Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for allowing me
time.

I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 50. I consider it a misguided
bill that will cost American consumers at least $18 million over the
next 10 years while making it easier for bad actors in certain
industries to continue their abusive practices as they attempt to
stonewall appropriate regulation.

Make no mistake. H.R. 50 is a frontal assault on the Nation's health,
safety, and environmental protections, and it would erect new barriers
to give selected industries a built-in advantage to evade or eliminate
vital rules that protect the American people.

For instance, this bill would require agencies to consult with
private sector entities ``as early as possible, before the issuance of
a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue through the final rule stage,
and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process.''

Now, I agree that Federal agencies should consult with regulated
industries regarding proposed rules, but they should not receive an
insider, prewired advantage in the regulating and rulemaking process
over other stakeholders.

H.R. 50 would also expand judicial review under UMRA and would allow
a court to review the inadequacy or failure of an agency to prepare a
written statement under UMRA. UMRA currently prohibits courts from
using the law to stay, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule.
H.R. 50 would eliminate this prohibition.

I thought the majority strongly opposed judicial activism, but
perhaps that only applies to protecting voting rights.

We don't have to choose between protecting the health, welfare, and
safety of Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation, and
innovation. We can do both. H.R. 50 advances neither of these worthy
goals, and that is why I urge my colleagues to reject this deeply
flawed act that will stack the deck against the American consumer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source