On the recordJuly 11, 2016
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which exempts from the bill rules issued by agencies pursuant to their express statutory authority. H.R. 4768 is a misguided and dangerous bill that simply does not understand courts must always give effect to clearly expressed congressional intent under current law. H.R. 4768 would dismantle decades of judicial practice and establish generalist courts as super-regulators with sweeping authority over the outcome, and perhaps even substance, of agency rulemaking even where Congress expressly grants authority for agency action. At the subcommittee hearing on the bill, the majority's own witness, Professor Jack Beermann, testified that the bill ``may go too far'' by disabling ``reviewing courts from taking into account the views of an administering agency on questions of statutory interpretation.'' Professor Beermann expressed additional concerns that H.R. 4768 may frustrate Congress' intent for highly technical areas in which Congress expects an agency to apply its expertise. Furthermore, as Professor Beermann testified, in areas where Congress expressly grants authority for an agency to undertake an action, such as defining a term, H.R. 4768 would represent a ``fundamental shift in authority'' while making it difficult for Congress to allow deference where appropriate. The late-Justice Scalia held a similar view on judicial deference. Writing for the majority in the City of Arlington, Texas v.…





