Transcripts For CSPAN US House Of Representatives Special Orders 20160107

Much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in the underlying legislation. This amendment would simply add Unfunded Mandates as another basis for the commission to prioritize the review of certain rules. The underlying legislation contains no exceptions for rules, no matter how important. The commission the bill creates could recommend the repeal of rules such as the ones the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives finalized this week, strengthening background check requirements for buying firearms. Such important Public Safety rules could be jeopardized by this bill. I oppose the underlying bill and i oppose this amendment, which does not improve the bill. And i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina. Ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from indiana, mr. Messer. The chair the gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Messer thank you, mr. Chair. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding and for offering this important amendment. It will ensure that costly Unfunded Mandates are given full consideration by the commission established by this underlying bill. Over the past 10 years, unelected bureaucrats in washington have issued over 36,000 new regulations. Think about that. Over the past 10 years, unelected bureaucrats have issued over 36,000 new regulations. Thats a lot. And each of these shift the cost and burden of this administrations Big Government agenda onto the backs of everyday working people, Small Businesses and local governments. These Unfunded Mandates cost jobs, hurt working americans and place ankle weights on the u. S. Economy. Its past time to slow down this runaway train. I urge my colleagues to support the foxx amendment and the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from North Carolina reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. Mr. Cummings mr. Speaker, i yield my self such time as i may consume. In closing myself such time as i may consume. In closing, we oppose this amendment and with that i yield back. The chair the chair yields. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina. Ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. In response to my colleague from maryland, let me say that Unfunded Mandates take many forms that may not be included when regulatory costs are counted. That is why strong bipartisan majorities in the house and Senate Passed the Unfunded Mandates reform act in 1995. Similarly, my amendment ensures that costs passed from federal agencies to state and local governments and private businesses are properly counted and considered. If mandates under review are economically defenseable and represent the best policy option available, then the commission will not recommend they be repealed. The issue of unfunded mandated is frequently overlooked in the debate about reforming our regulatory system and carrying out federal policies. Its all too easy for washington bureaucrats to write off concerns expressed by handful of local governments or a small subset of private businesses. But these decisions have real costs and real effects on the individuals, families and communities we each represent. While my amendment is a small change, it ensures that costs passed down to businesses and state and local governments are truly the best means to achieve desired policy ends. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and ask for their support. The chair the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Ms. Foxx i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. He amendment is agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Schweikert mr. Chairman, i have an amendment the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114388 offered by mr. Schweikert of arizona. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Schweikert thank you, mr. Chairman. And mr. Chairman. This is one of those occasions where we walk up to the mike and we always say, its a simple amendment. This one really is a simple amendment. Many of us here, particularly myself, i have a fixation on information and technology. As a dramatically more efficient, safer, healthier way to regulate. So if youre going to have a commission looking at agencies, looking at the levels of regulations, looking at the mechanics out there, can they also take a look and make sure theyve adopted the most appropriate, the most technically appropriate and Efficient Technology for that regulation . A couple years ago, sitting on science and technology, we were hearing some it was a division of e. P. A. And these businesses came in and they brought in stacks of paper that they had to fill out and fax in. Ok. Its absurd in todays world. But thats the way the regs they were up against were written. Well, if youre going to have a commission looking at whats wrong up there, what can be made for efficient, what is inappropriately burdensome, lets also take a look and say, what can actually be made less burdensome through the use of technology . And with that, mr. Chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Is there a gentleman opposed . For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Mr. Johnson i rise in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Johnson thank you, mr. Speaker. This amendment establishes additional criteria for the commissions onesided review of all federal regulations, authorizing it to identify rules for repeal that may limit or prohibit agencies from adopting technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness in order to lower regulatory costs. Although this criteria itself may be unobjectionable on its face, it does nothing to change the commissions costs, only deregulatory and dangerous mandate under title 1 of h. R. 1155. Furthermore, rather than allowing agencies to modify or improve existing rules to accommodate for technological changes, this amendment would only create a basis for eliminating rules. For instance, this amendment would authorize the commission to identify a rule protecting workers against discrimination for elimination, regardless of its benefits, if the costs associated with the rule could be mitigated by adopting new technologies to improve efficiency. In other words, no matter how important and beneficial a rule prohibiting discrimination may be, it could be eliminated if the commission determines that it somehow encumbers agency efficiency. Thats laughable. As thed a Mission Administration as the Administration Notes in its statement of administration policy, which threatens to veto this bill should it reach the president s desk, this bill lacks any had, quote, mechanism for making any, quote, mechanism for making thoughtful and modest modifications to rules to improve their implementation and enforcement, which is often the best course of action before we scuttle a rule or as we try to make the regulation work. So accordingly i must oppose this amendment. With that ill yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Schweikert mr. Chairman, can i quickly inquire the time remaining. The chair 3 1 2 minutes. Mr. Schweikert thank you. Lets try sl something. Its fairly lets try something. Its fairly novel around here. This is just a few words. Lets actually read it. Whether or not the rule or set of rules limits or prevents an agency from applying new or emerging technologies, ought to improve efficiency and efficiency of government. Come on. How do you oppose that . I understand you may not like the bill itself. But as an amendment, if were really trying to push our government into this century of utilization of information and technology, youd at least like this amendment. Mr. Chair, with that ill reserve. The chair the gentleman from georgia has yielded. Mr. Schweikert forgive me. In that case, look. This is simple. This is actually something we should be weaving up and down through what we do here, to try to drive the use of technology and information, to make to make us a more efficient, more respectful of our taxpayers, but also the quality of information, how do you even know that the way a regulations being done is being done in the most efficient, technologically sound, rational way . I believe this simple language here helps drive the commission to actually reflect that. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. He amendment is agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in art b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognitionnition seek recognition . Mr. Walberg i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114388 offered by mr. Walberg of michigan. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 58 0, the gentleman from michigan 580, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Walberg thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise today to offer an amendment that will give us greater insight into the impact of federal regulations on the wages of American Workers. We already know from countless studies that the accumulation of regulations increases the cost of goods, which reduces the buying power of families and individuals to purchase the items they need and want. An area that we need to study more, though, is what impact regulations have on the wages of most americans. Given the negative impact of regulations on prices, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulations could be a major contributing factor to planting wages flattening wages, and especially for lower income individuals. According to the u. S. Census, the median wage of u. S. Of the u. S. Is the same today as it was in 2007. Thats eight years of no income gain for families and workers in michigan and across the country. The university of california economists have also found that since 2009 the average income of the top 1 grew by 11. 2 in real terms, while the bottom 99 saw their incomes decrease by. 4 . During that same time there 100 billion in new regulatory costs, according to a center. Many employers i speak to would rather hire more workers or give their current staff a raise. Instead, theyre forced to spend limited resources on makes sense of the thousands of pages of new on making sense of the thousands of new pages on the thousands of pages of new regulations coming out of washington. Employers are spending more, leaving little left for take home pay for employees. Colleagues believe that more bureaucracy red tape and mandates from the federal government will actually increase wages and reduce inequality. While these regulations may sound good in theory, some of them, the hard truth is that over time they limit Economic Growth and Career Advancement opportunities. Most alarming is that these negative Economic Impacts effect lower wage workers the very most. Immobilizing them from finding work, rising in their careers and increasing their wages. We need a serious strategy, mr. Chairman, to address runaway regulations in this country. Fortunately the scrub act is an innovative approach and i commend its sponsor, representative jason smith, for his work. My amendment, mr. Chairman, will enhance this important bill, by instructing the commission to review the impact of regulation on wages as part of their retrospective review. I encourage all my colleagues to support my amendment and the bill so we can unleash individuals and industry from Regulatory Burdens and create an environment where wages and the economy can grow for everyone. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time michigan reserves. The gentleman from michigan rembs. Is the gentleman from virginia opposed . The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Scott i rise to point out some serious concerns about the amendment of the gentleman from michigan which would examine the negative impact regulations have on wages. Its my belief that this amendment is based on the false premise that all regulations have some negative impact on workers and their wages but it should be clear that this one sentence amendment does not encompass the full story about the critical impact that workplace regulations can have on improving the health, safety, and income of workers. For example the rules and regulations that have been offered and put into effect by the department of labor under this administration have improved worker safety, increased workplace opportunity and increased wages and benefits are indisputable. And far outweigh the costs. For example, the home care workers rule would extend overtime and minimum wage protection to two million home care workers. The proposed overtime rule would extend overtime pay protections for more than five million American Workers who currently would be putting dozens of overtime hours for no extra pay at all. Now, mr. Chairman, im pleased to note that the description of this amendment shows an apparent concern for the problems that working families face and the gentleman from michigan has talked very sensibly about wage stagnation and income inequality. If thats what were going to address, there are ways of addressing it. For example, we could bring to the floor for a vote the raise the wage act which would increase the minimum wage to 12 an hour by 2020. And would give over 30 million americans a raise. We could support the department of labors proposed rule that increases overtime salary thresholds which would update the overtime rule to ensure that fife million more americans would be eligible to earn overtime for hours worked over 40 hours a week since the week. Since the 1970s, worker output has increased 74 but the Hourly Compensation of the typical worker has only increased 9 . Workers simply arent receiving a fair share of the wealth they create. The overtime rule would help address this disparity. We could cosponsor the wage act that would protect americans fundamental right to join together and bargain for better wages. To date, 64 House Democrats support the wage act legislation that would strengthen protections for workers who want to raise wages in approved workplace and improve workplace conditions. So mr. Chairman, i urge my colleagues to support these alternatives but to oppose this amendment. I thank you and yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Walberg i thank the chairman and appreciate the concerns expressed by my friend from virginia. I appreciate the fact he sits in on all our work force protection subcommittee hearings that i have the privilege of chairing. We have looked at the regulatory changes that the gentleman speaks to. But he as well as the rest of my colleagues on that subcommittee have heard very clear testimony that while they are based on wonderful desires, we all want safe workplaces, we all want people making better pay, having better benefits, living wages, yet all of those come with costs one of those very regulatory ideas would cost jobs and job security. Ive seen that with several of those in the great state of michigan as theyve been implemented. Mr. Chairman, we should have commonsense,esque i regulations that truly punish bad actors but leg ration regulations cannot come at overwhelming costs. We are seeing now with anemic growth and stagnant wages. Sadly, we dont know how much wages have truly been hit by these regulations which is why my amendment is needed. So i ask for support and i yield back my time. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. He amendment is agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in part b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Mr. Johnson i rise in support of my amendment. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114388 offered by mr. Johnson of georgia. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Johnson thank you, mr. Speaker. My amendment would strike title 2 of h. R. 1155 which would require agencies to undertake a regulatory cutgo process to repeal rules identified by the commission with little to no consideration of the rules benefits prior to issuing the new rule. These regulatory cutgo provisions would apply to every new agency rule no matter how important or pressing for every Regulatory Agency. Alarmingly, title 2 would also require agencies to undertake a notice and comment process for all rules eliminated through cutgo because, as i noted earlier, agencies are unable to simply rescind the rules. Thus, this bill would substantially delay or even prevent new regulationings new regulations through this burdensome and time consuming requirement. As several of my colleagues amendments demonstrate, the bills regulatory cutgo procedures are unsafe, dangerous and would tie the hands of agencies responding to Public Health crises requiring timely regulatory responses. In fact, this bill lacks any mechanism for consideration of Public Policy and safety which would leave no option for agencies to issue emergency rules to protect the public and environment from imminent harm. The bills proponents claim that title 1 of h. R. 1155 would allow the commission to consider whether the cost of the bill costs of the bill are not justified by the benefit to society, but as professor levin testified in the subcommittees consideration of a previous version of this bill, the catchall language of subsection h21, h2i, actually, would allow the commission to recommend the repeal of any promulgated, any rule promulgated by an agency by any agency if it deems the rules requirements to be unnecessarily burdensome. In short, the commission would the e to disregard benefits. Furthermore, h. R. 1155 would require only that it must have a methodology, which leaves the window wide open for absolutely no consideration of the benefits of regulation. While consideration of the cost of regulations is sometimes important, there is only there is overwhelming consensus that the benefits of regulations vastly exceed the costs in both republican and democratic administrations, the benefits of our regulatory system, of regulatory protections have made our country safer, stronger, healthier and cleaner. The nonpartisan General Accountability Office has observed that these benefits include among other things ensuring that workplaces, air travel, foods and drugs are safe, that the nations air, water, and land are not polluted, and that the appropriate amount of taxes is collected. The g. A. O. Reported in 2007 that while the cost of these regulations are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the benefits estimates are even higher. In 2012, the office of management and budget, likewise concluded that even by conservative estimates the benefits of major regulations exceeded the costs on a two to one basis over the past decade. Between fiscal years 1999 and 2009, the benefits of regulations produced a net benefit of 73 billion, vastly exceeding the regulations costs. This evidence overwhelmingly refutes the bold assertion that regulatory costs are burdensome, eliminate jobs or harm our economic competitiveness. With that, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to oppose this misguided bill and i yield i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . I rise to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chaffetz id like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Marino. The chair the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Marino thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Title 206 the bill contains one of the bill east most important innovations a cutgo process for the repeal of Regulations Congress approves for repeal. This process is molded on the cutgo process pioneered in congress to selfcontrol federal spending. By allowing regulatory repeals to occur on a cutgo basis, the bill stabilizes total federal regulatory regulatory crosts costs and avoids forcing all repeals to occur immediately. This allows them to work with the entities they regulate to administer a smoother process of regulatory appeal with ample priorities to prioritize thed offer of repeals and cooperatively consider any needed replacement regulation. The cutgo process also avoids up with of the major flaws of the regulatory look back process applied under executive order by the obama administration. Though the process has resulted in some Cost Reductions under individual regulations, the net result of the process has been an alarming increase in total costs imposed by all federal regulations. That is a giant step backwards an it is a result the scrub acts cutgo provisions will emphatically prevent. I would like to say for the record a report by the national sole and exclusive of manufacturers, total cost of federal regulation in 2012 was 2. Was 2. 028 trillion. The annual cost burden for an for an average u. S. Firm is 233,000 or 21 of the average payroll. With that kind of number, no wonder we have the problems that we have. And listen to this figure. Smoum manufacturer with fewer than 50 employees will pay an estimated close to 35,000 per employee per year to comply with federal regulations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back to the to chairman chaffetz. Mr. Chaffetz i reserve the balance of our time. The chair the gentleman from utah reserves. Mr. Johnson i yield the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from georgia yields back. The gentleman from utah is recognized. Mr. Chaffetz i yield myself such time as i may consume. Mr. Chairman, i simply want to say that i concur with the gentleman from pennsylvania who has studied this and spent a considerable amount of time on this. We urge a no vote on this amendment. This amendment removes title 2 of the bill which is one of the bill east most important provisions and with that, we yield back the balance of our time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the pb of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not mr. Johnson i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Mr. Cummings i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 11438 , offered by mr. Cummings of maryland. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from maryland, mr. Cummings, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. Mr. Cummings p. C. Thank you very much, mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. My amendment was cosponsored by the Government Operations subcommittee Ranking Member would strike title 4 of this bill. Title 4 provides for judicial review of agency, complies with certain requirements of the bill, including regulatory cutgo procedure. The agency rule making process provides interested parties with ample opportunity for participation when an industry or special interest does not like the result of the rule making process, this bill gives them another bite at the apple. Judicial rereview provides opponents of rules with the opportunity to delay regular laces by tying them up in court. No rules would be exempt. A corporate and special interest with deep pockets could use judicial review to delay critical regulations that would protect Public Health, safety and the environment. Let me give you an example. According to e. P. A. , by 2030, the plan will cut Carbon Pollution from the power sector by nearly 1 3. Yielding substantial Health Benefits to americans. E. P. A. Estimates that because of these regulations, americans will avoid 90,000 asthma attacks and save 3,600 lives. These important rules were developed with industry and public input. E. P. A. States that it received 4. 3 million Public Comments and held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders. The final rules reflect this vigorous process. However, if the scrub act were enacted, industry or special interests could use the judicial review provisions to stall important rules like the clean power plan. The judicial review provisions of this bill are yet another attempt by the House Republicans to erect a road block for important Public Health and safety protections. This amendment removes this flawed provision from the underlying bill. With that i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . Mr. Chaffetz mr. Chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognizesed for five minutes is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chaffetz i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Marino. The chair the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Marino thank you, mr. Chairman. I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment strikes the bills title, providing for judicial review of Agency Compliance with requirements for repeal of existing rules and publication of plans, for review of newly promulgated rules. These provisions must be retained, not stricken. They are critical to assure that recalcitrant agencies abide by congress approvals of rules for repeal and actually do plan for effective Cost Reduction reviews for newly promulgated regulations. We know that without provision for judicial review, retrospective review of Agency Regulations can lead to nothing but increases in the overall cost of regulation. Just look at the results of the obama administrations retrospective review under executive order 13563, which precluded judicial review. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Chaffetz reserve the balance of our time. The chair the gentleman reserves. Mr. Cummings we yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from utah. Mr. Chaffetz i yield myself such time as i may consume. I again concur with the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Marino. This amendment strikes the applicability of judicial review of Agency Compliance with this legislation. Thats why im urging a no vote on this amendment. The legislation will begin a muchneeded review of our nations regulatory structure and hopefully identify many outdated regulations. This amendment gets in the way of that. I think it would slow this process down. And it gets rid of something that, again, makes an alteration that i think has been well debated and well discussed. I urge the passage of the overall bill. But i stand in opposition to this amendment. With that i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. He amendment is not agreed to. Its now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in 114388. House report for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Mr. Cummings mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114388 offered by mr. Cummings of maryland. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from maryland, mr. Cummings, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland. Mr. Cummings thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I yield myself as much time as i may consume. My amendment, cosponsored by Government Operations subcommittee Ranking Member, jerry connolly, would exempt independent agencies from the requirements of this bill. Independent agencies serve an Important Role in protecting the American People from a range of threats, including the collapse of our Financial Markets and health and safety risks. Agencies such as the Consumer Financial protection bureau, the securities and exchange commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are designed to independently regulate the industries they cover. These agencies are not required to obtain approval for their rules from the office of information and regulatory affairs, as other executive Branch Agencies must do. The reason independent agencies are treated differently is to protect them from political interference in their rulemaking. The scrub act would jeopardize the independence of these agencies by subjecting their rules to oversight by the office of information and regulatory affairs. Section 203 of the scrub act would require them to review and certify the cost estimate for every new rule promulgated by an independent agency. This bill would also require independent agencies to comply with the bills regulatory cutgo requirements. For example, the Consumer Protection Safety Commission has a proposed rule that would establish Safety Standards for infant highchairs. How would the commission choose which unsafe product to stop regulating in order to protect the approximately 10,000 children injured each year by unsafe highchairs . The commission recently wrote a rule creating the strongest crib Safety Standards in the developed world. But they have to repeal that rule. Under our amendment, independent agencies would not have to make this choice. Bank regulators are already subject to the Economic Growth and regulatory paperwork reduction act of 1996. Which requires them to review all existing banking regulations, and i quote, eliminate unnecessary regulations, end of quote. The Bank Regulators are already required by law to remove all outdated, unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. Ey cannot save up outdated regulations for the purpose of promulgating new rules under the scrub act, like other agencies. This bill would handcuff our Bank Regulators and make financial crises and the recessions that follow that much more likely. So, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to keep the independent agencies truly independent. And with that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . Mr. Chaffetz mr. Chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chaffetz i yield myself such time as i may consume. Mr. Chairman, were not proposing to hurt or kill babies. And were not proposing to put handcuffs on certain regulators in the financial institutions. What were asking for is to simply have a Bipartisan Group of people, bipartisan, look at regulations that may be outdated. And scrub them. I think thats a reasonable expectation. That is not asking too much. It doesnt mean that every regulations going to go away. There are some good regulations. But there are a lot of bad ones and there are a lot that are outdated. Things come into this institution, whether they come in through laws or they come from the executive branch, they never go away. A lot of them are unnecessary. The bill creates a bipartisan and Impartial Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the federal regulations system. The commission will identify out of date and expensive regulations. Independent agencies function very similarly. If not the same as executive agencies. And the regulations impose significant costs on the economy. Unfortunately independent agencies often impose major regulations without reporting any quantitative information on benefits and costs, which makes it even more important that those regulations be reviewed. Mr. Chairman, there is no need to distinguish independent and executive agencies in requiring fra federal agencies to clean up out of date and unnecessary regulations. A regulation identified as unnecessary remains unnecessary regardless of whether it came from an independent agency or an executive branch agency, it doesnt matter. It should be reviewed or eligible to be reviewed. We think thats reasonable and i would urge a no vote on this particular amendment. With that ill reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Mr. Cummings we continue to reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Mr. Chaffetz i have no additional speakers. Come with that we yield back mr. Cummings with that, we yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Chaffetz i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. He opinion of the chair, mr. Cummings a recorded vote, mr. Speaker. Request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. Mr. Cummings thank you, mr. Speaker. The chair its now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . Mr. Cicilline mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 114388 offered by mr. Cicilline of rhode island. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. Mr. Cicilline mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield myself such time as i may consume. My amendment to h. R. 1155 would exempt rules and regulations made by the department of Veterans Affairs from the burdensome provisions of this legislation. The rules that are promulgated by the department of Veterans Affairs serve the nearly 21. 9 million veterans who have served our country. More than nine million of whom are enrolled in the v. A. Health system. These are the rules that will improve the v. A. And these improvements are urgently needed to repair a system that is poorly equipment qupped to handle the increasing poorly equipped to handle the increasing numbers of veterans returning from oversales. These will ensure that those who served our country have access to critical and Quality Health care. However, in its current form, the scrub act would delay or even block the implementation of these rules. For example, it would delay rules designed to provide care to the 2. 6 million veterans who were potentially exposed to agent orange during the vietnam war. To help these veterans, the v. A. Issued a final interim rule in june of 2015 that would expand the class of veterans presumed to be eligible for treatment. The new regulation would include those who worked with aircrafts known to have been sprayed with this during the war. But under the terms of this legislation, the v. A. Would be required to go through additional hurdles to meet the procedural requirements of this legislation, with absolutely no additional benefits. And if this rule comes with any cost to the economy, the v. A. Must repeal a rule of equal or greater cost. All of this means delays for our veterans who deserve better. In effect, the scrub act asks the v. A. To choose between classes of ailing veterans. It would delay treatment and create a zerosum game in which our veterans ultimately lose. This is completely wrong. It would delay essential reforms to improve the system, address existing flaws and better serve our veterans. The problems that have plagued the system have been well documented, both in congressional hearings and in the press. Since the year 2000, at least 22 government reports have looked into patient wait times at v. A. Facilities. One of these reports found that more than 57,000 of our veterans have waited longer than 90 days for health care. The audit found that staff were instructed to misrepresent data in 76 of v. A. Facilities. The v. A. Is in need of immediate attention and reform. And were doing a disservice to our veterans by delage these reforms delaying these reforms and the rules that are necessary to accomplish these reforms. The scrub act is based on the faulty idea that its more important to cut regulation than it is to move forward to improve care for our veterans. And while my amendment will not cure all that ails this legislation, it will address one of the most glaring flaws and preserve the ability of the v. A. To effectively serve our veterans by ensuring that these reforms move forward without delay. So i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . Mr. Chaffetz i rise to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chaffetz this amendment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the act. It clears the underbrush of outdated regulations. Theres no reason to exclude any particular agency from retrospective review. A regulation that is unnecessary remains unnecessary regardless of the agency that initially issued it. Im sure there were regulations issued in the 192s, 1930s, 1940s, pick your decade, that were well intended, but the world has changed. And i think its time we go and review this. It could dits advantage veterans who are likely to bear the burden of unnecessary regulations. With all the laws and all the regulations, guess what . Veterans administration aint getting it done. And so lets clear the underbrush of regulations, lets work in a bipartisan way to fix the veterans administration, but its not unreasonable to ask for a Bipartisan Group of people to go in and look at this and study this and make these types of recommendations. I think thats reasonable, its balanced. And its not going to harm veterans. I think its going to help veterans. I think its going to help an administration and bureaucracy thats so bloated, once things get in, they never come out. Thats what were trying to change. Thats why i think this amendment is unnecessary and counterproductive and i urge a no vote. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from rhode island. Mr. Cicilline i yield myself such time as i may consume. Just to respond briefly, weve heard a will the about clearing the underbrur and underbrush and scrubbing the regulation bus the reality is, if this legislation passes, there will be certain regulations and it will require the v. A. Who is in the midst of major reform to not move forward on its regulations that are intended to improve the lives of veterans until they find another regulation to repeal that someone has determined is of equal cost. So the reality is, it will delay implement eag of these improvements. We can describe it as clearing the underbrush and scrubbing, but what it will mean for americas veterans in many instances is they will be denied the quality care they deserve and they earned in defense of our country. With that i yield back the balance of my time, urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will carve out the Veterans Affairs administration, the Agency Charged with honoring the service of our veterans, to ensure that improvements under way that were all demanding not be delayed because of the scrub act. I yield pack. The chair the gentleman yields. Mr. Chaffetz thrk mr. Chaffetz theres nothing in the scrub act thats going to slow down. Theres no excuse for the administration to do what they have failed to do. How many times will we get constituents into our offices complaining about the v. A. Ask the people that work in your offices, what are the number one, two, and three complaints and problems that they have and i guarantee you in the top throw its going to be veterans. Were not taking care of the veterans that we need to take care of. Were not going to be introducing a bill thats going to harm our ability to fix that problem. But you are naive at best if anybody thinks all the regulations in place right now are just perfect. Thats exa what theyre argue, its perfect. We dont need to get rid of anything. We need more, more, more regulations. Take a Bipartisan Group of people, let them look at it, study it, spend the time necessary, in a bipartisan way. Thats reasonable. And thats why we should vote no on this amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. He amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Cicilline i ask for the yeas and nays. The chair does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote . Mr. Cicilline yes. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number eight printed in part b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition . Ms. Delbene i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 114388, offered by ms. Delbene of washington. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580rk the gentlewoman from washington, ms. Delbene, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. Ms. Delbene i yield myself such time as i may consume. Like the mown teen of antiregulation bills we have considered in the past, the scrub act is in no way a serious effort to make targeted improvements to the rule making process. Touted by supporters as a job creation measure, this irresponsible bill takes a sledgehammer approach to reform. Particularly egregious is this legislations complete failure to provide an exemption for emergency situations. My amendment would correct this very serious mistake. In march of 2014, the oso landslide a horrific Natural Disaster that took the lives of 43 people in my district, required every available resource to be delay pla deployed without delay. Given the many crises the country has faced the last year alone from wildfires to terrorist threats, im alarmed that were considering a bill today that would get in the way of an agency trying to do its job at critical moments leek these. The idea that an agency responding to an emergency would be forced to weigh what existing regulations to get rid of before they can take new action while lives are at risk cannot be what this body intends. Bills like this are not jobs packages. Theyre pandering to a few select corporate special interests that put the lives and well being of every american at risk. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and to ensure the next time our country faces an emergency, the citizens of this country can rest assured knowing that federal agencies they expect to provide services in time os crisis will not have their hands tied by this irresponsible legislation. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlewoman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . Mr. Chaffetz i rise to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chaffetz mr. Chairman, i have the greatest respect for our members here but to suggest that what were doing is throwing a sledgehammer, that its pandering, that its come on. This is a serious effort to suggest in a bipartisan way to go back and review things. Now, in the case that was brought up earlier in this debate, there may have been an emergency to deal with something in se the state of washington. And i hope that was dealt with very successfully. But 70 years from now, its probably not applicable. And i guarantee you there are regulations and things that are happening by the tens of thousands, by wea the way, on a regular basis, that are happening, that are no longer needed. All were asking for is an opportunity to put together a Bipartisan Group to go review these. Thats what jason smith has been passionate about. Thats what hes fighting for. Thats whats reasonable. Thats why were here today. But to suggest its because of pandering or any other negative word, our heart is sincere in that we actually do think that these regulations cause problems. Youve got to have bureaucrats who understand these regulations. Its not just the taxpayers who we work for but its also the bureaucrats who are supposed to try to sort all this out and have manual after manual after manual to bind people to the point where they have a difficult time doing their very jobs that theyre supposed to be doing. So should we review things that were put forward on an emergency basis . Yes. Im not saying it has to be done three months afterwards, but were going to be able to have a long look back and you shouldnt exempt out veterans, and in this case, you shouldnt exempt out somebody who is just trying to go back and look at something that may originally have become a very legitimate emergency, but why would we not look at that . Just this attitude, this approach that says that everything is perfect, essentially what the democrats are arguing is all the regulations are perfect, no need for any changes new york need to get rid of anything. What were saying is in a bipartisan way, lets go back, lets review these, and lets come up with a way to cut out that underbrush and try to find those ones that are no longer needed and streamline what were trying to do in our government. It will be better for the employees, it will be better for the taxpayers, it will be better for americans because well actually understand what the rules and regulations are. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentlewoman from washington. Ms. Delbene thank you, mr. Chairman. I think that my colleague, mr. Chaffetz, would agree with my amendment. Because this bill requires agencies before they can issue a new rule to get rid of an old one and there is no exception for emergencies. It seems like a reasonable approach to make sure, again, that in a time of crisis, agencies are able to respond right away. This is an important amendment, its a very reasonable amendment, addresses a serious flaw in the bill. I ask again for my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentlewoman yields back. Mr. Chaffetz mr. Chairman, i would just remind our colleagues that cutgo doesnt apply until the Commission Reports back. So until they have a chance to go in and look at are tissue and review and do all that, then theres an opportunity cut out this underbrush. I think i made my pointism urge a no vote on this amendment. And yield back the balance of my time. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Ms. Delbene i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington will e postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in art b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . Mr. Cicilline i rise as designee of the gentlelady from texas to offer her amendment. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment number nine, printed in part b of house report 114388, offered by mr. Cicilline of rhode island. The chair the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Cicilline, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. Mr. Cicilline i yield myself such time as i may consume. I am offering this amendment on bhf of myself and my colleague on the judiciary committee, congresswoman Sheila Jackson lee. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to chairman sessions and Ranking Member slaughter for their leadership and for making the jackson lee amendment in order. I thank you for the opportunity to explain this amendment to h. R. 1155, the searching for and cutting regulations that are necessarily burdensome act of 2015, referred to as the scrub act this amendment would exempt any rule issued by the department of Homeland Security from the onerous mandates of this registration legislation. If enacted, the scrub act would establish a retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to identify existing federal regulations that can be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs to the u. S. Economy. This bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by salvaging a new Regulatory Review Commission, charged with identifying uplicative, redun dan or other regulations for repeal. Im concerned by the means the scrub act uses to accomplish this worthy goal and the real dangers it presents to our Public Health and safety. If passed without this amendment, this legislation could really undermine and jeopardize Public Health and safety. In particular, this bill undermines the ability of agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens. The scrub act would prohibit any Regulatory Agency from issuing any new rule or informal statement including nonlegislative or procedural rules even in the case of an emergency or immeant imminent harm or Public Health until the agency first justify sets the cost of the new rile or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the commission. This regulatory cutgo would force agencies to decide between existing regulations and new threats to the health and safety of americans. It would endanger lives of americans by creating unnecessary delays in the federal regulatory process and create problems that will divert Critical Agency resources and diminish the agencys ability to protect the public in times of imminent teenage and need. If an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to the public or environment it would have to either rescind an existing rule thats identified by the commissions process choose not to act. This amendment is a simple solution to the problem. It will protect the health and well being of all americans. It would ensure the department of Homeland Security is not unnecessarily burdened with regulatory mandates that would jeopardize its mission to carry out its mission, administer laws, secure cyberspace and ensure disaster resilience. The department of home lan security is the first line of defense in protecting the agency the nation and leading recovery acts from all threats, including everything from weapons of mass destruction to Natural Disasters. You may recall the nations first documented case of ebola last year in dallas, texas. It was an unforeseen event that required new rules regarding those who had traveled to areas suffering from the ebola outbreak. Hey also were tasked with we are in an increased command in keeping our borders and citizens safe. The department of Homeland Security is too critical and it would be irresponsible to impede the agency as this bill would do. Now is not the time to slow the department of Homeland Security to address ongoing threats. The department of Homeland Security must remain focused on the mission of securing the homeland. I urge my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and i reserve. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . I rise time to claim time in opposition. Mr. Chaffetz this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the function atlanta of the bill. The scrub act is intended to cut out unnecessary regulation. The first question you have to ask yourself, are there unnecessary regular layings . I would remind members that in 2011, the Homeland Security which hadnt been in place for very long, they started an initiative to cut out unnecessary regular layings, the president asked to cut out unnecessary regular laces. We formalizing it so it is so what are we afraid of . We are trying to say things need to be reviewed and need to go look and if theyre perfect, i doubt it. I really doubt it. But they are are going to have this opportunity in a bipartisan to allow the commission to do its work, make recommendations, look at these things that are just there by the tens of thousands. The world has changed and we ought to be reviewing this on a regular basis and creating a ash r carveout is illadvised. I urge a no vote and i reserve. The chair the gentleman from rhode island. Mr. Cicilline that may well be the purpose of this bill. But that may be the purpose of the bill, thats not what the bill does. We have to understand the implications. It prohibits any agency to issuing any rule even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to the public and offsets the new rule identified by the commission. Everything is perfect. But its the procedure that the bill sts forth that requires agencies to delay anything that hey find anything to undo. This has potentially lifethreatening implications. Not everything is perfect, but the bill does much more than that. It says to agencies like the department of Homeland Security, you may not act even if it is niss to protect the public unless you rezipped. That is aerial danger. This amendment relieves that and provides an exemption on issues of defending the homeland and with that, i reserve. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from utah. Mr. Chaffetz i thank the charle. And i appreciate the gentlemans passion for this issue. All were asking for in a bipartisan way, review these regulations. Go back over an indefinite amount of time and look at what these rules and regulations. Remember, we are supposed to be implementing them by law. There are times when rules and laws have to be dealt with. But they can go brac and look at these. They arent going to slow down an emergency. Its actually going to clean up the process. Its like trying to think of a good example. Help they think throwing things in the garage and you cant get in the garage. Living in a different planet, you think all of these are perfect, we dont want to take any time, we want the administration to do it, we dont want the other party to be involved, republicans are suggesting to do it in a bipartisan way. I think thats reasonable. The democrats dont want us to do that. They dont want us to look at rules and regulations in the executive branch. I dont think thats fair and balanced. And what we are offering is an opportunity. We will go through this process at that. Gency can look and that why again nobody should be excluded and its a healthy part of the process and with that. I reserve. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Does the gentleman from rhode island the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Cicilline cyst i ask for a recorded vote. The chair further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 11 388. For what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. Complerkclerk amendment number printed in house report 1143888 order by mr. Poke and of wisconsin. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognize es the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Pocan i yield myself such time as i may consume. Protect food safety consume rs. Ongress updated for the 21 century bypassing the act through the food and drug administration. It is critical that we maintain this progress and protect the implementtation of this law. It is especially important that we allow the f. D. A. To carry out this effort because our standards are facing attacks. A recent decision from the World Trade Organization repealed our labeling standards on beef and pork undermining our standards. The United States is considering the transpraff partnership that may allow food into our stores and restaurants that may not meet Safety Standards. It weakens our ability to inspect these foods. We know that seafood imported from vietnam and malaysia are contaminated with foodborne path oagainst. 44 patients bill of rights of catfish and china, tested positive for ibes banned in the United States. 0 of the catfish farms used not approved. Large amounts of shrimp also contained dangerous bacteria. They were found in 8 of the shrimp from bang lag desh, 74 from india. For these reasons, the number of rty seafood shimpments inkeysed 24 . We must amend this legislation to protect our food. Its not too much to ask that that food ensured safetys are meant. And making sure our food is safe to eat. Purpose does the gentleman rise . Mr. Chaffetz the scrub act is not going to take away the f. D. A. And the people, the food safety, its an important part of the function that they hold. But i would appreciate anybody to have us understand we actually through the staff read this report from george mason university. They did a good report, the consequences of acouple mation and something that is still on the books. The food and strug strays have creating rules. There is still a regulation that strings the wibt of on canned string beans. Thats still on the books. You are breaking laws. This is the kind of stuff that should be out there. They have the liability hanging over their head. What was in 190e6, somebody thousand thought that was a good rule. But its not anymore. It is burdensome and still on the books. Lets have a Bipartisan Group of people look at this and find the width of stringbeans. Thats what the scrub act does and what jason smith is talking about. It was according to the wall street journal, the e. P. A. Had gar treated as a dangerous chemical and it wasnt until just last month the e. P. A. Said it isnt a dangerous chemical and the f. D. A. Prevailed. But there are conflicts, a commission looking at this with commissionals, staffs, are going to find these regulations and try to go, weed them out of the it will streamline what they are doing, good for the economy and good for the country and trying to do so in a bipartisan way. The e. P. A. Does do good work but we are walking about rules and regulations that are no longer necessary and need to be eliminated and with that, i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from wisconsin. My problems are with the implementation of the law, if you would like to sign a letter green bean e 1906 regulation, we can can do that. Things from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, every time a new regulation is there, and i think dangerous when it comes to food safety and veterans. It is the impracticality. If they have old thicks in their refrigerator and take out the old milk, that is a ridiculous notion. That is saying you take one for one rather than cleaning out old items. Im not impugning anyones motives but a silly way of what you want to accomplish. I dont disagree with you. There are regulations that should be gotten rid of. And the public would understand and not bring the child within the beltway. And i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from utah. Theres no incentive to get rid of regulations. Theres incentive to add regulations because thats what they do. We want a Bipartisan Group of people who can go, weed out the unnecessary underbrush we keep calling it to streamline the system. And it should be done in every agency. Its going to take time to go through it. I hope were saying we recognize that there is this problem because we can keep coming up with examples and going through and say, hey, well pass do you know how expensive it is to introduce and pass a piece of legislation and try to get it over to the senate . I mean, were trying to create a commission in a bipartisan way to have people dive in and look at these regulations. Thats what were asking for. Thats why i urge a no vote on this amendment and a yes vote on the underlying bill introduced by mr. Jason smith. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Pocan i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. Mr. Chaffetz i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the pb of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. Pocan i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 114388. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . I rise in support of the amendment. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 114388, offered by mr. Murphy of florida. The chair the gentleman from florida, mr. Murphy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. Mr. Murphy thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the substitute amendment to provide a bipartisan approach to this Regulatory Reform discussion. As a c. P. A. And Small Business owner myself i have seen firsthand the burden that unnecessary regulations can have on businesses, but particularly Small Businesses. My substitute amendment would establish a Regulatory Improvement Commission consisting of experts appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties. And would evaluate and provide recommendations for the modification, consolidation, or repeal of regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome. The commission would have an aim toward reducing compliance costs, encouraging growth and innovation and improving competitiveness, all while protecting Public Health and safety. After opportunities for input and consultation from experts, industry stake holders and the general public, the commission would submit a report to congress containing proposed legislation to implement its suggested changes. If congress chooses to act in the to act and the president chooses to sign the report, agencies would have 180 days to implement. My amendment is based on the regulatory improvement act of 2015, which i was proud to introduce with the gentleman from south carolina, mr. Mulvaney, along with 14 cosponsors. Seven democrats and seven republicans. Our bipartisan proposal rejects the partisan approach before us today and in favor of a true bipartisan compromise that all members should be able to get behind. My constituents sent me to congress with the expectation i would be willing to work with anyone with a good idea. It shouldnt matter what party you have behind your name. Traveling up and down my district, i hear the same thing from all of my constituents, whether theyre republican, democrat, tea party alike. They get that there can be a cost to protecting the environment. But in my district, in the Treasure Coast and palm beach, they also know that having clean water is probably worth it. You know, they also get that there can be a cost to protecting workers and Workplace Safety but many of them have had the same workers for many, many years, if not decades, and they know that the safety of their employees is also probably worth it system of what frustrates, i think, those constituents the most and those Business Owners the most is the unnecessary red tape. The excessive costs. The hoops they have to jump through. That dont make the air any cleaner and dont make the projects, you know, any safer. They expect washington to work to fix that problem and thats why ive offered this amendment today. I know that some on the left are going to say this goes too far. Some on the right think it doesnt go far enough. But i also know that in a divided government, the partisan bill before us will do nothing to help relieve the Regulatory Burden on the Small Businesses in my district and across this country. Riddled with poison pill the scrub act is a messaging bill, trying to send a message about one side allegedly not caring enough about jobs and the other side doesnt care enough about clean water or Public Safety. But thats not the message that the Small Businesses care about. And the Small Businesses in my district want to hear. They want results. They want solutions to this. Their message shouldnt be that congress doesnt care. So while i hope that wed be able to pick up where we left off on this bill in the last congress and find some areas where we can come together to solve problems for the American People, i understand that there are concerns with the amendment and i do intend to withdraw it and with that, i do yield to the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Scott mr. Johnson id like to say how much i appreciate the gentlemans bipartisan work on this issue and i look forward to working with you on this issue as well as other issues of joint concern like criminal Justice Reform and restoration of Voting Rights act. With that, i yield back. Mr. Murphy i thank the gentleman, i look forward to workinging to, working with our friends on the other side of the aisle, getting back to getting things done for the American People. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The chair without objection the amendment is withdrawn. For what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise . Mr. Chaffetz mr. Chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. The chair the question is on the motion that the committee rise. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the committee rises. The chair mr. Chairman. The chair mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration House Resolution 1155, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. The speaker pro tempore the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the Union Reports that the committee has had under consideration h. R. 1155 and has come to no esolution thereon. The chair will now entertain requests for oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care act came with a lot of promises. Remember the president s words in 2009 if you like the plan you have, you can keep it, if you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor too. The only change youll see are falling costs, as our reforms take hold. This, mr. Speaker, was false advertising. While some may have gained coverage under the a. C. A. , far too many others were harmed by the law. Mr. Rothfus millions of americans lost their plans and saw their premiums and out of pocket costs skyrocket. Like the mom in my district who now has to pay 400 for her daughters lifesaving peanut allergy medication when it used to cost 10. Thats not what was promised. We need to empower all patients with patients with more choice while offering options for the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions. For decades, we have proposed marketbased answers to Health Insurance challenges. Todays historic vote which is a victory over harry reids phi years of obstruction, gets us closer to real reform. I urge the president to sign the bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Are there further oneminute equests . The chair lays before the house he following requests. The clerk leaves of absence requested for ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of texas for today and the balance of the week, mr. Payne of new jersey for today, and mr. Rush of illinois for today. The speaker pro tempore without objection, think requests are granted. Thank you mr. Speaker the chair under the speakers announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentlelady from New Hampshire, ms. Kuster, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Ms. Cufter thank you. I rise as part of the task force to combat the heroin epidemic, to call on my colleagues to refocus our efforts on bringing an end to the opioik epidemic that threatens communs across New Hampshire and the country. The Opioid Epidemic has grown to historic proportions. Our medical providers are struggling to keep up with the flow of overdoses entering our clinics and to secure treatment for those who need it. Our Law Enforcement and first respoppeders have take on the burden of responding to more an more potentially dangerous situations when a call for help comes in, and these calls are becoming more and more frequent. Statistics now show that more americans die from Drug Overdoses than do in car crashes in this country. In my home state of New Hampshire, the open yoid epidemic continues to the Opioid Epidemic continues to grow. In 2015 alone, the total number of heroin deaths in the Granite State was more than 100, far surpassing the Current Record of fatalities set last year at 324. Theres no doubt that the numbers are staggering but behind each and every one of these numbers is a daughter or son a mother or father, a community leader, a neighbor, whose life was precious and whose death has inflicted terrible pain on loved ones. For every life lost, there are also many more individuals and families whose lives have been forever changed by opioid misuse. We must never forget or overlook what each number represents. As the epidemic has continued to infiltrate communities across New Hampshire and new england, experts and advocates have risen to change opioid abuse in a number of ways, sometimes from unexpected places. My dear friend chris and i have known each other for years now and shes taken it upon herself to be a champion of this issue. Through her unique position as a premiere cosmetologist in the state and makeup artiths of choice for many president ial candidates that pass through New Hampshire during primary season, chris has frged a conversation about the need to end the Opioid Epidemic onto the national stage. Hes emerged as a leader on the issue back home and she and her husband mark continue to display remarkable courage and strength as she shares the story of her stepdaughter amber who is with me here today in this chamber who lost our life to a heroin overdose. Chris hope is that her experience might help enact real change and so with chris and marks blessing tonight, its my honor to share amber cease ambers story with you. As chris puts it, amber was the girl who helped everyone else. Tragically, she could not help herself once she took that first drug at the young age of 15. As ambers stepmother chris came boo her life when she turned 17, at that point, amber had already gateway drugs the of over the counter benadryl, marijuana, and opioids available on the street. She suffered from untreated bipolar disorder but didnt have access to appropriate medication and like so many others was left uncomfortable in her own skin, selfprescribing medication to find relief. In chris words, amber was a girl hard to catch. She chose life on the run. When she found herself living on the street, she would help others by giving them the coat off her back, panhandling to buy took hershe first hit of heroin. Made choices for her. She had the opportunity to have a loving home and parents that could support her recovery, but her addiction led her on the streets. After four incargses, her heroin possession and prostitution, she was a victim of trafficking on the streets of manchester to maintain her high. When incarcerated, a bed timely ecame available for amber, but meanwhile, the prison would not let her out. The prison offered her new recovery and the bed was no longer available. She had to lie saying i want to kill my house. She detoxed. They brought amber home and on the third night, she fled home saying i have to go back to my people. The last time kristen saw her was easter sunday, she was high and vacant and three days later she was found dead of a heroin overdose and 22 years old. But ath would be easy to chris and mark made a conscious effort to use her death, life and her spirit to wake up the hearts and plaineds of minds of those who have the power to change fate. Share her story in the hopes we could all recognize this is singular to a group, it ambers parents have been brave to share her story and come to washington to push for reform. We need to array the substaps and we need to be honest considering the effects on daughters and sons, husbands and mothers and we call our coloogs together for this special order so we can speak from both sides of the aisle and its my intention by honoring those we have lost and acknowledging the ell loss of opiod abuse we can come to come together to convey the urgency. Now i would like to yield a half hour to my colleague and fellow representative. Mr. Guinta mr. Speaker, im proud tore join bipartisan members, republicans and democrats to talk about heroin use and increasingly public Deadly Health crisis and i welcome chris and mark who are re to honor the marks daughter. And i thank my representative to combat the ell epidemic. This is spreading nationwide. And over 40 house meals have joined a task force in this cause. We aim to inform the nation about the tragedies, the challenges that face our families, our communities and states, our loved ones and friend and not here not just to combat this ep dem pick but to bring it to every area of the nation. We have had a round table were experts in concord, New Hampshire, our home state. We held a briefing in washington, d. C. , featuring with the centers for disease control. They are providing a fuller picture of the scope of the problem in which in New Hampshire has claimed lives in 2015. One out of 3,000 people have died from a overdose. Nationally. Jow does deaths have tripled. These members unfortunately are likely to rise. New numbers dont tell the whole story. We need to hear from stories from doug griffin. At a forum yesterday in manchester, New Hampshire, he told the audience about his aughter who fell victim to heroin. She had a great sense of human. Until a mix of pills and street heroin ensnarred courtney. In a fatal web of addiction. Before the drugs overcame her, she played music and loved s mmp o rmp e smp. Three years later, she was lost on the streets in and out of rehab facilities and no longer had the will to live. It seemed like they had some few options, they hid the doug is telling everybody he knows about addiction. In tonight is about telling the truth. In order to build momentum, its about putting political disagreements aside because it crosses pearlt lines and crosses everyone in these United States. There are too many stories like courtney yes of the. We have the wealth of ideas to combat this problem. We formed a Bipartisan Task force to gather the stories and ideas. We introduced the stop abuse act to coordinate Law Enforcement at the federal, state and local levels. And newton, New Hampshire where doug griffins daughter dice this is north of the border. And this is a pill. It was overprescribed legal open yoids. I have introduced legislation to increase medication. The stop abuse act includes grants to localities overwhelmed by the scale of addiction as my colleagues will continue to tell you. They have their own stories and ideas to share and im grateful for their partnership and leadership as we Work Together to combat heroin abuse. Thank you and i want to reserve. I yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, congressman neal. Mr. Neal i subcommittee permission to address the house. Mr. Neal i want to call ttention to the efforts that have been made by congresswoman kuster. When she approached me on this issue i was happy to join in and this is a challenges for all of us across new england. Because what has happened across new england is gripping the attention that this issue has drawn. I want to call attention to a very important case where there is an individual that i had a chance to witness his testimony springfield om republican. A former former police lieutenant. As ad a strong you upbring lieutenant. The 50yearold was a long time head of the detective bureau. He arrested many drug addicts and responded to overdoses and responded to suicides and he was even an official who had been elected to the school committee. That was until he got addicted to pills. Two surgeries and more prescriptions, he found himself knitting that he was admitting. After trying to quit, he turned to a doctor for help, the same doctor who prescribed him the objectiony continuin and when none of that worked, he broke the law and began to get the pills illegally. When he was arrested in his office in 201, he was charged ith tampering, two counts of cocaine and subsequently, he was sentenced to two years in jail. He said it was not fear, dread or panic, he felt relief, he able to get help. Et he talks about the Police Officers that stayed within the facility. Someday, i want to be that guy. There needs to be some. He was lucky in the sense that he survived his addiction and telling his story. Those who have not survived including eight people this weekend in my Congressional District in a very small district, died from a small heroin. The reduction act of 2015 would have emergencies administration of opiod like people hole prescribe are prescribed by them. Senator markey has sponsored. When an overdose occurs, a drug is necessary to prevent death t it must occur within a certain amount of time. Every day, 120 people die as a result of Drug Overdoses and another 6,748 are treated in emergency rooms. According to the washington post, this is the leading cause of deaths over guns. Quadrupled have 651ce 1999 accounting for 16, degs. Stop the ep democratic. And i want to close with a note of congratlations for caug this attention to whates happening across new england tone fer. And the families that are sum coming to this torture trying to addicted. Who are st gust i reserve dr i yield four minutes to the gentleman from. Mr. Rothfus i thank you for organizing this special order of this evening and for the organization tore combat the heroin epidemic and recognize the individuals from New Hampshire, chris and mark who came down and the bravery of sharing the story and how it is to be reflecting on this crisis. Many of these communities have been hit hard like in regions. This epidemic is affecting destroying lives and claiming far too many. Reality. Irsthand the and ar odd fourwheeling fixing old cars. He would have turned 30 this last summer. There are too many stories. Lives full of potential and value that are cut short. According to the National Institute on drug abuse, over 10,000 heroin Overdose Deaths. This is a sixfold deaths since 2001. In my state of pennsylvania, Drug Overdose deaths have in crease and these drugs have been responsible for the loss of 3,000 lives. Part of the 12th district have been hardhit has heroin is the leading cause. Drug overere were 261 dogse deaths and 30 higher than the state average. These statistics are horrifying but behind them are tragedy. Every one is a human life that with a much nded with a much brighter, much later chapter. Every american who dies from a Drug Overdose is a person who had dignity and potential. Without adequate assistance, however they did not have hope. Its time to turn a new page to fight this deadly epidemic with enewed renewed dedication. Im strongly committed to enting this scourge. We need to find new ways to combat this crisis and to continue to learn from our Community Based organizations on how they are providing help on the frontlines. I have worked with local leaders in my district, such as reverend sylvia king, the pastor and founder of Johnstown Community church which provides drug counseling services. Ive worked with groups to make sure the necessary resources are available to help those in need. Here in congress we need to be looking at legislative responses to help this issue. Aye supported increased funding for the burn Memorial Grant Program which provides support for Drug Overdose victims. Im a cosponsor of legislation introduced by susan brooks and joe kennedy, the to reauthorize the Prescription Drug monitoring programs, increase access to the lifesaving opioid reversal drug d to provide and to raise awareness. We must remember heroins victims like jared carter and so many others leek him who lost their lives. Lets galvanize the support necessary to stop these tragedies and we must be mindful as people might watch this discussion this evening that they may know somebody who is hurting right now, somebody in need. Maybe somebody themselveses who is watch, get help. Reach out, dont do this alone. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire. I thank the gentlelady from New Hampshire who oorg niced this special order. I look fwrd to continuing the work back home and here in d. C. To address this crisis. I thank the gentleman for sharing that heart felt story and id like to reserve. Ms. Kuster im like to recognize the gentleman from new york for four minutes, im sorry, id like to recognize the gentlelady, ms. Bustos, for four minutes. Ms. Bustos thank you, congresswoman kuster. Appreciate you yielding time for this critically important issue. I want to thank you and also congressman guinta for pulling this special order together for your hard work on the Bipartisan Task force to address this heroin epidemic. Thanks to you both. Mr. Speaker, as the heroin epidemic sweeps the nation too many families and communities are mourning the deaths of loved ones who have been lost over the years due to heroin addiction and addiction to painkillers. One of the lives we lost not too long ago was in a town called rockford, illinois, in the heart of my Congressional District. The gentlemans name was chris boozman. He was 32 years old when he died in the summer of 2014. He was a kind, tender hearted son and brother he had a back injury that led to his addiction to pain medication. And when he could no longer get relief from that pain medication, he began to buy different kinds of pain relief on the street. But as the cost would add up, his dealer told him about something called heroin and he could get this for 10. After his first overdose, chris tried hard to fight his addiction. He had a couple of relapses and it appeared he had been successful in overcoming this addiction. He enrolled in a Community College called Rock Valley College where he studied construction management. He was one year away from graduating. And no one knew he was still fighting this battle because he was ashamed of it. One night he was at home he was home alone, just over one year clean, when he relapsed again and he died. The sad thing is that chris story is all too common. In fact, i lost a member of my own family to a heroin epidemic when my brotherinlaws son died after overdosing on heroin in the summer of 2013. He wasnt the kind of kid you would think would be taking Something Like heroin. His dad had no idea. His family had no idea. He was a College Football player, he was a musician, he was an avid weight lifter. And just a redheaded kid who was fun to be around. But when he injured his back and his knee and felt that he needed more than just aspirin and a little physical therapy to overcome this pain, he got on painkillers. And as were telling these stories this evening, this led eventually to him trying heroin as a way to relieve his pain and it was probably the third time that he took heroin, he ingested what would be considered pure heroin, and he died. So im here to say we can no longer sit on the sidelines while folks in our community, our family members, are suffering and are dying. When parents are burying their children. And when the men and women struggling with this addiction are crying out for help. Ee we also know that heroin use is increasing among young people, especially in my home state of illinois, with a nearly 50 increase in the use of heroin just in the last several years. In winnebago county, this is the place where rockford is that i was talking about earlier, there were 5 heroinrelated deaths in 2013 alone. In peoria, Emergency Responders see at least one heroin overdose every single day. Perhaps most troubling is not just this rapid increase in the usage or the rising number of overdoses, but our inability to treat those who need it most. While heroin use is increasing rapidly in every region in my home state, there has been a dramatic decrease in the availability of treatment. In fact, illinois ranked worst, last in the nation, in the overall decline in treatment capacity. So while were at the height of this heroin epidemic, at the height of it, last year, our governor proposed a budget that would cut our already inadequate inadequate state funded treatments by 60 . To make matters worse, the ongoing budget crisis in illinois has gutted funding to treatment programs like one in my district of rockford, its called remedies renewing lives. Thats why next week, when the president gives his state of the union, my guest will be a guy named gary halbach, who is the president of remedies. So he can witness the state of the union and he can talk about the important work that he and his colleagues at remedies are doing every single day. Under the pressure of tremendous budgetary shortfalls, gary and his team have been on the frontlines providing treatment for heroin addicts and support for victims of domestic violence. We will not end the heroin epidemic if the programs that have been prutch to help continue to be undermined and significantly underfunded. We cannot turn a blind eye to the families and the communities that have been affected by the heroin ep democrat ex. They deserve better and deserve solutions. I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. Kuster thank you, ms. Bustos. I reserve the balance of my time. I would like to say that the concept of bringing the faces of addiction to the floor of the house was ms. Bustos idea. Thank you for that. I reserve. Mr. Guinta id like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. Walberg. Mr. Walberg i thank the gentleman and mr. Speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. As i step to the podium i notice that two of the values america has etched into or caverned into the speakers rostrum, liberty and then to my left, peace. Two values that we hold dear. Yet two values that are lost to people when they come under the uel, cruel domination of heroin and other opiates. Its good for us to talk about this tonight but more important to do something about it. I want to thank congressman guinta and congresswoman kuster and my colleagues who are participating in this special order to highlight the ongoing epidemic of heroin and Prescription Drug abuse. I rise today as a member of the Bipartisan Task force to combat the heroin epidemic to discuss a growing Public Health crisis in the United States. The more but more personally a crisis occurring in my home district of the michigan seventh. You see, we can talk statistics over and over again. But really this is all about lives. Friends. Family. Neighbors. People that are highly respected and people that we wouldnt know. And yet theyre impacted. The tragic stories of Prescription Drug abuse and fatal overdoses hit close to home in far too many michigan communities. Through september of this year, the home of the university of michigan suffered 41 opioid Overdose Deaths. Local Law Enforcement officials in Monroe County, gateway to michigan from ohio, believe the number of heroin Overdose Deaths in 2015 will top 2014. In jackson county, the center of the state, the total number of Drug Overdoses has nearly tripled in the last five years were 2015, 131 overdoses reported. These are troubleling statistics, but again, theyre about lives. People. Behind these numbers are real individuals and families who have been affected by this tragic epidemic. N may 17, 2010, andrew hurst died of a heroin overdose at the age of 24. For his father, mike hurst a respected businessperson in jackson, michigan, this tragedy this tragic loss has led him to dedicate himself to stopping heroin overdoses in the jackson area by sharing the experience of his sons death and the life of his family. For the past five years, mike has counseled addicts, supported families, and mentored atrisk youth away from heroin and opiate drugs through his foundation, andys angels. In addition, hes led educational efforts to inform people of the link between prescripping opioid use and heroin addiction. Hes teamed with local Police Agencies to investigate heroin dealers, to eliminate Access Points for this deadly drug. Recognizing his tireless efforts , the Jackson Citizen patriot newspaper named mike hurst their citizen of the year. Fortunately, mike isnt done and isnt alone in this fight. Across michigans seventh district, communities are ramping up education an prevention efforts as well as enforcement strategies. For example, Monroe County recently held their third annual Prescription Drug abuse and heroin summit. Jackson county held their second drug summit in december. And the county Prosecutors Office plans to host a series of additional meetings in 2016, and i applaud them for that. Local efforts to raise awareness and fight this growing epidemic are also under way in branch, eton, hillsdale and other counties. Fighting against heroin and opioid abuse will take the work of citizens, treatment providers, Law Enforcement and elected officials including each of us, at every level. In congress we must continue to pursue legislative solutions to improve coordination between federal agencies and the states and equip our First Responders on the front lines. Just as importantly, mr. Speaker, we can promote awareness in our communities and support those who have been affected by this crisis. Tonights speeches aimed to raise the profile of this issue, to increase education, and to honor people like mike hurst who are fighting to save others from the danger of Drug Overdoses. And to bring liberty and peace back to peoples lives. Hank you and i yield back. Mr. Guinta i want to thank the gentleman from michigan for outlining through the lens of liberty and peace the challenge that andrew hursts father mike has endured. My heart is with him and your constituents and i want to thank you for your hard work on the Bipartisan Task force and look forward to continuing your leadership in michigan and here in washington, d. C. Mr. Speaker, may i inquire as to the remaining time . The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from New Hampshire as 13 minutes remaining. Mind something we have 13 minutes to conclude my understanding is we have 13 minutes to conclude for our special order. At this time i yield to the gentlelady from New Hampshire. Ms. Kuster thank you, mr. Speaker. Id like to recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. Tonko, for three minutes. Mr. Tonko i thank the gentlelady and the gentleman from New Hampshire. Our colleagues who have made available this special order this evening. Through the auspices of Bipartisan Task force, to combats the heroin epidemic. As cochair of a similar panel, the bipartisan caucus that addresses addiction, the disease of addiction, it is important, i believe, to share information and encourage response out there from the general public, to drive the policy process here in washington. According to samhsas National Survey on drug use and health, the use of