On the recordFebruary 28, 2017
This commission that we have here in the SCRUB Act is established to clear out old and unnecessary regulations. It currently requires the commission to consider whether the rule could be repealed without significant adverse effects, whether the rule is unnecessary, whether the costs are justified by the benefits, and certain other criteria. I think that the consideration of public health certainly fits within whether the rule would have significant adverse effects, whether it is necessary, and whether the benefits justify the cost. Health, safety, and welfare of the American people is foremost to what we do, and I laud my colleague from California for filing this amendment. This amendment clarifies that the commission should consider the impact on public health of repealing any regulation. I think that, again, my colleague from California gave fine examples of that particular balance. We agree that we want regulations that are necessary to protect public health. I am excited to see one of my Democratic colleagues working with us to improve regulatory reform legislation. I look forward to future opportunities to continue this work. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I look forward to, in the future, working on true bipartisan regulation. I think it is one of those areas, at least in my experience in local and State government, that we should be working in a bipartisan manner.…
