On the recordFebruary 28, 2014
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the most problematic provisions of this bill is the section that expands judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. UMRA currently allows a party to challenge in court whether an agency performed the written statement required under UMRA describing the agency's analysis. A court may require the agency to prepare the written statement if the agency fails to do so. The law explicitly provides, however, that a court cannot use the inadequacy of an agency's UMRA statement or an agency's failure to prepare a written statement as a basis to hold up a rule. Here is what the statute says: The inadequacy or failure to prepare such a statement, including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate, analysis, statement, or description or written plan shall not be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating, or otherwise affecting such agency rule. The bill would change the statute to allow courts to review the adequacy of an agency's analysis under UMRA and to allow rules to be delayed or invalidated based on the inadequacy of an agency's statement. This clearly contradicts the intent of the original statute. The administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy just yesterday saying that, if H.R. 899 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the legislation. The statement said: H.R.…





