[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 998, SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING 
 REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 83, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO ``CLARIFICATION OF EMPLOYER'S 
 CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE RECORD OF EACH 
                    RECORDABLE INJURY AND ILLNESS''

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 28, 2017

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
for H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are 
Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017,'' or ``SCRUB Act,'' and the 
underlying bill.
  I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it hampers the 
ability of federal agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect 
citizens.
  The SCRUB Act seeks to establish a Retrospective Regulatory Review 
Commission to identify and recommend to Congress existing Federal 
regulations that can be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs 
to the U.S. economy.
  As such, this bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by establishing a 
new ``regulatory review'' commission charged with identifying 
duplicative, redundant, or so-called ``obsolete'' regulations to 
repeal.
  Specifically, H.R. 1155 would establish a commission with unlimited 
subpoena power consisting of unelected, appointed members to review 
existing agency rules and make recommendations to Congress for an up or 
down vote on rules to be eliminated.
  The scope of this review would be virtually unlimited leaving no rule 
or regulation safe, and Congress would be prohibited from debating the 
individual repeal recommendations but would instead be forced to 
consider the commission's rule recommendations in a single package.
  Under the legislation as currently drafted, agencies would be 
required to follow a ``cut-go'' process--prohibiting a new rule from 
being issued until an existing rule of equal or greater ``cost'' 
according to the commission is repealed--thereby undermining the 
ability of agencies to quickly respond to imminent threats to public 
health and safety.
  Mr. Speaker, the SCRUB Act--and the creation of this $30 million 
regulatory commission--is problematic because it would operate with 
little meaningful oversight, transparency, or public accountability to 
ensure that its recommendations do not subvert the public interest and 
safety.
  For instance, the SCRUB Act would prohibit any regulatory agency from 
issuing any new rule or informal statement, including non-legislative 
and procedural rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm 
to public health, until the agency first offsets the costs of the new 
rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the 
Commission.
  This regulatory ``cut-go'' process would force agencies to prioritize 
between existing protections and responding to new threats to our 
health and safety.
  Such a sweeping requirement would endanger the lives of Americans by 
creating unnecessary delays in the Federal rulemaking process and 
creating additional burdens and implementation problems that will only 
divert critical agency resources and diminish agencies' ability to 
protect and inform the public in times of imminent danger and need.
  For instance, if an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to 
the public or environment, it would have to either rescind an existing 
rule that is identified by the Commission's arbitrary and cost-centric 
process or choose not to act.
  That is why I offered an amendment that would have exempted from the 
SCRUB Act any rule relating to the prevention of cyber-attacks intended 
to interfere with elections for public office.
  Regrettably, the Rules Committee did not make this salutary amendment 
in order, which is another reason I cannot support the legislation.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect American citizens by ensuring 
that our federal agencies are not unnecessarily burdened with 
regulatory mandates that would jeopardize the ability of federal 
agencies to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes, prevent 
cyber terrorism, and enhance the security and integrity of 
cybernetworks and systems.
  Now is not the time to undermine or impede the ability of DHS, DOJ, 
and other federal agencies to combat growing threats and active acts of 
cyber terrorism.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose the rule for H.R. 998, and urge 
all Members to join me in voting against this irresponsible and unwise 
legislation.

                          ____________________