David McKinley

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, this week close to 50,000 Boy Scouts and members of the Scouting community are gathering in Glen Jean, West Virginia for the 17th national Boy Scout Jamboree. This 10-day event features some of the most physically challenging events in its history, including rock climbing, rappelling, white water rafting and biking. The Jamboree is a monumental event for Scouting and is a highlight for the thousands of Scouts who attend. The first Jamboree was held in 1937 in Washington, D.C. and featured more than 27,000 Scouts who camped on the National Mall under the Washington Monument. Since that time, the Boy Scouts of America has held National Jamborees at several locations across the country, with the most recent in 2010 in Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. As an Eagle Scout, I could not be more proud that the Mountain State is hosting the Jamboree for the very first time and will serve as the permanent home for the event in the coming years. This week, thousands of Scouts from around the United States, their leaders and others have travelled to the new facility near the New River Gorge in beautiful Fayette County, West Virginia. The site, known as the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve, will house Scouts, staff and adult leaders, who will enjoy the outdoors and test their abilities in a number of ways. During the Jamboree, the Summit will be the third largest city in West Virginia. Also, because of its location in the beautiful mountains of West Virginia, physical activities will be more intense and will provide a more diverse terrain for Scouts of all ages. The Summit will challenge Scouts with programs like BMX biking, climbing, whitewater rafting, and gliding along one of the fastest zip line courses in North America. Construction of this permanent home for the national Boy Scout Jamboree has pumped nearly $170 million into the West Virginia economy over the past four years. The new home for the jamboree, sitting on 10,600 acres in a world- renowned adventure sports region, will undoubtedly provide a huge economic boost for the state and hopefully the participants will keep coming back to enjoy all our stunning state has to offer. But the greatest impact the Summit will have will be on the thousands of Scouts and adults who participate. This type of impact may be not measured immediately, but will be felt for generations to come. I know that, first hand. As an Eagle Scout from Troop 6 in Wheeling, W.Va., I can say that the lessons I learned as a young man in the Boy Scouts have stuck with me throughout my life and guided my decisions in my personal and professional career. My experience in Scouting has helped shape who I am today. Sadly, many of the values held true by the Scouts are sorely missing in society today. Too often, duty to God and country are not valued in our culture. That is why it is so vital that we help the Boy Scouts continue their mission. For over 100 years the Boy Scouts have made this country a better place. More than 2.6 million Scouts are continuing to build character, promote physical, spiritual and mental growth, and acquire leadership skills for generations of young men. You can look no further than the 300,000 hours of community service that will be performed during the Jamboree to understand the positive impact Scouting has on its members and the community as a whole. Now, the Boy Scouts of America have a brand new home to carry on their jamboree tradition in the beautiful state of West Virginia. We are also excited that for the first time in 52 years, the World Scout Jamboree will be held in the United States at this same site in 2019. While thousands of Scouts are here to ``Go Big, Get Wild,'' we welcome them to our beautiful country roads!

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Whenever I speak with teachers, principals, and parents back in West Virginia, a common theme that emerges from those conversations is that they acknowledge one size doesn't fit all. They want control restored to the State and local levels. The underlying bill makes great strides in returning that control to the people who know best how to educate our children and our grandchildren, not bureaucrats in Washington. My colleagues, Mr. Reed and Mr. Owens, and I have offered an amendment to go even further in giving States that flexibility they seek. The amendment will allow States and local governments to take multiple measures into consideration. Currently, No Child Left Behind uses narrow Federal mandates on testing to measure results. Testing may be just part of the solution, but States should be allowed to look at the ability of other benchmarks like graduation rates and the percentage of students taking advance courses. This amendment has bipartisan support and is a commonsense way to improve the underlying bill. Local government and flexibility should trump Washington mandates.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the committee for this piece of legislation that's before us today. Throughout the entire bill, we can see efforts that will result in more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Additionally, it is encouraging to see the emphasis on certain research accounts at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. It is clear that you understand the challenges that the fossil fuel industry faces in trying to meet the excessive regulations imposed by this administration. However, I am concerned that the $78 million cut from current funding in this amended legislation represents a 16 percent reduction in funds and will have dire consequences for NETL's ability to manage grants and contracts to conduct the necessary research and development of fossil fuel energy. America depends on fossil resources for over 80 percent of our energy needs and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As you know, the funding for this research and development has led to horizontal gas drilling, reductions in acid rain, increases in power plant efficiencies, and carbon capture and utilization efforts for enhanced oil recovery. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will continue to agree that, in order for us to continue this vital research in fossil fuel energy, NETL needs to be properly funded and that you will work with us in an effort to try to restore the 16 percent reduction in the funding for this account.

Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for those comments. These research projects are in every State in the Nation and almost every congressional district throughout our country. Every one of our colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory operating efficiently, putting us into the next generation of power and use and efficiency. We have appreciated your leadership and commitment to this program. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, President Obama continued his relentless war on coal. He indicated he would circumvent Congress and use unelected bureaucrats to fulfill his anticoal agenda. He implied he had a moral obligation to do so because Congress is not acting. But Congress has, indeed, acted and simply doesn't agree with the President's ambitions. Congress realized that his agenda will destroy jobs and increase the cost of electricity. Electric bills will go up for everyone who uses power. Everyone will pay more. The President is basing his call for action on flawed theories about what may happen in the future, but his actions will have an immediate negative impact today. During his remarks, the President insulted his critics with sophomoric name calling and dismissed the opinions of over 32,000 scientists and physicists who contend that the issue of global warming has not been settled. In the coming months, we will highlight the devastating impact these anticoal policies will have on America's future, its families, and the economy in general. We will point out the flaws in his climate projections. The President may believe that a war on coal is exactly what's needed, but the thousands who will lose their jobs and the millions who will pay more for electricity beg to differ.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 150th birthday of West Virginia's statehood. As a seventh generation West Virginian, I am proud of the special history of the Mountain State. On June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th state in the country. While the Civil War divided the nation, few states faced more internal strife because of the conflict than Virginia. Bitter relations between eastern and western Virginians had been growing for years before the Civil War as people living in both regions were divided geographically, culturally, economically and politically. After Virginia voted to secede from the Union on April 17, 1861, people living in western Virginia pushed for the creation of a new state by formally petitioning President Abraham Lincoln for statehood. A public referendum on the issue of statehood passed on October 24, 1861, and a constitutional convention held in my hometown of Wheeling in February 1862 produced a constitution that was intensely debated, with one controversial issue being the emancipation of slaves. The first draft of the new state constitution was not well received by the U.S. Senate because it contained no emancipation clause, so the Willey Amendment, which called for the gradual emancipation of slaves, was added. It apparently worked. The measure passed by a vote of 23 to 17. After another contentious debate, the measure passed the House on December 10, 1862, by a vote of 96 to 55. In late December 1862, President Lincoln turned to his Cabinet for advice on whether the legislation that would create the state of West Virginia was constitutional. He received contradictory opinions, and no consensus. Lincoln agonized over his decision and weighed arguments from both sides before announcing his decision. On New Year's Eve 1862 he signed the bill that gave birth to West Virginia. It was a controversial decision that scholars continue to debate to this day, mainly because the petition for statehood was approved by the government representing the territory that would become West Virginia and not the territory that would remain Virginia. Lincoln recognized the questionable nature of the state's creation, noting that ``a measure made expedient by a war, is no precedent for times of peace.'' But he said he signed the bill because he could not afford to lose the support of loyal West Virginians. ``Her brave and good men regard her admission into the Union as a matter of life and death,'' the president said in his written opinion. ``They have been true to the Union under very severe trials. ``We have so acted as to justify their hopes; and we cannot fully retain their confidence, and cooperation, if we seem to break faith with them.'' After the Civil War, the new state experienced an era of unprecedented industrial development with burgeoning industries based on its rich natural resources--coal, oil, natural gas and timber--along with the construction of hundreds of miles of new railroads that helped to open up the Mountain State to trade with the world. By the turn of the century, West Virginia had grown to become a significant contributor to the nation's industrialization and expansion. While the state remains a leader in energy, it also is a global supplier of chemicals and a national hub for biotech industries. Its diverse economy now includes aerospace, automotive, healthcare and education, metals and steels, media and telecommunications, manufacturing, hospitality, biometrics, forestry, and tourism. West Virginia also is a great place for outdoor recreation with 32 state parks, Alpine and Nordic ski areas, whitewater rafting, and other attractions, such as The Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs and the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve in Glen Jean. The state's beautiful mountains, lakes and rivers, low crime rate, and other lifestyle factors continue to draw tourists and retirees alike. From its difficult beginnings until today, West Virginians have remained ``true to the Union,'' as Lincoln said. More than 500,000 West Virginians have answered the call of duty since the Revolutionary War. More than 10,000 West Virginians have given their lives in combat, and the state, though only 1.8 million strong, leads the country in the number of military veterans per capita. As the only state born of the Civil War and the only state formed by presidential decree, West Virginia proudly celebrates its sesquicentennial.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Speaker, today, the great State of West Virginia is celebrating its 150th year birthday. The unique history of the Mountain State is a source of pride for all West Virginians. On this day in 1863, West Virginia entered the Union to become the 35th State. It is the only State born during that divisive War Between the States, and the only State formed by Presidential decree. From these challenging years, our State has become a significant contributor to America's economy. West Virginia's natural resources-- coal, oil, natural gas, and timber--have played an integral role in the industrialization of our country. Now, in addition to providing energy to continue fueling our Nation's economy, West Virginia has grown into a leader in health care, research, education, biotech, aerospace, and many other diverse industries. The Mountain State's natural beauty also attracts people from all around the world to visit and enjoy its breathtaking scenery. Madam Speaker, today West Virginia takes special pride in our wild and wonderful State. We celebrate our past and look forward to the future. Happy birthday, West Virginia. Here's to the next 150 years.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Linda and Richard Kerr on their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Richard Kerr and Linda Fleming were married in Morgantown, West Virginia on June 4, 1964. They proudly raised two daughters with love and a wonderful sense of humor. They are committed to continuous learning and have a natural curiosity that they share with their four grandchildren. Dr. Richard Kerr practiced medicine in West Virginia for over 35 years, while Mrs. Kerr served as a teacher at Morgantown High School. Dr. and Mrs. Kerr are two incredibly patriotic people who have tirelessly worked towards the improvement of our country, and our home State of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 1st Congressional District of West Virginia, I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating my friends, Linda and Richard Kerr, on their fiftieth wedding anniversary and wishing them fifty more.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1919. Let me bring attention to a provision in the bill that we were just discussing about electronic distribution of prescription information for health care professionals and pharmacists. Industry and the FDA have been in discussions for years about eliminating the paper attached to bottles of prescription drugs. Let me show you this. This is what we are talking about--this wad of paper on the top of a prescription bottle. It's a folded up piece of paper. It can be in three and four parts. This is not an efficient way to distribute critical information about prescription drugs. Eliminating this wad of paper would save the consumers millions of dollars in printing and shipping costs. The House committee recognized the need to allow pharmacists the option of electronic or paper copies, because some rural pharmacies may not have Internet capabilities. Unfortunately, this labeling provision is not in the Senate bill. So, as the process moves forward into conference, this labeling provision needs to be retained so that we have a final product that assures patient safety and provides uniform national standards to strengthen the national drug supply chain. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the labeling provision.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Helping Sick Americans Now Act. I cosponsored this legislation because it addresses something that is particularly important to Republicans and Democrats alike: providing care for those who need it most. I strongly opposed ObamaCare and have supported the efforts to repeal it; however, it's the law of the land. In it, the President and Congress made a promise to help Americans with preexisting conditions. The President has broken this promise when he consciously cut off access to the program dealing with preexisting conditions and left tens of thousands of Americans with nowhere to turn for their health care. To many Americans, this is typical of Washington: empty gestures and broken promises. This has to stop. We have a chance to help people get the care they were promised by taking money from a wasteful slush fund. I intend to uphold the promise the President once made and now has broken. I urge my colleagues to do the same and vote for this commonsense legislation.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Congresswoman. I rise today in a belief that America can handle the truth. Abraham Lincoln said, ``I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.'' To that end, Speaker Boehner has been candid about the fiscal challenges facing our Nation and has put forth a balanced plan. However, as the President continues to promote his own plan, he seems to be deliberately not sharing key details with the public. First, the plan will hurt nearly a million small businesses by treating them the same as the wealthy Americans. Secondly, the plan ignores the central driver of our deficit--government spending. It ignores that. On the first matter, why should we lump the owner of a hardware store together with Wall Street executives and tax them at the same rate? When the President talks about the rich paying their fair share, he fails to mention that he also raises the same rate of taxes on small businesses. Earlier this week, the President told factory workers that his plan is to ``ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher tax rate.'' Previously, he said, ``Millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more.'' But not once did the President publicly acknowledge his plan will raise taxes on owners of small family businesses. I'd like to give you an example of a small business owner who would fill out the tax form here, a 1040. This form is for a single woman, Mary Workman, who is in software development. She makes $50,000 in wages, and the company makes $150,000. She picks up some dividends and capital gains, so she has a total family income of $210,000. Under the President's proposal, Mary would be hit with the same tax rate equal to those of millionaires--at $50,000 in wages. Where is the fairness in that, Mr. President? It's one thing to ask Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Donald Trump to pay more in taxes, but it's something else to penalize the small businesses of Main Street, like the software developer, for example. This is not an isolated case. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 940,000 small businesses will face higher taxes under this President's plan. These are not the wealthiest Americans, but they're proprietors of small, family-owned businesses that are located in every town across America. According to the report by Ernst & Young this summer, 710,000 jobs will be lost by these companies if they're taxed at the same rate as corporate America. The President's proposal, curiously, would raise taxes on small businesses to as high as 39 percent, but for larger, mature corporations, the President is seeking to lower their tax rate to 25 percent. Although reforming and lowering the corporate tax rate is a worthy goal, neither Congress nor the President should give tax advantages to large corporations at the expense of the owners of small, family businesses. Generally, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to raising taxes. However, if in the spirit of compromise Congress is forced to adopt new revenue in order to achieve reductions, then Congress should insist that personal wages be separated from small business income and taxed differently. This could be done by using the information already filed on the 1040, which is just like they do on capital gains, dividends, and interest payments. Now on to the second matter, the spending side of the equation. Surely, the President understands that raising taxes on small businesses and Wall Street executives won't sufficiently cover the deficit. Despite this reality, he consistently confuses the public by ignoring the role that reducing government spending would and should play in deficit reduction. According to the Office of Management and Budget, this administration's plan to raise the top rates generates an average of $43 billion a year, yet we are faced with a deficit of $1.1 trillion. This new revenue, as you pointed out, Madam Congresswoman, is only enough to fund the government for 8 days. During the campaign, the President proposed that there should be $2.50 in new spending reductions for every dollar in new revenue, but now that the campaign is over, his latest plan calls for just the opposite--an unacceptable ratio of $4 in new revenue and only $1 in spending cuts. Speaker Boehner is right: America has a spending problem, not a taxing problem. While the President has consistently told the American public that he is merely asking the wealthy to pay just a bit more in taxes, when was the last time the President also reminded the American public that we borrow 46 cents out of every dollar we spend? Congress is chasing the wrong rabbit. Raising taxes on small businesses is no more a solution to fixing the deficit than is cutting worthy social programs. The problem lies much deeper than that. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the spending levels of this administration are unsustainable. Just as President Clinton declared years ago that the era of Big Government is over, this Congress needs to man up and declare the era of taxing, spending, and borrowing into perpetuity is over as well. Now is the time for the President to provide leadership, to level with the American people, and to set aside the campaign rhetoric of class warfare, division, and envy. Small, family-owned businesses cannot and should not be painted with the same broad brush as millionaires, billionaires, and Wall Street executives. We must protect our small businesses and stop promoting the treatment of their income to be the same as that of the wealthy. At the same time, this administration needs to admit that raising taxes on businesses will not pay the excesses of spending that has occurred over the last 4 years. We must prioritize our fiscal negotiations by putting spending reductions before addressing new revenues. Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington 2 years ago to get something done. Speaker Boehner has shown that he understands the gravity of the situation and wants to find a solution that is balanced and realistic. I stand solidly behind him. Protecting small businesses and addressing our spending problems are too important to the economy to ignore. The situation demands that we deal in reality. Once again, Mr. Speaker, America can handle the truth if given all the facts.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit the EPA from retroactively invalidating permits after they have been issued. On January 13, 2011, the EPA took unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued section 404 permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This permit had been issued 4 years earlier after an extensive 10-year environmental review, including a 1,600-page environmental impact statement in which the EPA fully participated and agreed to all the terms and conditions included in the authorized permit. But this amendment is intended to address far more than coal mines. If the EPA can retroactively revoke a water permit for this industry, they can do the same to any other manufacturer, refinery, municipality, farm, or other government agency. Imagine an entrepreneur contemplating making an investment requiring an EPA permit but then stopping once they learn that the EPA could first grant the permit, allow the business to proceed, and then invalidate the permit, crushing the investment. Or, imagine a lending institution contemplating whether or not to loan money to someone subject to an EPA regulation. Should any of us be critical of them for being reluctant once they, too, become aware that their loan could go into default once the EPA retroactively revokes the permit on which the loan was granted? All of us in Congress should be concerned about the chilling effect these actions by the EPA have had and will have if they continue this threat to the creation of jobs by exceeding their statutory authority. At a time when our country is facing economic uncertainty and our families are struggling to make ends meet, I'm appalled by this continued assault on American businesses and families that the EPA has taken. Our job creators need a consistent and predictable regulatory program that will protect jobs we have and create new ones in an environmentally responsible manner. Remember, this amendment is not just for coal mining but rather it addresses virtually every business in America which requires certainty in their regulatory environment. I urge your support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time remains.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. McKINLEY. Do I have the right to close?

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, briefly, let me just underscore here how people try to distract attention away from the argument. We've heard all these other arguments. I've heard the opponents talk about this is the first time or the third time or whatever that is. Let's go back to what the courts have said. Perhaps we need to have on the other side a little bit more education. Because the Federal courts have already struck down that initial reading. Shame on you--anyone--for not having read all this. The Federal court said the EPA's interpretation of the act is not reasonable. Neither the statute nor the memorandum of agreement between the EPA and the Corps makes any provision for a post-permit veto, and this agency was completely unable to articulate what the practical consequences of its actions would be. In addition, the court went on to say that the Clean Water Act does not give the EPA the power to render a permit invalid once it has been issued by the Corps. We ought to put this to rest, codify it, and move on. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. I rise today in an effort to stop this administration's war on coal. Those who believe that there is no war on coal are in dangerous denial. The actions of this administration against coal have caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace. Obama's war on coal has come in waves. First, with the retroactive retracting of mine water permits, shutting down a coal mine. New source performance standards, shutting down all new coal mine construction. Utility MACT is shutting down all existing powerhouses. Boiler MACT; particulate matter; stream buffer rule; treating coal ash as a hazardous material; cross-state air pollution; slow-walking over 900 coal mining permits. I'm here to support the coal ash provision with this. The majority in the House and the Senate have already four times passed this concept. They support this issue. This is not a war on coal, though. It's a war on the communities that mine coal. When you shut down a coal mine, you shut down concrete block suppliers, timber cribbing, machinists who maintain the motors and equipment, and electrical workers.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Congressman Bilirakis and Chairman Miller, for bringing this bill to the floor today. Let me take this opportunity to highlight a segment of the portion dealing with safe housing for homeless veterans. I had previously sponsored this concern in a separate piece of legislation, and it was subsequently amended into this bill that's before us today. Currently, there are 2,100 community-based homeless veterans service providers across the country and many other homeless assistance programs that have demonstrated impressive success reaching homeless veterans. I've visited some of the shelters in my home district in West Virginia and was struck by how many were not, unfortunately, in compliance with State, local, or Federal building and fire codes. Consequently, we began to investigate how broad based this issue was across America. It was unsettling to learn about shelter fires where lives have been lost. There's stories of a homeless shelter fire where occupants were killed due to the fact that there was not a required sprinkler system at the facility or dozens were injured when a sprinkler system was not working properly or where doors were closed that needed to be opened. All of these could have been avoided. Unfortunately, there is no law mandating a homeless shelter meet building and fire safety codes, only a policy within the VA. As a licensed professional engineer, I found this to be an egregious omission in the law concerning homeless shelters for veterans. The language in this bill would require any organization that seeks funding for VA for services to homeless veterans have documentation that their building meets or exceeds all building codes. This is commonsense legislation that could ensure the well-being of veterans all across America who have fallen on hard times and are in need of the most assistance. As a Nation, it should be unacceptable for us to allow homeless veterans to be housed in potentially unsafe conditions. I appreciate the support of this legislation and this provision from the American Legion, the Homeless Veterans Coalition, the International Code Council, and the Fire Marshals Association. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including this language in the bill today and for your concern for the safety and the living environment of our veterans.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will add more clarity and accountability to the regulatory process. Under this bill, Congress will require additional analysis and reporting on all government regulations affecting the economy by $100 million or more annually. This amendment simply reduces this threshold of $100 million to $50 million. In FY 2011, nearly 4,000 rules were published in the Federal Register; only 83 of these rules were classified as having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This represents only 2.1 percent of all the rules published. Thus far in 2012, 2,071 rules have been published, and 51 of these have been projected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, equating to just 2.4 percent. According to the Small Business Administration, the cumulative burden of regulations exceeds more than $1 trillion annually on our economy, costing more than $10,000 per household. Regulations are clearly impacting our economy by this astounding $1 trillion amount each year, and nearly 98 percent of these rules have virtually no economic analysis or oversight. We have more than 23 million Americans underemployed or unemployed. This political maneuvering in rulemaking has to stop. The American people sent us here to improve the economy and help them get back to work, but not to allow the promulgation of more questionable, job- hindering regulations. When I served in the West Virginia legislature in the eighties and early nineties, no regulations were adopted until the legislature approved them--not just a few here and there, but every single regulation came before the legislature for approval, significant or otherwise. Not conducting analysis and reports on nearly 98 percent of all government agencies' proposed regulations confounds and confronts our job creators with potentially excessive and burdensome rules. Madam Chairman, as a reminder, in 1995, Congress passed the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, which dealt with lowering the regulatory threshold from $100 million to $50 million, just as this amendment would do today. That bill passed the House by a vote of 277- 141, including many Members who are present here today. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Again, Madam Chairman, I just respectfully disagree with the comments made, recognizing, again, that this House has already spoken on this matter of reducing it from 100 to 50. The real issue here is whether or not we want to have 98 percent of the rules that are being promulgated to go without oversight and review. It's time that we get this under control and allow more of our people to get back to work. I reserve the balance of my time.