1/2 times more. to solve this problem, the bill will say to the president of the united states, for 90 days you can't do it. i support the bill, madam chairman. thank you for your time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i wish my friend's characterization of the bill were accurate but sadly what i think this bill does is cripple the federal government to protect the american public across a broad

swath of policy areas that matters to the average american. i'm now pleased, madam chairman, to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, this is a terrible bill. this shortsighted legislation affects every corner of our government and keeps federal agencies from issuing rules critical for our economy and health and safety of americans. it sets a ridiculous arbitrary benchmark of a 6% unemployment rate before an agency can issue rules. for example, i think it goes in the opposite direction of making the securities and exchange commission more efficient and more effective for the american people. the bill places high barriers in the agency's way as it seeks

to enact all the rules as directed in financial reform with a limited budget. with this bill, my colleagues across the aisle seem to somehow believe that the final years of the prior administration was just a rousing success, that the near collapse of our financial system never happened shes that the out-- happened, that the outrageous abuses that we saw in the mortgage lending industry never occurred and the abuses in consumer lending that the federal reserve labored as unfair and deceptive was just business as usual. but we know those things actually happened and that they crippled our economy. it was in response to the events of 2008 that we gave agencies, like the s.e.c., tools that they had been lacking to monitor the financial system and to protect our overall economy. and now right in the middle of

implementation of these critical reforms, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to forget that all of this happened and wants to put barriers in front of implementing the reforms. and i believe that the language in this bill would basically cripple the s.e.c. even as s.e.c. budget are being slashed, the bill requires the commission to expend more in the way of resources on economic analysis and places additional procedural barriers in the agency's way. i urge a no vote on this bill, and i urge everyone to vote no. it is a death of commonsense reform. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. immigration and customs enforcement as i recognize -- mr. issa: we're hearing that the world will come to an end if we slow down now

regulations. with that i recognize the gentlelady from north carolina for two minutes. the chair: the gtlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me time. i rise in support of the regulatory package today and in particular title 4, the red tape reduction and small business job creation act, which embodies my bill, h.r. 373, the unfunded mandates, information and transparency act. my bill represents the first comprehensive reform modernizing the bipartisan unfunded mandates reform act since its inception in 1995. this bill is supported by state government advocates including the national council of state legislatures, who if a letter to subcommittee chairman lankford stated, quote, it has been enduring shortcomings that your amendment corrects, spanning reporting requirements

to include grants is acceptable. this bill responds to those concerns by allowing a committee chairman or ranking member to request the congressional budget office perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or resolution to the perspective cost of carrying out any changes to a condition of federal assistance being imposed on any respective participating, state, local or tribal government. the purpose of this provision is to highlight cause to federal government's passing along to state and local governments that would otherwise remain hidden. but borne by taxpayers regardless of which governmental agency is taxing them. this bill represents one of the many reasons i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you, madam

chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, my friend, mr. clay. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. clay: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and the majority's plan to stop national safeguards will harm real americans. regulations affect real people, not just balance sheets. when we look at the cost of regulation, we have to examine more than cold dollar amounts. we also have to look at the benefits. we have to look at the real lives saved and the real catastrophic injuries prevented. we have to look at the real american families who live healthier, happier, safer lives because of federal regulations. regulations that protect them in their homes. regulations that protect them at their jobs. regulations that protect them in their communities and places of worship and roads they drive

on and stores where they shop and schools where their children learn and parks where they play. the majority's plan will have real negative consequences on the economy and the health and safety of all americans. especially those among us who need the most help. the majority's plan would prevent h.u.d. from updating their housing subsidy rates, and more families will be without a place to live. worker safety will be jeopardized because the majority's plan would block workplace regulations. children will be put at greater risk because the majority's plan would prevent the federal government from protecting them. madam speaker, we need to work together to create jobs and protect american families, and we don't have to choose between the two. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i trust the gentleman from missouri is aware that last year out of over 3,000 regulations coming out of the administration, no more than 66 would have even qualified for this moratorium. with that i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. conaway: i rise in support of h.r. 4378. needless government regulations is having on job creation and our economic growth. today's bill put an end to the regulate first attitude that pervades the obama administration. contrary to popular belief, this legislation does not prohibit regulators for moving forward with new regulations but requires presidential or congressional waiver to do so. this simple prudent check on the power of bureaucrats will ensure that the regulations

must be testified before they are enacted and that less burdensome alternatives are considered first. beyond just slowing the pace of regulations, h.r. 4078 also contains language that would reform the way two of our independent agencies develop rules for financial institutions. i am pleased that the red tape reduction and regulatory reform act would finally require the kftskfts to perform compre hence -- commodity futures trading commission to perform comprehensive analysis. one of the important steps must be an effort to accurately quantify the costs and the benefits of a proposed action. this is the foundation of good rulemaking. despite this the cftc has consistently stated that their obligation under the law is to only consider the cost of -- cost and benefits of proposals. i believe that we can do better and they must do better. today's legislation is simple, straightforward. it would extend the same requirements for cost-benefit analysis to the cftc that the

president has already asked every our executive branch agency to fall under. during the dodd-frank rulemaking process, the cftces that rarely tried to estimate the cost of compliance. at times in consideration included vague statements like the cost could be significant and other times costs were dramatically underestimated. industry calculated with the proposed rule that was 63 times greater than the cftc's guess. this is one half of the equation. the other half is capturing the benefits of a new rule. regulators must quantify how good the rule is. it is not good to regulate because the authority exists. there must also be tangible benefits for market participants that outweigh the costs of the rules. requiring cost-benefit analysis is a bipartisan step toward a better governance. exact language now contained in h.r. 4078 passed out of the committee in january.

president obama was right that executive agencies be held to a higher standard of analysis. today there is no reason why we shouldn't require the same of the cftc. h.r. 4078 will strengthen the regulating process at cftc. this will ensure that the burdens placed on large businesses and small are justified in the real world, not just pages in the federal register. it's also important to note that the bill will not hinder or delay the current proposed rules already making their way through the process. title 7 of h.r. 4078 is consistent with the complimentary -- and complementary to previously passed cost-benefit analysis. i urge my colleagues to support passage of h.r. 4078. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire how much time each side has? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 22 minutes

remaining. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: madam speaker, today i rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and extreme piece of legislation. this bill would prevent federal agencies from issuing regulations that protect the health and safety of all americans. do not be fooled. this bill will not create jobs, and this bill will not make the government better. this bill is intended to stop the federal government from issuing regulations until the unemployment rate reaches 6% or less. the standard is indeed arbitrary and it absolutely makes no sense. but the bill itself is so poorly drafted that in fact the moratorium would be in effect until unemployment actually reaches 94%. the bill refers to the employment rate instead of the unemployment rate. even if this bill was drafted properly, it would be extremely

misguided. for example, the food and drug administration would be prevented from issuing a rule ensuring that infant formula is safe for babies to drink. why should the safety of baby formula depend on a national unemployment rate? of course it should not. but the f.d.a. would be banned from issuing a rule it's now considering to protect babies by 10-year-old avery cornett who died last year after he drank infant formula contaminated with a dangerous bacteria. i offered an amendment to this bill that would have allowed agencies to protect the health and safety of children, but the house republicans refused to allow it. under this bill, the department of health and human services would be blocked from issuing routine updates to payment rates for doctors who treat seniors under the medicare program. this would result in hospitals having to lay off workers, not creating jobs.

i offered an amendment that would have allowed the department to protect the health and safety of seniors, but house republicans refused to allow that one too. under this bill, the department of defense and the department of veterans affairs will be blocked from issuing regulations to protect the health and safety of our troops serving overseas and our nation's veterans. for example, the v.a. could be blocked from issuing a rule it now -- it is now considering to help veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries. we have seen so much pain with regard to our veterans. when we considered this bill during the oversight committee's markup, congressman yarmuth offered an amendment to allow the v.a. to protect the health and safety of veterans. this amendment was adopted on a bipartisan vote. even now chairman usea supported it in committee yet mysteriously

it was stripped from the bill before it dame the -- came to the floor. representative yarmuth tried to offer that same amendment at the rules committee but the house republicans refused to allow it. to house republicans who refuse to allow debate on amendments to protect children, to protect seniors and protect our nation's service members and veterans, they even removed the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis. this bill is paced on a false premise -- based on a false premise. proponents argue that regulations kill jobs. this myth has been widely discredited by economists on both sides of the aisle. congress should be taking a balanced approach to reviewing regulations just as president obama has done. the president has focused on helping small businesses by identifying regulations that are inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome. the bill takes the opposite approach by freezing all significant regulations

regardless of how critical they are to the health and safety of our people. i think former congressman bullard, a republican, wrote an op ed lafflet week writing, g.o.p. right wing is serious about disabling government. the congressman cut right to the heart of the bill. and keep in mind, this was one of our republican colleagues, former colleagues. here's what he wrote. if one wants to fully appreciate the strangle hold the right wing has on the republican congressional agenda, and its intended dangers, one need look no further than the bill the house plans to consider next week. talking about this bill. which would shut down the entire regulatory system, end of quote. i wish that that description was hyperbole. but sadly it is not. indeed it would be difficult to

exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of this house bill. i agree with congressman bowler, this is an extremely irresponsible bill and i urge all of our members to vote against it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: there you go again. we're shutting down the entire regulatory system because 66 out of 3,000 regulations would be affected by this bill before us today. in just last year. 66 out of 3,000. that's shutting it down. with that i recognize the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. hall, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hall: madam speaker, i of course rise in support of h.r. 4078, regulatory freeze for jobs act of 2011, -- 2012, which seeks to eliminate needless red tape and puts americans back to work. i also thank and am proud of mr.

issa and smith for the handling on this bill. the committee on science, space and technology has studied regulatory hurdles and we've seen a massive expansion of red tape under this administration. much of it has come from the environmental protection agency where too many of the environmental regulations put forward have been based on secret science, hidden data and predetermined outcomes and some just outright phony. e.p.a. appears to be hostile toward economic growth and job creation. for example, e.p.a.'s cross-state air pollution rule added texas in at last minute and threatened hundreds of jobs in my district and electric reliability across my state. one amendment to the offer to h.r. 4078, while well intentioned, may have the unintended affect of driving agencies to make policy decisions without considering scientific information. while science almost never provides one specific answer to a political decision or a policy decision, sound science should be used to inform the ultimate

decisionmaker. science can tell you how the world is, not how the world should be. eliminating other considerations, whether they be moral or ethical, leaves some scientists and unelected bureaucrats in charge, at a time, madam speaker when many american families are struggling, h.r. 4078 eliminates red tape, reduces cost and improves the environment for small businesses and job creators by getting washington out of the way. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, 3 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. i thank him for his great work on this bill. despite the best efforts of republicans in congress, our nation has actually made significant progress over the last several years, protecting the health and the well-being of americans. democrats have passed legislation ensuring that wall street plays by the ruleses --

by the rules. they can't g continue to turn it into a -- they can't continue to turn it into a can sinow where the rich clean up on the way up and the poor get cleaned out on the way down. democrats modernized food safety laws so that americans can feel secure in the knowledge that the food we put on the dinner table won't make our families sick. democrats pass legislation to protect the privacy of americans' sensitive health information. but all of these laws are still in the process of being implemented. that's what's bothering the republicans here today. and all of this -- their supporters across the country. they cannot go fully into effect, to work for the american people, until those regulations are finalized. republicans are determined to keep these vital health and safety and consumer protections from reaching the finish line to offer protection for ordinary

families. g.o.p. used to stand for grand old party. now g.o.p. stands for gut our protections. i released a report today called protection rejection, g.o.p. abandons consumer and health and safety measures across the board. it describes the safeguards that would be jeopardized under this misguided legislation. if you're a wounded veteran needing home care, it will be harder for your family to take time off work to care for you. family members were going to finally be able to take up to 26 weeks of job-protected leave to care for a wounded veteran back from iraq and afghanistan. but the implementation of this new law will be stopped cold by this cold-hearted republican

bill. the bill prevents new fuel economy standards, increasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, forcing families to pay more at the pump, rather than a law that backs our 4.3 million barrels a day from opec, telling them that we don't need their oil anymore than we need their sand, they're saying, stop those regulations from going into effect. and as we approach the two-year anniversary of the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country, the b.p. oil spill, this misguided rep republican bill would stop -- republican bill would stop new safety standards for the blowout preventers on drilling rigs, that could prevent future spills. this makes no sense. the safety of the american people should be put above the special interests that want to stop all of these regulations. the republicans say this is about cutting red tape but it's really nothing more than a red herring.

a desperate attempt to distract from the g.o.p.'s abject failure to spur job creation in this country. there are so many red herrings out here, we might as well put in aquarium here to deal with all of them that the republican party is throwing out here on this bill. we must not allow this republican regulatory freeze bill to set consumer protections back to the ice age. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman an additional minute. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. hundreds of regulations are going to be taken off the books right now and over the life of this bill, thousands of regulations that would have protected the health, the safety, the consumer interests across our country will be wiped off the books. this is a wholesale destruction of the protections that ordinary people need against wealthy corningses taking advantage of them -- corporations taking

advantage of them in their homes, in their neighborhoods. and so, ladies and gentlemen, there has not been a more important bill that comes out this year or this congress onto the house floor. all of you have access to this report i'm putting out here today. protection rejection, g.o.p. adan dones consumer health and -- abandons consumer health and safety measures. it's on my website. if you want to understand the full damage that's going to be done across all of these areas, from dodd-frank to health care to food safety to privacy protections for families across our country, vote no on this bill. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam chair, it's now my honor to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you. madam, apparently the other side assumes most americans are corrupt. they're corrupt people who cannot be trusted and they must

be baby-sat at each moment. company leaders, company owners, company employees, city and state leaders have to be supervised at every single moment because if we don't have a federal bureaucrat standing over the top of them, goodness knows what they'll do. well, i happen to trust the american people. the people that i live around and that i work around and that i meet as americans are great people. who drink that water. who eat that food. who interact with their neighbors in an honorable way. and when someone violates and does something criminal, they should be treated in a criminal way. most americans are great-hearted people that just want to do what's right and they're just trying to figure out every day what the federal government is doing to them rather than what the federal government is doing for them. this bill begins to deal with limiting the regulations so each and every day americans don't have to wake up and worry about what the federal government did to them last night while she were sleeping. let me give you an example of that. in oklahoma we're asking the

question, what authority does a special interest group have over our state government? in january of 2009 several environmental groups sued the e.p.a. to force them to review the regional haze standards. the e.p.a. had wide latitude in its response but it chose to settle with the environmental groups in a private agreement. just the environmental groups and some individuals from the e.p.a. that private agreement created a way for the federal government to take from the states its right to enforce regional haze requirements. the original law clearly gave the authority to the states, not the e.p.a. and the federal government, to realize regional haze. let me give you an example. this is in my own state, in oklahoma. regional haze is not a health issue. it is not a health issue. the way the law is written it's only a visibility issue. has nothing to do with health issues. so our own state has a state implementation plan. on one side of this is the picture of our state implementation plan, what it would look like with our restrictions. the other side is the federal

implementation plan, well over a billion dollars additional in cost. no one could step up here with confidence and tell me which one is which. mr. issa: i ask the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lankford: this is what happens when the e.p.a. makes a private agreement, overshoots a state agreement, and says, we're going to go in and step in and take over. over $1 billion of additional costs to the rate payers in oklahoma with no difference in the two other than two controls it. this is an issue where no public comment period, no stakeholder involvement, nothing. it is time to resolve how we do our regulations and to make sure stake holds that are are affected are also at the table helping make the decisions on how things will be affected for the good of our country as a whole. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. massachusetts massachusetts madam chair, this is an example

of the republican majority's taste for legislative exotica. we have a very strange bill that no one expects to go anywhere. they do expect to make some people happy by pretending that they're going to be making -- here. this is in lieu of real legislation. this is the group that could not have this house pass a transportation bill. the house passed a transportation bill by a legislative maneuver of the kind they used to denounce. it was made part of an overall omnibus package that was never -- package, there was never any chance to amend it and it came out of conference committee. we can't pass an agriculture bill. we face problems in the agricultural area and because they are so split over what to do, the committee's brought out a bill and it's not coming forward. they are unable to do the regular legislative business so we get this -- now what this says is that no rules that have

been promulgated of any significance are going to be going forward. i will not debate the gentleman from oklahoma about haze. i am not an expert about it. but that's the problem. this is not a bill that deals with rules in one area, in one area of expertise, it does everything. so let me talk about one area i am familiar with. the gentleman from oklahoma said, we're saying that you need a federal regulator looking over their shoulders of every american. no, not every american. but i'm close to thinking of every american who runs a large financial institution, yeah. of the people who lied about libor, of the people at capital one who cheated consumers. now, i am glad we have a consumer bureau that stepped in to protect the americans there. it's not every american who's corrupt, it is too many in the financial area. we passed financial reform. i know some of the republicans don't like it, i read in the paper today, well, mr. romney

says he's going to repeal it but the house republicans say, oh, no we can't. so instead of repealing it in a head-on way or amending it in a head-on way, they want to stop the rules. what this bill would do if it ever became law would be to say, no to the volcker rule, let's not differentiate as to what kind of activity is legitimate for a bank to do. an american bank that's got deposit insurance wants to speculate and lose billions of dollars in derivative trades, let them be. this bill will stop us in a number of other areas with regard to derivatives, speculation, where we want to put limits on what the nonusers of oil can buy so they can drive up the price. the notion that the american people are crying out for an end to regulation is not congruent with anything i have read or heard about the financial area and i am on the financial services committee, i've worked on that. this bill would fully apply here.

it would prevent us from going forward for any of the pending rules in the financial reform bill. most will be done soon. this is an effort to rederegulate derivatives without standing up and saying so. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. frank: i thank the gentleman. this is an effort to do rederegulation by stealth. if they don't want to regulate derivatives, if they speculation is a good thing, then let's bring up a bill. this isn't the agriculture bill. you don't have to be afraid by splitting your membership to do it. it should be straightforward. instead they want to do it by stealth. they want to end our effort to bring -- i say yes to the gentleman from oklahoma. when it comes to people running the large financial institutions we do need more regulation, not less, and i believe the american people understand that and do not want to see the who brought this terrible recession of 2008 from

their financial responsibility set free of any restrain. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam chair, pursuant to the unanimous consent made in the house, i insert the staff report from the committee on oversight and government reform entitled, continued oversight of regulatory impediment of job creation, the result of over 30 separate field hearings and hearings by the committee and the work of countless hundreds of job creators around the country who have participated. with that i'll yield the gentlelady from new york two minutes. the chair: the gentleman's request is under general leave, and the gentleman from new york for two minutes. >> i stand in strong support of h.r. 4078, the red tape reduction and small business job creation act, which takes important steps and strides to provide our small businesses throughout this country with

some certainty, the certainty that they so desperately need. every time i'm home in my district i hear from my constituents of small business owners. they want to know, when is this deluge of regulations out of washington going to end? ms. buerkle: and that's what this bill addresses today. it's such a harsh reminder that this administration's policies are not working. rather than looking ahead, our small businesses and our job creators are ducking and hiding behind the myriad of deluge of mandates and regulations that so restricts their growth. and this uncertainty that these regulations create is the end of growth and it's why our economy will not move forward and stays stagnant. this year the federal register has reached nearly 42,000 pages with regulations that cost our american businesses $56.6 billion and result in 114

million hours of paperwork. that's why our economy is not growing. they cannot even deal with the deluge of regulations coming out of washington. why should an owner of a supermarket in upstate new york spend his time dealing with the 15,000 pages of regulations from the affordable care act rather than paying attention to the inventory in his grocery store? simply put, madam speaker, washington's attitude toward the private sector is discouraging. it's time for congress to reverse the trend and let america's job creators know we stand beside them rather than in front of them blocking their progress and combrothe. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from new york yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, i yield to the distinguished ranking member of the commerce committee, mr. waxman, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: madam chair, i rise

in opposition to this bill. all year the house republicans have brought extreme bills to this floor to repeal commonsense safeguards. in fact, we have voted over 280 times this congress to repeal our undermine landmark environmental laws like the clean air act and the clean water act. that's not what the american people want. the legislation we're debating today takes this assault to a new level. it halts virtually all regulation until unemployment drops below 6%. i don't see it. we are going to have an unprecedented attack on critical public health, safety and economic protections. we are going to let the marketplace solve all problems? well, this bill would undermine medicare by preventing the issuance of updated

reimbursement rates and denying hospitals and clinics hundreds of millions of dollars in medicare payments. because these are regulations as well. it would jeopardize the food supply by blocking produce safety rules that would prevent contaminated food from showing up on our local grocery store shelves. it would stop broadly supported tailpipe rules for cars and trucks that will save consumers money, slash pollution and cut our dependence on oil. it would block rules to ensure health care quality and raise the bar for provider performance. according to the congressional budget office, this legislation could even delay incentive auctions of the spectrum by the f.c.c. these auctions would raise billions of dollars to build out the public safety communications system.

this is a clear example of how this bill will kill jobs, not create them, and increase, not reduce, the deficit. madam chair, a lot of regulations are important and a lot of regulations create jobs. but we hear over and over again, oh, we can't burden the job creators with regulations. when we put regulations in place it's for a reason. it's a reason that we ought to let the regulations go forward and not stop them all, as this bill would do. the reasons are to protect the public health and safety. the reasons are to have a medicare system that is up to date. the reasons are to make sure that our financial institutions have rules that apply to them and we don't let them make decisions on their own. they may be job creators but they were job destroyers in 2008. the republicans say they want to cut red tape but this legislation does not cut red

tape. it makes the rest of the government just like the house of representatives -- dysfunctional and unresponsive to the nation's pressing problems. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i urge the american people to watch carefully who votes for it. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam chair, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, dr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: madam speaker, as a business owner, this is what i get when i hear the government's here to help us. look at this red tape. wow. that's what a small business has to put up with just to create a business. you know, that's why i rise today in support of h.r. 4078, the red tape reduction and small business job creation act of 2012. a recent report released from gallop suggested that 48% of

all small business owners have put a freeze on new hiring because they are worried about regulations and costs. clearly sensible solutions and reforms are needed. this bill will allow small businesses to be free of the burdensome yolk of government regulations. for far too long, stifling bureaucracy and meddlesome mandates have stagnated job growth. red tape has tied the hands and feet of employers and entrepreneurs alike. look at the maze. these binds which constrict the free flow of capital will be cut by this bill which simply states new new federal regulation costing over $100 million will not be complemented until the unemployment rates until 6%. this will save an estimated $22.1 billion. the upside down roller coaster that our small businesses and entrepreneurs have been on in the past few years can now stop. americans looking to start a business, expand their business

facilities or hire new workers can plan for the future and put our economy back on a path to prosperity. as a small business owner for 25 years, i'm acutely aware of the way in which restrictive rules can put a business owner hostage. i urge your yes vote on the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, how much time does each side have? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has six minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield mr. kucinich 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 1/2 minutes. mr. -- 2 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: thank you, mr. cummings, mr. issa, members of the house. i read this bill and there's something about it that we

really need to understand and that is that, you know, we just got through having a debate about the federal reserve and one of the reason the fed should be audited, they are not fulfilling their responsibility for bringing about employment in this country. now, this bill exempts the federal reserve. think about it. we're going to bring -- we say we want to bring unemployment down to 6%. the fed, if you look at the board of governors report, they basically jettison the whole idea of bringing unemployment down. right now they're establishing what i call a new threshold, the 5% to 6% unemployment. so if our friends are successful with this bill, we won't have jobs and we won't have regulations either. hello. i read the report. we ought to be investigating why has the fed stopped -- stepped back from its job creation, why are we exempting them from a bill that we are actual he taking the presser off them for job creation? now, look, we should be create

be jobs, no question about it. now, i have a bill in h.r. 2990, puts americans back to work, full employment of the economy. goes way past humphrey-hawkins. americans need to get back to work. the other side of the aisle says, yeah, we're together on that. america needs to get back to work, but we're going to get back to work while having water that's not safe to drink? air that's not safe to breathe? we are going to get back to work by having products that you don't know if your pets can consume them? are we going to get back to work having to worry when we go to various salad bars if it's something we can consume whether or not there's a proper food inspection? are we going to get america back to work by not checking on airplane safety? is that how we get america back to work? come on. there are certain regulations that are absolutely fundamental to running an organized

society. whether you are a democrat or a republican. so, you know, i understand issues. this is a political climate. but let's not mix up this mutual concern that we have about creating jobs in this country by trying to score some points saying, well, you know, there are regulations that are -- i'm sure there's regulations that don't work. i say -- i know one other thing. when you take a broad approach to try to knock out regulations, you're looking for trouble. you're going to create trouble and that's what this does. so, you know, i'm urging a no vote, and i have more to say on an amendment that i have. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. chairman, it's now my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. gunta. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. guenta: i thank the gentleman for yielding time -- mr. gunta: i thank the

gentleman for yielding time. i rise in support of the red tape reduction and sunshine small business job cruiserweight. i rise in support of title 3. certain environmental advocacy groups sue federal agencies to issue regulations and then agencies settle these lawsuits behind closed doors, also known as sue and settle. after -- only after a settlement has been agreed to does the public have any chance to provide any comment. this is a pointless exercise because of the damage has already been done. more troubling, the settlements often allow advocacy groups and agencies to effectively dictate major policy. by circumventing the protections that exist for public participation in our regulatory system. this provision, the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act of 2012, promotes openness and transparency in the regulatory process. and it does that by requiring agencies to notify the public that these lawsuits -- of these

lawsuits before they are settled, in giving the public meaningful voice in the process. as chairman issa knows from the field hearing he held on great bay in my district, in the state of new hampshire, my constituents of small businesses are facing this very issue. communities, small businesses and new hampshire families are facing massive tax increases because outside organizations with political agendas are forcing the e.p.a. into a sue or settle situation. costing hundreds of millions of dollars. this has been done behind closed doors, without the community being at the table as a full negotiating partner and this is wrong. we all want the great bay to be clean and to be protected. but sue and settle is not the way. in the end the actions of the few politically driven organizations are costing small businesses and hurting new hampshire families in an already difficult economy. chairman issa, i want to thank you for coming to new hampshire to shed light on this problem

and i urge all members for these reasons to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i ask how much time we have? the chair: you have 3 1/2 minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i just want to clear something, mr. speaker. it's been said that these -- that this would affect matters that would likely have an annual cost of -- to the economy of over $100,000 or more. in other words, those would be subject to the bill. but the piece that is left out, on page 8 of the bill, and this is very crucial, it says, and i quote, or, or, o.m.b. determines, or, adversely affect, that is legislation, rules, proposed rules, that would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, small entities or state, local or tribal governments or communities. and of course the bill goes on to say that o.m.b. may make a determination but if there is an entity that is agreed, they can always go to court. so, it's not accurate to say that it's just limited to those types of regulations that would affect the economy to the tune of $100 million. it actually affects a whole lot more than that. and with that i would continue to yield. i mean reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa. mr. issa: mr. chairman, hopefully the gentleman would note that the language you just quoted is from the president's executive order and it's not some sort of pocket information, but in fact something the president of the united states felt was a reasonable set of language. with that i recognize the

gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, chairman issa. most congressmen call their district and staff workers case workers. i call my district workers red tape cutters. that's what -- because that's what they do. unfortunately we have to have a job like that because government red tape is so thick. a lot of what our case workers do is for veterans and social security recipients but they also help our small businesses. when i'm back home i hear time and time again from businesses, how the government is getting in the way of creating jobs. and if we'd just tell them what to do and let them do it and quit changing the rules midstream, they would do it. and that's what this bill does. it tells the government, stop, don't change the rules midstream until our economy is back on track. it's a jobs bill and it's an opportunity to give our businesses the opportunity to get people hired. this congress has been tireless in our pursuit of creating jobs by limiting senseless and expensive government regulation.

i'm confident this bill will pass the house and i hope it has better luck than some of the other bills we've passed, like the reins act, that also deals with regulations when it gets across the capital into the senate. you know, -- capitol into the senate. you know, we've got to get these bipartisan jobs bills passed and signed into law. americans know we have to cut the employment rate and to do that we're going to have to cut the red tape. mr. issa: i ask the gentleman have an additional 15 seconds. mr. farenthold: i'm done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i now recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: i thank the chair for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this issue. i rise in support of this legislation that will save this country billions of dollars and create thousands of much-needed jobs. red tape is a word we hear all too often in washington, but when you get back to places like danville, virginia, and talk with the people who are stuck in it, you gain a new perspective on what federal regulations mean

to everyone outside of the beltway. the federal government continues to grow in size and scope, our main street businesses continue to struggle. the president tells us that the private sector is doing just fine. the president tells us that if you've got a business, you didn't build it, but the president has not told us how he plans to help our small business owners grow and create the jobs our local communities need. our nation has faced over 8% unemployment for more than three years. we're being crushed and you rapidly accumulating -- under a rapidly accumulating debt and both of these things have everything to do with the policies set forth in washington that grow the federal government and strangle our main street businesses. where others will not lead, the house will. that is why we remain focused on adopting legislation like the bill we considered today, legislation that will remove the federal government as a barrier to job creation. this package of bills will lead us to responsible regulations and ensure that the economic impacts of federal regulations are accounted for.

and most important it will give our small businesses -- business owners across virginia the ability to hire and expand their businesses at a time when many are closing their doors. this legislation is the kind this country needs to turn the corner from a struggling economy to the america that we have known for generations, a country of limited government and unlimited opportunity. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to whether or not the gentleman has other speakers? mr. issa: i'm prepared to close. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume which is -- the chair: two minutes and 15 seconds. mr. cummings: thank you. mr. speaker, i would just like to say in closing that the debate today proves that this bill is an extreme attack on the regulatory system. republicans have put critical protections on the line by proposing to shut down the

regulatory process with a bill that was ill-conceived from the start and that was cobbled together so quickly. i might also say that one of the things that i've said over and over again, and i think it is the position -- has been -- i know it's been the position of the president, is that we must have balance with regard to regulations. i think that mr. waxman and certainly mr. frank were absolutely right. it's not a question of distrust. it's a question of making sure that we have regulations in place to protect the safety and welfare of our citizens and we don't need to look too far. when i look at my district and i see the many people who have lost so much because of what happened on wall street and what happened just recently with regard to the banks, the fact is that regulation is needed and if any committee has had evidence of it, it is our committee, oversight and government reform. so we've heard no evidence today

that regulations kill jobs. we've heard no evidence that regulations hurt our economy. we've heard countless examples -- examples of how regulations can improve the health and safety of americans and save lives. it's so very, very important that we keep in mind that balance that i talked about. it's also important that we keep in mind what this president has done. president obama has made sure that he's take an careful look at those rules, those regulations that were unnecessary. he has been -- he has put forth less regulations than either -- either the former president bush. he has slowed down the process of approving regulations and i think clearly he is headed in the right direction as to what i just said, a balanced approach. so i hope the american people understand that this legislation is not advancing their interests. i repeatedly said that the majority is forcing a false

choice. we do not have to choose between creating jobs and protecting the health and safety of american families. we can and must do both. this legislation does neither and i urge all members to vote against it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california has four minutes. mr. issa: i thank the chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i never thought i'd hear chairman waxman, former chairman waxman, speak in terms of how dysfunctional congress is, how we just don't operate and can't be trusted. but clearly i heard him say that today. i still believe in the institution that all of us belong to. in living up to our responsibility, congress has the responsibility to pass laws. and it has an absolute obligation to oversee the administration of those laws. the executive branch or administrative branch actually only has the right to create

regulations and executive orders to support the laws that have been created. for too long we have abrogated our responsibility. former chairman waxman apparently would like to continue doing that, in what he said of our low rating and essentially repeating it. until the unemployment rate reaches 6%, taking back just less than 66 out of 3,000 regulations last year and making them accountable either to fall into emergency requirements, into specific categories of essential harm, or to come to congress would seem to be a small task. i have no doubt that if the shoe was on the other foot and president bush was still in office, and the democrats were still in charge, that this bill would look more favorable to them. but that's not what we should be

here deciding, is who would favor -- it favors or disfavors. when this bill becomes law it will in fact become law for the future, for republicans and democratic members alike. the elimination of the midnight regulations that have so -- for so long been abused by presidents of both parties, h.r. 4607, absolutely -- h.r. 4607 is absolutely long overdue. president george w. bush rushed excess amounts to close before he left. president obama will undoubtedly do the same. that's wrong. it's simply wrong. and we know it is and we know that often, as this bill says, these are regulations that aren't heard before the election and are concluded in those 75 days before departure. it's wrong, we know we need to stop it, we shouldn't abrogate our responsibility and the members on the other side will suddenly decide, i'm sure, this is a better idea should mitt romney be elected in the fall.

this bill is supported by the chamber of commerce, association of builder andy contract -- builders and contractors, small business and entrepreneurs council, and the national federation of independent businesses. the fact is, this is about simply saying, not that we're going to stop 3,000 regulations, but that we're going to slow and evaluate more carefully the 66 largest of them by this administration last year. during debate the administration was essentially lauded for having passed less regulations in numbers than president george w. bush. i checked that during debate. that's true. but that's because president george w. bush did regulatory changes to eliminate regulations in those scored. when you look at the cost of regulations under this administration, the cost is dramatically higher. i share with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that cost is not just dollars and

cents, that you have to look at all the benefits. but if for too long we've had sue and settle, we've had the ability for these determinations to be made without that due process of looking at both sides, so today as we move this bill i clearly appreciate the fact that the men and women of my committee, the staff, the hardworking people who never get seen in front of the camera, in fact have worked through 30 hearings, through countless interviews with job creators and made sure the right things are in this bill for the right reason. i urge passage and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: america's economic recovery remains sluggish. the national unemployment rate is above 8% for over 40 months. the president promised that his $le00 billion spending bill would -- that his $800 billion spending bill would keep unemployment below 8%. instead, the spending bill only added to the deficit. more than 12 million americans are out of work. 700,000 more than when president obama took office. the median income of american families has dropped, too. the president's economic policies have failed and his regulatory policies have made the economy worse. a recent gallup poll found that among the 85% of u.s. small

businesses that are not hiring, nearly half cited being worried about new government regulations as the reason. president obama has turned america into a regulation nation. a heritage foundation study found that in his first three years in office, president obama implemented 106 major rules that impose $46 billion in additional annual regulatory cost on the preist sector. that's a new record. the president promised in his 2011 state of the union address to fix rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses. but he has gone in the opposite direction. we need to encourage businesses to expand, not tie them up with red tape. today, congress continues to fight the constricting red tape that comes from washington by offering common sense solutions that deserve bipartisan support.

and that's what we do today. members of the judiciary committee introduced three of the titles in the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. mr. griffin's regulatory freeze for jobs act gives small businesses a much-needed break from new regulations that cost the economy $100 billion or more until the unemployment rate stabilizes at 6%. the freeze act is narrowly tailored to stop unnecessary economically significant regulations. it contains reasonable exceptions such as health and safety, criminal or civil rights laws, trade agreements, and national security. the freeze act gives job creators confidence about future regulatory conditions, which will encourage them to make the investments to jump start our economy. the rapid act introduced by mr. ross helps to create jobs as it streamlines the federal environmental review and permitting process.

it draws upon established definitions and concepts from existing regulations and fretch the administration's own recommendations. employers and investors can't move forward without necessary permits and without confidence in the process. the rapid act establishes reasonable, predictable deadlines for agencies to complete the permit review process and for lawsuits to be filed afterwards. the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act ends the decrees for more regulations. for many years, regulatory advocates have used consent decrees in settlements to establish new rules in secrecy, outside the rig rule-making procedures that provide for transparency and regulation. the sue and settle approach has enabled agencies to impose higher cost and avoid accountability since they can claim, quote, the court made us

do it. this legislation make shures the public and those affected by regulations have a say in these decrees and settlements. it also requires greater judicial scrutiny and helps prevent an outgoing administration from unfairly setting its successor's agenda through consent decrees. these and all the titeles of the red tape reduction and small business job creation act provided needed relief to small businesses. economic growth depends on job creators, not federal regulators. this legislation frees up businesses to spend more, invest more and produce more in order to create more jobs for american workers. i urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill and mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman, mr. conyers, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: could i begin by asking the distinguished chairman of the house judiciary committee the following inquiry -- is it not true that the united states of america has less regulation than almost any other country -- industrialized country in the western hemisphere? and i would be pleased to yield to the gentleman to respond. mr. smith: i have no idea whether we have more or fewer regulations than other countries. i know we have far more regulations today than we did three years ago and the obama administration has set a new record in the number of expensive regulations it has suggested and implemented. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. conyers: the gentleman is welcome. his answer is no, he doesn't know. i'm going to, in the course of this debate, try to share with him the fact that other industrialized nations are -- have far more regulations than us, just to put things into some kind of relative proportion. members of the house of representatives, paul krugman -- i think i'll start with joseph stig lits -- stieglitz instead, has talked about the subject of regulation and here's something that he had to say about it that i think will set us in the right frame of mind to examine dispassionately

the principle that is under examination this afternoon. he said this -- the subject of regulation has been one of the most contentious, with critics arguing that regulations interfere with the efficiency of the market and advocates arguing that well-designed regulation not only makes markets more efficient but also helps ensure the market outcome is more equitable. interestingly, as the economy plunges into a slowdown if not a recession, with more than two million americans expected to lose their homes, there is a growing consensus that there's a need for more government regulation. if it is the case that better regulations could have

prevented or even mitigated the downturn, the country and the world will be paying a heavy price for the failure to regulate adequately and the social costs are no less grave. hundreds of thousands of americans will not only have lost their homes, but their lifetime savings as well. so the measure before us, h.r. 4078, by stopping or delaying rules from going into effect, seriously jeopardizes the safety and the soundness of our nation's economy and our society generally. another fundamental problem with this proposal is that it

myopically focuses on the cost of regulations while largely ignoring their overwhelming benefits. and so this measure is not only with its misleading -- misleadingingly short title will not result in creating jobs for one simple reason. there is no credible evidence establishing that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. and with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, senior member of the judiciary committee and chairman of the administrative law subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. coble: i thank the distinguished chairman from texas for having yielded. i rise in support of h.r. 4078. i have the honor and privilege of serving on the judiciary

subcommittee on courts and administrative law which has jurisdiction over the administrative procedures act. we have spent a lot of time and energy reviewing proposals to refine the man for the which our federal government forms and implements regulations. i have encountered two philosophies on improving our regulatory system. one is that we routinely and regularly review and improve regulations which -- while other advocates propose that the federal government should issue yet more regulations. it appear it is me that the obama administration has to em-- has embraced the latter philosophy pause red tape has flying fast and furious in his tenure. his administration proposed regulations that are expected to exceed $100 million at the rate of 125 every two years. currently there are 24 major rules in the pipeline for

review by the office of information and regulatory affairs. the results have been telling during the first 26 months of the obama administration. our federal government has added $40 billion of annual regulatory cost to our economy and this year, the federal register already exceeds 40,000 pages. in the transportation arena, new d.o.t. passage of protection regulations are estimated by the american aviation institute to cost $1. billion annually. in total, there are 10 new federal aviation regulations that will cost $4 billion annually. although they will produce no significant benefit to the traveling public, they certainly and inevitably will be passed along in the form of fees, reduced services, or increased prices. since 19 -- since 2008, the

combined budget of regulatory agencies has ballooned 16%, topping $54 billion. during the same time, employment at the agencies grew 13% while our economy only grew by 5% and the number of private sector jobs shrunk by 5.6%. the scene is ominous and i think it reflects what has happened to our economy but i also do not believe that the situation is hopeless. the need for regulatory reform has been emulated by every administration since president ronald reagan but efforts have not been successful. enacting h.r. 4078 will be a step in the right direction. several titles of this legislation approvedly bithe judiciary committee will implement immediate relief. the inch amountation -- implementation of h.r. 40 8, the regulatory freeze act,

would reportedly save our economy $22.1 billion and save thousands of jobs without jepardidsing safety. h.r. 3862, the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlement acts will end the practice of special interests using consent decreases -- decrees to bypass the regulatory process and imposing their will on affected communities of this. the rapid act will help end the permitting logjam that has stifled development investment without diminishing a single environmental standard or protection. regulations that are narrowly tailored, effective, and routinely reviewed can make our society safe -- more safe and our economy stronger, but when they are ineffective or inefficient, our security is jeopardized and so is our economy. i see my time is up and i yield

back to to the distinguished gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: could i direct an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina? mr. coble. to ask him if he is aware of the fact that the obama administration has accomplished an accumulated net benefits of regulations in the last three years -- three fiscal years, that exceed $91 billion. this comes from the office of management and budget and is more than 25 times the net

benefits of regulations issued by the bush administration for a comparable period of time. i yield to the distinguished gentleman for a response. mr. coble: i was not aware of that. job creators north korea need certainty about the regular -- job creators need certainty about the regulation process. thus a regulation that has $100 million in benefits would not be frozen by the bill. mr. conyers: are you telling me that the freeze will be helpful to creating jobs? mr. coble: i -- mr. conyers: i yield to the gentleman. are you telling me in response to my question that the freeze will be helpful to create jobs?

mr. coble: yes, i am telling you that. mr. conyers: and -- but do you accept the office of management and budget's findings that the benefits of regulations by the current administration in the last three fiscal years exceeded $91 billion? mr. coble: i don't know that. i'll yield to the chairman for that. mr. conyers: you're not able to yield because i yielded to you. so you don't know? mr. smith: if the gentleman would yield to me i'd be happy to try to respond. mr. conyers: i just wanted to ask the gentleman, i didn't mean to make this as prolonged as it's become but i don't think his response of a freeze was

adequate -- an adequate response to my question. mr. coble: i was not aware of the question you put to me. i neither embrace nor reject that. mr. conyers: all right. i thank the gentleman for his attempted response. and i would now like to yield to the gentlelady from upstate new york, ms. hochul, who serves with great distinction on the armed services committee two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from new york. mr. hoekstra: i thank the gentleman for yielding -- ms. hochul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on february 12, 2009, flight 3407 crashed into a house in my district, killing all passengers and an individual in his home. of that devastation station arose a spirit that united this congress in enacting flight safety and pilot training rules

that would have prevented the crash. the families never gave up, coming to talk to members of congress over 50 times over three years, and they are eagerly awaiting the final implementation of potentially life-saving rules. sounds like a happy ending, doesn't it? and yet this week, because the house rules committee refused to allow my amendment to protect those specific rules, we are at risk of losing all that hard-fought work, those bipartisan safety reforms. with the so-called regulatory freeze act, these reforms would simply die. so those who voted for them in the past are now calling them job-killing? well, i call them people-saving. listen, i know we need to end overburdensome regulations and i voted, i hear about that in upstate new york. but there's a commonsense way to do it. but to freeze all government regulations, all of them, regardless of the health and safety of our citizens, is over the top.

even for this town. flight safety rules are just one example. the bill would also block benefits for disabled and homeless veterans, it would hurt seniors and it would eliminate rules that ensure taxpayer dollars be used for goods made in america. this only proves that washington is broken and we need to fix it and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this senseless regulation and this rule. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to a question that the gentleman from michigan posed a few minutes ago. mr. chairman, what i'd like to do is enter into the record an article from earlier this year that appeared in the "economist" magazine. this is a magazine that is one of the oldest and most respected sources of news and analysis and is favorably disposed toward the obama administration. but it published an article detailing how the obama administration systematically manipulates the cost-benefit

analysis in agency rulemaking. this manipulation deliberately inflates benefits and minimizes the cost, the article says. the economy goes -- the economist -- "the economist" goes so far as to call the administration's cost-benefit analysis, quote, highly suspect, end quote, and, quote, subject to the whims of the people in power, end quote. mr. chairman, i'll yield four minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, a member of the judiciary committee and a sponsor of the legislation we consider today. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave and the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for four minutes. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would like to say that any -- the idea that this bill will stop good, reasonable, commonsense, much-needed regulations is nonsense. it simply requires congress to have a role. and after all, congress is the

body that authorizes laws and regulations in the first place. that just makes sense. the complications that so many complain about i call checks and balances. so i rise in support of h.r. 4078, the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. this bill would freeze significant regulations, those costing the economy $100 million or more, until nationwide unemployment falls to 6% or below. many of my friends on the other side say there's no connection between excessive and overly burdensome regulation and job creation. they must have been asking their favorite economist and not talking to actual job creators. even president obama disagrees. in a january, 2011, "wall street journal" op ed, president obama wrote, quote, sometimes those

rules have gotten out of balance. placing unreasonable burdens on business. burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth in jobs, end quote. he's at least given lip service to the problem. small businesses like razor chemical, a manufacturer of environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in north little rock, arkansas, they bear the brunt of regulatory compliance costs. according to the government small business administration, complying with current federal regulations already cost at least $1.75 trillion every year, adding more than $10,000 in overhead per small business employee. which is 30% higher than the regulatory costs facing large firms. half of all private sector employees in the united states are employed by a small business job creator. exactly the type of folks who

are getting hammered by the obama administration's aggressive regulatory agenda. in its first three years, the obama administration created 120 new major regulations, costing americans more than $46 billion each year. that's more than four times the number and five times the cost of major regulations created by the bush administration in its first three years. as the lead sponsor of this bill, i made sure it carefully targets the most harmful regulations while making exceptions for federal rules necessary for national security, trade agreements, enforcement of criminal and civil rights lawsuits -- laws, and eminent threats to health or safety. it also includes a provision allowing the president to seek congressional approval for other regulations that he thinks are absolutely critical. in fact, with that waiver, you can pretty much pass any

regulation as long as congress agrees. in his state of the union address, president obama admitted, quote, there's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary or too costly. if there's no question about the problem, he should embrace the house's solution. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. to ask the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, mr. tim griffin of arkansas, if he is aware that the president, as he correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle, but that he opposes very strongly h.r. 4078, the regulatory freeze for jobs act of 2012. and i would yield to the gentleman for a response. mr. griffin: well, i thank the

gentleman. first of all, i, and don't know anyone who is anti-regulation. it's the excessive and overly burdensome regulations that are the problems. i have a 2-year-old, baby john, and a 4-year-old, mary catherine, i will clean air and clean water for them. i understand the need for reasonable, commonsense regulations. but that's not what we're talking about here. with all due respect. in fact, -- mr. conyers: if i could interrupt the gentleman. this is not about what your opinion is or mine. i'm asking you about the president's opinion. and the president has, as you quite accurately said, is supportive of regulation. but he is specifically opposed to this regulation and i would

like to quote to you exactly what he said about 4078. the bill would undermine critical public health and safety protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in agency decision making and interfere with agency performance of statutory mandates. and so now i -- mr. griffin: may i -- mr. conyers: mr. brad miller of north carolina, a member of -- mr. griffin: will the gentleman yield? mr. conyers: no, i can't right now. i want to introduce brad miller of north carolina, a outstanding member of the financial services committee, and yield to him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. miller: thank you. mr. speaker, the astronomical estimates we hear on the cost of regulation assume that no business would ever do anything that any regulation requires

unless there was a regulation requiring them to do it. the truth is that most businesses really want to do the right thing. most businesses try to have a safe workplace. most businesses try not to pollute the air and pollute the water and release toxic chemicals that are going to affect public health. most businesses want to have safe products. they don't want to produce baby formulas that are going to hurt infants. those types do the right things. the other folks who don't want to do that, who would save a little bit of money by not doing anything that common decency requires, in addition to regulations, they hire lobbyists and they make campaign contributions. and that is -- those are the folks that reneed regulations for -- that we need regulations for. mr. speaker, most americans don't know what this bill really does. they don't know what a freeze in significant regulations really means without a long explanation and a reporter who is trying to get air time to talk about this

bill or print space is not going to have much luck. this bill is just too in the weeds and republicans obviously think that there's political safety in the weeds. if republicans were to try to bring a bill to the floor that openly repealed the wall street reform act, the clean air act, the food and safety act and on and on, that bill would get some attention. this bill does much the same thing as repealing those acts but without being honest about it. they'd have to explain themselves to their constituents about if they'd just out and repealed -- up and repealed those laws. but instead republicans are speaking in political gobbledy gook. it's like adults who spell out words so their children won't know what they're talking about. their constituents, republicans hope, will not know what red tape reduction means, really. it sounds good but the effect is to undue all the protections

that we depend upon from our government. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, who is maybe of the judiciary committee and the sponsor of the rapid act, which is a part of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, our country is in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. much of the blame lies here in washington where living beyond our means and micromanaging the economy is, to quote some in this town, is just the way washington works. well, mr. speaker, washington doesn't work. any business that's tried to build something knows what i'm talking about. dozens of federal agencies representing vary idea interests, competing against each other while special interest groups wait in the wings to hold projects for ransom. mr. speaker, allow me to sum up what our permitting process should be. quote, our federal permitting and review processes must provide a transparent, consistent and predictable path of both project sponsors and affected communities.

they must ensure that agencies set and adhere to timelines and schedules for completion of reviews, set clear permitting performance goals and track progress against those goals. they must encourage early collaboration among agencies, project sponsors and effective stakeholders in order to incorporate and address their issues and minimize delays, end quote. what i just read is verbatim from march 2012 executive order by president barack obama and i agree with the president 100%. mr. speaker, we achieve these goals of the president in h.r. 4078 and it cannot come soon enough for those looking for work. a march, 2011, study conducted by the united states chamber of commerce identified some 351 projects that are being stymied by current regulatory review process. 1.9 million jobs are on hold, $1.1 trillion economic impact to this country. these jobs are not c.e.o.'s or jet setters, these jobs are miners, they're machinists,

they're blue collar workers. i know this because i've watched this happen in my community where 200 jobs were lost because after seven years and 14 federal state and local agencies went through a permitting process, a company then -- a company then one month later was shut down and their project because some environmental group went to a very lenient judge and shut them down. moms and dads wondering where their mortgage payments and food money would come from. wondering why an environmental group that has no interest in my district could put them out of work. these groups that would invest billions in projects cannot do so without some certainty. this part of my legislation merely says that all parties from environmental groups to legislate i have agencies must be at the table and sharing remedies an concerns from the start. it says they must have a time

limit. it says if you don't get in at the beginning, you can't come in after and use a sympathetic judge to shut it down this process was used in 2005 when the house voted 412-8 to imnose safetea-lu program which provided the same detailed, streamlining procedures that have reduced the permitting from 73 months to 37 months. the process is broken. this poses solutions that are sensible. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and give millions of our fellow citizens a hope for the future. i yield back. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'd just like the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. ross, know that later on, i'm going to introduce over 60

outstanding leaders, economists, and organizational heads that take a pleatly different view from the distinguished gentleman from florida. i'd like him to examine those documents. i now turn to the former chairman of the education and lay war -- and labor committee, george miller, and i'm pleased to yield him such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the bill before us today is nothing more than a cynical attempt to put the profits of well-connected special interests above the interests of middle class americans. this is nothing new. in this house, ideology prevails over bipartisanship, the powerful over middle class families, and brinksmanship

over cooperation. congress has paid the price in low approval ratings but low approval ratings do not compare to the sort of damage these policies inflict on our nation then eeconomy. the working families are paying the price. there was a chance for the house to put working people first by allowing full debate on number of amendments by democrats that would have put people first, unfortunately, the republican leadership blocked many of these amendments from being considered. one would have ensured that buy america provisions could be implemented, another would have facilitated job creation and family leave for military families and another would have allowed health and safety officials to continue their efforts to bet brother tect the nation's miners from black lung disease. the facts were indisputable. black lung is on the rise again and mine owners are exploiting

loopholes to avoid compliance. the changes are desperately needed. it's time to move forward with modern protections based on years of scientific study. blocking efforts to modernize miner protections will only cost the lives, careers and family income from those who go underground every day to provide the energy that this country needs. mr. speaker, this bill puts the lives of well -- and the well being of working people in serious peril. it threatens the effort to protect american jobs. it's not what american people sent us here to do it is well pastime to put these transparently political efforts behind us and work together to re-energize the economy, to grow and strengthen the middle class and i urge my leagues to vote against this very special interest bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr.

quayle, spon or of the regulatory decrees and settlements act which is part of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quayle: i rise in support of the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. time and time again when i talk to small business owners in my district, they say the number one challenge holding them back from expanding their business and hiring more workers is uncertainty in regulation and taxation. the current pro-regulatory administration has issued nearly four times the number of regulations as the previous administration. the administration's own numbers show that the u.s. businesses spent over $8 -- over 8.8 billion hours complying with federal paperwork requirements psm the -- to put this in perspective, this is equal to one million years of filling out government paperwork. mr. speaker, one of these costly regulations the e.p.a. is currently imposing is the

regional haze rule that could close down power plants all across the country, all for aesthetics. it atchings the navajo generating station in arizona which could cost $1.-- which would cost jobs, and cost $90 million a year increasing the cost of electricity and water across the state of arizona. and what does that get us? the government study found inconclusive evidence that this would improve visibility at all. pro regulatory environmental groups are suing the e.p.a. and forcing the e.p.a.'s requirements through settlement and consent decrees. in my district, the e.p.a. entered into a consent decree with several groups which will affect the emission control technology at coal-fired power plants throughout the state.

regulations have costly and job-killing implications and it is important that the rule making process is not written behind closed doors by activist groups and regulatory agencies. i am pleased that the -- that a bill that i have sponsored is included in this package, h r. 386 , the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act this legislation provides transparency to these settlements and decrees which are used to dictate regulations behind closed doors and often without congressional consent if they miss a deadline. this ensures that there will be time for comment and it makes it easier for future administrations to modify consent decrees as circumstances and fact dictate this legislation is increasingly necessary as more statutory deadlines slip due to the large number of rule

makings mandated in the previous congress, notably obaca -- obamacare and dodd-frank. thank you, mr. speaker and i ceil back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would like to yield now two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ns nydia velazquez, the ranking member of the small business committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for yielding. i rise in opposition to this ill conceived measure which will do nothing to promote small business growth. small businesses everywhere need help. they require affordable credit and greater demand for their services. yet, today, we are focused on legislation that does nothing, nothing, to address these challenges and instead pushes

an extreme agenda. despite what some have heard, regulation is not among entrepreneurs' cop turns. in fact, surveys note that 85% of small business owners believe regulation is necessary. and i have with me a survey conducted last february by the american sustainable business council and i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this survey into the record. the chair: the gentlelady's request is covered under general leave. ms. velazquez: this survey says that eight out of 10 regulations have a role to play in leveling the playing field between small businesses and larger competitors that take unfair advantage. even surveys by the u.s. chamber of commerce and the

national federation of independent businesses who themselves are vehemently against regulations. they find that small business -- small businesses rank economic uncertainty and poor sales respectively as their most important concerns, not regulations. there are a number of proposals that this house could pass to generate demand for small company services and empower them to hire. tax credits for new employees. expanding payroll tax cuts and extending tax cuts for working families, all come to mind. let's reject this legislation and move on to a real small business jobs act. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i'm happy to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from texas. i rise in support of the legislation before us that will cut red tape and spur small business job creation. small businesses create the majority of new jobs in this country. but over the last three years, there's been a 23% decline in new business startups. the president says he wants to help grow small businesses. but fankly, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. recently, the president attacked hard-earned success, telling small business men and women and entrepreneurs that if you've got a business, you didn't build it. it's pretty clear that the president doesn't get it. since the president took office, his administration has had under review more than 400 regulations that cost the economy $100 million. and small businesses are facing

annual regulatory costs that add up to $10,000 per employee. if you're a small business owner, this is scrust part of the maze of the regulatory red tape you are facing today. and where do we get the information from this chart? from president obama's administration's own website at sb -- at s.b.a. and the i.r.s. the president of a trucking company in ashland, in my district, says regulatory changes have caused the prices for his operation to go up. these rising costs have frankly made it more difficult for him to plan for the future, difficult for him to operate in the present, and frankly, just made it plain too hard. we are vetting -- voting today on cuts to red tape so we can empower small businesses -- small business owners like the one in ashland to start growing

again. our legislation freezes costly new regulations until national unemployment drops to 6% or lower. further, we give small businesses the ability to intervene before government agencies agree to legal settlements that result in more onerous regulation. the bill also increases transparency for federal agencies that have been operating outside the purview of regulatory review, such as the obama administration's national labor relations board. mr. chairman, we know that just this year, thousands of pages of red tape have been published, imposing billions in new compliance cost ops businesses. under this bill, we'll require all agencies to perform thorough cost benefit analysis of proposed regulations. in other words, agencies must finally ask the question whether and how their proposed actions will affect job actions will affect job creation and our economy.