```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1386-E1387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 25, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4078) to 
     provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory 
     action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 
     6.0 percent:

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, last week the House considered H.R. 4078, the 
Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. Like the REINS Act and other similar 
legislation this chamber has considered--and I have opposed--the 
Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act (H.R. 4078) would prevent federal 
agencies from developing and implementing regulations that protect 
public health, consumers, and our environment.
  One of the majority's primary arguments for this bill is that 
regulations kill jobs by making it hard for businesses to do what they 
need to do to succeed. In the current economy, this sounds plausible. 
Unfortunately, the facts and data do not support this claim.
  Since 2007 the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has asked businesses 
that have laid off large numbers of workers what caused them to make 
such layoffs. According to the BLS's survey data government regulations 
contributed to only 0.2 percent of layoffs in 2009, 2010 and through 
the first half of 2011.
  Instead, the BLS found that the number one reason companies made mass 
layoffs was because of reduced demand for their products or services 
from consumers.
  Surveys conducted by the American Sustainable Business Council, the 
Main Street Alliance, and the Small Business Majority also found that 
lack of demand is the primary challenge facing businesses today--not 
regulations.
  One of the other arguments the majority has advanced to support their 
claim that regulations hurt the economy is that there will be 
``unintended consequences.'' Again, this sounds plausible given the 
state of our economy. But again, this assertion does not hold up 
against the facts.
  Take, for example, the Clean Air Act and the regulations that 
resulted from the law. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act 
Amendments on a strong bipartisan basis. Despite concerns raised by 
industry over the cost of the rules mandated by the law, the decade 
following its enactment was a great time U.S. businesses. The economy 
created 21 million jobs, and we had the longest period of sustained 
economic growth in national history.
  In fact, since passage of the initial Clean Air Act over 40 years 
ago, our economy has grown by over 200 percent. At the same time, we 
have improved the nation's air quality and the health of the American 
people by reducing toxic and health threatening air pollutants by 60 
percent. The estimated economic benefits

[[Page E1387]]

from lower health care costs, less illness and premature death, and 
increased worker productivity of the Clean Air Act are expected to 
reach the $2 trillion mark in 2020. This exceeds the projected costs of 
implementing the regulations by more than 30 to 1.
  We can also look at the recent financial crisis as a cautionary tale 
of the ``unintended consequences'' of not having appropriate safeguards 
put in place.
  In 1994 Congress gave the Federal Reserve authority to regulate 
subprime and other high risk mortgages. It took them until 2008 to do 
anything with that authority. Unfortunately, 2008 was too late to 
prevent the housing bubble that popped and set off a financial crisis 
that cost American families $6.5 trillion in household wealth, millions 
of jobs, and required significant resources from the federal government 
to address.
  Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted to the 
House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee in 2008 that he'd been 
wrong about the housing bubble and should have done more.
  These stories illustrate the importance of responsible environmental 
and consumer protections to a strong economy, strong communities, and 
healthy families. Yet none of this information or experience seems to 
have had any impact on the majority.
  In fact, the bill today would likely delay regulations like the 
mercury and air toxics rule. According to estimates, each year that we 
delay implementing this rule means 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 
cases of asthma, 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits for 
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and 850,000 days of missed work 
and school due to illness.
  In addition, every year approximately 1.2 million people get sick, 
7,125 people are hospitalized, and 134 people die from foodborne 
illnesses attributed to contaminated produce. Enacting this bill would 
halt progress on implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act to 
reduce these contaminations and protect our families.
  The Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act would arbitrarily freeze all 
regulations until unemployment is below 6 percent, prevent regulations 
from being developed and implemented during presidential transitions, 
expose regulations to court challenges that will increase uncertainty, 
and make other changes to procedures for developing and implementing 
regulations.
  These changes would primarily accomplish one thing--undermining the 
government's ability to do its job efficiently and cost effectively.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that these changes would 
freeze routine updates to programs like payment rates for services to 
Medicare patients. This would have a negative impact on doctors and 
seniors.
  CBO also estimates that the legislation ``would have a significant 
effect on direct spending'' because laws could not be implemented 
properly--unnecessarily increasing the deficit.
  H.R. 4078 would also give regulated industries the ability to 
influence rules behind closed doors by requiring that agencies consult 
with private industry stakeholders before proposed rules are made 
available for public comment. The changes made under this bill would 
also allow regulations to be challenged and delayed, increasing 
uncertainty for businesses and the economy--which seems to run counter 
to the majority's primary argument for the bill in the first place.
  This bill also ignores the work that the Obama Administration has 
been engaged in to review current regulations in order to eliminate 
outdated, obsolete, and ineffective rules. The President placed a 
premium on getting feedback on this effort from the public--including 
the business community. As a result paperwork burdens, unnecessary or 
outdated rules, and barriers to exporting and other job creating 
activities have been or will be eliminated. These changes are projected 
to save taxpayers billions in the coming years.
  Now is not the time to put the brakes on this effort, which has been 
open, transparent and appropriately balances the need for responsible 
safeguards for consumers, the environment, and public health with the 
need for a strong and growing economy.

                          ____________________
```