Politics in Action: H.R. 1155 and H.R. 712

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of Federal Regulations is likely to produce a haphazard list of rules that, under the procedures in the bill, must be repealed if approved by a joint resolution.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