James Lankford

I do not think there can be any question that Congress has the power to do so.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 78, the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar providence of the courts.

Judicial review plays an essential part in keeping the branches within their constitutional limits.

Simply put, Chevron deference is a blank check for the Executive Branch to exercise its own brand of legislative authority with little or no accountability.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome. I cannot imagine what anyone would rather do on a St. Patrick's Day than to be in a hearing with two redheads talking about judicial deference.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, their ideas to address this issue in a way that respects congressional intent and upholds judicial independence.

Clearly the Congress' responsibility.

Congress should correct this constitutional imbalance by making it clear that agencies should not interpret legislative text beyond its plain reading.

They are very concerned about their people and about the Nation.

The standard of the economy in Oklahoma and the standard of living there is very different than San Francisco and New York.

We talked before about retrospective review. It is one of the areas that the Department of Labor has focused in on.

The cost to meet the proposed regulations is expected to be in the hundreds of thousands and will have a devastating impact to the community mental health industry overall.

The impact of this new legislation could be catastrophic for payroll as employees will have to be moved from exempt to nonexempt status simply due to the salary base being proposed.

This is not simple stuff--and I get that a lot of people are not engaged in this--but it matters because it involves billions of Federal tax dollars.

Thank you to all of you for the work that you are doing and the dedication that you put to this.

I would have been thrilled that this was in place when I came to the Department.

It does seem odd to say that at times we are getting, 'We have to have this in law to be able to hold it,' and at other times hearing, 'Do not put that in law. We want the flexibility.'

We have tried to codify that, and the Administration has fought vehemently against us

Why would the next group step in and change it? Has there been a history of something changing just when we get something good going?

But, we do not know, we do not have a measurable result yet so that we know it is going to work.

Is it a concern that, regardless of who the next President is--and I will not get into parties.

So, help me to understand what you gain by that, because right now--we talked about before, and I heard that testimony before, that, at times, we are not getting good supervision--it is not being enforced on this.

If you had the same leadership in place that you have now, let us say for the next 5 years...

I would tell you that person after person that I talk to in my State, in Oklahoma, talk to me about the same issue.

Secretary Sebelius came out and said this is totally unsustainable at the very beginning and said if we try to implement this, it cannot be done under this current model.