[House Report 114-238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress }                                     { Rept. 114-238
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                     { Part 2

======================================================================
 
             ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT OF 
                                  2015
                                _______
                                
July 29, 2015.-- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed  

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1759]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1759) to amend title 5, United States Code, to 
provide for the publication, by the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, of information relating to rulemakings, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    10
Dissenting Views.................................................    13

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1759, the ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent 
Act of 2015'' (ALERT Act of 2015), responds to Executive Branch 
transparency shortcomings regarding publication of information 
on new Federal regulations in development. The legislation 
updates and strengthens requirements currently found in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act\1\ and Executive Order 12866, 
facilitating better public information about pending new 
regulations. It does so by requiring: the provision of more 
detailed information about the nature and expected timing and 
costs of planned, new regulations; the monthly, online posting 
of that information; and, that at least 6 months of such online 
publications occur before a new regulation may become 
effective, subject to specified good-cause exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. sec. 602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Background and Need for the Legislation

     I. EXISTING REQUIREMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS IN TRANSPARENCY FOR 
                       REGULATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT

    There is consensus that transparency in the Federal 
regulatory process is essential to public participation in the 
rulemaking process and public understanding of new proposed and 
final rules. In recent years, however, as regulatory activity 
by the Federal Government has increased, important features of 
Federal regulatory transparency for the government's overall 
regulatory efforts have been diminished.
    The primary regulatory transparency tools implemented by 
the Executive Branch are the government-wide, semi-annual 
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and 
annual, agency-specific Regulatory Plans. The latter are 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and both are 
required under Executive Order 12866.\2\ These tools were 
conceived as means to provide notice of and transparency into 
both the nearer-term and the longer-term regulatory activity 
planned by the various agencies of the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Traditionally, the Unified Agenda has been issued in April and 
October of each year, and the Executive Order requires that the 
Regulatory Plans be issued with the October agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historically, however, the Unified Agenda has not provided 
significant detail about planned regulations, such as precise 
information on how much planned regulations are expected to 
cost the economy. Adding to this difficulty, moreover, the 
Obama administration has repeatedly failed to publish even 
currently required information by the deadlines prescribed in 
the RFA and E.O. 12866; indeed, in one case, the Administration 
entirely failed to issue a Unified Agenda publication.\3\ 
Meanwhile, the Administration's successive administrators of 
the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) have both sought to restrict the 
amount of information provided in the Unified Agenda.\4\ 
Executive Order 12866, for example, requires information for 
the Unified Agenda to be provided for ``all regulations under 
development or review.''\5\ Nevertheless, the Administration's 
first OIRA Administrator, Cass Sunstein, issued a memorandum in 
June 2012 that encouraged agencies to reduce the number of 
rules included on the agenda, removing rules that were listed 
as ``long term'' or rules that were not expected to advance 
within the next year.\6\ Administrator Sunstein's successor, 
current Administrator Howard Shelanski, issued a similar 
memorandum in 2013.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The Administration never issued the Spring 2012 Unified Agenda. 
The Fall 2012 edition, to add insult to injury, was issued only in late 
December 2012, well after its October 2012 deadline. In 2013, the 
Spring Unified Agenda was not issued until July 2013, months after its 
April 2013 deadline, and the Fall Unified Agenda was only issued in 
late November 2014 and not published in the Federal Register until 
January 2014.
    \4\See, e.g., Clyde Wayne Crews, Big Sexy Holiday Fun with the 
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, Forbes (Dec. 2, 2013) (available 
at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2013/12/02/big-sexy-holiday-
fun-with-the-unified-agenda-of-federal-regulations).
    \5\Exec. Order No. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 Fed. 
Reg. 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
    \6\Memorandum from OIRA Admin. Cass Sunstein, Fall 2012 Regulatory 
Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 
(Jun. 13, 2012).
    \7\Memorandum from OIRA Admin. Howard Shelanski, Fall 2013 
Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions (Aug. 7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, a study recently commissioned by the 
Administrative Conference of the United States set forth a 
number of findings indicating the need for reform of the 
Unified Agenda. These include, among others, that:

         L``a number of `significant' rules . . . were 
        published in the first half of 2014 without the Unified 
        Agenda indicating that they were about to be issued;''

         L``[a]bout two-thirds of the significant 
        proposed and final rules published during this period 
        by independent regulatory agencies had no prior 
        proposed or final rule stage entries.''

         L``[m]ore than one-third of the significant 
        final rules published by Cabinet departments and 
        independent agencies during the first half of 2014 had 
        no `final rule stage' entry in the preceding agenda 
        giving the public at least 2 months notice of the 
        upcoming rule.''

         L``[a]lmost half of the `economically 
        significant' proposed and final rules that were 
        predicted by the Spring 2013 edition of the agenda . . 
        were not published during the following 16 months;''

         L``[t]he Unified Agenda sometimes did not 
        provide accurate information about the nature of 
        agencies' significant rules (e.g., indicating that a 
        forthcoming rule was not significant when the published 
        rule indicated that it was significant);''

         L``[t]he significant rules that were published 
        in the first half of 2014 frequently did not mention 
        whether or not they were `major' under the 
        Congressional Review Act, but when they did, the 
        preceding agenda entries for those rules were 
        `undetermined' or wrong nearly 20% of the time;''

         L``many entries have appeared at the same 
        stage of the agenda for years without any rulemaking 
        action;'' and

         L``[s]ome of the agenda entries indicated that 
        proposed or final rules would be published within the 
        next few months, even though the rules had already been 
        published--sometimes months before the agenda was 
        published.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Curtis W. Copeland, The Unified Agenda: Proposals for Reform at 
6, 107-08 (April 13, 2015) (available at https://www.acus.gov/report/
final-unified-agenda-report).

    The report also recalled the American Bar Association's 
Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice's 2013 
endorsement of a more real-time, online footing for the Unified 
Agenda, and stated that ``[most] of the senior agency employees 
interviewed for [the] report indicated that some type of real-
time agenda would be preferable to the current semiannual 
publication schedule.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Id. at 98-99, 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Responding to the need for improvements in regulatory 
transparency and the Unified Agenda process, the ALERT Act 
modernizes and expands historical transparency tools and also 
provides a meaningful consequence for an administration's 
failure to provide information as required by legal deadlines. 
To do this, it:

         Lrequires agencies to submit monthly 
        regulatory updates to OIRA covering all rules expected 
        to be proposed or released in the upcoming year; 
        requires OIRA to publish this information on the 
        Internet each month and formally publish it once a 
        year; and, requires agency updates to include for each 
        rule a summary of the rule, the objective of the rule, 
        the rule's legal basis, whether comments will be 
        requested on the proposed rule, the stage of the 
        rulemaking process, and whether the rule is subject to 
        a regulatory review under 5 U.S.C. 610;

         Lrequires, if a notice of proposed rulemaking 
        has been issued for a rule and the rule is expected to 
        be finalized during the following year, that monthly 
        updates include: a schedule for completing the 
        rulemaking; an estimate of the rule's costs; and, any 
        estimate of the economic effects of the rule that the 
        agency has considered, including jobs impacts;

         Limposes strengthened annual publishing 
        requirements for information about regulatory activity 
        over the past year, including: the number of rules 
        issued; any deregulatory actions; information received 
        in the monthly updates; the total cost of all rules 
        proposed or finalized, and the number of rules for 
        which cost estimates were not available; cost-benefit 
        analyses performed; the number of OIRA reviews 
        conducted; the number of rules submitted to the 
        Government Accountability Office under the 
        Congressional Review Act; and, the number of rules for 
        which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in the 
        either the House of Representatives or the Senate under 
        that Act; and

         Lrequires that a rule must be noticed in 
        monthly online updates for at least 6 months before it 
        can become effective, subject to exceptions for rules 
        for which the agency did not conduct notice-and-comment 
        rulemaking or the President determines should take 
        effect because the rule is needed to respond to an 
        emergency, enforce criminal laws or protect national 
        security, or is issued pursuant to a statute 
        implementing an international trade agreement.

    Through these reforms, the ALERT Act provides a ``one-stop 
shop'' for all parties affected by or interested in new Federal 
rulemaking, at which they can find concise but robust, real-
time information about what new regulations are coming, when 
they are coming, and what impacts they can be expected to have.

                     II. PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    The ALERT Act was first introduced during the 113th 
Congress as H.R. 2804. The Unified Agenda and transparency 
issues addressed by the bill have been considered by the 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law 
and its predecessor, the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and 
Administrative law, during numerous oversight hearings 
concerning in whole or in part the Federal regulatory process 
and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which had the 
primary referral of H.R. 2804, ordered the legislation to be 
reported favorably, as amended, on February 11, 2014. The bill 
was passed by the full House with bipartisan support twice 
during the 113th Congress, first as Title I of H.R. 2804, the 
``Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring 
Transparency Act of 2014'' (ALERRT Act), on February 27, 2014 
(236-179), and, second, as Title I of Subdivision B of Division 
III of H.R. 4, the ``Jobs for America Act,'' on September 18, 
2014 (253-163).

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 
1759.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 15, 2015, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1759 favorably reported without 
amendment, by a rollcall vote of 14 to 9, a quorum being 
present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 1759:
    1. Amendment #1, offered by Mr. Conyers. The Amendment 
strikes the requirement that a rule must be noticed in monthly 
online updates for at least 6 months before it can become 
effective. The Amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 9 
to 13.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................              X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................              X
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Ms. Walters (CA)...............................              X
Mr. Buck (CO)..................................              X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................              X
Mr. Trott (MI).................................              X
Mr. Bishop (MI)................................              X
 
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........      X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................      X
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................      X
Mr. Peters (CA)................................      X
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................      9      13
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    2. Motion to report H.R. 1759 favorably to the House. The 
bill will increase transparency and accountability in the 
Federal regulatory process. The motion was agreed to by a 
rollcall vote of 14 to 9.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................      X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................      X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................      X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................
Mr. King (IA)..................................      X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................      X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................      X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................      X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................      X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................      X
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Ms. Walters (CA)...............................      X
Mr. Buck (CO)..................................      X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................      X
Mr. Trott (MI).................................      X
Mr. Bishop (MI)................................      X
 
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........              X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................              X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................              X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................              X
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................              X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................              X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................              X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................              X
Mr. Peters (CA)................................              X
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     14       9
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1759, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1759, the ``ALERT 
Act of 2015.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member




                     H.R. 1759--ALERT Act of 2015.

      As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 
                           on April 15, 2015.




    H.R. 1759 would require Federal agencies to provide certain 
information to the public regarding proposed and final 
regulations. The bill would require Federal agencies to submit 
information for a proposed new supplement to the Unified Agenda 
of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (a semiannual 
compilation of the Federal regulations under development) that 
would be published monthly. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) would be required to post that 
information on the Internet on a monthly and annual basis. With 
certain exceptions, regulations would not be effective until 6 
months after they have appeared in the proposed monthly report.
    CBO estimates that preparing the monthly supplemental 
reports for 3,000 to 4,000 final regulations each year would 
cost less than a million dollars a year, subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds, over the 2016-2020 period. 
Because agencies routinely monitor the status of regulations 
that are being processed, CBO does not expect this additional 
reporting requirement would add a significant administrative 
burden. Based on information from the Congressional Research 
Service about the current regulatory process, CBO also expects 
that the requirements in H.R. 1759 would not significantly 
delay the implementation of final regulations.
    Enacting H.R. 1759 could affect direct spending by some 
agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because their 
operating costs are covered by receipts from the sale of goods, 
fees, and other collections. Therefore pay-as-you-go procedures 
apply. Because most of those agencies can make adjustments to 
the amounts collected, CBO estimates that any net changes in 
direct spending by those agencies would not be significant. 
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
    H.R. 1759 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 1759 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 1759 specifically directs 
to be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 
5 U.S.C. 551.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1759 updates and strengthens requirements currently found in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 to 
facilitate better public information about pending new 
regulations by requiring: the provision of more detailed 
information about the nature and expected timing and costs of 
planned, new regulations; the monthly, online posting of that 
information; and, that at least 6 months of such online 
publications occur before a new regulation may become 
effective, subject to specified good-cause exceptions.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1759 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Short title.
    Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the 
``All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2015,'' or 
the ``ALERT Act of 2015.''
Sec. 2: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Publication of 
        Information Relating to Rules.
    Subsec. (a). Amendment. Amends Title 5 of the United States 
Code by inserting ``Chapter 6A--OIRA Publication of Information 
Relating to Rules,'' which includes the following sections:
    Sec. 651. Agency monthly submission to OIRA. Requires 
agency heads to submit a monthly update to the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) that 
includes each rule the agency expects to propose or finalize in 
the upcoming year. The monthly updates, for each rule, must 
include: a summary, objectives, legal basis, whether comments 
will be requested on the proposed rule, the stage of the 
rulemaking process, and whether the rule is subject to a 
regulatory review under 5 U.S.C. 610. If a notice of proposed 
rulemaking has been issued for a rule, the agency must also 
include a schedule for completion, an estimate of the costs the 
regulation is expected to impose, and an estimate of the 
overall economic effects of the rule, including the effect on 
jobs, or an affirmative statement that no economic information 
was considered.
    Section 652. OIRA Publications. Requires the Administrator 
to make the monthly updates publicly available on the Internet. 
Requires the Administrator to publish an annual cumulative 
assessment of agency rulemaking in the Federal Register. The 
following information will be included: information received in 
the monthly submissions, cost and benefit analyses of rules, 
agency action that reduced the scope of the regulatory state, 
the total cost of rules, and the total number of rules for 
which a cost estimate was unavailable. Requires the OIRA 
Administrator to make publicly available on the Internet on an 
annual basis certain information about the review and analysis 
of each proposed or finalized rule. The following information 
will be included: cost and benefit analyses, docket numbers, 
regulatory identifier number, the number and a list of rules 
reviewed by OIRA, and the number and list of rules covered 
under the Congressional Review Act. The first publication will 
require the cost and benefit analyses for all proposed and 
final rules in the past 10 years.
    Sec. 653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-
specific monthly publication. Provides that a rule may not take 
effect until the monthly submission to OIRA has been publicly 
available on the Internet for not less than 6 months. The 6-
month requirement does not apply to rules that do not require 
notice and public comment and rules the President issues an 
Executive Order declaring necessary for emergency, national 
security, or other specified purposes.
    Sec. 654. Definitions. Defines agency, agency action, rule 
and rule making as having the meaning given those terms in 5 
U.S.C. 551.
    Subsec. (b). Technical and conforming amendment. This 
subsection amends the table of chapters for part I of title 5 
of the U.S.C.
    Subsec. (c). Effective dates. This subsection establishes 
effective dates for the monthly updates and OIRA publications, 
and provides that the requirement that monthly-update 
information about new rules be published online for 6 months 
before a new rule may become effective shall take effect 8 
months after enactment.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                     PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

Chapter                                                             Sec.
      Organization...................................................101
     * * * * * * *
      The Analysis of Regulatory Functions...........................601
      Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Publication of    6A.
651   Information Relating to Rules...................................

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 6A--OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PUBLICATION OF 
                     INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES

Sec. 651. Agency monthly submission to office of information and 
          regulatory affairs.
Sec. 652. Office of information and regulatory affairs publications.
Sec. 653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific monthly 
          publication.
Sec. 654. Definitions.

SEC. 651. AGENCY MONTHLY SUBMISSION TO OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND 
                    REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

    On a monthly basis, the head of each agency shall submit to 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (referred to in this chapter as the ``Administrator''), 
in such a manner as the Administrator may reasonably require, 
the following information:
            (1) For each rule that the agency expects to 
        propose or finalize during the following year:
                    (A) A summary of the nature of the rule, 
                including the regulation identifier number and 
                the docket number for the rule.
                    (B) The objectives of and legal basis for 
                the issuance of the rule, including--
                            (i) any statutory or judicial 
                        deadline; and
                            (ii) whether the legal basis 
                        restricts or precludes the agency from 
                        conducting an analysis of the costs or 
                        benefits of the rule during the rule 
                        making, and if not, whether the agency 
                        plans to conduct an analysis of the 
                        costs or benefits of the rule during 
                        the rule making.
                    (C) Whether the agency plans to claim an 
                exemption from the requirements of section 553 
                pursuant to section 553(b)(B).
                    (D) The stage of the rule making as of the 
                date of submission.
                    (E) Whether the rule is subject to review 
                under section 610.
            (2) For any rule for which the agency expects to 
        finalize during the following year and has issued a 
        general notice of proposed rule making--
                    (A) an approximate schedule for completing 
                action on the rule;
                    (B) an estimate of whether the rule will 
                cost--
                            (i) less than $50,000,000;
                            (ii) $50,000,000 or more but less 
                        than $100,000,000;
                            (iii) $100,000,000 or more but less 
                        than $500,000,000;
                            (iv) $500,000,000 or more but less 
                        than $1,000,000,000;
                            (v) $1,000,000,000 or more but less 
                        than $5,000,000,000;
                            (vi) $5,000,000,000 or more but 
                        less than $10,000,000,000; or
                            (vii) $10,000,000,000 or more; and
                    (C) any estimate of the economic effects of 
                the rule, including any estimate of the net 
                effect that the rule will have on the number of 
                jobs in the United States, that was considered 
                in drafting the rule. If such estimate is not 
                available, a statement affirming that no 
                information on the economic effects, including 
                the effect on the number of jobs, of the rule 
                has been considered.

SEC. 652. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PUBLICATIONS.

    (a) Agency-specific Information Published Monthly.--Not 
later than 30 days after the submission of information pursuant 
to section 651, the Administrator shall make such information 
publicly available on the Internet.
    (b) Cumulative Assessment of Agency Rule Making Published 
Annually.--
            (1) Publication in the federal register.--Not later 
        than October 1 of each year, the Administrator shall 
        publish in the Federal Register, for the previous year 
        the following:
                    (A) The information that the Administrator 
                received from the head of each agency under 
                section 651.
                    (B) The number of rules and a list of each 
                such rule--
                            (i) that was proposed by each 
                        agency, including, for each such rule, 
                        an indication of whether the issuing 
                        agency conducted an analysis of the 
                        costs or benefits of the rule; and
                            (ii) that was finalized by each 
                        agency, including for each such rule an 
                        indication of whether--
                                    (I) the issuing agency 
                                conducted an analysis of the 
                                costs or benefits of the rule;
                                    (II) the agency claimed an 
                                exemption from the procedures 
                                under section 553 pursuant to 
                                section 553(b)(B); and
                                    (III) the rule was issued 
                                pursuant to a statutory mandate 
                                or the rule making is committed 
                                to agency discretion by law.
                    (C) The number of agency actions and a list 
                of each such action taken by each agency that--
                            (i) repealed a rule;
                            (ii) reduced the scope of a rule;
                            (iii) reduced the cost of a rule; 
                        or
                            (iv) accelerated the expiration 
                        date of a rule.
                    (D) The total cost (without reducing the 
                cost by any offsetting benefits) of all rules 
                proposed or finalized, and the number of rules 
                for which an estimate of the cost of the rule 
                was not available.
            (2) Publication on the internet.-- Not later than 
        October 1 of each year, the Administrator shall make 
        publicly available on the Internet the following:
                    (A) The analysis of the costs or benefits, 
                if conducted, for each proposed rule or final 
                rule issued by an agency for the previous year.
                    (B) The docket number and regulation 
                identifier number for each proposed or final 
                rule issued by an agency for the previous year.
                    (C) The number of rules and a list of each 
                such rule reviewed by the Director of the 
                Office of Management and Budget for the 
                previous year, and the authority under which 
                each such review was conducted.
                    (D) The number of rules and a list of each 
                such rule for which the head of an agency 
                completed a review under section 610 for the 
                previous year.
                    (E) The number of rules and a list of each 
                such rule submitted to the Comptroller General 
                under section 801.
                    (F) The number of rules and a list of each 
                such rule for which a resolution of disapproval 
                was introduced in either the House of 
                Representatives or the Senate under section 
                802.

SEC. 653. REQUIREMENT FOR RULES TO APPEAR IN AGENCY-SPECIFIC MONTHLY 
                    PUBLICATION.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a rule may not 
take effect until the information required to be made publicly 
available on the Internet regarding such rule pursuant to 
section 652(a) has been so available for not less than 6 
months.
    (b) Exceptions.--The requirement of subsection (a) shall 
not apply in the case of a rule--
            (1) for which the agency issuing the rule claims an 
        exception under section 553(b)(B); or
            (2) which the President determines by Executive 
        order should take effect because the rule is--
                    (A) necessary because of an imminent threat 
                to health or safety or other emergency;
                    (B) necessary for the enforcement of 
                criminal laws;
                    (C) necessary for national security; or
                    (D) issued pursuant to any statute 
                implementing an international trade agreement.

SEC. 654. DEFINITIONS.

    In this chapter, the terms ``agency'', ``agency action'', 
``rule'', and ``rule making'' have the meanings given those 
terms in section 551.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Dissenting Views

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 1759, the ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent 
Act of 2015,'' or the ``ALERT Act of 2015,'' amends the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)\1\ to impose an arbitrary 6-
month delay in implementing nearly every new rule. 
Specifically, the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming 
effective until the information required by the bill has been 
available online for 6 months, with only limited exceptions. As 
a result, the bill jeopardizes public health and safety as well 
as the efficiency of governmental operations. Although not 
within our Committee's jurisdiction, we also note that certain 
of the bill's reporting requirements myopically focus on the 
costs of regulations, while ignoring their overwhelming 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551-59, 701-06, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 
(2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not surprisingly, a broad spectrum of organizations 
strenuously oppose H.R. 1759, including the Coalition for 
Sensible Safeguards (an alliance of more than 150 labor, 
scientific, research, good government, faith, health, 
community, environmental, and public interest 
organizations),\2\ Public Citizen,\3\ the Center for 
Progressive Reform,\4\ and the American Association for 
Justice.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Letter from Katherine McFate, Co-Chair, & Robert Weissman, Co-
Chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards to Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), 
Chair, & John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary (Apr. 14, 2015) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary 
Democratic staff).
    \3\Letter from Robert Weissman, President, & Amit Narang, 
Regulatory Policy Advocate, Public Citizen to Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), 
Chair, & John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary (Apr. 14, 2015) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary 
Democratic staff).
    \4\James Goodwin, Analysis of H.R. 1759, the All Economic 
Regulations are Transparent Act of 2015,'' Center for Progressive 
Reform (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff).
    \5\Letter from Lisa Blue, President, American Association of 
Justice, to John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary (Apr. 15, 2015) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary 
Democratic staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, H.R. 1759 is yet another anti-regulatory measure 
intended to encumber and further slowdown the agency rulemaking 
process. For these reasons, and those detailed below, we oppose 
this ill-conceived and dangerous legislation and respectfully 
dissent.

                       DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

    Established pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
of 1980\6\ and housed in the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 
reviews significant proposed and final rules from Federal 
agencies before they are published in the Federal Register. As 
a result of OIRA's review, draft rules may be revised before 
publication, withdrawn before a review is completed, or 
returned to the agencies ``because, in OIRA's analysis, certain 
aspects of the rule need to be reconsidered.''\7\ Because OIRA 
is a component of OMB and, therefore, is part of the Executive 
Office of the President, it ensures that rules promulgated by 
agencies reflect the President's policy priorities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\44 U.S.C. Sec. 3503 (2015).
    \7\Interim Report on the Administrative Law, Process and Procedure 
Project for the 21st Century, Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative 
Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 39 (2006) available 
at http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Printers/109th/31505.pdf 
[hereinafter Interim Report]. Executive Order 12291, issued by 
President Ronald Reagan in 1981, first gave OIRA the responsibility to 
review the substance of agencies' regulatory actions before publication 
in the Federal Register. Exec. Order No. 12,291, 46 Fed. Reg. 13,193 
(Feb. 19, 1981).
    \8\See Curtis W. Copeland, Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Congressional Research 
Service Report for Congress, RL 32397 (Jan. 26, 2010), available at: 
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32397.pdf. Accordingly, variations in 
how OIRA operates--as a gatekeeper or a counselor regarding Federal 
agency rulemaking--are largely a function of the wishes of the 
President that the office serves. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of OIRA's principal responsibilities is to facilitate 
Federal executive branch agencies' compliance with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act,\9\ which requires the publication 
of a semiannual report identifying those rules that may have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\10\ Published during the months of October and April 
in the Federal Register and available online via OMB's website, 
this report, known as the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 
and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), includes, inter 
alia, the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Pub. L. No. 96-354 (1980) (as amended) (codified in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 601 et seq. (2015)).
    \10\The Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC), a component 
of the U.S. General Services Administration, compiles these semiannual 
reports from information supplied by OIRA. Office of Management and 
Budget--Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, About the Unified 
Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/eAgenda/
StaticContent/UA_About.jsp (last visited Apr. 16, 2015).

        (1) a brief description of the subject area of any rule 
        which the agency expects to propose or promulgate which 
        is likely to have a significant economic impact on a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        substantial number of small entities; [and]

        (2) a summary of the nature of any such rule under 
        consideration for each subject area listed in the 
        agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and 
        legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an 
        approximate schedule for completing action on any rule 
        for which the agency has issued a general notice of 
        proposed rulemaking[.]\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Pub. L. 96-354, Sec. 3(a), 94 Stat. 1165 (1980) (as amended) 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. Sec. 602 (2015)).

    In addition, OIRA, pursuant to the Regulatory-Right-to-Know 
Act,\12\ submits to Congress an annual report on the benefits 
and costs of regulations. This report contains: ``(1) an 
estimate of the total annual costs and benefits (including 
quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of Federal rules and 
paperwork, to the extent feasible--(A) in the aggregate; (B) by 
agency and agency program; and (C) by major rule; (2) an 
analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, local, and 
tribal government, small business, wages, and economic growth; 
and (3) recommendations for reform.\13\The report is submitted 
with the Administration's annual Federal budget request.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(3), tit. VI, Sec. 624 (2000).
    \13\Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001, 
Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 624, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-161 (2000) 
(codified at 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1105 note (2015)).
    \14\31 U.S.C. Sec. 1105(a) (2015). This report is required to be 
issued ``[o]n or after the first Monday in January but not later than 
the first Monday in February of each year.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section by Section Description
    H.R. 1759 amends the APA to require OIRA to make additional 
reports on agency rulemakings and to impose a moratorium 
prohibiting such regulations from becoming effective until the 
information required by the bill has been available online for 
6 months, with only limited exception.
    New section 651, as established by section 2 of the bill, 
requires each agency to submit to OIRA on a monthly basis: (1) 
a summary of the nature of each rule the agency expects to 
propose or finalize during the following year, including the 
regulation identifier number and docket number; (2) the 
objectives and legal basis for each rule, including any 
statutory or judicial deadlines and whether the legal basis 
restricts the agency from concluding an analysis of the costs 
or benefits of the rule and, if not, whether the agency plans 
to conduct an analysis of the costs or benefits of the rule; 
(3) whether the agency plans to claim an exemption from the 
requirements of section 553(b)(B) of the APA, which excepts the 
notice and comment requirements for a rule ``when the agency 
for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 
statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice 
and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or 
contrary to the public interest''; (4) an approximate schedule 
for completing action on the rule and an estimate of what the 
rule will cost; and (5) an estimate of the economic effects of 
the rule (including any estimate of the net effect that the 
rule will have on the number of jobs in the United States) or a 
statement affirming that an estimate is not available.
    New section 652, which is not within the Judiciary 
Committee's jurisdiction, requires OIRA to make the information 
mandated pursuant to section 651 publicly available via the 
Internet within 30 days of submission. Section 652 also 
requires OIRA to publish an annual report that inter alia must 
contain the information previously supplied pursuant to section 
651. Of particular concern is the requirement that OIRA report 
the total cost (without reducing the cost by offsetting 
benefits) of all rules proposed or finalized. The report must 
also include the number and a list of all rules for which a 
resolution of disapproval was introduced in either the House or 
Senate under the Congressional Review Act,\15\ which authorizes 
Congress, under certain conditions, to disapprove a rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (codified at 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 801 et seq. (2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsection (a) of new section 653 specifies that a rule may 
not take effect until the information required to be posted on 
the Internet pursuant to new section 652(a) has been available 
for not less than 6 months, unless subsection (b) applies. 
Subsection (b) provides that subsection (a) does not apply if: 
(1) the agency claims an exemption under section 553(b)(B) of 
the APA, which excepts the notice and comment requirements for 
a rule ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates 
the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the 
rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public 
interest;''\16\ or (2) the President determines by executive 
order that such rule shall take effect because it is: (a) 
necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or 
other emergency; (b) necessary for the enforcement of criminal 
laws; (c) necessary for national security; or (d) issued 
pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade 
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                CONCERNS

        I. H.R. 1759'S ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL MORATORIUM JEOPARDIZES 
                        PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

    New section 653, as established by H.R. 1759, is the most 
problematic aspect of the bill. It imposes a a one-size-fits-
all moratorium prohibiting agency rules from becoming effective 
until the information required by the bill has been available 
online for 6 months, with only limited exception. For example, 
the Department of the Interior earlier this year proposed 
regulations for blowout preventers used in offshore drilling in 
response to those that failed in the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil 
disaster, which occurred more than 5 years ago.\17\ 
Nevertheless, the bill would further delay the implementation 
of this critical, but long-overdue rule for 6 additional 
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Elana Schor, Interior To Unveil Blowout Prevention Rule Today, 
Politico (Apr. 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which is comprised 
of more than 150 labor, scientific, research, good government, 
faith, health, community, environmental, and pubic interest 
organizations, warns:

        As a result of this requirement, the benefits of 
        critically needed regulations--whether measured in 
        lives saved, environmental damage averted, or money 
        saved--would be put on hold unnecessarily for 6 months 
        or longer. This delay amounts to a 6-month regulatory 
        moratorium, which is added to the often lengthy period 
        of several years required for developing and finalizing 
        these regulations. Such delays could extend well beyond 
        that initial 6-month period should the OIRA 
        Administrator fail to post the required information in 
        a timely manner.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Letter from Katherine McFate, Co-Chair, & Robert Weissman, Co-
Chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards to Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), 
Chair, & John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, at 1 (Apr. 14, 2015) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary 
Democratic staff).

    The bill's moratorium provisions can only be avoided only 
if the rule either: (1) qualifies under the APA's exception for 
notice and comment, which applies ``when the agency for good 
cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement 
of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public 
procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 
to the public interest;''\19\ or (2) if the President issues an 
executive order determining that the rule is necessary because 
of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, 
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws, necessary for 
national security, or issued pursuant to any statute 
implementing an international trade agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the APA's notice and comment exceptions, 
the courts have strictly interpreted them very narrowly. As the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit opined, 
``We have repeatedly made clear that the good cause exception 
`is to be narrowly construed and only reluctantly 
countenanced.'''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Mack Trucks, Inc. v. E.P.A., 682 F.3d 87, 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) 
(quoting Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 754 
(D.C.Cir.2001)); see also Jifry v. Federal Aviation Admin., 370 F.3d at 
1179 (``The exception excuses notice and comment in emergency 
situations, or where delay could result in serious harm.''); Am. Fed. 
of Gov't Emps. v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C.Cir.1981) (``As the 
legislative history of the APA makes clear, moreover, the exceptions at 
issue here are not `escape clauses' that may be arbitrarily utilized at 
the agency's whim. Rather, use of these exceptions by administrative 
agencies should be limited to emergency situations. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill's other exception is equally problematic. It is 
restricted to situations where the President determines that 
the rule is necessary to address an imminent threat to health 
or safety or other emergency, necessary for the enforcement of 
criminal laws, necessary for national security, or issued 
pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade 
agreement. And, it is unreasonable to require a President, who 
may be in the midst of a national crisis, to take time out to 
author an executive order dispensing with the bill's moratorium 
each time a rule is promulgated. With only limited exception, 
an executive order must be published in the Federal Register to 
be effective.\21\ And, the executive order must comply with 
various detailed requirements pursuant to an executive order 
issued by President John F. Kennedy, which is still in 
effective.\22\ For example, a proposed executive order, among 
many other requirements, must ``first be submitted to the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, together with 
a letter, signed by the head or other properly authorized 
officer of the originating Federal agency, explaining the 
nature, purpose, background, and effect of the proposed 
Executive order . . . and its relationship, if any, to 
pertinent laws and other Executive orders or 
proclamations.''\23\ If the OMB Direct approves the proposed 
executive order, the Director must then submit it to the 
Attorney General for his or her ``consideration as to both form 
and legality. If the Director or the Attorney General does not 
approve the executive order, it must be returned to the 
President accompanied by a statement of the reasons for such 
disapproval.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\44 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 (2015). Executive orders that do not have 
to comply with the publication requirement of those ``not having 
general applicability and legal effect or effective only against 
Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or 
employees thereof.'' 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1505(a)(1) (2015). In addition, 
publication is not required ``[i]n the event of an attack or threatened 
attack upon the continental United States and a determination by the 
President that as a result of an attack or threatened attack'' and such 
publication is ``impracticable'' or would not ``serve to give 
appropriate notice to the public,'' under such conditions. '' 44 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1505(c) (2015).
    \22\Exec. Order No. 11030, 27 Fed. Reg. 5847 (1962) (codified 1 
C.F.R. Part 19 (2015)).
    \23\Id.
    \24\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simply put, the bill's exceptions are woefully inadequate 
particularly when one considers the fact that approximately 
4,000 to 6,000 regulations are typically issued each year, all 
of which--as a result of this bill--would be held up for 6 
months, unless they could be pigeonholed into one of these 
exceptions. The overwhelming majority of these regulations deal 
with thoroughly mundane or ministerial matters, such as the 
size of certain screws used in aircraft engines, Federal 
Aviation Administration flight path determinations, U.S. Coast 
Guard bridge opening schedules, and standards for curbside 
mailboxes (which were proposed earlier this year).\25\ It makes 
no sense to impose a one-size-fits-all half-year moratorium on 
these straightforward, yet necessary regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Standards Governing the Design of Curbside Mailboxes, 80 Fed. 
Reg. 19,914 (Apr. 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an effort to address this major problem with H.R. 1759, 
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-
MI) offered an amendment striking the bill's moratorium 
provision. Unfortunately, his amendment failed to pass by a 
party-line vote of 9 to 13.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Official Tr. of Markup of H.R. 1759, the ``All Economic 
Regulations are Transparent Act of 2015,'' by the H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, at 152 (Apr. 15, 2015), available at http://
judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/33353aa9-de0f-4765-94ca-09c3f95efe97/
04.15.14-markup-transcript.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 II. H.R. 1759 WILL MAKE RULEMAKING LESS TRANSPARENT BY EXCLUDING THE 
                           BENEFITS OF RULES

    Another troubling aspect of H.R. 1759 is that it 
specifically prohibits OIRA from taking into account benefits 
when providing total cost estimates for proposed and final 
rules. Section 652 requires OIRA to include in its annual 
report various items of information about Federal rulemaking. 
Of particular concern is the bill's requirement that OIRA 
report the total cost (without reducing the cost by offsetting 
benefits) of all rules proposed or finalized. The bill's myopic 
focus on the cost of rules--without any regard for their 
benefits--reflects the one-sided view that the supporters of 
this legislation have about the value of regulations. Without 
question, the benefits of regulations routinely outweigh their 
costs.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory-Right-to-Know Act,\27\ OMB is 
required to submit to Congress a report containing ``an 
estimate of the total annual costs and benefits (including 
quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of Federal rules and 
paperwork, to the extent feasible--(A) in the aggregate; (B) by 
agency and agency program; and (C) by major rule[.]''\28\ The 
most recent of these reports states that the estimated annual 
benefits of major Federal regulations issued between 2003 to 
2013 ranged between $217 billion and $863 billion and the 
estimated annual costs ranged between $57 billion and $84 
bill.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(3), tit. VI, Sec. 624 (2000).
    \28\Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001, 
Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 624, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-161 (2000) 
(codified at 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1105 note (2015)). This report is to be 
submitted with the Administration's annual Federal budget request, 
which is required to be issued ``[o]n or after the first Monday in 
January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year.'' 
31 U.S.C. Sec. 1105(a) (2015).
    \29\Office of Management and Budget--Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, 2014 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and 
Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, at 1-2 (2014), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2014_cb/
draft_2014_cost_benefit_report-updated.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1759, on the other hand, completely ignores the fact 
that the benefits of regulations greatly exceed their costs 
many times over. Although the bill purports to strengthen 
transparency, it will result in a distorted and misleading 
analysis of rules that only focuses on their costs.
    To address this shortcoming of the bill, Representative 
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), Ranking Member of the 
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, 
offered an amendment that would have revised section 652 of 
H.R. 1759 to include the requirement that OIRA report on the 
benefits of regulations in addition to the bill's requirement 
that the cost of regulations be reported. Owing to the fact 
that his amendment sought to amend a provision not within the 
Committee's jurisdiction, Representative Johnson withdrew his 
amendment.

        III. H.R. 1759 DUPLICATES CURRENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    H.R. 1759's reporting requirements are to some degree 
redundant of current law. Agencies already are required to 
provide status updates twice a year on their plans for 
proposing and finalizing rules pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act\30\ and Executive Order 12866.\31\ Also, OIRA, 
as previously noted, already issues an annual report on the 
total annual costs and benefits of Federal rules and paperwork 
under the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act.\32\ The bill also 
requires OIRA to report annually on the very same information 
that it is required to post monthly under the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Pub. L. No. 96-354 (1980), as amended (codified in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 601 et seq. (2015)).
    \31\Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
    \32\Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(3), tit. VI, Sec. 624 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a further illustration of the redundant aspect of this 
bill, H.R. 1759 requires OIRA to report to Congress on the 
``number of rules and a list of each such rule for which a 
resolution of disapproval was introduced in either the House of 
Representatives or the Senate under section 802.''\33\ Thus, 
essentially, Congress would be requiring the Executive Branch 
to report on the activities of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\H.R. 1759, 114th Cong. Sec. 2 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    Unfortunately, H.R. 1759, the ``All Economic Regulations 
are Transparent Act of 2015,'' is a prime example of what 
happens when we fail to conduct any meaningful consideration of 
a bill before it is marked up. Neither in this Congress, nor in 
the prior Congress when this bill was originally introduced, 
did the Committee have an opportunity to deliberate on its 
merits. In fact, H.R. 1759 was introduced the same week it was 
marked up and its predecessor legislation went straight to the 
floor in the 113th Congress without ever being considered by 
the Judiciary Committee. As a result, there is neither a record 
to demonstrate the need for this legislation nor any testimony 
that could help illuminate what its practical consequences 
might be.
    H.R. 1759 raises significant concerns. By imposing an 
arbitrary 6-month delay for implementing nearly any new rule, 
the bill will jeopardize public health and safety. Indeed, a 
vast array of time-sensitive rules ranging from the mundane 
(such as numerous U.S. Coast Guard bridge closing regulations) 
to those that ensure the safety of the toys our children play 
with and the food we eat would be delayed as a result of this 
legislation.
    In addition, H.R. 1759 undermines transparency in the 
regulatory process by specifically prohibiting the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs from taking into account the 
benefits of rules when providing total cost estimates for 
proposed and final rules. Thus, a regulation that costs only 
$1, but results in $1 billion in benefits would only be 
reported as costing $1.
    Finally, the other requirements imposed by this legislation 
are to some degree redundant of current law. Agencies already 
are required to provide status updates twice a year on their 
plans for proposing and finalizing rules pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act\34\ and Executive Order 12866.\35\ 
In addition, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
already issues an annual report on the total annual costs and 
benefits of Federal rules and under the Regulatory Right-to-
Know Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Pub. L. No. 96-354 (1980) (as amended) (codified in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 601 et seq. (2015)).
    \35\Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
    \36\Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(3), tit. VI, Sec. 624 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without question, H.R. 1759 is yet another anti-regulatory 
measure intended to further slowdown the agency rulemaking 
process. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent and urge 
our colleagues to oppose this misguided and dangerous 
legislation.

                                   Mr. Conyers, Jr.
                                   Mr. Nadler.
                                   Ms. Lofgren.
                                   Ms. Jackson Lee.
                                   Mr. Cohen.
                                   Mr. Johnson, Jr.
                                   Ms. Chu.
                                   Mr. Deutch.
                                   Mr. Gutierrez.
                                   Ms. Bass.
                                   Mr. Richmond.
                                   Mr. Cicilline.

                                  [all]