Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the SCRUB Act that is going to slow it down. It is not an excuse for the administration to do what they have been trying to do for the last 7 years and have absolutely, totally failed to do. How many times are we going to get constituents coming into our own offices complaining about the VA? I guarantee that if you go across this country and ask the people that work in your offices what are the number one, two, and three complaints and problems that they have, I guarantee you in the top three it is going to be veterans. We are not taking care of the veterans that we need to take care of. We are not going to be introducing a bill that is going to harm our ability to fix that problem. But you are naive, at best, if anybody thinks that all the regulations in place right now are just perfect, because that is, in essence, what they are arguing: it is perfect. We don't need to get rid of anything. We just need more, more, more regulations. Take a bipartisan group of people, let them look at it, study it, and spend the time necessary in a bipartisan way. That is reasonable. That is why we should vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, 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? Yes. I am not saying that has to be done 3 months afterwards. But we are going to be able to have a long look back, and you shouldn't exempt out veterans and, in this case, you shouldn't exempt out somebody who is just trying to go back and look at something that may originally become a very legitimate emergency. Why would we not look at that? It is just this attitude and this approach that says everything is perfect. Essentially, what the Democrats are arguing is that all of the regulations are perfect. No need for any changes. No reason to get rid of anything. What we are saying is, in a bipartisan way, let's go back, let's review these, and let's come up with a way to cut out that underbrush. Let's try to find the ones that are no longer needed and streamline what we are trying to do in our government. It will be better for the employees. It will be better for the taxpayers. It will be better for America because we will actually understand what the rules and regulations are. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind our colleagues that the cutting doesn't apply until the commission reports back. So until they have had a chance to go in and look and review, then there is an opportunity to cut out this underbrush. And I think I have made my point. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment indicates a fundamental, I think, misunderstanding of the purpose and the functionality of the bill. The SCRUB Act is intended to cut out unnecessary regulations. So the first question you really have to ask yourself is, are there unnecessary regulations? I would remind Members that on May 26, 2011, the Homeland Security Department, which really hadn't been in place for a very long, as it is a new agency, started an initiative to cut out unnecessary regulations. The President, three times, has asked to cut out unnecessary regulations. So we are formalizing that process a little bit more so that it is true for every department and agency, and we are doing so in a bipartisan way. So what are we afraid of? What are we afraid of? We are trying to say things need to be reviewed, and they need to go look. And if they are perfect--I doubt it. I really doubt it. But they are going to have this opportunity, in a bipartisan way, to allow the commission to go do its work, make recommendations, look at these things that are just there by the tens of thousands. The world has changed. It has dramatically changed. And we ought to be reviewing this on a regular basis, and that is what the SCRUB Act does. That is why I think, again, creating another carve-out for somebody is unnecessary and counterproductive and ill-advised. That is why I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion for this issue. All we are asking for, in a bipartisan way--and I sound like a broken record up here--is to review these regulations, go back over an indefinite amount of time to look way back, back, and go look at what these rules and regulations that have been put out there. Remember, we are supposed to be implementing it by law. There are times when regulations and rules--certainly in emergency situations, it has to be dealt with. But they can go back and look at these. It is not going to slow down our dealing with an emergency. What we are going to do, and I think we are going to find, is that it is actually going to clean up the process in the system. It is like--I am trying to think of a good example of this--but they keep throwing things into the garage, and there is so much clutter you can't even get in the garage. And I just think they are living on a different planet if we think that all these regulations are perfect; nothing needs to be cleared out; we don't want to take any time; we want just the administration to do it; we don't want the other party to be involved. Republicans are suggesting to do this in a bipartisan way. I think that is reasonable. I think that is what the American people want. But Democrats don't want us to do that. They don't want a bipartisan group of people looking at rules and regulations in the executive branch. I don't think that is fair. I don't think that is balanced. What we are offering, I think, is an opportunity to do that. They are allowed to go through, this commission goes through this process. The department and agency can identify a list of things that need to be cleaned out of that garage. I think that is a reasonable way to go and why, again, nobody should be excluded. I think it is a healthy part of the process. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem. The Federal bureaucracy continues to grow and expand to the point where we have millions of people who wake up every day. A lot of them are regulators. They can't justify their existence unless they regulate something. There is no incentive to get rid of those regulations. There is every incentive to add regulations because that is what they get paid to do. We want to just have a bipartisan group of people who can go and weed out all of this unnecessary underbrush, as I keep calling it, to streamline the system. It should be done by every agency. It is going to take time to go through it. I hope we are saying that we recognize that there is this problem because we can keep coming up with examples and going through and saying, ``Hey, we will pass''--do you know how expensive it is to introduce and pass a piece of legislation and try to get it over to the Senate? We are trying to create a commission in a bipartisan way to have people dive in and look at these regulations. That is what we are asking for. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill introduced by Mr. Jason Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The SCRUB Act is not going to take away the entire FDA. Our food, and the people that work at the FDA, the food safety is an important part of the function that they hold. But I would appreciate anybody to have us understand--we actually, through the staff, read this report from George Mason University. In February of 2014 they wrote a really good report, ``The Consequences of Regulatory Accumulation and a Proposed Solution.'' I just want to highlight one of the examples of something that is still on the books. The Food and Drug Administration has been creating rules since its inception in 1906. There is still a regulation on the FDA's books that governs the width of strings in canned string beans. That is still on the books. You are breaking the law if you go past this regulation. This is the kind of stuff that should be out of there because, you know what, there is some entrepreneur, there is some business that has the liability now hanging over their head. In 1906, somehow, somebody thought that was a good rule, but it is not anymore. It is unnecessary. It is burdensome. It is still on the books. Let's have a bipartisan group of people look at this and go find the width of string beans and get rid of that regulation. What is wrong with that? That is what the SCRUB Act does. That is what Jason Smith is talking about. There are other examples. It was just, I believe, according to The Wall Street Journal, the EPA had saccharine, was treated as a dangerous chemical. But the FDA said it was safe for people to consume. And it wasn't until just last month that the EPA said: All right, it is not a dangerous, hazardous chemical. And the FDA prevailed. But there are conflicts. Again, a commission looking at this, with professionals, staff, people who are looking at these types of things are going to go find these regulations and try to go weed them out. It will streamline what we are doing. It is good for the economy. It is good for the country. It makes common sense, and we are trying to do so in a bipartisan way. So the FDA, they do good work. But we are talking about a lot of other regulations and rules that were put forth that are no longer necessary and need to be eliminated. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an Olympic gold medalist, pioneering athlete and legendary skiing ambassador who had an immeasurable impact on the sport and on the State of Utah. Stein Eriksen passed away December 27 at the age of 88 following a long and storied career. For 35 years, Eriksen served as the Director of Skiing at Utah's famed Deer Valley Resort, where the renowned Stein Eriksen Lodge was named in his honor. His ski career began in 1947 when the 19-year-old Norwegian athlete won the downhill and combination event at the Holmenkollen Kandahar event. At the 1952 Oslo Olympics in his hometown, Eriksen became the first skier from a non-Alpine country to win an Olympic gold medal in Alpine skiing. Most significantly, Eriksen was the first man to win three gold medals in a single world championship in 1954. Upon his retirement from competitive skiing in 1954, Eriksen continued to shape the sport as a ski instructor and promoter of a new style of skiing. His elegant technique and gymnastic movements were transformative for the skiing world, ushering in a new era of freestyle skiing. He was the first well-known skier to do a flip on skis and reportedly did a back flip every day until he reached his 80s. Eriksen was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Utah Sports Commission in April, where he was lauded as one of the most influential athletes and businessmen in winter sports. Eriksen and his wife Francoise were the parents of 5 children. Today, I ask all Members of Congress to join me as we honor the life and legacy of skiing pioneer Stein Eriksen, whose indelible impact on winter sports will be felt by many generations to come.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1170) to amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research, and for other purposes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 1170, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2015. It is sponsored primarily by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. S. 1170 extends a requirement for the United States Postal Service to produce and sell a specific semipostal stamp with the proceeds going to fund breast cancer research. Importantly, all of the funds collected must be used for breast cancer research, and S. 1170 includes explicit language to ensure that this is the case. Since the stamp was launched in 1998, it has raised nearly $82 million for breast cancer research. This money is sent to two research programs. The bulk of the money, 70 percent, goes to the National Institutes of Health, and the remaining 30 percent goes to the medical research program at the Department of Defense. We hold both of these organizations accountable and should continue vigorous oversight of them. Both the NIH and Department of Defense select specific programs and proposals to receive funding and report on these programs each year. The funds raised by this stamp have helped make meaningful advances in the fight against breast cancer. I urge Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank all those involved because, as was noted earlier, every life in this building and across this country and across the world has been touched by breast cancer. I lost my mom to breast cancer. I lost my dad to cancer as well--colon cancer. This is a program that seems to work. It has been in place since before the year 2000. The numbers are quite startling. Instead of paying 49 cents for a stamp, you pay 60 cents. And that money, accumulated over time, has generated tens of millions of dollars. It is something that is worthwhile. I appreciate Mr. McCarthy and his passion for this issue. I appreciate Mrs. Lummis and her desire to tackle this. I also appreciate what Ms. Speier and Mrs. Watson Coleman have added to this discussion and their passion on tackling this issue. It truly transcends everything we do. It touches every life, and it is something we must win and we must overcome. This happens to be one of those government programs that actually works. And so we are suggesting to our colleagues that we vote ``aye'' and support this and allow it to continue. It is one of the good things we do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Mr. Kevin Carter, an outstanding citizen and leader from the State of Utah. I thank Mr. Carter for his exemplary service as Director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). Mr. Carter served as Director for nearly 12 years. In this capacity, Mr. Carter oversaw the management and administration of approximately 4.4 million acres of land for various beneficiaries, primarily public education. Under Mr. Carter's leadership, SITLA earned over $1.3 billion and helped the Permanent School Fund grow to over $2 billion. I thank Mr. Carter for his dedication and his impressive contributions to our State.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand to express opposition to the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. As we look at these weighty issues, I think it is important that we look at both the liability and the accountability in this factor. When you look at the reliability, whenever we make decisions about spending money, we are talking about pulling money out of somebody's wallet and giving it to somebody else. And, in this case, as we look at liability, we are taking every American's wallet and putting it on the line and saying: Should we or should we not create liability for more individuals across the heartland? And for mom and dad, I just don't think that is the right equation. I fundamentally disagree with it. If these are such good loans and they are so profitable, then do them in the private sector. You don't need the Federal Government to do them. And when it comes to accountability. Let's remember, this is a bank that just this year had a bank employee who plead guilty to bribery-- bribery of all things. The inspector general of the bank testified before our committee that they expect even more actions. And the inspector general on one project could not even validate more than $500 million in spending. And I can tell you, as the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, they have not been transparent in giving us the information. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the author of this piece of legislation and the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).