Providing For Consideration Of House Resolution 72, Directing Committees To Review Regulations From Federal Agencies

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, the Department of Treasury describes where we are as chronic unemployment for today and our immediate past for as far as the eye can see. Last year at some point even the longest projection by this government showed no net new job creation. That is what Republicans have inherited. We intend to be serious about what we're doing, and we intend to make sure that the American people see this for what it is, and that is an opportunity by Congress to work on the issues that they're demanding.
[From FoxBusiness.com, Jan. 18, 2011]

Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he would order a government-wide review of regulations with the goal of eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the U.S. economy less competitive.

In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Obama said some government regulations have placed ``unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.''

He said he would require that in the future government agencies ``ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth.''

The president has recently ratcheted up efforts to soothe relations with the business community, after alienating corporate America through rhetorical attacks against Wall Street and an agenda heavy on regulation.

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

``It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades,'' Obama wrote.

Noting that small businesses create most new jobs in the economy, he said he would direct the government to make a greater effort to reduce the burden regulations place on them.

While vowing to eliminate rules that are ``not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb,'' the president said his administration wouldn't shy away from writing new rules to address obvious gaps in government oversight.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

SEC. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the Build America Bonds program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

SEC. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 2--of this resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses.)

THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source