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 colleag