On the recordJanuary 6, 2016
Mr. Chairman, that may well be the purpose of this bill, and I don't think anyone would disagree with reviewing regulations and making recommendations. That may be the purpose of the bill, but that is not what the bill does. What the bill does--and we have to understand the implications, and I will repeat it--it prohibits any regulatory agency from issuing any new rule or informal statement, including nonlegislative and procedure rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to the public, until the agency first offsets the cost of the new rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the commission. So it is not that anyone is suggesting everything is perfect and a review isn't necessary, but it is the procedure that the bill sets forth which will become law that requires agencies to delay doing anything until they find something to undo. In the context of the requirements and the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security, this has potentially life-threatening implications. So it is not that anyone is suggesting everything is perfect and a review isn't necessary. 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 necessary to protect the public, until you repeal or rescind a corresponding amount of regulation. That is a danger. It is what this bill will do.…





