Directing Committees to Review Regulations from Federal Agencies
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 72, which directs certain House committees to review the effect of Federal regulations on job creation and economic growth.
Last year, the Department of Education published a proposed regulation that sets a Federal definition of ``gainful employment'' and requires certain institutions of higher education to seek the Department's approval before creating new educational programs. This regulation will likely eliminate hundreds of course offerings and degree-granting programs at proprietary and nonprofit institutions of higher education, preventing students from having access to these programs and, often, to careers that will ensure that the United States remains competitive.
Access and affordability remain important pieces of the higher education discussion. As voters resoundingly underscored in November, the Federal Government should be focused on accountability for taxpayer money, but that responsibility should not come at the expense of educational opportunities for students.
Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a recent speech on the ``State of American Business,'' listed the gainful employment regulation as a prime example of Federal overreach. He pointed out that, if permitted to become final, the regulation would deny students access to colleges and universities across the country.
Fewer students receiving the education and gaining the skills necessary to get a high-skilled, high-paying job means fewer people entering the workforce. While the proprietary school sector is a diverse group of institutions, many of these colleges and universities serve individuals who are looking for short-term education or seeking certifications that can be obtained in a year or less. These are exactly the types of educational programs that provide individuals with new skills that can immediately be put to use in today's dynamic workplace.
One of the many benefits of the proprietary school sector is its ability to create quickly new programs to train students to help the local population meet the labor shortages of a particular area. Many of these institutions have advisory boards composed of key business leaders in the program areas offered by the institution. The proposed gainful employment regulation will take away that flexibility by requiring the Federal Government's approval for every new program created at a proprietary institution.
While we can all agree that we do not want bad programs to exist, this regulation paints an entire sector of higher education with the same brush and does nothing to give incentives to institutions to improve their student outcomes. This regulation could also have a disproportionate impact on programs that serve low-income students who may need to borrow more funding under Federal student loan programs to pay for their education.
In either case, colleges and universities will have difficulty enrolling students into educational courses that prepare them for careers. The gainful employment regulation is the exact opposite of what the Federal Government needs to be pushing during an economic downturn.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner and steadfast advocate of government accountability, it is a pleasure to speak today recognizing the important work that must be done to reduce the economic, job-crushing harm imposed by Federal overregulation.
As the economy struggles to recover and so many Americans remain jobless, it is critical that Congress takes immediate action to reduce waste and free up capital to unleash the job creating potential of small businesses and other private sector employers.
The need to improve government transparency and accountability motivated me to author bipartisan legislation, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which would expand cost estimate reporting requirements and close loopholes that have been used to leave the public unaware of the full impact of Federal mandates.
It is important to understand the real-world impact of overly burdensome Federal regulations that are acting as a boot to the throat of so many would-be job creators.
One example comes to me from a budding entrepreneur who has recently started his own remodeling business specialized in installing energy efficient doors and windows.
This man, who is too scared of the long arm of the Environmental Protection Agency to be identified, represents the universe of private employers who are uniquely positioned to quickly create the new jobs Americans so desperately need.
In his own words, this beleaguered entrepreneur explains that:
``Since the new lead laws were initiated on April 1, 2010 then moved to July 1, 2010 because the EPA was ill-prepared for all of the contractors to be registered and monitored, the complete law and process we must follow has been nothing short of a confusing, unnecessary mess.
``Although the law started with an `Opt out option' allowing homeowners to opt out of `Lead safe renovations' if they met the criteria of no children under age six and no one pregnant in the household, that exception was eliminated because we were told that it is `unconstitutional' to ask if someone is pregnant. Now we are required by law to follow a laundry list of `Lead Safe Renovations' guidelines, with fines for each violation amounting to $36,000 per occurrence.
The contractor continues: ``The EPA states the health risks but I am unaware of any data to support this outrageous new law. There are so many contradictions in this law such as we are to test for lead on any house built on or before 1978 and if there is lead we must be certified as a `lead safe renovator' which requires spending $200 to attend a class, $300 on the EPA's registration fee and $60 to register in Iowa. At that point, we must initiate lead `abatement' procedures. This multi-step process involves:
``1) Testing for lead with lead test swabs costing $4.50 each.
``2) Properly recording all data for six years or risk a significant fine and audit by the EPA.
``3) Plastic off inside rooms by taping plastic on doors, vents, windows, floor and all other indoor surfaces.''
``4) Plastic off the outside area, 10 feet away from structure and 20 foot wide posting with warning sign and caution tape, which imposes approximate costs of $100 for each section of the structure for plastic and tape.
``5) Optional donning of a non-reusable lead suit, respirator and shoe covers, which cost $40 to $60 each time used.
``6) Start abatement process of removing wood with lead on it and wrapping this wood in more plastic, duct tape shut and throw in landfill. Although I am uncertain how safe the heavy duty plastic is for the landfill, I'm sure the EPA will find out 15 years from now and make the public pay for it.
``7) Use a certified HEPA vacuum cleaner to clean the room before using baby wipes to wipe down the inside of the room from ceiling to floor. When complete, test sections of each room must be wiped with clean baby wipes and photograph comparisons of the test wipes with official EPA chart. HEPA vacuums cost anywhere from $250 to $3000 and baby wipes a few dollars for each job and every photograph and all information must be recorded or risk large fines.
``Originally the EPA said this would only add approx 5% onto the cost of a job. In my experience it has added no less than 25% and sometimes as much as 40% per job, depending on difficulty.
``Furthermore, these rules are inconsistent as they do not apply to nursing homes and homeowners can still work on their own homes without following the regulations.
``The lead laws contradict OSHA requirements as putting a ladder on plastic or scaffold creates an obvious safety hazard, meaning we could be fined by OSHA for following EPA lead laws.
``The EPA is relentless in accusing businesses of not following all the rules, even though the businesses are following the rules they were taught in the class.
``We in the industry understand parts of the law, but things continue to change fast without proper notice. Something must change before this continues to suffocate the remodeling industry in this free democratic society. Unfortunately we feel these new laws are nothing less than a government power grab in the name of `keeping people safe from lead poisoning'.''
Mr. Speaker, this is just one of a million examples of the long arm of the Federal Government reaching down to grab the throat of innocent, hard-working job creators of this great country.
If we are serious about creating jobs, we should stop the talk. Stop the government spending. And act to unleash the job growing potential of the private sector.
I urge your support for this resolution which is a first step towards these ends.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source