On the recordJanuary 6, 2016
I have the greatest respect for our Members here. But to suggest that what we are doing is throwing a sledgehammer and that it is pandering, 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, say, the State of Washington. And I hope that was dealt with very successfully. But 70 years from now, it is probably not applicable. And I guarantee you, there are regulations and things that are happening by the tens of thousands, by the way, on a regular basis that are no longer needed. All we are asking for is an opportunity to put together a bipartisan group to go review these. That is what Jason Smith has been passionate about. That is what he is fighting for. That is what is reasonable. That is why we are here today. But to suggest that it is because of pandering or any other negative word, our heart is sincere in that we actually do think that these regulations cause problems. You have got to have bureaucrats who understand all these regulations. It is not just the taxpayers--who we work for--but it is also the bureaucrats who are supposed to try to sort all of 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 they are supposed to be doing. So should we review things that were put forward on an emergency basis?…
