Date: 2016-07-11
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. let me thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership of the subcommittee from which this legislation. I believe. has found its journey. Let me also acknowledge my colleague from Texas. On the Judiciary Committee. we have the benefit of the counsel of nonlawyers. It is a new phenomenon. When I first came on. we had only lawyers on the committee. But as a lawyer who remembers sitting in an administrative procedure law class by a seasoned senior professor at the University of Virginia Law School. I remember he was embedded for decades. and managed to make the Administrative Procedure Act interesting. And the one thing I knew. even as a younger law student. the APA. for 70 yearsat that time it hadnt reached 70had served and guided administrative agencies and the affected public in a manner that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of agencies operating under it. inclusive of changes through time. So what saddens me as a person who enjoyed many aspects of law school and understands and enjoys the deliberation of issues dealing with the question of law is the complete skewing in spite of my friends who view this as remedy. And I would just like to offer them my thoughts as to why this is not: because the legislation would allow Federal courts reviewing an agency action to conduct a de novo review of all relevant questions of law without deferring to the legal interpretation of the agency. Now. let me be very clear. I am a student of the three branches of government. I appreciate my colleaguesin this instance. Republicansconcern about the sanctity of the three branches of government as evidenced by the Constitution. But in that structure. we developed agencies to have expertise. not to not be challenged. but to have expertise. And I want those listening to understand that I respect that expertise. but I respect the challenge. But what this particular legislation is doing is that de novo. my friends. of course. is starting from scratch. So that means a regulation by the Department of Homeland SecurityI am on the Homeland Security Committee. this agency created after 9111. And in the backdrop of what we have faced. the heinous acts of Dallas. 5 fallen officers. 12 persons shotnow. we cant claim this recent incident. Allow me to offer my sympathy to those in Michigan. two bailiffs. and I dont know how many others may be shot and killed. But we know that we are in a different framework of dealing with security in this country. Some of these are a regulatory scheme through the Homeland Security Department. Transportation Security Administration. And to take that expertise on behalf of the American people and. as they say. throw the baby out with the bathwater. say to the courts that do not have a discernible expertiseour judges are quite skilled. but they are not the experts in every aspect of how this government runs. Members of Congress have to brief themselves to be able to assess what is going on in the government. and we have that responsibility. But you are asking the courts now to undo every regulation and become the expert on Federal lands. public lands. on Environmental Protection Agency issues. on Health and Human Services issues. on issues dealing with homeland security. on issues dealing with education. This is untenable. Mr. Chairman. This will not work. And I just want to cite to you from a number of groups that have come together. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards says: "Congress should be looking for ways to strengthen our countrys regulatory system by identifying gaps and instituting new safeguards for the public. Unfortunately. this legislation does the opposite by ensuring more delays." Let me clarify their language. because I will go a little further. I would be willing to look at filling the holes.