On the recordJanuary 6, 2016
I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment strikes the bill's title providing for judicial review of agency compliance with requirements for repeal of existing rules and publication of plans for decennial review of newly promulgated rules. These provisions must be retained, not stricken. They are critical to ensure that recalcitrant agencies abide by Congress' approvals of rules for repeal and actually do plan for effective, decennial cost-reduction reviews for newly promulgated regulations. We know that, without provision for judicial review, retrospective review of agency regulations can lead to nothing but increases in the overall cost of regulation. Just look at the results of the Obama administration's retrospective review under Executive Order 13563, which precluded judicial review. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
