I hear from the other side of the aisle about how low-income people are being taken care of already because the President of the United States has told these agencies to ``take into account their status.'' But guess what? That has no judicial enforceability. So if a low-income person really wants to seek redress of their grievances through a regulation that is going to cost them their job, cost them their business, whatever the case might be, they have no recourse to the courts. Among those who suffer most unfairly from overreaching regulations are lower-income families and individuals. The other side has criticized our list of entities supporting this. But these are all job-creating organizations. I haven't heard of many job-creating organizations who are opposed to this legislation. New regulations often represent the policy preferences of elites and pro-regulatory advocates. Recent regulations aimed at driving down the use of coal and other fossil fuels are an example of this. What growing research shows, and what policy elites too often ignore, is that the costs of new regulations often have regressive effects on those with lower incomes. For example, when electricity rates go up because Federal regulators clamp down on the use of cheap energy, real money that lower-income households need to secure better housing, better educational choices, or other essential needs goes instead to pay for unnecessarily excessive regulations. This is unfair.…
Share
More from Bob Goodlatte
Absolutely. Again, going back to the question that Mr. Issa had, the difference between the broader scope here and the narrower scope of this legislation is those entities, corporations, governments outside the United States, we should…
The charge is abuse of power, but what the majority is really upset about is the fact that the President and the administration is exercising its power under the Constitution, its authorized powers.
It is the change in technology that has evolved, particularly since ECPA was passed and we have tried to reform it.
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 499, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 450, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 451. ____________________





