reforms in these agencies. host: the first call comes from alabama on the independent line. michael, go ahead. caller: good afternoon -- i mean, good morning. even though i'm on the independent line and i didn't vote for hillary clinton, there is no way that i voted for president trump. unfortunately, his budget bears out my suspicions. i don't know why to many of us able-bodied white male -- i'm actually slightly disable -- were bamboozled by his statements on the campaign trail . that he would bring jobs back, let alone that he was really for the average, ordinary americans. here are my concerns. how much of this federal defense budget goes towards u.s. overseas bases0,

pro >> wece do have to leave this. the house gavelling back in for votes. will be taken in the following order. ordering the priest question on house resolution 150 and adoption of house resolution 150 if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the amendment to houseres. -- resolution 150 and on the resolution on which the yeas and nays are ordered. clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 13, house resolution 150, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 998 to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and set of rules and for other purpose, and providing for kgs of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 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. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 224 and the nays are 191. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 225. the nays are 188. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek

recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 998. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. he gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. please remove conversations from the middle aisle, side aisles, back row, please come to order. the house needs to continue business. lease come to order. the house will come to order. please remove all conversations off the floor.

pursuant to house resolution 150 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 998. the chair appoints the gentleman from alabama, to preside over he committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the hole on the constitute for consideration of h.r. 998 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah.

mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, h.r. 998 searching for and cutting regulation that is are unnecessarily burdensome, also known as the scrub act, was introduced by our colleague, jason smith. i happen to be a co-sponsor of this bill as well as the judiciary chairman, bob goodlatte, pete sessions, the rules chairman, the gentleman from texas. we rise in support of this bill, the scrub act, regulatory accumulation is the significant problem for the federal government. year after year federal agencies add regulation after regulation piling on to an already very complex and crowded regulatory system. the code of federal regulations, also known as the q.f.r., has some 178,000 pages. these are the regulations that you're supposed to understand if you're in a business, small business, big business, medium-sized business. it contains more than one

million regulatory restrictions. and every year the federal government adds on average nearly 12,000 new regulations on top of those. the regulatory accumulation considered -- has considerable impact upon our economy. according to the competitive enterprise institute, regulatory compliance hurts economic growth by pulling nearly $1.8 trillion out of the economy. regulations are particularly hard on small businesses that don't have the legal resources and the wherewithal to understand all the complexities. many small and medium-sized businesses will be doing things that they don't necessarily even know or understand what could be problematic. there is room for regulation. don't get me wrong. not suggesting there should be no regulation. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. members will remove their conversations from the floor.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i thank the chairman. we're trying to clean up some of this regulation. weed out the good from the bad. the scrub act will enable the government to do so. that's why i appreciate our colleague, jason smith, for championing and bringing this bill to the floor again. the scrub act establishes a bipartisan, and i can't say that enough, a bipartisan retrospective regulatory review commission to conduct a comprehensive review of federal regulation. the commission's goal is to reduce regulatory costs to the economy by at least 15%. the act charges the commission with identifying outdated, obsolete, unnecessary regulation in need of repeal or amendment. the commission gives priority to those regulation that is are 15 years old and older. i think that's an appropriate direction that they should go. the commission will consist of regulatory experts chosen on a bipartisan basis and confirmed by the united states senate. they will take a governmentwide

look at the regulatory system, allowing for an impartial and wide ranging review of outdated and unnecessary regulations. this is not a new or partisan concept. in 1978, president jimmy carter issued an executive order requiring agencies to, quote, periodically review their existing regulations to determine whether they are achieving the policy goals, end quote. in addition, every president since has required some level of retrospective regulatory self-review by those agencies themselves. in fact, it was president obama who issued three executive orders on regulatory review. he required agencies to develop retrospective review plans and set priorities for implementing that review. the commission is tasked with identifying regulations that ought to be repealed or amended. the commission will use commonsense criteria to determine whether regulations are overlapped, duplicates, or just flat out conflicts with existing regulations. after expedited congressional approval, agencies are required

to repeal some regulations based on the committee's regulation. you have people that are selected. their senate confirmed. then they bring forward a package that is allowed to be viewed by congress. and so some have said, well, this is excusing congress from its duties. quite to the contrary. the committees, members, everybody should be paying attention to this. but to have a bipartisan group go out and look and make a recommendation, then it's up to congress whether or not to accept it. we need to go through the house, senate, and signed on by the president. in a bipartisan way. because there will be members from both sides of the aisle. that will be able to appoint members. other regulations will be subject to innovative regulatory cut-go procedure. the cut-go process gives agencies flexibility how to priority advertise regulatory elimination. it allows them to choose which regulations to -- repeal and amend. new regulation can not be

promulgated until equally costly regulations are repealed. this gives agencies the direction and momentum needed to implement the regulatory reform our economy needs. we all know that regulation kims prove health and safety -- regulations can improve health and safety, sometimes these outdated and excessive regulations hurt our economy and put other people in jeopardy. the accumulation over decades is something that should just simply be reviewed. i think it's pretty hard to argue that a review process is unwarranted or unneeded given status ing an impactful that it puts upon those things that are damaging our economy. again, i want to thank jason smith for his leadership on this issue. i also want to thank chairman bob goodlatte, the judiciary staff for their dedicated work on this, as well as chairman pete sessions for his good work on this. a lot of good people have worked

on this. i do support it. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i rise in strong opposition to this legislation. the scrub act would establish a $30 million commission of un-elected, and i emphasize that, un-elected bureaucrats to duplicate work that agencies already are supposed to be doing. the bill would focus on the costs of regulations while disregarding their benefits and froketting the most vulnerable populations in our country like the children in flint, michigan. if there is any doubt about this, one need look no further than the so-called cut-go provision in this bill. that provision would require

that when an agency makes a new rule, it must offset the costs of that new rule for the repeal of an existing rule. this applies even if the new rule is in response to an imminent health or safety threat. agency compliance with this cut-go provision would also be subject to judicial review, which prolongs the process even more. this would inevitably result in lengthy delays in both industry and nonprofit groups routinely file challenges through agency decisions. president obama has already issued two executive orders to eliminate unnecessary regulations. on january 18, 2011, he issued requiringorder 13563,

each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing rules. that executive order requires each agency to, and i quote, periodically review its existing signature regulations -- significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. . in addition, president obama 13610 on cutive order may 10, 2012, requiring agencies to report twice a year to the office of information regulatory affairs on the status of their review efforts. in november, 2014, a report prepared for the administrative conference of the united states highlighted the impact of these

mandated reviews concluding, and i quote, implementing president obama's executive orders on retrospective review agencies ons, identified tens of billions of cost savings and tens of millions of hours of reduced paperwork and reporting requirements through modifications of existing regulations, end of quote. congress has the authority and certainly the responsibility to conduct oversight to review existing agency rules and to recommend or mandate reforms. yet, this bill would create a new commission, a new commission that will cost taxpayers $30 million to do what agencies in congress are already supposed to be doing. in addition, the commission's report to congress on the rules it recommends repealing would

subject to an up or down vote by the congress. congress would not be allowed to vote on each regulation individually and this would usurp the authority of the congress. one of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it would entrust this unelected commission with extraordinary and virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. section 101-c of the bill states, and i quote, this commission may issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to the duties of the commission. the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence may be required from any place within the united states at any designated place of hearing within the united states, end

of quote. most agency inspectors general do not have such broad authority to compel witness testimony. yet, this unelected commission would have this authority. this means it can compel an individual to testify on any subject. for example, a school teacher could be compelled to testify about education rules or a senior citizen could be compelled to testify about medicare or social security rules. this extraordinary subpoena power is especially troubling because the commission's jurisdiction is limitless. there's no restriction on what regulations the commission can review. three prominent law professionors with the center for progressive reform sent a letter opposing an identical

bill in the last congress -- professors with the center for progressive reform sent a letter opposing an identical bill in the last congress. they said it would have a very expensive new bureaucracy to review existing agency rules and make recommendations for the repeal or weakening of those rules with little meanful oversight, transparency or public accountability to ensure these recommendations do not subvert the public interests, end of quote. citizens for sensible safeguards, a coalition of more than 150 consumer, labor and good government groups, also oppose the bill. this bill could have dangerous consequences for the health and safety of the american public. therefore, i strongly urge every member to oppose it and with that i reserve the balance

of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, be permitted to control the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. chairman, thank you. i thank the chairman, also, for allowing me this opportunity. at this time i had' like to yield two minutes to -- i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great state of washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: mr. chairman, america has the most inspirational people imaginable. when they build in ways that change the world and change it for the better. far too often our innovators are bogged down by red tape thanks to a government that it knows better, how to think, how

to believe, how to run their businesses and how to run their lives. it costs us nearly $2 trillion a year. that's about $15,000 a family. so we are rolling back these regulations and offering much-needed relief to families and businesses across the country. thanks to my good friend, representative jason smith's leadership, the scrub act provides another powerful tool that gives power back to the american people through their representatives. this bill creates a long overdue process to identify ineffective, outdatend and duplicative -- outdated and duplicative rules. we made a promise to the american people. their voice matters in our government. we're going to do whatever we can to restore that voice and put it at the center of every decision we make. i'm proud of representative smith's work to rein in

government. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman is recognized. . cummings: mr. chairman, we -- mr. ross: mr. chairman, we reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield to mrs. watson coleman 3 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. mr. chairman, there are many troubling aspects of this bill but most pressing is that this legislation without clear policy rationale caters to demands of my republican colleagues to slash existing regulations and muddy the process of passing new ones. congress already has a responsibility of reviewing existing rules and mandating reforms. why delegate that to those not elected to do so?

this unsettling bill spends millions of taxpayer dollars to create a hand picked commission to do the job of congress without the accountability. no thank you. this unelected and unaccountable commission appointed by the president and congress would submit regulatory changes without 9 opportunity to amend the measure -- without the opportunity to amend the measure, taking regulatory review out of the hands of the agency experts. this is counterproductive and it is an insult to the democratic process. to add insult to injury, this bill makes the regulatory process transactional. by forcing agencies to repeal regulations in order to adopt a new one, we risk public health and safety. why have they prioritized costs over benefits? why are american lives on the chopping block? i urge my colleagues to vote no

against this bill, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he'd like to consume, the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from the great state of missouri, jason. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. on january 20, america itnessed the end of the most [no audio] nder issued over 3,000 regulations which means almost two new regulations were issued each and every day on american farmers, families and small business owners. regulations from the last

administration alone cost taxpayers $873 billion. that is a burden of over $12 million an hour add by the obama white house on the american taxpayer. back home in missouri alone, the cost of complying with regulations just add by the obama administration totaled $19 billion which is equal to ver $9,000 in cost per person. regulations written by unelected bureaucrats in washington are suffocating the very farmers and small business owners who are -- who are in need to hire and expand in order to get full work force participation. today we are considering a solution to this problem with the searching for and cutting regulations that are

unnecessarily burdensome act, otherwise known as the scrub act. the scrub act's objective is to reduce the overall cost of regulations by at least 15%. with the passage of the scrub act today, we are simply putting the tools in place to support what president trump has already started. during his first full week in office, president trump authored an executive order for the purpose of reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs. the order is simple. for every new proposed regulation, two existing ones must be taken off the books. this order will help prioritize regulations truly in the best interest of the american people and remove ones that are outdated, burdensome and costly. and just last week, the president began a regulatory review task force to review existing regulations.

the scrub act mirrors and supports the president's actions ensuring our regulatory burdens never again reaches the heights that they are today. the scrub act makes sure that farmers, small business owners and families impacted by washington regulators have a seat at the table and prioritizing which ones the trump white house should remove. we must help the president put an end to the washington knows best mentality that has polluted our nation's capital and plagued the american people for the past eight years. many of you voted in favor of this legislation last congress. however, with this new administration, the american people are calling for us to change the way things are done in washington. so it is my hope that you will join me once again in helping put an end to the washington regulatory machine. i also call on my colleagues on

the other side of the capitol who seem lately more bent on obstruction to re-evaluate why their districts and states sent them to washington. i'm hopeful they will consider supporting the legislation, policies, laws and nominations that will help alleviate the burden of an oversized federal government. with the scrub act, we have a real opportunity to shrink the size of government and get washington off the backs of the american people. i want to thank chairman chaffetz, chairman goodlatte for bringing this bill up today, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the scrub act. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, 3 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee, a

great leader in our congress and someone who i admire greatly. the only thing clever about this bill is the title. everything else about this bill is truly diabolical. the scrub act isn't going to clean anything up. its toxic suds will make people sicker, our environment dirtier and our products more dangerous. creating an unelected commission to oversee the entire regulatory policy of the united states is undemocratic and unimagineably damaging. essentially, five people appointed by the president would be able to sacrifice the health and safety of the american public to the alter of big business. say goodbye to protections from big banks, big polluters and big pharmaceutical companies and hello to financial ruin,

environmental destruction and unsafe food and drugs. these presidential pawns would also have unlimited subpoena power. now, think about this. they are going to have more subpoena power than the inspector generals in this country. also, the scrub act's senseless and dangerous cut-go process would force agencies to choose between pain tainting existing protections and -- maintaining existing protections and responding to our health and safety. for example, in order to clean up the air, they may have an organization to pollute our drinking water. talk about death panels. this, my friends, is a death panel. . 9 own thing the scrub act washes away is common sense governance. this is a diabolical bill and this, my friends, is what being drunk with power delivers. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i thank the chairwoman. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you, madam chairman. you know what, we've got over a million pages of regulations. we've got so many laws nobody could possibly know them. i would venture to say there are very few people today who can't go a day without violating some law or some regulation. it's gotten too complex. nobody wants a dirty environment. nobody wants dirty water. but we need a reasonable amount of regulation that we can understand and that we can follow and that will protect america and create jobs. the scrub act creates a commission that comes back to congress with recommendations of what to get rid of. you know what? i'd like to do it all here in

congress, too. but we sure face a lot of obstruction in getting things done here. it doesn't move fast here. let's get a commission to dot basic work. let's bring it back to congress and let us decide and let us get rid of regulations. let's make the agencies pick and choose what regulations they think are important. and they'll do it. this is commonsense legislation to get the regulatory state under control. and i urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we continue to reserve. we don't have any speakers down here. >> if you're ready to close. mr. cummings: i'm ready to close. all right. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the scrub act poses real and significant dangers to the health and welfare of the american public. by focusing predominantly on the cost of the rules, the scrub act

's cut-go provision will repeal rules with little regard for how they benefit and protect the american people. the commission's virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents, combined with its uncircumscribed ability to review and recommend repeal of any current rules is an extraordinary grant of power that could have tragic repercussions for the health and safety of the american people. the scrub act is a waste of $30 illion of hard-earned t. taxpayer money -- hard-earned, taxpayer money for work that's already being done by federal agencies. i strongly urge every member to oppose this act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized.

>> i thank the chairwoman. some time ago when i first got involved in this political process i made it known that i felt that the silent killer of american business was the regulatory regime that we have in place. mr. ross: over 50 years this congress has ceded its authority to unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats. today we have 175,000 pages in the code of federal register that is evidence of that. it's time that we as a congress on behalf of our constituency, on behalf of the future, well-being of this contry, take back that authority with oversight and accountability through this scrub act. you know, it has been said that there's approximately on average $20,000 a year per employee of a manufacturer that is attributable just to compliance regulation. we need to make sure that we have our manufacturers, our businesses, doing that which they do best within a reasonable

regulatory scheme. that's what this act offers. a reasonable regulatory scheme that allows congress who has the authority, actually has the only authority, to hold accountable these unelectable bureaucrats. the scrub act will allow us to do that. it would allow due process through a discovery process. more importantly, the review board, the commission, the five bipartisan members who are appointed by the president, must be confirmed by the senate. this in and of itself is a sense of due process, a sense of accountability, and more importantly, a strong sense of purpose that the american people would want to see this congress be able to go in and take back the authority that they have delegated so sometimes recklessly to these bureaucratic organizations. when you talk about the $30 million, i know the $30 million is always big in any equation that you have, but when you allow the $30 million to be spent over five years, and you allow that to have the removal

of certain regulations, you will pay for this $30 million 10 times over in no time at all. so it is with a sense of advocacy on behalf of not only congressional authority but also a sense of advocacy on behalf of american business and furet economic growth of this country that -- future economic growth of this country that i ask my colleagues to wholeheartedly support this act. the scrub act. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the rule shall be considered as read. -- the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 115-20. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time

specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: i have an amendment on behalf of mr. beyer. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 115-20. offered by mr. cummings of aryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 150, the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i'm very, very pleased to yield to mr. beyer, the maker of the amendment, i yield to him, madam chair lady. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. beyer: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chair. madam speaker, my amendment today is meant to address only

one of several very troublesome provisions in the bill. as my colleagues have pointed out, the scrub act is a radical approach to deregulation. prioritize cost savings through repeal of rules without considering their public benefit. it would also prevent agencies from making any new rules, even in the case of an imminent threat to public health or safety, unless the cost is offset by repealing the existing rule. we have heard often on this floor, my republican friends rail against regulations promulgated by faceless bureaucrats. well, this bill seeks to accomplish all of this through the work of an un-elected commission, faceless, with virtually unlimited subpoena authority and jurisdiction over every existing regulation. this body would work in the chados to roll back environmental and workplace protections, putting dollars and cents over public health. the legislation grants so much in the way of authority so little in the way of oversight,

transparency, or public accountability. president trump and my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot draining the swamp. madam speaker, the republicans are proposing today makes the swamp look like the hangling gardens of babylon, all at a cost of $30 million to the american taxpayer. my amendment today would bring a modicum of transparency and ethical oversight to this shadow bure -- bureaucracy by requiring they follow the same financial disclosure rules as members of congress, congressional staff, or any federal official. my amendment would also ensure that commission members don't come into the revolving door by inserting a requirement that the individual must not have been a registered lobbyist at any point during the previous two years. congress not only has the authority but the duty to review existing regulations and when necessary mandate reforms. i understand why republicans want to delegate this work because who wants to be the one to recommend rolling back rules

governing klee air, water, food safety, workplace protections, domestic violence, victim protections, and many, many other rules that are in place to keep americans healthy and safe. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment simply to give transparency, openness, and clarity to the people who will be making the decisions under the scrub act. thank you, madam speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. ross: i thank the chairwoman. i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ross: i thank the chairwoman. although i am not in opposition to the amendment, i do wish to speak in support and further explain my support because i believe that the gentleman from virginia offers some very good merit to his amendment. the amendment clarifies that the commissioners are covered by the ethics and government act, which is in line with current law. commissioners should be free from financial conflict as much as any other federal employee

should. beyer amendment prohibits the employment of a commissioner to the regular two vee rue commission who has been a registered lobbyist in the previous two years. ensuring commissioners are not lobbyists with financial interest in the work is in line of the goal of identifying wasteful or unfair regular laces. the ban allows genuine experts with some past lobbying experience to contribute their knowledge to the commission. this provision is very similar to the president's two-year ban on form lobbyists working in the administration and for those reasons i do support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. we have no further amendments, madam chair. we yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. ross: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 115-20. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. desaulnier: i have an amendment at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 115-2, offered by mr. desaulnier of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: thank you, madam chair, i appreciate it. i rise in support of this amendment to h.r. 998. as drafted this -- as drafted, the scrub act requires agencies to repeal existing regulations to offset the sos of new regulations. it also thosheses up to $30 million far commission to review the code of regulations and recommend regulatory repeals this commonsense amendment ensures the impacts of public health including the costs and benefits associated with those impacts and that they are considered under process established by the scrub act this, i believe is a reasonable improvement to the bill.

it ensures that federal agencies appropriately consider the true costs and benefits of federal rules with an eye toward saving hard-earned taxpayer money. as a member of the california state senate, i worked with a republican administration to help enact this legislation as the first ever health act of its type in the country. and it was based on the sensible premise that understanding the impacts of government actions on public health not only saves lives, but saves money. this effort helped provide california state agencies with the direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex environmental, financial and sustainability factors that contribute to poor health and inequities. over the six years of its existence, policy resulted in increased collaboration across large state agency, saving taxpayer money while promoting improved public health throughout the nation's largest state. today, u.s. taxpayers face a

growing burden of largely preventable chronic illnesses. heart ds, stroke, obesity and diabetes are but a few of the myriad health issues that americans fates every day that drive many of their financial and professional decisions. in many of our most disadvantaged community, fewer resources are available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the levels of chronic illnesses in these communities and shorter life expectancies. it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on public health policies in our economy. if the goal of this legislation se limb nating existing regulations to pay for few regulations -- for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to understand the impacts of these decision on our nation's public health? for example, eliminating the department of labor's silica rule might save an employer the expense of purchasing mitt fwation equipment. but does that employer truly save money if its health

insurance premiums go up due to associated respiratory illness? when the majority pushed to eliminate the interior department's stream protection rule, allowing mountain top mining companies to dump potentially mining debris in nearby streams, there was little consideration of the cost associated with mitigating the inevitable drinking water contamination and health care costs of those who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water. this amendment ensures that federal agencies at the very least consider the health impacts and costs associated ith eliminating regulation and this amendment will help to go a long way in preventing unnecessary health care costs which i hope we can agree is a positive improvement to the bill. if my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating federal regulations, i hope that they agree that at least we can make sure that this independent commission will at least consider the benefits of public health as they do their

analysis. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek time? >> i rise to claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ross: i thank the chairwoman, i thank my friend from kale for filing this amendment. 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 cry tier yasm i think 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 costs. health, safety, and welfare of the american people is foremost

to what wle we do. this amendment clarifies that the commission should consider the impact on public health of repealing any regulation. i think, again, my colleague from california gave a fine example of that particular balance. we agree that we want regulations that are necessary to protect public health. i am excited to see that one of my democratic colleagues working with us to improve regulatory reform legislation. i look forward to future opportunities to continue this work and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: i appreciate those comments and i look forward in the future to working on true bipartisan regulation. i think it's one of those areas, at least in my experience in local and state government, that we should be working in a bipartisan manner. unfortunately, this bill, i do not believe accomplishes that. so regulatory oversight is probably the most important thing we can do and i hope we

can do it in a bipartisan way in the future. i would encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. desaulnier: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-20. ms. mcsally: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. mcsally: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 rinted in house report 115-20, offered by ms. mcsally of arizona. the chair: the gentlelady from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from arizona. ms. mcsally: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of the underlying legislation, the scrub act and urge adoption of my amendment. the retrospective regulatory review commission created in the scrub act is an important tool to help congress reclaim its constitutional role of serving as a check to the executive branch and will bring back jobs and opportunities to hardworking americans. in 2016 alone, the obama administration added 97,110 pages to the federal register, over 75 times more than bible, without any of the good news. these rules and regulations accumulate with no relief and touch every aspect of life all the way down to record keeping for contact lenses, vending machine food labeling and

walk-in freezer testing. of the over 2,500 regulations issued in 2016, 15 were deemed to have significant impact on small business. we need to reduce this regulatory burden on american households and small bhizzes which cost the economy over $2 trillion per year. the congressional review act gives congress 60 legislative days to introduce and pass into law disapproval regulation -- resolutions overturinning -- overturning a rule or regulation. once they are overturned, they are unable to reissue in the same form in the future. a little known rule requires them to submit to congress a report on the rule or regulation. the 60-day clock for executive action begins either when the rule is published or when congress receives the report, whichever comes later. many rules since 1996 have been

implemented without this report. often due to federal agencies' push to hastily implement new rules. this means there are many rules and regulations that may be eligible for congress to overturn. my amendment to the scrub act requires the retrospective regulatory review commission to consider for removal rules and regulations for which congress did not receive the report as required by the congressional review act. according to the g.a.o., approximately 29% of final rules failed to submit required reports in 2013. this prudent step will help give congress the opportunity to, where appropriate, make use of the congressional review act disapproval process, to expedite the rollback of flawed rules and regulations that are choking our economy. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. cummings: again, i rise to claim time in opposition, but i will not oppose this amendment even though it does nothing to change the substance of the scrub act or reduce the danger that it poses to the health and safety of the american public. this amendment would add another criteria to identify which rules the commission would recommend for repeal, specifically whether an agency has complied with requirements of title 5 u.s.c. section 801-a-1-a. that section requires agencies prior to promulgating a rule to submit to each house of congress and the comptroller general a report containing a copy of the rule, a concise, general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule that the proposed effective date of the rule. so this amendment would require this unelected commission to

report to congress on what information congress has -- has or has not received. this just underscores the point that congress should doits own job rather than passing this bill to set up a commission to do our job for us. like the other criteria in the bill, remitive mcsally's amendment does nothing to address the scrub act's focus on the costs of the rules. the amendment fails to make sense of the cut-go provision which would result in the repeal of rules with little regard for how these rules have benefited and protected the american public. the amendment fails to address the fact that agencies are already doing a retrospective review of regulations. this amendment fails to reduce the $30 million price tag to the american public would be

responsible for paying to create the unelected commission under the bill. the amendment fails to reduce the commission's virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents this amendment is nothing more than a window dressing and it does not address any of the scrub act's failings and dangers that it poses to the health and safety of all americans and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. ms. mcsally: thank you, madam chair. may i ask how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. mcsally: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mcsally: my amendment is simple. under the scrub act simply asking, right now agencies are not complying with the law, they have not submitted necessary reports to congress and the g.a.o. they're asking among other things being reviewed in this

act that we look at which reports have not been submitted, therefore which are not in compliance with the congressional review act so we can decide whether any of those would be appropriate for the approval resolution or whether the rule is one that should be enforced because it hasn't been applied. this is a good amendment and i appreciate our colleagues supporting it. i now yield one minute to my colleague from texas, mr. arrington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. arrington: madam chair, the cumulative costs of regulations in our country is now at the tune of $2 trillion and it cost us $60 billion just to enforce those regulations every year. with all due respect, that's not window dressing. when you take a look at those numbers, it's clear to see that the bureaucratic state of our federal government is threatening our job creators and killing our economy. today we have an opportunity to

reverse course on the stifling regulations flowing from washington by passing h.r. 998, the scrub act, as amended here by my colleague, congresswoman martha mcsally. the scrub act will establish a commission to review existing federal regulations and identify for congress which of those plays -- places unnecessary costs on our economy. the amendment offered by my colleague from arizona will take the scrub act a step further by requiring this commission to consider for removal all regulations dating back to 1996 that did not comply with the law that states that there must be an accompanying report to congress. according to the g.a.o. that's almost 30% of final rules. all of this is done in a manner consistent with my colleague' stand-alone bill, the require c.r.a. compliance act, that i was also proud to join her in sponsoring. the chair: the gentleman's time has expyred.

ms. mcsally: i yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentlewoman has ne minute remaining. ms. mcsally: i yield 30 seconds to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arrington: in closing, we owe this to the american people. we owe this to my children and your grandchildren. we owe this to our local job creators to break the chains of these burdensome regulations and once again unleash the spirit of american innovation and enterprise that made this country the envy of the world by passing the scrub act and mcsally amendment. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. ms. mcsally: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank mr. arrington for his support and thank mr. chaffetz and mr. smith for their work on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the

underlying legislation and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 prinded in house report 1 -- printed this house report 115-0. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: ma a dam chair, i rise in support of the amendment -- madam chair, i rise in support of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the clerk will designated amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 115-20 offered by ms. plaskett of virgin islands. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 150, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. ms. plaskett: thank you, madam chair. my amendment is simple. it rescinds the authority -- the authority to spend up to $30

million on a commission to do what the congress and the agencies already do. if you want duplication, look no further than this bill. it seeks to reduce the size of bureaucracy by establishing a new commission to serve a function already performed without the contribution of $30 million in taxpayer funding. $30 million million may not be much to true ben factors, but to seniors, veterans across this country, it can go a long way. for example, social security's meager .3% cost of living adjustment for 2007 amounts to $4. -- $4 more in benefits per month for the average beneficiary. that means that $30 million would be enough to double that cost of living adjustment for 7 1/2 million seniors. we all know that the cost of additional sequestration costs on education, health and the environment protection loom at the end of this fiscal year. the double talk and schizophrenia of my esteemed colleagues on the yore auto -- on the oversight committee who

pushed this bill through the committee has me truly concerned for the mental state of this congress. they want to defund planned parenthood, but want to fund a nine-member task force at a cost of $30 million. they drag their feet and hem and hah to assist flint, michigan, in promoting clean water and save the live of a community, but we can sure fund a task force to duplicate already carried out activities by the federal government, so we can say we did it to the tune of $30 million. the chair of the oversight wouldn't allow the people of the virgin islands for 100 years as president of the united states -- part of the united states to receive $100,000 already earmarked for our interior. but we have money for this bill. let's not discuss all the block granting discussions going on around here in this congress. today house merely are asking -- are now asking to authorize $30 million on a bill that would handcuff enforcement agencies and their ability to respond to even more pressing new public

health and safety problems. let me be clear. reducing the burden of necessary red tape on small businesses is a goal that we all share. i recognize that some regulation is burdensome, and there should be a review of the code to determine what can be consolidated or repealed to reduce compliance costs. one of the things that we seem to agree on is that retrospective review is helpful in the regulatory process. but retrospective review is already going on with money that has already been authorized. all of the agencies have been required to do this under standing executive orders issued by president obama. and has been discussed before. the results have been successful in reducing regulations. agencies have yielded billions of dollars in cost savings and reduced reporting requirements through the modification of existing regulations. people in my district get it that there's a cost of protecting the environment. but they know that keeping our workers safe and our waters clean is worth it. there can be and is red tape

that is unnecessary and there's ongoing work and focus to eliminate and dries that. could there be ways to improve upon existing review of regular lyings? there very well may be and i'm willing to work with anyone on a good idea. and even if $30 million were to come from elsewhere in the budget, instead of additional spending, it would be that much less that agencies would have to conduct the already ongoing retrospective review process now going on. furthermore, we in congress also have existing responsibility to actively conduct oversight of make ent operations and legislative changes as we see fit. there's simply no reason to spend $30 million on this messaging effort to ignore the successful work that is already going on by qualified people. and to hobble the ability of regulators to safeguard public health and safety in the process. this congress has money to throw at solutions in search of a problem, but requires cost offsets to provide aid for victims of flint or toward zika

funding. please approve my amendment to save this money. i now yield the balance of the time to my colleague from connecticut, mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of ms. plaskett's amendment. and just want to drill down on one point, which is in the name of job creation we have this bill before us. and we're going to spend $30 million, which will, i suppose, create some jobs here in washington, with some folks who sit on the commission and the staff that are going to have to populate it. but just a couple days ago president trump had the manufacturing c.e.o.'s of this country at the white house. what they said was, jobs exist, but skills don't. that there's a skills gap in this country and that we need to have job training out there to connect people to these jobs. well, we have the work force investment act that was signed into law by president obama in 2014, which created a framework for apprenticeship programs, advanced manufacturing programs, all the things that these c.e.o.'s were talking about.

and we are underfunding those programs, just to take, one, the adult formula grants, by just about $30 million. you want to create jobs, don't spend $30 million on this ridiculous commission. when, again, we have so many other resources here in washington. to review regulations. let's put that money directly into the programs that will create the skill sets so that people can actually get a job to support themselves and their families. and don't take it from us, take it from the c.e.o.'s who are with president trump -- who were with president trump just a few days ago, about the fact that when we have jobs in existence, the fact that we're underfunding job training programs is just totally criminal. let's use this $30 million in a more productive way, that will actually connect people to the jobs that are out there in the economy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the commission is permitted under this bill to spend $30 million over five years for administrative purposes. by removing the funding in this amendment, the commission will not be able to hire staff, rent office space, establish the public website, as required in the bill, or hold the public meetings which are also required in the bill. mr. ross: this amendment essentially guts the bill. the commission established under this bill has a job ahead of it. the code of federal regulations totals more than $178 -- 178,000 pages. this is approximately 36,000 pages of regulations for review every year of the five years the commission has to conduct its work. but it's not just simply reading the pages. there's work behind understanding whether the regulations are effective. there's outreach and public hearings to understand how the regulations are or are not effective. i believe the savings from eliminating unnecessary costs and the improved efficiency from

weeding out unneeded regulations will far outweigh the resources applied to this effort. the competitive enterprises estimate institute estimates that regulations impose a cost on the economy of $1.8 trillion. who bears that cost, but the consumers. this amendment would gut the bill. $30 million over five years is more than reasonable, considering the economic impact that these regulations have had on the american business and the american economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the bill. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. ross: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the virgin islands. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. plaskett: mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized.

mr. ross: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the virgin islands will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-20. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-20 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 150, the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney,

and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is straightforward. it exempts from the bill any agency rule relating to the cybersecurity of the bulk power system. including any emergency action to protect and restore reliability. the bulk power system is comprised of facilities and control systems necessary for operating in an interconnected electrical transmission network to maintain reliability. our nation's electrical system touches each and every part of our lives. hospitals, schools, transportation, homes, businesses, and our national security. our electrical system is the central element of our nation's critical infrastructure, because all of the components of our infrastructure depend upon it. the electrical system is composed of 640,000 miles of

high voltage transmission lines and more than six million miles of distribution lines. this network is undergoing a transformation. there are an ever increasing number of devices that are connected to the grid, technological advancements are allowing for efficient sis -- efficiencies and cheaper production of power. whether it's renewable energy or natural gas, consumers have more choices and more control, with increased digitization, automation and interaction also have enhanced grid flexibility and security. while these developments present tremendous opportunities, such as new jobs and reducing carbon emissions, they also pose additional physical and cyberthreats to the transmission and distribution systems. stakeholders across the system are facing numerous new threats and challenges in detecting problems, responding to intrusions, and keeping rates

affordable, while maintaining reliability. the long-term health of the electrical sector is now, more than ever, a shared responsibility between communities, consumers, industry and government. s, the these challenge bulk power system is an example of industry stakeholders and the federal government working well together when needed, and working independently when needed, and succeeding. transmission and distribution providers have taken it upon themselves to establish industry-led standards, best practices and supply chain management when it comes to grid security. they've worked well with nerc and ferc in developing critical infrastructure protection standards for the bulk power system. these critical infrastructure protection standards cover critical cyber asset identification, security management, personnel and

training, electronic security, physical security, system security, incident reporting and response planning, and recovering plans. there are 72 inactive standards and 11 that are now subject to enforcement. these standards aren't always perfect, but they do represent compromising collaboration. a well protected and reliable grid makes economic sense. power outages and disturbances can cost more than $180 billion annually, and data suggests that electrical system outages attributed to weather-related events are increasing, costing the u.s. economy an estimated $20 billion to $55 billion annually. electrical -- electric companies are projected to spend more than $7 billion of their own money on cybersecurity alone by the year 2020, are expected to invest nearly $53 billion to enhance the grid. these are significant investments, but essential investments as well.

a more resilient, secure electrical sector is something we all benefit from. it will continue to require investments at all levels, including from the federal government. we should enhance funding for our national laboratories that have partnered together via the grid modernization lab consortium. we should provide high levels of funding for the office of electricity, and its mission to ensure energy delivery in a more secure, resilient and reliable system. new innovative technologies to the grid. we will always struggle to keep ahead of those bad actors who are seeking to attack us, but we can establish metrics procedures and technological capacities that will allow us to respond and adapt. i agree with many of my colleagues that we should work to identify and remove regulations that are no longer relevant. my amendment ensures that

federal agencies will have the flexibility needed to respond to challenges without sacrificing any other necessary protections. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. ross: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ross: this bill requires a commission to identify regulations that should be repealed. while i appreciate my colleague from california's efforts, i cannot support it. the commission focuses on rules an regulations that are out of date, no longer useful and others unnecessary or obsolete no regulation should be exempt from this bill. ensuring the physical and cybersecurity of the bulk power system is absolutely important and critical. we should know whether or not the existing regulations are effective and are useful. this amendment would prevent the

commission from reviewing these important regulations and ensuring that they are current and effective. with that, i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time reserves. mr. rossdz: i yield back. -- mr. ross: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. o -- is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in

house report 115-20. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 115-20, offered by mr. krishnamoorthi of illinois. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. krishnamoorthi and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. krishnamoorthi: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is a pro-business amendment. this will affect the safety of the air space system. it is important to note that commercial drone programs are only possible because of f.a.a. rule. last august, the f.a.a.'s small unmanned aerial system rule

opened the door for businesses o use these easily and without cumbersome paperwork. the current restriction on flight others people rule could limit their use such as news reporting and disaster relief from becoming reality. we could lose out on the societal benefits of u.a.s. once u.a.s. are i want grated into the national air space, it will help our businesses to expand and economy to grow. with over $82 billion in economic impact over the next decade. that's why this particular amendment is supported by the u.a.v. coalition as well as the all the mated vehicle symposium. we need action from regulatory thorities to fully integrate u.a.s. into our amendment. without my amendment they have the potential to stifle a

growing industry. u.a.s. operators need guidance and rules from the f.a.a. to operate safely and without unnecessary paperwork. i urge the house to support my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. ross: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ross: as i mentioned earlier, the bill requires the commission to identify regulations, all regulationings, which should be repealed. the commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date, no longer useful or otherwise unnecessary or obsolete no regulations should be exempt from this bill. ensuring the safety of the national air space system is critically important. we should know whether or not e existing regulations are useful. this will ensure that they are current and also effective. i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. krishnamoorthi: investment into this particular industry are predicated on whether or not regulations are predictable. as a small -- as a former small businessman i can tell you investments will not happen if there's an unelected commission that exists that might change the very rules and regulations upon which current investments have been made. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. while i appreciate the argument about an unelected commission, i must say these regulations are already being promulgated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. again, if we're going to have to have a review, an oversight of our regulatory scheme, we should not exempt any regulations and therefore would submit that this amendment would do just that, would create a slibry slope of exceptions and therefore i again

would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. krishnamoorthi: as a small businessman, i can tell you that small businesses rely on the predictability of regulatory and the regulatory regime this commission is creating unpredictability in the system. therefore it's going to stifle investment, it's going to prevent innovation and it's going to further a monkey wrench into our national air space system so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. ross: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. krishnamoorthi: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. krishnamoorthi: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 115-20. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. krishnamoorthi: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 115-20 offered by mr. krishnamoorthi of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 150, the gentleman from illinois, mr. krishnamoorthi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. crish creche -- mr. krishnamoorthi: thank you, mr. chairman. this would protect countless citizens who depend on airport noise restrictions to sleep through the night or learn

uninterrupted in schools. thousands of my constituents from o'hare international airport benefit from these restrictions as do the millions who live near major airports across the country. as the father of a 10-month-old baby girl i can speak for experience to the value of an uninterrupted night of sleep. many f.a.a. noise rules are the product of careless discussion -- careful discussions between airports and local authorities. while noise restrictions have a slight economic impact on air carrier the economic benefit to surrounding communities more than outweighs this the unelected commission created by this bill should not have the ability to overturn restrictions that have been carefully considered by locally governments, the f.a.a., and airport officials. without f.a.a. noise restrictions, people and businesses would suffer, mr. chairman. this would decrease property values in my district, make it harder for people to start a business, and have a negative effect on people's health.

mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. ross: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. everyone agrees airport noise is very annoying. effective regulation to protect our communities from unwarranted noise are very important. however, regulations that impose excess i and costly restrictions that are ineffective at achieving their goals do not help anyone. why not take a look at these regulations and consider whether they are working. if they are, then the regulation stays in place and we continue to protect our communities from unwarranted noise. if those regulations are not working, then we repeal them and put in regulations that achieve the goals and reduce the costs. there is no reason why we should create special carveouts from the commission's consideration. for those reasons, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the -- the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. krishnamoorthi: mr. chairman, these particular rules and regulations were crafted carefully at the local level. and i believe very strongly that this commission, which is a federal commission, should not somehow upset the balance that's voicesheed through local having a say in these particular regulations. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. i will tell you that regulations are regulations. they need to be reviewed. at every level. and what this -- the scrub act offers is this opportunity. what this amendment does is limit that ability. and for those reasons i again urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. crishcrish: the scrub act --

mr. krishnamoorthi: the scrub act should not have the ability to remove regulations that were developed by local people with local concerns in mind. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. krishnamoorthi: i request a roll call on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on

those amendmented -- amendments printed in house report 115-20 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, amendment number 2 by mr. desaulnier of california. amendment number 4 by ms. plaskett of the virgin islands. amendment number 6, mr. krishnamoorthi of illinois. and amendment number 7 by mr. krishnamoorthi of illinois. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 115-20 by the gentleman -- by the gentleman rom california, mr. desaulnier on which the -- on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will port the

amendment. the chair: -- the clerk: amendment number 2 offered by mr. se saulnier of california. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 348 and the nays are 75. the amendment is adopted. the unfin earned business is request for recorded vote on amendment number printed in house report 11-20 on which further proceedings were postponed and the yeas were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house 115-20 offered by ms. plaskett of the virgin islands. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested. those in support of a reported vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. members, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 181. the nays are 243.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. murphy, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. clerk. the clerk: amendment number 6 -- offered by mr. krishnamoorthi. on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the chair: the question is will -- in is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189. the nays are 234. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 115-20 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. krishnamoorthi on which further proceedings were postponed on on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 115-20 offered by mr. krishnamoorthi of illinois. the chair: a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 192. the nays are 230. he amendment is not adopted. 5-4-3 double play the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 998 has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 998 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i send to the desk a prifrpbled report for file under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 156, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1004, to amend chapter 3 of title 5, united states code, to require the publication of information relating to pending

agency regulatory actions and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1009, to amend title 44, united states code, to require the administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs to review regulations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the house will come to order. please remove all conversations out of the aisles, off the back row and in the middle. if you have a conversation, lease remove it outside.

the house will come to order. please remove conversations rom the floor. please remove all conversations. he house will come to order. after consultation among the speaker and the majority and minority leaders and with their consent, the chair announces

when the two houses meent in joint session to hear from the president of the united states, only the doors immediately doors to the left or right will be open. no one will be allowed on the floor of the house who does not have the privilege of the floor of the house. due to large attendance as anticipated, the rule regarding privilege of the rule must be -- floor must be strictly enforced. children of members must not be permitted. the practice of purporting to reserve seats prior to joint session by placement of placards or personal items will not be allowed. chamber security may remove these items from the seat. members may reserve their seats only by physical presence following the security sweep of the chamber. all members are to reminded to refrain from engaging in self-photography or audio or video in the chamber. this distracts from the dignity of the proceedings and presents

security challenges for the house. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 8:35 p.m. for the purposes of receiving in