Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2641, the so-called Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013. Contrary to the bill's short title, H.R. 2641 would result in confusion and delay in the review and permitting process for certain construction projects. Most importantly, it would pose serious threats to public health and safety. By carving out a separate environmental review process for construction projects, which this bill doesn't even define, by the way, this bill would effectively create two different environmental review processes for the same project: one that applies to the construction phase of the project, whatever that means under the bill, and one that applies to every other phase of the project. For instance, the bill's requirements would apply to building a nuclear reactor but not to decommissioning the reactor or transporting or storing the reactor's spent fuel after it has been decommissioned. Worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis. It does this by restricting the opportunity for meaningful public participation, and it imposes deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances. In doing so, H.R. 2641 forecloses potentially critical input from Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties for construction projects that are federally funded or that require Federal approval. This is why I have offered an amendment ensuring that the public's right to participate in the review process is not cut off by this measure, and if an agency fails to meet the unrealistic deadlines mandated by H.R. 2641, the bill would automatically green-light a project regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly reviewed the project's risks. These failings of the bill, along with many others, explain why the President's Council on Environmental Quality and more than 20 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this bill. It is also the reason, yesterday, the administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy, whereby the recommendation to the President, in noting that these new rules would actually cause more confusion, would be to veto the bill if passed by this House and the Senate and once it arrives at his desk. Last but not least, H.R. 2641 fails to address the real problem with construction projects. The RAPID Act is clearly intended to apply to infrastructure projects. Yet this bill does nothing to address the actual causes of construction delays, which is the lack of funding. Insofar as the Savannah River port dredging is concerned, the Corps of Engineers approved that project back in 2012. Of course, since 2012, in addition to shutting down the government for 16 days, we have been cutting funds for these kinds of projects. So, today, for politicians to clamor for a spotlight and then denounce the lack of funding for these very important and crucial projects for the Nation's economic well-being, it is really ridiculous that we would stand here and act like it is regulations that are holding things back. No. It is the money. For example, there is currently a $60 billion backlog of projects authorized under the Water Resources Act. Although every single one of these projects has been successfully approved using existing review procedures under NEPA, not a single one of these projects has begun construction. Why? Because the most recent appropriations for the Corps' construction budget was only $1.2 billion. That is $60 billion in approved projects that would improve the Nation's infrastructure had they not been delayed. Clearing this backlog would be a force multiplier in creating jobs, spurring innovation, and growing the economy. That is a jobs bill, Mr. Chairman. What is more, the Obama administration is doing everything that it can to improve the performance of Federal permitting and the review of infrastructure projects. In March 2012, the administration issued Executive Order 13604 to modernize the Federal infrastructure permitting process and cut in half the timeline for approving infrastructure projects. This order incentivized better outcomes for communities and the environment while cutting red tape. Since implementing this order, agencies have expedited permits for over 50 major projects. In one instance, agencies shaved up to 3 years off the timeline of the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project in New York. That is a multibillion-dollar project that is putting Americans back to work. The President then issued another memorandum in June of 2013, further directing Federal agencies to develop an integrated interagency pre-application process for significant offshore electric transmission projects requiring Federal approval. Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues often claim to want to get Americans back to work, so I have to ask: Why do we need legislation that does not create a single job--a bill that will pick winners and losers and a bill that makes the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety? Why do we need that legislation? Why must we continue to waste this Chamber's precious time on bills that do nothing? Mr. Chairman, we should work together to address the real causes for delay in the NEPA process instead of debating this dangerous bill. In light of the bill's many serious flaws, I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the Federal Government does not create a single job. I don't know exactly how many jobs we are talking about cutting in the Federal Government from the drawdown of the defense, but there will certainly be less federally employed Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel and those who work in the Department of Defense to support their efforts to defend this Nation to keep us strong. The Federal Government does not create a single job. Delivering our mail provides good-paying jobs, middle class. But I must rise in opposition to this legislation, Mr. Chair, because it would just sow utter confusion. H.R. 2641 does that by creating a separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for construction projects that will only cause confusion, delay, and litigation. As a result of this bill, there could potentially be two different environmental review processes for the same project. Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation. But more importantly, the bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to gum up the regulatory process and, thus, undermine regulatory protections. As with all other anti-regulatory bills that this Congress has considered over the last few weeks, this measure is simply another thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of Federal agencies to do the work that Congress requires them to do. Accordingly, I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out in the Rules Committee last night that it was the approval process that was holding up the dredging project for the Port of Savannah. Just yesterday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution refuted this claim. In reality, this project--and countless others like it--are held up by a lack of funding. To quote the article: In the old days, a Congress that didn't agree with White House priorities simply loaded its own projects into the budget, in a bit of horse-trading. But Republicans, particularly in the House, have placed such bargaining out of bounds--a self-imposed restriction on their own influence. Because, under the House rules, this is an earmark. The Savannah River Port dredging would be an earmark. And so for us to place something in the budget which is not in the budget already--it's not allowed. That is quoting from my colleague, Representative Kingston. Because it is an earmark, in other words, Congress or its representatives would be barred by our own rules from placing funding in the budget for a project. It is unfortunate that my colleagues from Georgia on the other side of the aisle, aided and abetted by their colleagues on the other side of the aisle from across the country, can't seem to adjust their legislative actions to suit the people that they represent. This Savannah River Port dredging is very important to Georgia's economy. It is the most important economic development project on the table, and it is ready to go, but the bond between these legislators and the big, bad Tea Party has them afraid to do what is in the best interest of their States. That is a shame. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that I utter this saying: Show me the money. When the money is there, projects can start being funded and work can begin. Workers can start working and getting paychecks. In that way, we will reinvigorate this economy. We have got to have--instead of anti-regulatory bills, we need job-creation bills. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make the so-called RAPID Act, which, by the way, I would rename, as our caucus has done, the Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act. This RAPID Act will apply retroactively to construction projects that are currently under review. As a result, all of the bill's problematic provisions that we have cited, including its arbitrary deadlines for environmental review and restrictions on public comment, would apply to pending construction projects that require Federal approval or Federal permitting. This amendment, like the RAPID Act, ignores the fact that NEPA is not the problem. According to the Congressional Research Service, which is nonpartisan, project approval delays based on environmental requirements are not caused by NEPA. Rather, CRS reports that these delays are caused by State and local factors like project funding levels, local opposition to a project, a project's complexity, or late changes in the project scope. This amendment would do nothing to address the underlying problem, and that underlying problem is the lack of funding. So we need to address, Mr. Chairman, the root causes of the delays in the process, not threaten public health and safety by automatically approving projects when agencies fail to meet arbitrary deadlines. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order and urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to protect the right of the public to comment on Federal projects under the NEPA review process. The purpose of my amendment is simple. It protects the right of the public to comment. This amendment would ensure that H.R. 2641, the so- called RAPID Act of 2013, does not restrict the right of any member of the public to comment on construction projects that may have an environmental impact. Like the administration and more than 20 well-respected environmental groups, I oppose the RAPID Act. This bill threatens public health and safety by putting a thumb on the scales in favor of private sector businesses in the project approval process. It is yet another antiregulatory measure whose sole purpose is to grease the wheels of the approval process for projects that are environmentally sensitive. Aside from creating duplicative and costly regulatory requirements that pertain to only certain types of projects, the RAPID Act would also limit the right of the public to comment on these projects. The bill does that in two ways: First, by reducing opportunities for public input; and, second, by fast-tracking the approval process through arbitrary deadlines. The NEPA approval process has protected the environment for more than 20 years, Mr. Chairman, and it is designed to be smart from the start. Through an open, flexible, and timely process, NEPA empowers the public to weigh in on decisions. That means that the local farmer who owns land that would be affected by a Federal construction project has equal footing as the company that would stand to benefit from that project. My amendment is vital to ensuring that the RAPID Act doesn't shut the public out of this process. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in ensuring that the RAPID Act does not foreclose public participation. Accordingly, I urge that this committee make my amendment in order, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on H.R. 1010, which would give at least 25 million Americans a pay raise. For many Americans, most of whom are women, who work 40 hours a week at $7.25 an hour, they gross a mere $290 a week. That comes out to $15,000 per year, just barely above the Federal poverty guidelines. In America, no one should have to work full time and raise their family in poverty. In Georgia alone, raising the minimum wage would give more than 500,000 hardworking people a raise. Most Americans support raising the minimum wage, but my Republican colleagues refuse to give it a vote. Obviously, many of them have never experienced life working at $7.25 an hour. The American people are calling for an economy that works for everyone--where a hard day's work earns a decent day's pay, and everyone has an opportunity to build a brighter future.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the continued imprisonment of journalists in Egypt, and to restrictions on press freedoms worldwide. Al Jazeera, the news network, has called today, Thursday, February 27, Press Freedom Day. Reporters in more than 30 cities around the world, including in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, are holding vigils to remember all the journalists currently at risk from governments that restrict the most valuable of international rights: the right to a free press and to freedom of speech. The military-led government of Egypt has engaged in wholesale repression of the media, especially outlets thought to be sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, since overthrowing President Mohamed Morsi in June 2013. This repression culminated with the arrest of three Al Jazeera employees on December 29, 2013. On that day, Egyptian authorities arrested three employees of Al Jazeera and accused them of ``spreading lies harmful to State security and joining a terrorist group.'' Another 20 journalists were prosecuted this year for ``airing false news,'' among other apparently meritless charges. Today, four Al Jazeera reporters are currently being detained in Egypt in the Tora Prison compound for their reporting from Egypt. They are charged with being members of the organizations on which they were reporting, a charge that Al Jazeera and other international media organizations and press protection groups have rejected. Peter Greste, Al Jazeera English's Nairobi-based correspondent; Mohammed Fahmy, their senior producer in Egypt; and Baher Mohamed, their producer in Egypt, are all being held in one small cell in Egypt at that prison under difficult and, to put it gently, Spartan conditions. They are allowed out of their cell for only 1 hour a day, and they have been detained since December 29. They had been separated, but I would thank the Egyptian authorities for at least bringing them together, so they can at least lean on each other for support. Abdullah al-Shami, the Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent, has been held since August of 2013 and has been on a hunger strike, protesting his detention since January. Their families in Australia, Canada, and Egypt are working tirelessly for their freedom. I can empathize with the fear and concern their families face each day, worrying about the physical and mental health of their loved ones. Locking up reporters has never stopped the world from finding out what is going on in a country, particularly in this modern world. Egypt is a proud nation with a proud history and has been a longtime ally of the United States of America. The Egyptian people, regardless of which government, party, or individuals they support, have made it clear: their choice is one of democracy and freedom. For those goals to be achieved, freedom of the press and freedom of speech must be respected and promoted. I encourage the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian judiciary to immediately release these four journalists, as well as all other journalists currently detained, and to allow all members of the news media to operate in an unrestricted environment that is free from harassment, censorship, and arbitrary arrest and detention. As White House spokesman Jay Carney has said: The restrictions on freedom of expression in Egypt are a concern, and that includes the targeting of Egyptian and foreign journalists and academics simply for expressing their views. Earlier this month, I sent a letter signed by 15 Members of the Congress, urging the Secretary of State to take immediate action to help secure the release of these journalists in Egypt; and as Egypt struggles to find its identity, it is important for the international community to remind the Egyptian leadership--and all world leaders--of the need for a free press. The imprisonment and prosecution of journalists sends a clear and ongoing message of harassment and intimidation to all journalists in Egypt. Free those journalists. A free society requires a free press.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am in support of this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment harkens me back to the time when my kids were young and when 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 would 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 III does nothing to help small businesses and other small entities reduce compliance costs or to ensure agency compliance with the RFA. Instead, this amendment would impose another unnecessary burden on agencies. This is just another piling on of the already burdensome new rulemaking requirements. This amendment as well as the bill ignore the fact that the small businesses, like their 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 lives and carry the same risks of harm as the services and goods that 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. 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, micro enterprises, social enterprises, green and sustainable businesses, local livable economy groups, women and minority business leaders, and investors and 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. It, along with other small business organizations, released a February 2012 poll of small business owners which found that small businesses don't see regulations as a major concern. Its 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: 86 percent of them believe some regulation is necessary for a modern economy; 93 percent of respondents believe their business can live with some regulation if it is fair and manageable; 78 percent of small employers agree regulations are important in protecting small businesses from unfair competition and to help level the playing field with big businesses; 79 percent of small business owners support having clean air and water in the community in order to keep their family, employees, and customers healthy. Madam Chair, I include the letter from the American Sustainable Business Council in the Record, and I yield back the balance of my time. American Sustainable Business Council, Washington, DC, February 25, 2014. Dear Representative: I write you today to urge you to oppose the mini-omnibus bill of four flawed regulatory proposals (packaged into H.R. 2804) and H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Transparency and Information Act. Votes on these bills are expected this week. These bills hurt small and medium sized businesses by halting the regulatory process that levels the playing group for these businesses to compete, creates incentives for innovation and protects our customers and employees. The package of Anti-Regulatory policies these bills represent constitutes a shift away from forty years of regulatory precedent that protects the public against a range of market imperfections. These policies will also lead to a more chaotic and less competitive market. And finally, the bills will have the unintended consequence of shifting the burden of proof for environmental, health and safety issues back to taxpayers and away from powerful corporate interests. Eroding the operational capacity of regulatory agencies to do their job, as these bills appear designed to do, will not foster productive growth among small and mid-sized firms. Instead these actions will allow the largest firms to further dominate the marketplace. Also if enacted, this package of bills would open the door for more problems like the financial and mortgage crisis of 2008. This would, in our view, would further damage our economy, stifle consumer demand and put small companies out of business. The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) is a growing national coalition of businesses and business organizations committed to advancing policies that support a vibrant and sustainable economy. ASBC, 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, micro- enterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business, local living economy groups, woman and minority business leaders, and investor networks. While some inside the Beltway claim that regulations are holding back our economic recovery, ASBC has a different view. ASBC, along with other small business organizations, released in February 2012 a poll of small business owners which found that small businesses don't see regulations as a major concern. Our polling confirmed that small business owners value regulations if they are well-constructed and fairly enforced: Small business owners believe certain government regulations play an important role 86% believe some regulation is necessary for a modern economy and 93% of respondents believe their business can live with some regulation if it is fair and manageable. 78% of small employers agree regulations are important in protecting small businesses from i unfair competition and to level the playing field with big business. 79% of small business owners support having clean air and water in their community in order to keep their family, employees and customers healthy. 61% support standards that move the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy. Supporting the ASBC 2012 poll is a Wells Fargo/Gallup poll of small businesses conducted this past October, which found that only seven percent mentioned regulations as being an important challenge. Given the important role regulations play yet there still may be a small percentage of businesses having difficulty with them, the answer is not H.R. 2804 and H.R. 899. Instead we believe the solution lies in expanding the capacity of the regulatory agencies to provide assistance to small businesses in compliance. Increasing the number of agency ombudsmen and/ or ombudsmen within the SBA and giving them the resources to be more proactive as well as responsive will target federal dollars to specific areas of concern. Our experience has been that the ombudsmen process works well. Blocking, weakening or delaying critical standards and safeguards will not address existing needed regulations that a small number of small businesses have trouble with compliance. It will only worsen the uneven economic playing field that leaves many small and medium sized businesses at a competitive disadvantage. It also inhibits innovation in new technologies that can create good, sustainable jobs and create safer products, workplaces and communities. We call on the House of Representatives to reject this package of anti-regulatory policies. Sincerely David Levine,

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment reminds me of how things used to be when I was a young parent and I had my children at home. When it came time for my favorite TV program, I would tell them to go upstairs and clean up their room again. They would say, Daddy, we already cleaned up the room, and I would say, Go clean it up again. Then when they would scamper upstairs, I would put the TV on and watch my program in peace. So it gave them some busy work. That is 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 toward 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 notice and comment period as well as being subjected to judicial review. The bill would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty, increase costs for businesses and State, local, and tribal governments, and it would impede commonsense protections for the American public. That is why, Madam Chair, there are more than 150 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and other entities that are 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, the Consumers Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the UAW, 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, the Service Employees International Union, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the United Steelworkers, 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 statutory duties. For those reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, this amendment would add an additional level of 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 analytical would further slow down the rulemaking process, adding more red tape. I invite the gentleman to support my amendment, amendment No. 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 that 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 proponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment No. 9, which exempts from the bill all rules that OMB determines would result in net job creation. With respect to regulations stifling job creation, the evidence, Madam Chairman, is to the contrary. If anything, regulations can promote job growth and put Americans back to work. For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes: 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 percent and private sector job creation has expanded 86 percent 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 and strong economic growth go hand-in-hand. Regulations create valuable jobs and research across industries. For example, a pending regulation limiting the amount of airborne mercury will not just reduce the amount of seriously toxic pollutants, but create as many as 45,000 temporary jobs and possibly 8,000 permanent jobs, as The New York Times noted last month. Heightened vehicle emissions standards have spurred clean vehicle research, development, and production efforts that in turn have already generated more than 150,000 jobs at 504 facilities in 43 States across the United States of America. The majority's own witness clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation during his testimony at a Judiciary Committee hearing held in the last Congress on an antiregulatory bill. Christopher DeMuth, with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony: The ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that the employment effects of regulation, while important, ``are indeterminant.'' The claim by the bill's proponents, namely, that regulatory uncertainty creates a disincentive for businesses to add jobs, was rejected by Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. He observed: Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community, year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high employment. That was Bruce Bartlett. Leading scholars, such as Wake Forest Law Professor Sidney Shapiro has testified: All of the available evidence contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business development and investment. Scant demand, not regulations, drives hiring choices. In sum, there is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rothfus amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, 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 have been busy cutting government for the last 3 years. This legislation before us won't cut any regulations, but it certainly will keep any regulations from coming forward. I think that would accomplish the objective of the Republicans here, which is to protect Big Business. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, the majority is pursuing this legislation in complete disregard of various recent examples of regulatory failure. These include the Massey coal mine explosion in West Virginia which took the lives of 29 miners. In fact, next month will mark the 1-year anniversary of that explosion. The explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that stemmed from lax regulation of oil drilling platforms is 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? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment simply strikes the moratorium provisions in title I of the bill. Madam Chair, a regulatory moratorium makes absolutely no sense. Cass Sunstein, the former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has observed: A moratorium would not be a scalpel or a machete; it would be more like 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 iteration of an attempt 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 of monthly unemployment rates is equal to or less than 6 percent. 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 Oversight and Government Reform Democrats, in their dissent to the reported bill, observed that the legislation was ``ill-conceived'' and that it had ``unknown consequences.'' In particular, they noted: The bill ignores the interests of the average American. There is no effort in this bill to sort out the good from the bad. It is a one-size-fits-all solution. The bill will threaten key health and safety regulations, such as improved meat and poultry inspection procedures, while also halting regulations favored by business, such as rules at the FCC to allocate portions of the spectrum for new telephone systems. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would strike the bill's pernicious moratorium provision. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. As the designee of Mr. Cartwright, I am offering amendment No. 1.