The following was submitted to From The G-Man on January 5, 2015.
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 1155 – Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015
(Rep. Smith, R-MO, and 9 cosponsors)
The
Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and
effective, and tailored to further statutory goals in the most
cost-effective and efficient manner. The retrospective review of
regulations has been an ongoing priority of this Administration.
Starting in 2011, the President institutionalized the retrospective
review of regulations in Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, requiring
agencies to report twice a year on the status of their efforts. H.R.
1155, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily
Burdensome Act, would make the process of retrospective regulatory
review less productive. Further, the bill also would create needless
regulatory and legal uncertainty; increase costs for businesses and
State, local and tribal governments; and impede common‑sense protections
for the American public. Accordingly, the Administration strongly
opposes House passage of H.R. 1155 in its current form.
Although
outside input and perspective on what rules may be ripe for potential
reform or repeal is crucial, retrospective review is most effective when
led by the agencies. The bill's creation of a stand‑alone commission
to review the entire Code of Federal Regulations is likely to produce a
haphazard list of rules that, under the procedures in the bill, must be
repealed if approved by a joint resolution. There appears to be no
mechanism for making thoughtful and modest modifications to rules to
improve their implementation and enforcement, which is often the best
course of action for making regulations work better. Moreover, the
bill's "cut-go" approach is problematic: it would interfere with the
ability of agencies to issue regulations that are essential for the
protection of public health, safety, and the environment.
The
Administration recognizes that the applicability of "cut-go" in H.R.
1155 is narrower than in other bills being considered in the Congress.
Nonetheless, it is essential that agencies have the flexibility to
promptly issue new, vital rules. This ability should not be constrained
by a Commission's recommendation, or Congressional approval of a list
of repealable rules. While retrospective review is an Administration
priority and an essential tool to relieve unnecessary regulatory burden,
it is important that retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily
constrain an agency's ability to provide a timely response to critical
public health or safety issues, or constrain its ability to implement
new statutory provisions.
For these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1155 in its current form. If the President were presented with the current version of H.R. 1155, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
H.R. 712 – Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015
(Rep. Collins, R-GA, and 22 cosponsors)
The
Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and
effective, that they are tailored to advance statutory goals in the most
cost-effective and efficient manner, and that they minimize
uncertainty. H.R. 712 would undermine critical public health and safety
protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in agency
decision-making, and interfere with agency performance of statutory
mandates. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House
passage of H.R. 712.
H.R.
712 would impose unnecessary procedures on agencies and invite wasteful
litigation. When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, it must
adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural requirements of
Federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork
Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act. In addition, for
decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by Executive Orders issued
and followed by administrations of both political parties. These
require regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify the costs, to consider
regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory flexibility.
This
Administration is committed to a regulatory system that is informed by
science, is cost-justified, and is consistent with economic growth.
Through the Regulatory Flexibility Act as well as through Executive
Order and the direction of the President, agencies must also ensure that
they take into account the consequences of rulemaking on small
businesses. Executive Order 13563 requires careful cost-benefit
analysis, increased public participation, harmonization of rulemaking
across agencies, flexible regulatory approaches, and a regulatory
retrospective review. Through Executive Orders 13579 and 13610, the
Administration also has taken important steps to promote systematic
retrospective review of regulations by all agencies. Collectively,
these requirements promote flexible, commonsense, cost-effective
regulation.
Passage
of H.R. 712 would impose additional, unnecessary procedural
requirements that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to
execute their statutory mandates. H.R. 712 would require numerous,
cumbersome layers of reporting from Federal agencies. It also would
address a nonexistent problem that is already prohibited by Federal
regulations: collusion between agencies, interest groups, and the
courts to avoid compliance with the rulemaking procedures described
above. H.R. 712 accordingly would serve only to introduce redundant
processes for litigation settlements and spawn excessive, expensive, and
time-consuming regulatory litigation. H.R. 712 therefore would impede
the ability of agencies to protect public health, welfare, safety, and
our environment, as well as to promote economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.
If the President were presented with H.R. 712, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Source: The Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget
No comments:
Post a Comment