Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment. The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air. In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully implement Congress' intent. A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio. Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of hazardous air pollution. Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time. When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board. In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major rule. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Pew Research Center has found that negative opinions about news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs. In their poll, 66 percent of those surveyed stated news stories are often inaccurate, and 77 percent think that news organizations seem to favor one side over the other. And in a recent Gallup poll, Americans were asked how much trust and confidence they have in the mass media. A majority, 55 percent, responded ``not very much'' or ``none at all.'' Three years ago I started the Media Fairness Caucus in Congress. This caucus helps encourage a free and fair media as our Founders intended. The purpose of the caucus is not to censor or condemn but to urge the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession and to provide the American people with the facts, balanced stories, and fair coverage of the news. Our national media should be held accountable for their performance, just like any other institution. We need to remind the media of their profound obligation to provide the American people with the facts, not to tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the results of a slack economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, over the past 3 years, the number of bankruptcy petitions filed in bankruptcy courts has doubled. While recent data show that the volume of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work. Bankruptcy judges are critical to the operation of our Federal bankruptcy courts. The important bankruptcy reforms Congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse; and large, complex chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed mega-case of American Airline, are time intensive for our bankruptcy judges. In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported a bankruptcy judgeships bill that would have created new permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to permanent status, and extended temporary judgeships. The House passed that bill, but it did not pass the Senate. As a result, several temporary judgeships are in danger of being unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy. But the need for bankruptcy judges remains high. I introduced the legislation under consideration with the ranking member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen, the chairman of that subcommittee, Howard Coble, and the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, John Conyers. This bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy in those districts during the next 5 years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement, or resignation. Congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession; but Congress should also conserve Federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. H.R. 1021 authorizes a 5-year extension, which preserves Congress's ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years. Time is of the essence. I urge the Senate also to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficiency. I want to thank the bill's cosponsors for their bipartisan support. One of the results of the slack economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, over the past three years, the number of bankruptcy petitions filed in bankruptcy courts has doubled. While recent data show that the volume of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work. Bankruptcy judges are critical to the operation of our federal bankruptcy courts. The important bankruptcy reforms Congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse. And large, complex chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed mega-case of American Airlines, are time-intensive for our bankruptcy judges. However, no new bankruptcy judgeships have been created since 2005. At that time, Congress created temporary judgeships so that it could periodically review the caseloads in each district and assess whether the temporary judgeship was still needed. Permanent judgeships have not been authorized since 1992. Every two years, the Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a report to Congress that details the judicial needs of each district. The Conference evaluates need based on a ``weighted caseload'' analysis. The 2011 weighted caseload statistics demonstrate that judges are desperately needed in many districts. In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported a bankruptcy judgeships bill that would have created new permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to permanent status and extended temporary judgeships. The House passed that bill but it did not pass the Senate. As a result, several temporary judgeships are in danger of being unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy. But the need for bankruptcy judges remains high. I introduced the legislation under consideration with the Ranking Member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen; the Chairman of that subcommittee, Howard Coble; and the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, John Conyers. This bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy in those districts during the next five years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement or resignation. Congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession. But Congress should also conserve federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. H.R. 1021 authorizes a 5-year extension, which preserves Congress's ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years. The relief a debtor receives from the bankruptcy system is extraordinary; they either reorganize their debts on more favorable terms or they get a complete discharge of all their prepetition debts. All except the poorest of debtors pay a fee to file a bankruptcy case and receive these benefits. I believe it is fair to use debtors' filing fees to pay for the costs associated with our bankruptcy judges. This legislation, as amended, raises the filing fee on chapter 11 reorganization cases from $1000 to $1042--a modest 4 percent increase. As a result, this bill does not increase direct spending by the federal government. Time is of the essence. I urge the Senate also to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficiency. I thank the bill's cosponsors for their bipartisan support. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, December 5, 2011. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing concerning H.R. 1021, as amended, the ``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act of 2011,'' which is scheduled for Floor consideration the week of December 5, 2011. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains jurisdiction over revenue measures generally. H.R. 1021, as amended, contains a provision that raises revenue by increasing the Chapter 11 filing fees for the operation and maintenance of the courts of the United States, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In order to expedite this bill for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation in the future. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1021, as amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration. Sincerely, Dave Camp, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1021, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1021) to prevent the termination of the temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial districts, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from New York have any time remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. One problem in rulemaking is the practice of agencies to negotiate regulations behind closed doors with a few interested parties, then propose and adopt a predetermined rule. To help cure this problem, the bill requires advanced notice of major and high-impact rules that agencies may propose. These are the rules that cost $100 million or $1 billion or more respectively. The advance notice requirement ensures that those who bear the costs of these high-cost regulations have an opportunity to shape agency decisions before they become entrenched in predetermined rulemaking proposals. It also dramatically increases the transparency of the most important agency rulemakings; and, of course, if emergency rules were needed, advance notice may be waived. The amendment, on the other hand, makes advance notice discretionary, not mandatory, with the agencies. That guarantees that advance notice will rarely be used. It eliminates much needed transparency, and it only helps those who negotiate rules behind closed doors, then ram deals through the rulemaking process, ignoring public comment. The amendment may arise from a concern that advance notice not unduly slow down emergency rules. If that is the case, there is no need for concern. Like the existing Administrative Procedure Act, the bill allows agencies to issue emergency rules before they complete ordinary procedure. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It hurts the bill. It hurts the process. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will add that Allie Halataei has also served us well on the Judiciary Committee for 6 years. She has been on my personal staff for 2 additional years. She has also been a deputy chief of staff for the full Judiciary Committee in addition to having served previously on the Immigration Subcommittee. We value all of her expertise, her talents, her dedication, and her conscientiousness. All of those wonderful attributes are going to be missed, but we do wish her well in her next position. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security from the bill's urgently needed rulemaking reforms. There is no good reason to provide that shield. For example, take the Department's rules to extend compliance deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the Real ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, the Department of Homeland Security continues to extend the deadline. Clearly, the Department of Homeland Security should not be exempt from the bill's provisions. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment, regrettably, seeks special consideration in rulemaking for a handful of groups; but the bill seeks to declare no favorites and gives no special policy treatment to any group. Instead, the bill creates an even-handed procedural reform that benefits all groups with greater transparency, accountability, and public participation in rulemaking. Perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that regulatory outcomes not shortchange the needs of seniors, veterans, and lower income families; but the bill already assures that these groups and all others will obtain the protection they need. The bill always allows agencies to achieve the regulatory objectives that Congress has set. Generally, if an agency can reach the goal with a lower cost regulation, though, of course it should; but if a costlier regulation is needed to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, including protecting seniors, veterans, and low-income families, the agency can adopt that regulation. The agency just needs to show that the benefits justify the additional costs and the interests protected fall within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the rule. In this reasonable, balanced way, the bill guarantees statutory objectives will be met while we at least achieve real regulatory cost control. That is a win/win solution for everyone in every group. The Federal Government does not always need to do something more costly for special groups. It needs to always do something more cost- effective for everyone. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment creates a special carve-out from the legislation's requirements for regulations and guidance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulation of the nuclear power industry, however, should go through the same rulemaking process as other regulations. In this way, all interested parties will have the best opportunity to test their assumptions about nuclear power and nuclear waste. Perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that the legislation could prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing emergency rules and guidance or rules that adequately protect public safety. That concern, however, is unfounded. The legislation preserves agencies' ability to make interim-final rules for ``good cause.'' This exception certainly would cover emergency rules from the Commission. The bill also allows agencies to adopt alternatives to least-cost regulations if interests of public health, safety, or welfare require costlier rules. Only two conditions need to be satisfied: First, the costlier rule must produce benefits that justify the additional cost; second, the benefits must serve public health, safety, or welfare interests within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the regulation. Surely the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and any other agency can adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare within those conditions. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I realize some people want to close their eyes and close their ears so they don't see or hear the facts. There's an old adage that none are so blind as those who don't want to see the wisdom of the facts. Mr. Chairman, despite the sound and fury that we've heard, let me repeat a fact; and the fact I want to repeat is this: that the bill always allows agencies to meet statutory objectives. If, for example, only one rulemaking alternative meets statutory objectives, the agency may adopt that alternative, even if its cost exceeds its benefits. The bill generally requires agencies to adopt the least costly alternative that meets statutory objectives if more than one alternative meets those objectives. Agencies may adopt more costly alternatives to protect public health, safety and welfare, including workers' safety, however, if the benefits of the more costly alternative justify their costs, and the agency is acting to protect the interest of public health, safety or welfare that are within the scope of the statutory provisions that authorize the rulemaking. As a result, many workforce safety, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other public health, safety and welfare regulations on the books still could have been adopted under the bill, even if they were not the least costly alternatives. The difference is agencies would have done a better job of assessing whether those regulations really were the best ones to adopt and would have had a greater incentive to look harder for the alternatives that achieved the most benefits for the lesser costs. Further, the bill does not invite courts to immerse themselves in the weeds of whether agencies have satisfied every jot and tittle of how best to perform a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it asks the courts to enforce the bill's least-cost standard, and allows the courts to defer to agency cost-benefit analyses that comply with guidelines from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As the DC circuit most recently demonstrated in Business Round Table v. SEC, the courts know well how to enforce requirements that agencies weigh the economic impacts of regulation without immersing themselves in endless arguments over every fine point of economic analysis. So the bill will actually decrease litigation. Mr. Chairman, this bill is really just a litmus test for all Members of the House as to, not whether they want to implement regulations or not, but whether they want to do so in the least costly manner possible. Again, I don't see how anyone can rationally oppose the objective of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of words that are really irrelevant to the bill that we are considering here today. Once again, let me repeat that the Regulatory Accountability Act only requires agencies to adopt the least-cost regulatory alternative that achieves the agency's statutory objectives. It therefore assures that in all instances agencies will achieve those objectives, whether to protect public health, safety, or welfare or to satisfy some other statutory purpose. The RAA's key contribution is to require that, once agencies have identified means to achieve their statutory objectives, they will simply choose the means that impose the lowest cost. I don't know how anyone could object to that. This creates a positive cycle in which agencies and regulated entities compete to identify innovative, least- cost means to achieve statutory objectives while they simultaneously produce the most benefits. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.