|4:04 PM EST||
Bob Goodlatte, R-VA 6th
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, to the point just raised by the gentleman from Georgia, I want to quote Daniel Webster, who is also quoted right up there above us in the Chamber.
He says, ``It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.''
I share and welcome the gentleman from Georgia's concerns about the impact of regulations on the people and on their jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill. It includes the Rothfus-Barr amendment added to the legislation in the 113th Congress that requires agencies to do a much better job identifying adverse job impacts before they impose the regulations.
The gentleman's amendment represents the wrong way to address job concerns. That is because it would give the executive branch a strong incentive to manipulate its jobs impact and cost-benefit analysis to avoid the requirements of the bill, including the Rothfus-Barr amendment, rather than comply with that requirement.
The amendment also puts the cart before the horse, offering carve-outs from the bill, based on factors that cannot be determined adequately unless the important analytical requirements in the bill are applied in the first place.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.