On the recordDecember 7, 2011
I want to merely start off by recognizing that somewhere buried in this amendment is the gentleman from Texas' recognition that regulations could or might create jobs. I want to thank him for that. There's no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. Now, we've talked about this for 2 days. But at our hearing in the Judiciary Committee, one of the anti-regulatory bills that we considered, we had an American Enterprise Institute witness, Christopher DeMuth, from the conservative think tank that AEI is, and he stated in his prepared testimony that focus on jobs can lead to confusion in regulatory debates and that the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate. I must say to my colleagues that that is exactly the same impression that I came out of my Judiciary Committee hearing with, and it's the same impression that I've come to realize is probably accurate in the debate for the last few days on the floor of the House itself. I'm concerned about this amendment because it would add to the analytical burdens of agencies, the speculative assessment of jobs added or lost, and how many of those jobs would be added or lost in the public and private sectors. For these reasons, I conclude that this amendment would not be helpful, and I am unable to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.
