caps sunstein former head of the office of regulatory affairs, observed, quote, a moratorium would not be a machete but a nuclear bomb in the sense that it would prevent regulations that cost very little and have very significant economic and public health benefits. this is yet another an amendment by the majority to obstruct at all costs and stop all regulations. in the last congress, we considered h.r. 4078, which would have imposed a moratorium for any quarter where the bureau of labor statistics' average unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6%. although the republican-controlled house passed the bill, it, of course, died in the senate.

a moratorium threatens key health and safety regulations. during the 104th congress, the house passed the regulatory transition act of 1995, a bill that imposed a regulatory moratorium pending the institution of a risk analysis and assessment regime. the committee on government reform and oversight, democrats in their dissent to the reported bill, observed that the legislation was ill-conseeved that it had unknown consequences. in particular, they noted the bill ignores interests of the average american. there is no effort in this bill to sort out the good from the bad. 's a one-size-fits-all solution. . . . it would halt regulations

favored by businesses such as rules at the f.c.c. to allocate portions of spectrum for new telephone systems. accordingly, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would strike the bill's pernicious moratorium provision. and i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: as federal regulatory agencies attempt to pile more and more regulatory burdens on america's struggling workers, families and small businesses, the least we can ask is that they be transparent about it. what could be more transparent than requiring them, the regulators, on a monthly basis, online, to update the public with realtime information about what new regulations are coming

and how much they'll cost? once they have that information, affected individuals and job creators will be able to plan and budget meaningfully for new costs they may have to absorb. and if they're denied that information, they will only be blindsided. that's not fair. title 1 of the alert act makes sure this information is provided to the public. to provide a strong incentive to agencies to honor its requirements, title 1 prohibits new regulations from becoming effective unless agencies provide transparent information online for six months preceding the regulations it's issuing. the amendment seeks to eliminate that incentive. without an incentive like that in existing law, what we've seen from the obama administration, repeated failures to make disclosures required by statute and executive order, including the administration's year-long hiding of the ball on new regulations during the 2012 election cycle. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is ecognized. mr. johnson: madam speaker, the ajority is pursuing this legislation in complete disregard of various recent examples of regulatory failure. these include the coal mine explosion in west virginia which took the lives of 29 miners. in fact, next month will mark the one-year anniversary of that explosion. the explosion of b.p.'s deepwater horizon oil rig in the gulf of mexico which stemmed from lack -- lax regulation of oil drilling platforms. that's also a prominent example. the home foreclosure crisis, the 2008 financial crisis, and the ensuing great recession,

all of which stemmed from the fact that regulators under the bush administration lacked the direction, resources and authority to confront the highly reckless behavior of the private sector and particularly the lending and financial service industries. it was a direct response to these regulatory failures in the financial realm that congress passed the dodd-frank act and other measures during the 111th congress, and republicans have tried to repeal those measures and have tried to repeal the affordable care act. of the 58 bills that were passed out of this so-called do-nothing congress in the first year of this session, not one of them was a jobs bill. not one job created.

do we set ourselves up again for the kind of regulatory wild, wild west that got us into trouble in the first place? with that, i will reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: let me say this. the gentleman from georgia has talked about these regulations all being necessary. but the president himself on the campaign trail said we need to repeal unnecessary federal regulations. he stood right here in the house when he gave two state of the unions and said we need to eliminate some of our federal regulations. and he charged the congress to do that.

it's been part of his agenda. it's been part of what he's campaigned on. it's been part of what he's brought to the congress in his state of the union messagement and that's exactly what this bill does -- message. and that's exactly what this bill does. he said, regulations aren't abstract ideas. they're -- they cost money. and certain certain cases the benefit is several -- and in certain cases the benefit is simply not there. we're not talking about endangering public health. we are talking about regulations that endanger jobs unnecessarily. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: madam speaker, i think everyone can agree that the federal agencies need the resources to be able to go back and review and rescind and repeal any unnecessary regulations. but we've been busy cutting

government for the last three years. d this legislation before us won't cut any regulations, but it certainly will keep any regulations from coming forward. and i think that would accomplish the objective of the republicans here which is to protect big business. with that i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of the time and just say that the fact of the matter is that the provision of the bill that this amendment attacks is a very straightforward provision that just provides for transparency. it says, if you're going to do regulations -- it doesn't stop any of the regulations the gentleman from georgia referenced it. simply says, if you're going to do the regulations, tell us about them ahead of time. so as you move toward the final implementation, the last six months before it goes into effect, the public gets to see

it, the media gets to see it, the businesses that are impacted get to see it, the workers who may lose their jobs get to see it. that allows them to prepare for it, allows them to comment, it allows them to try to change the law. it is simply a fair way to enter into regulations. and it's a commonsense provision that should be kept in the bill and the amendment should be defeated and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-361. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-361

offered by mr. murphy of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from florida, mr. murphy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. murphy: thank you, madam chair. as a former small businessman, i am acutely aware of the strain unnecessary regulations have on business. while i strongly support the underlying goal of reducing the regulatory burden on american companies, truly smart regulatory reform would preserve government's ability to enforce clean air laws, food safety and consumer protections. it would not pile on duplicative procedural hurdles on already inefficient agencies. gumming up government bureaucracy and obstructing agencies' most basic functions. too often the bait up -- the debate up here about more or less regulations -- up here is about more or less regulations when we should be focused on

smarter regulations. we should all be able to agree that government has a role to play in clean water for americans, an issue we're all too familiar with on the treasured coast. we should all be able to agree that when a consumer walks through the door of a bank, looking for a mortgage, that government has a role to play in protecting that consumer. these regulations should help the public without unnecessarily hindering business. our nation's economic engine. we must both protect americans and enable commerce. the business community is not against all regulation. they are against excessively burdensome regulation. in my district, business owners believe that protecting the environment and clean water standards is not antigrowth. in fact, it's projobs. when i recently toured the family-run trucking company in my district, they were not against truck safety standards. they do the right thing by their workers and they abide by safe driving rules. and they want regulations to ensure that others do the same.

what they are against are new truck safety standards that hinder growth without actually making trucking any safer. smarter regulations should protect good businesses from bad actors. i'll give you another example. denny hudson, he runs sea coast bank, a small community bank in florida. like many small financial institutions, they weathered the financial crisis because they were not involved in the risky financial behavior. they expected mortgages to be repaid on time and they wanted the small businesses they supported to succeed. after the financial crisis of 2008, nearly took down the global economy, most people agreed that government regulators needed to better protect our financial system. but if new regulations keep community banks like sea coast from getting credit worthy young families into their first home or providing capital to new small businesses, that's a problem. my amendment is simple. while recognizing the goal of the underlying legislation to

improve the regulatory process, my amendment maintains the government's responsibility to protect the environment, consumer health and workplace safety. i propose removing costly hurdles that would make government less efficient, while protecting the right of the american people to hold their government accountable when it fails to protect their health, safety and civil rights. my colleagues across the aisle frequently complain about too much bureaucracy. we should not compound the problem by creating duplicative government processes. let's examine the effectiveness of regulations already in place. senator king introduced a bipartisan bill that would exactly that. it would establish a process to identify and either strike to improve outdated and obsolete regulations. we should be doing the same thing in this body. at a time when we should be doing more with less, can we really afford to increase spending with more government bureaucracy? i urge my colleagues to support

this commonsense amendment, to improve the underlying bill, save the partisan fight over controversial sections for another day, streamline the regulatory process and save $70 million taxpayer dollars. i thank my colleagues and yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia seeks recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to the amendment, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam speaker. america's small businesses, workers and families are being crushed by an annual regulatory burden that in 2012 amounted to $15,000 per household. that's an expense bigger than any family expense except for housing and the number of new costly regulations just keeps growing and growing. in response, titles 2 and 4 of the bill, which this amendment seeks to strike, those two titles right into statute best practices in rulemaking, that help to lower costs, avoid

unnecessary regulations, and keep pro-regulatory special interests from abusing the court to force new costly regulations upon the public. and they do all of this without denying the ability of agencies to issue new regulations that are sensible to fulfill statutory mandates. why is this so important that the bill do that? because although these are best practices, they are too often honored in the breach or not at all because they are not yet written into statute. the amendment substantially guts the bill, denies important protections to american workers, families and job creators, and unjustifiably prolongs the time during which regulatory agencies can operate without adequate checks and balances. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida has yielded back. mr. goodlatte: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3, printed in house report 113-361. for what purpose does the pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. rothfus: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-361 offered by mr. rothfus of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. rothfus: thank you, madam chairman. americans face a regulatory burden with staggering costs to our economy and with substantial impacts on family budgets.

a recent paper by the competitive enterprise institute estimates that the cost of federal regulars lations to the economy exceeds $1.8. it is predicted that $143 billion in new regulations may be finalized this year. these figures are very troubling. that is why the bill we are considering is so important. h.r. 2804 reforms the regulatory process and promote the economic growth we need to get our economy booming again and add jobs. the amendment that i offer today, with my friend, mr. barrr is simple and one that i hope both sides of the aisle will support. if it decreases employment or wages by 1%, it will be subject to heightend review and additional transparency requirement. the amendment requires that agency heads to certify that they knowingly approved a rule that will result in lost jobs or

reduced wages. the principle is simple. if federal bureaucrats are going to implement rules that take wages or jobs from americans, they should take responsibility for their decisions. it is important that washington bureaucrats think through all of these things. bureaucratic elites are regulating solid, good-paying jobs out of existence. at a time when wages are stagnant for american workers and we so desperately need to add jobs to the economy, this is unbelievable. on february 7, i had the privilege of traveling underground to learn more about the work and operations about a mine in my district. mine terse work hard to power our electric grid and supply our steel mills. but their way of life is being regulated out of existence. dan, the mine electrician asked

me, what is going to be done to curb the president's war on coal? he said as a mine electrician, my men are asking me questions like, are we going to be looking for new jobs? this extends beyond the coal fields of pennsylvania and kentucky. 30% of a 4,700, pennsylvania's family's annual income. it will cost families and businesses 14 billion hours, who thinks this is the most productive use of their time? the american people cannot afford more lost jobs and reduced wages. it means one less person needed to help with social security, medicare or other critical programs for veterans, education, and national defense. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield one

, ute to my friend, mr. barr from kentucky. mr. barr: i appreciate the hard work that he and his staff put into this amendment which i have had the pleasure to introduce with him. in kentucky, the overregulation of the kentucky coal industry has really taken a toll. under president obama, appalachian kentucky has lost 7,000 jobs in five years putting the employment to its lowest levels since records were first kept in 1927. this amendment would strengthen the regulatory reform legislation by holding accountable those agencies. and i thank my friend from pennsylvania for his leadership on this important amendment and i yield back.

mr. rothfus: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from georgia seeks recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to the rothfus amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: this would add additional analysis in the regulatory process that examines whether or not regulations have a negative impact on jobs and wages. adding this additional requirement that is highly speculative and annual it call would further slow down the rulemaking process adding more red tape. i invite the gentlemen to support my amendment, amendment number 9, which we will get to shortly, that would exclude from the bill any rule, consent decree or settlement agreement that would result in net job creation or have greater

benefits than costs. i would also hope my friends on both sides of the aisle would have a desire to improve the economy and take actions to foster job growth instead of adding more red tape to the regulatory process. to the extent that regulations have anything to do with jobs, h.r. 2804's pro opponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment number 9 that all rules would result in job creation. with respect to regulations stifling job creation, the evidence, madam speaker, is to the contrary. if anything, regulations can promote job growth and put americans back to work. for instance, the blue-green alliance notes that studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that

most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect. and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and safety protections. the clean air act is a shining example given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970. in reference to the clean air act, the office of management and budget observed that 40 years of success with this measure have demonstrated that strong environmental protections nd strong economic growth go hand-in-hand. regulations create valuable jobs and research across agencies. for example, a pending regulation limiting the amount of airborne mercury will not

only reduce pollutants but create 45,000 temporary jobs and 8,000 permanent jobs as the "new york times" noted last month. heightened vehicle emission standards have spurred research and development and production efforts that have generated more facilities at 504 in 43 states across the united states of america. the majority's own witness debunked the myth that it stymied job creation during his testimony before the judiciary committee on an anti-regulatory ll, christopher deenchmuth stated in his prepared testimony that the focus on jobs can lead

to confusion in regulatory debates and that the employment effects of regulation, while important, are inderment. a bill that it creates disintive for businesses to add jobs was rejected by a senior policy analyst in the reagan and the gentlewoman is recognized h.w. bush administrations. he observed that it is invented by republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year end and year out. in other words, it's a simple case of political opportunity, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. that was bruce bartlett. professor has

testified that, quote, all of the available evidence contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is detering business development and investment. constant demand, not regulations, drives hiring choices. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: no credible evidence suppresses job creation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. rothfus: may i inkire how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute left. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding and i support the amendment that they have offered and i urge my colleagues to support it as well and i ask unanimous consent to enter into

the record the remainder of my statement in support of his amendment, which protects america's workers. the chair: the request of the gentleman from virginia will be considered under general leave. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. rothfus: i urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. it is a good amendment. it will shine a light on the regulatory leaps and the impact it's having on our jobs and our wages. and i urge passage of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. rothfus: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-361. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-361 offered by mr. brady of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: we are going through a very disappointing economic recovery. millions of people can't find full-time work. and our local businesses are just drowning in red tape. often ask, does anyone in washington consider the impact on our local businesses and the economy from all this new red tape before they put it in place? sadly, not often enough.

2012 federal government imposed 3,708 new federal rules. guess how many of them had a cost benefit analysis? simply ask the question, how does this affect the economy. the answer is 14. 14 out of more than 3,000. i applaud the chairman's commitment to inform the public how the government conducts red tape. i have a sound regulatory act which i think is helpful to move this reform through. and the point here is this, when the federal agency steps out to adopt new rules, the agency has the responsibility to state the objective of those rules or regulations and our citizens have the right to know what their federal government infends to accomplish with this red tape. and they have the responsibility to tell the american people up front what metrics it's going to

use to measure the progress toward that objective, no more manipulative statistics or fuzzy math. it has the responsibility to certify to the american people that it will meet the objective that the agency originally identified. it is common sense. it says to the regulators, tell us your objective, how you are going to meet it and measure and what it does. may be common sense and put this painful recovery behind us. i would yield to the chairman of the committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i strongly support his amendment. one of the simplest most effective and most commonsense measures we can take to make sure agencies issue smarter regulations to require them to identify achieveable objectives and identify metrics whether

they will measure those are acheeved and live by their own stated objectives and whether the metrics say the proposed regulations -- whether the metrics say the proposed regulations can achieve them. that is plain, simple commonsense decision making that american families live by every day. it is high time that federal agencies live by these standards, too. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: i rise in objection. this reminds me much when i was a young parent -- me of when i was a young parent and i had my children at home and it came time for my favorite tv program and i would tell them to go upstairs and clean up your room

again. and they would say, daddy, we already cleaned up the room. i said, well, go clean it up again. and then when they scamper upstairs, i put the tv on and watch my program in peace. i gave up some busy work. that's pretty much what this amendment does. it creates an additional requirement in the rulemaking process for an agency to articulate achievable objectives and metrics indicating progress towards those objectives. this amendment piles on the bill's numerous mandatory new rulemaking requirements and it implies that agencies issue rules that lack an achievable objective, notwithstanding the fact that regulations already go through an extensive public public ublic notice and comment period, as well as

being subject to judicial review. the bill would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent forming their statutory -- performing their statutory responsibilities. it would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty, increase costs for businesses and state, local and tribal governments, and impede commonsense protections for the american public. that's why, madam speaker, there are more than 150 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions and other entities strenuously opposed to this bill. these organizations include the afl-cio, the alliance for justice, the american federation of state, county and municipal employees, the american lung association, the

consumer federation of america, consumers union, the international brotherhood of teamsters, the u.a.w., the league of conservation voters, the national women's law center, the national resources defense council, people for the american way, public citizen, the sierra club, service employees international union, the union of concerned scientists, and the united steel workers, just to name a few. likewise, the administration has issued a strongly worded veto threat against this bill. it warns that the bill would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their startory -- statutory duties. and for those reasons i

strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time? mr. johnson: the gentleman would yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: just taking whatever time i may consume, very briefly, i'm surprised my friend in georgia is a good man, i'm surprised there aren't regulations about when you can send your kids up to clean their room again. look, this is just saying to washington, tell us what your goal is, how you're going to measure it, and if you achieve it, before you put this red tape on our local businesses, it's common sense and frankly long overdue. i urge strong support for this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields bag -- yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-361. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. rigell: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-361 offered by mr. rigell of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. rigell: thank you, madam chairman. i'd like to thank my fellow virginian, chairman goodlatte, for his leadership on the underlying bill. i also want to thank mr. graves, chairman of the house committee on small business, for working with me and my sfaff on advancing my amendment

-- my staff on apped advancing my amendment. i think my amendment is noteworthy first for its brevity. it's only 14 words long in total. yet it packs a powerful and much-needed punch. because it addresses a central issue to job creation, which is a shared value and shared objective in this house. and that is increasing access to credit. and in some cases not prohibiting access to credit. mr. chairman, this is not a theoretical issue for me. i've been a businessman for 30 years, an entrepreneur for about 23 years, and i know the great joy of looking into an applicant, their eyes, and fellow american, and saying these incredible words, you're hired. those are life-changing words. and up with of the reasons that -- one of the reasons that i could say those words to those who hired or applied at our company was because a local lender, a small local bank was able to lends me the money i needed to start my business and

to grow my business. yet those very same small lenders, those small banks in virginia's second congressional district, madam chair m, they are -- madam chair, they are reeling from new regulations, all of which are really burdensome. so many of which are not needed at all. they should never have been written. and the result is that some banks are hiring, but they're not hiring loan officers, they're hiring compliance officers. from my own experience, madam chairman, and my own deliberate and intentional listening to the small businesses and lenders in virginia's second congressional district, i've come to a conclusion which is clear, it's irrefutable in my mind and it's deeply troubling. an that is that the actions of this -- and that is that the actions of this body collectively and this administration has made it more difficult, not easier, but more difficult for small businesses to get the credit that they need. to grow their business and to

hire more people. now, this cannot be reconciled with the words that president obama shared in this very chamber in his state of the union speech in 2012. it was a statement that should have been the basis for common ground. he noted correctly that most new jobs were created in businesses like my own. a startup in a small business. and he said this. let's pass an agenda that helps small businesses succeed. these are his words. tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. well, house resolution 2804 does just that. it is a significant and meaningful step forward in that area. and that's why i've come to the house floor this evening. what a privilege it is to be here, to be a strong voice for the hardworking american and women across this country who are laboring under an increasing level of burden from the federal government, one that should get out of the way, yet it continues to put road block after road block after road block in the way of people and hardworking americans who are trying to create a job.

and have mortgages on their homes, they've signed these loans personally, i understand the burden and the challenges that are faced by small business owners. it's one reason i sought this office, was to be a strong voice for those who, if you unleash them, they're the most powerful job creating engine the world's ever known. small business owners in america. that's what house resolution 2804 does and i think my amendment strengthens that. i appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this. i ask my colleagues for their careful consideration of my amendment because i think in doing so, they'll vote in the affirmative. i urge my colleagues to vote and favor of 2804 and for my amendment. i thank the chair and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. johnson: madam speaker, at this -- this amendment harkins me back to the time when -- harkens me back to the time when my kids were young and i was trying to make sure that they would not jump into something where one of their schoolmates might be being bullied and then they would jump in on the part of the bully or just participate in the antagonism against the victim and i told them not to pile on. this amendment is a classic case of piling on. it would add an eighth requirement for the initial regulatory flexibility analysis specified by the bill. the agency would have to provide a detailed statement describing any impairment of the ability of small entities to have access to credit.

the bill already requires agencies to consider all indirect costs which would include this issue. this amendment would allow yet another ground for a regulated entity to challenge a rulemaking. title 3 does nothing to help small businesses and other small entities reduce compliance costs or to ensure agency compliance with the r.f.a. instead the bill simply imposes -- or this amendment would impose another unnecessary burden on agencies. this is just another piling on of the already burdensome new rulemaking requirements. and this amendment, as well as the bill, ignore the fact that like their sinesses

larger counterparts can substantially impact the health and safety of their workers as well as that of the general public. small businesses like all businesses provide services and goods that affect our lifes and carry the same riss -- lives d carry the same risks and harms that the large businesses provide. it makes no difference to someone who is breathing dirty air or drinking poisoned water, whether the hazards come from a small or a large business. the american -- speaking of business, the american sustainable business council is a growing national coalition of businesses and business organizations committed to advancing policies that support a vibrant and sustainable economy.

the american sustainable business council, through its partner organizations, represents over 200,000 businesses and more than 325,000 business professionals, including industry associations, local and state chambers of commerce, microenterprises, social enterprises, green and steable sustainable businesses, local sustainable living economy groups, women and minority women business leaders and investors. and vester networks. while some -- investor networks. while some inside the beltway claim that regulations are holding back our economic recovery, the american sustainable business council has a different view. they, along with other small businesson organizations, re-- business organizations, released a february, 2012, poll of small business owners which found that small businesses

don't see regulations as a major concern. our polling or their polling confirmed that small business owners value regulations if they are well constructed and fairly enforced. they found that small business owners believe certain governmental regulations play an important role,le 6% of them believe -- 86% of them believe some regulation is necessary for a modern economy and 93% of rerespondents believed their business can live with some regulation if it is fair and manageable. 78% of small employers agree that regulations are important in protecting small businesses from unfair competition and to help level the playing field with big businesses. 79% of small business owners support having clean air and

water in the community in order to keep their family, employees and customers healthy. so i ask unanimous consent to nclude the letter from the american sustainable business council. the chair: the business' request will be considered under general leave. and the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: if i may, madam speaker, i would also like to insert into the record the statement of the chairman of the full committee, ranking member -- excuse me, the ranking member, ranking member conyers. the chair: the gentleman's request will be handled under general leave as well. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for the remaining one minute. mr. rigell: the regulations are continuing to burden the small business owners and i yield to

my friend and colleague, chairman goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i strongly support his amendment. title 3 makes important reforms to ensure that agencies identify their new regulations will have significant adverse effects on small businesses. one of the most important adverse effects is to identify whether these new regulations will make it harder for small businesses to obtain credit. small businesses create the new jobs in our economy but without access to credit, how can they do that? how can they survive. the gentleman's amendment makes reform that is a long overdue as our country struggles to achieve a did yourable job recovery. i urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 11-361. for what purpose does the gentleman from from colorado seek recognition? mr. tipton: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report number 113-361 offered by mr. tipton of colorado. chirment pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado of the mr. tipton: thank you, madam chairman. and i thank the chairmen for all of their work and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of my

amendment, to title 3, which will ensure a requirement that under current law, the regulatory flexibility act remains intact. as the 1 70's came to a close, congress took note of the challengeses small businesses are facing. they were facing a number of complicated regulations. this led to the passage of the regulatory flexibility act of 1980, which was designed to improve agency rulemaking. the federal government agencies looking to regulate the private sector must evaluate the costs of doing so on small businesses and when the costs are found to piece is 610 which requires agencies to evaluate the necessary at this time of every existing regulation that has significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and

determine whether those regulations should be amended or rescinded to minimize burdens on small businesses. as part of section 610 review process, agencies must annually publish the list of regulations they plan to review in federal register. this makes amendment to title 3 to ensure the current annual publication requirement remains in place. it is appropriate to exercise for the agencies to review old regulations and weed out those that are not effective or overly burdensome. 10 years is a long time to transform marketplaces. reviewing the actual impacts of existing regulations every 10 years just makes sense. undering the real world consequences on the small businesses and taking into account changes that mail effect the necessity of the regulations are a few of the reasons to make

these reviews essential. the regulatory burden for small businesses has not lightened. agencies have been busy issuing new regulations that they have sometimes failed to comply with existing requirements to annually publish their list of regulations to be reviewed and then review them. this is unacceptable. this will relieve federal agencies of any ambiguity as to whether this annual publication requirement still exists and ensure that small businesses can continue to make their voices heard after a regulation has become implemented. i urge members to vote yes. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in support of this amendment, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: it is to my horror that i would agree to this

amendment, but it simply corrects a drafting error, so we do not oppose this amendment. it makes a thoroughly flawed bill, slightly less thoroughly flawed. and with that, i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. tipton: i thank the gentleman for his support of this amendment and speaks very important point. we've got to make sure that the agencies are actually doing what the law is requiring. this will achieves that. with that -- i yield to chairman goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: i support his commonsense amendment and urge my colleagues to join in making it unanimous. mr. tipton: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i move that the -- mr. goodlatte: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under

consideration h.r. 2804, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2804 and has come to no esolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of new jersey reporting to require that i produce certain documents at least some of which relate to official functions and appear to testify at a deposition on similar matters in a particular civil case.

after consulting with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8. signed sersi, rosa l. delauro, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment in the order of the house of january 3, 2013 of the following members on the part of the house to the board of trustees of gallaudet university. mr. yoder. the clerk: mr. yoder of kansas, mr. butterfield of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment and the order of the house on january 3, 2013 of the following member on the part of the house to the british-american interparallel men tear group. the clerk: mr. roe of tennessee.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. westmoreland of georgia for today after 2:30 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. he request is granted. under the speaker's apolicy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized for 60 minutes for 60

minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. green: i thank all those associated with leadership who have allowed us to have this time tonight to discuss black history month. as you are aware, black history month has not always been a month or this time has not always been a month. it started out as a week. and the father of black history week, which evolved into black history month was mr. carter g. wittson. and he is renowned for not only having started this time and made it a part of the annual events that we celebrate, but he's also known for his writings. and i would like to read an excerpt from his book "the negro." ion of the

dr. woodson capsulized a significant point with this passage that i shall read. he indicates, when you control a man's thinking, you do not have to worry about his actions. you do not have to tell him where to stand here or go yonder. he will find his proper place and he will stay in it. you do not need to send him to the back door. he will go without being told. in fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. his education makes it necessary . dr. carter g. woodson wrote this in 1933. and in 1933, he was trying to call to the attention of our country the plight of the american negro, the plight was

one that involved the mentality of the american negro and he was calling to our attention how education was appropriate for the american negro to become the independent person that could do for himself and take care of himself and live a life that was based upon his fulfilling his role in the american dream. well, this was in 1933. i'm honored today that we have a resolution that we have filed with the house, h.res. 481, and this resolution recognizes the significance of black history month. this resolution has been signed on to by all of the members of the congressional black caucus as well as other members of congress. extolls the on

virtues of african-americans that were brought to the americas and people under harsh circumstances were able to survive and thrive. it goes into what we call the greatest story that is yet to be told, a story of people who came to the americas unvoluntarily and have done exceedingly well in this country. we still have a long way to go, but thank god we have come as far as we have. . this year we're celebrating the civil rights in america. and we'd like to start by talking about the civil rights act of 1964. however, before you can really understand completely the civil rights act of 1964, it's important to get some sense of what the times were like in 1964. to get