[House Report 115-14]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Rept. 115-14
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME
ACT
_______
February 21, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Chaffetz, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 998]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 998) to provide for the
establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of
rules, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Committee Statement and Views.................................... 2
Section-by-Section............................................... 4
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 6
Committee Consideration.......................................... 6
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 6
Correspondence................................................... 12
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 14
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 14
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 14
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 14
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 14
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 14
Unfunded Mandate Statement....................................... 14
Earmark Identification........................................... 14
Committee Estimate............................................... 15
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 15
Minority Views................................................... 18
Committee Statement and Views
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that
are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017'' (SCRUB Act)
establishes a Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission
(Commission) to identify unnecessary regulations for repeal to
reduce regulatory burdens and stimulate economic growth. If
Congress agrees to the recommendations, the identified
regulations would be repealed immediately or through a
regulatory ``cut-go'' procedure. The SCRUB Act sets a goal of a
15 percent reduction in economic costs of regulations and
prioritizes major rules more than 15 years old that can be
reduced without diminishing effectiveness.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Regulations have substantially hampered economic growth in
the United States over the past 36 years.\1\ One study
estimated that the total regulatory burden on Americans is over
$2 trillion.\2\ Specifically, the ``the growth of regulation
since 1980 cost the United States roughly $4 trillion in GDP in
2012 alone,''\3\ and if regulation levels remained constant
with regulation levels in 1980, the American economy would have
been nearly 25 percent larger by 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Bentley Coffey, Patrick A. McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University, the Cumulative Cost of
Regulations 8 (2016), available at https://www.mercatus.org/system/
files/Coffey-Cumulative-Cost-Regs-v3.pdf.
\2\W. Mark Crain and Nicole V. Crain, National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), The Cost of Federal Regulation to the U.S.
Economy, Manufacturing and Small Business 1 (2014), available at http:/
/www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-
Regulation-Full-Study.pdf.
\3\Bentley Coffey, Patrick A. McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University, the Cumulative Cost of
Regulations 8 (2016), available at https://www.mercatus.org/system/
files/Coffey-Cumulative-Cost-Regs-v3.pdf.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
federal agencies published over 36,000 final rules between
fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY 2015.\5\ Of these rules, 555 were
major rules, meaning the anticipated effect on the economy of a
just one of them was at least $100 million annually.\6\ This is
a substantial increase from just a decade prior, when agencies
issued only 95 major rules between October 1, 1995, and
September 30, 2005.\7\ This rapid growth in regulations helps
explain why small businesses rank regulations as one of the top
reasons for uncertainty and slow business growth.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB, 2016
Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal
Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
7 (2016), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
draft_2016_cost_benefit_report_12_14_2016_2.pdf.
\6\ Id.
\7\OIRA, OMB, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities 2 (2006), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/
2006_cb_final_report.pdf.
\8\NFIB, Small Business Economic Trends 18 (2016), available at
http://www.nfib.com/assets/SBET-November-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulations promulgated year after year have resulted in a
cumulative burden that is stifling entrepreneurship and
adversely affecting economic growth and the labor market.\9\
While an individual regulation may be well intended to address
a singular problem, over time and across the government, these
regulations build up, duplicate, and sometimes conflict with
each other.\10\ Further, even as potentially duplicative or
unnecessary regulations are identified, these regulations are
often difficult to roll back and eliminate. Special interest
groups and agency employees may have a vested interest in
keeping regulations, even unnecessary ones, or no incentive to
pare them down.\11\ This regulatory buildup has created a net
negative impact on the economy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Patrick A. McLaughlin and Richard Williams, Mercatus Center,
George Mason University, the Consequences of Regulatory Accumulation
and a Proposed Solution 2 (2014), available at https://
www.mercatus.org/system/files/McLaughlin_RegulatoryAccumulation_v2.pdf.
\10\Bentley Coffey, Patrick A. McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University, the Cumulative Cost of
Regulations 38 (2016), available at https://www.mercatus.org/system/
files/Coffey-Cumulative-Cost-Regs-v3.pdf.
\11\Patrick A. McLaughlin and Richard Williams, supra note 9, at 5.
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation is necessary to reduce the regulatory burden on
individuals and businesses across the United States and avoid
unnecessarily stifling economic growth. While experts and
interested parties have suggested varying potential solutions
for problems associated with regulatory accumulation, a
reoccurring theme is the need for an independent regulatory
commission.\13\ The cumulative effect of regulations across
multiple agencies and industries requires any review cut across
all agencies. This legislation establishes an independent
regulatory commission with experts who, rather than being tied
to individual federal agencies, would identify overlap and
duplication while also seeking to eliminate outdated or
unnecessary regulations. Americans want to follow the rules;
however, currently the regulatory system in America is
overflowing with superfluous regulations that make it difficult
and impose significant costs and burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See Michael Mandel, Ph.D., Progressive Policy Institute,
Reviving Jobs and Innovation: A Progressive Approach to Improving
Regulation 2 (2011), available at http://www.progressivefix.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/2011_Mandel_A-Progressive-Approach-to-
Improving-Regulation.pdf; see e.g. Patrick A. McLaughlin and Richard
Williams, supra note 9, at 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCRUB Act, through the establishment of an independent
and transparent commission, will greatly reduce the regulatory
burdens currently in existence. The SCRUB Act creates a
commission for a limited time span with the independence
necessary to provide objective recommendations for removal of
ineffective regulations. The Presidents select members of the
Commission from a list jointly offered by leadership in the
U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Those appointments
are then subject to Senate confirmation. The legislation also
requires transparency in the Commission process by requiring
the Commission to establish a methodology for conducting the
review and identifying regulations for repeal. The methodology
is required to be published in the Federal Register. Finally,
Congress must vote to implement the recommendations of the
Commission before any regulation will be repealed. Congress
will serve as a check against improper removal if a substantial
need for the regulation still exists.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Representative Jason Smith (R-MO) introduced H.R. 998 on
February 9, 2017, which was referred primarily to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, with an additional referral
to the Committee on the Judiciary. On February 14, 2017, the
Committee considered H.R. 998 at a business meeting. The
Committee ordered the bill reported favorably, without
amendment, was reported favorably with a vote of 22 to 17.
During the 114th Congress, the House Committee on the
Judiciary favorably reported the SCRUB Act (H.R. 1155) to the
U.S. House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 17 to 12 on
March 24, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed the legislation by a recorded vote of
245 to 174.
During the 113th Congress, the House Committee on the
Judiciary favorably reported without amendment the SCRUB Act
(H.R. 4874) to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 18,
2014. Following this, on July 24, 2014, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform amended the SCRUB Act through
an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Representative Doug Collins (R-GA). The amendment applied the
Federal Advisory Committee Act to the Commission and made a
number of other minor revisions to the bill.
Section-by-Section
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill as the
``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily
Burdensome Act of 2017'' or the ``SCRUB Act of 2017.''
Section 2. Table of contents
Provides a table of contents for the bill with Titles I-V.
Title I--Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission
Section 101. In general
Subsection (a) establishes the Retrospective Regulatory
Review Commission, to review rules to be repealed to reduce
costs to the economy and establishes a termination date that is
five-and-a-half years after enactment of the legislation.
Subsection (b) establishes the membership of the Commission
as nine members appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, selected from lists of recommendations from the
leadership of both chambers.
Subsection (c) defines the power and authority of the
Commission to hold meetings, hold public hearings, access
information, and issue subpoenas for information and witnesses.
Subsections (d) through (g) set the rate of pay and travel
expenses, provide for a Director of the Commission, and provide
for staff and hiring authority.
Subsection (h), paragraph (1), directs the Commission to
review regulations to identify regulations to repeal, giving
priority to older major rules, with a goal of reducing
cumulative costs of Federal regulation by 15%.
Paragraph (2) of the subsection establishes criteria by
which the Commission will review regulations, including:
whether purpose was achieved and rule could be repealed without
recurrence, whether the costs of the regulation outweigh its
benefits, whether the rule is now unnecessary or obsolete,
whether the rule is ineffective at achieving its purpose,
whether it conflicts with or duplicates other rules, whether
compliance costs are excessive compared to alternatives,
whether the rule inhibits innovation or growth, whether the
rule harms competition, and other criteria to eliminate or
reduce unnecessarily burdensome costs.
Paragraph (3) of the subsection requires the Commission to
establish a methodology to conduct the review and publish the
terms in the Federal Register and on the Commission's website.
Paragraph (4) of the subsection requires the Commission to
classify identified regulations as either appropriate for
immediate repeal or eligible for repeal through regulatory cut-
go procedures. The paragraph requires a majority vote for
identifying and classifying rules.
Paragraph (5) of the subsection allows the Commission to
initiate a review of a specific rule or set of rules upon
submission by specified officials, including the President or a
Member of Congress.
Subsection (i) requires the Commission to submit notices of
meetings or hearings, reports at the conclusion of meetings,
and annual reports to Congress.
Subsection (j) provides for Congressional consideration of
the Commission's recommendations and requires agencies to
repeal regulations in accordance with the recommendations upon
enactment of a joint resolution approving of the
recommendations.
Subsection (k) authorizes appropriations not to exceed $30
million.
Subsection (l) requires the Committee to establish a
website to publish information about the Commission and
Commission hearings and meetings. Requires comments and
submissions to the Commission be published to the website.
Subsection (m) clarifies that the Federal Advisory
Committee Act applies to the Commission and any subcommittees
of the Commission.
Title II--Regulatory Cut-Go
Section 201. Cut-Go procedures
Section 201 requires agencies to repeal a Commission
identified rule with equal to or greater than costs to the
economy when issuing a new rule. Allows agencies to repeal
rules prior to promulgating new regulations to apply the cost
savings to new rules promulgated at a later time.
Section 202. Applicability
Sections 201 and 203 are applicable until an agency has
repealed all regulations identified.
Section 203. OIRA Certification of cost calculations
Section 203 requires the Administrator of OIRA to review
and certify agency determinations of costs of new rules under
section 201.
Title III--Retrospective Review of Rules
Section 301. Plan for future review
Section 301 requires that agencies include a plan for a
future review in all new regulations.
Title IV--Judicial Review
Section 401. Judicial review
Section 401 subjects an agency's compliance with the repeal
provision, cut-go process, and the requirement for new
regulations to include a future review plan to judicial review.
Title V--Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 501. Definitions
Section 501 defines the terms, ``agency,'' ``Commission,''
``major rule,'' ``rule,'' and ``set of rules.''
Section 502. Effective date
Section 502 sets the effective date as the date of
enactment of this bill into law.
Explanation of Amendments
During Full Committee consideration of the bill, five
amendments were offered to H.R. 998.
Ranking Minority Member Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) offered
an amendment to exempt unspecified regulations related to
whistleblowers. The Cummings amendment was not adopted by a
roll call vote of 12 to 21.
Representative Lawrence (D-MI) offered an amendment to
exempt regulations related to lead paint. The Lawrence
amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14 to 21.
Representative Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) offered an amendment
to change the priority of regulations reviewed from major
regulations promulgated 15 or more years ago, to a chorological
review starting with the oldest regulations. The Krishnamoorthi
amendment was not adopted by voice vote.
Representative Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment to exempt
regulations related to conflicts of interest by employees of
the executive branch. The Raskin amendment was not adopted by a
roll call vote of 17 to 22.
Representative Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment to exempt
regulations related to clean air act. The Raskin amendment was
not adopted by a roll call vote of 17 to 22.
Committee Consideration
On February 14, 2017, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 998, by a vote of 22
to 17, a quorum being present.
Roll Call Votes
There were five roll call votes during consideration of
H.R. 998:
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill establishes a commission to reduce regulatory
burdens. As such this bill does not relate to employment or
access to public services and accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goal or objective of this bill is to provide for the
establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of
rules, and for other purposes.
Duplication of Federal Programs
In accordance with clause 2(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this bill 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 enacting this bill does not
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation establishes an
advisory committee within the definition of 5 U.S.C. App.,
Section 5(b).
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded
mandates. In compliance with this requirement, the Committee
has received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office
included herein.
Earmark Identification
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for this bill from the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 21, 2017.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 998, the SCRUB
Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 998--SCRUB Act
Summary: H.R. 998 would establish a commission to review
existing federal regulations and to identify those that should
be repealed to reduce the cost of regulations on the economy.
In addition, the legislation would require agencies to create a
plan to review all new regulations within 10 years of their
issuance. Finally, H.R. 998 would authorize the appropriation
of up to $30 million to fund the commission.
CBO estimates that, assuming appropriation of the specified
amounts, implementing H.R. 998 would cost $30 million over the
2018-2022 period to operate the commission. CBO estimates that
enacting the bill could affect direct spending or revenues;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO cannot
estimate the direction or magnitude of those effects.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 998 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 998 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 998 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within function 800 (general
government) and all budget functions that include funding for
agencies that issue regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2018-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level...................... 6 6 6 6 6 30
Estimated Outlays.................................. 6 6 6 6 6 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2017 and that
the funds for the commission will be provided each year.
Title I would establish a commission to review the Code of
Federal Regulations to determine if any rules should be
repealed to lower the cost of regulations on the U.S. economy.
The commission would recommend to the Congress a list of rules
to be repealed. Under the bill, no existing regulations could
be repealed unless subsequent legislation to authorize the
repeal was enacted.
The commission would consist of nine members appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate. Members would be
paid and reimbursed for travel expenses. In addition, the
commission could hire staff and would end after either five
years and a half after enactment or five years after all
commissioner terms have commenced, whichever is later. H.R. 998
also would direct the commission to produce annual and final
reports on its activities and would authorize the appropriation
of up to $30 million to cover the costs of the commission.
Assuming appropriation of those amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing this title would cost $30 million over the 2018-
2022 period.
Under title II, federal agencies would be directed to
offset the estimated costs that new regulations would impose on
the economy by repealing existing regulations that have been
recommended for repeal by the commission. How agencies would
comply with this requirement is unclear because repeal of
existing regulations would depend on future Congressional
action. It is also not clear how implementation of new rules
would be delayed or postponed until existing regulations were
approved for repeal. Consequently, CBO cannot estimate the
budgetary effects of implementing title II.
Title III would require agencies to create a plan to review
all new regulations within 10 years of being issued. Because
agencies are already required to review regulations after they
are issued, CBO expects that implementing title III would have
no significant costs.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: CBO estimates that enacting
the bill could affect direct spending or revenues; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO cannot estimate
the direction or magnitude of those effects.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 998
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal governments: Paige Piper/
Bach; Impact on the Private-Sector: Zach Byrum.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
MINORITY VIEWS
Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 998. We reject the
view that this bill would be a panacea for eliminating
regulations that have unnecessary regulatory costs on our
economy. Through the creation of an unelected Commission, this
bill would duplicate work agencies are already doing to review
and repeal regulations--at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million--
and it would prioritize corporate profits over the health and
safety of the American public.
This new Commission would perform retrospective regulatory
reviews that agencies are already required to conduct under
current law.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to review
each rule that has ``a significant economic impact upon a
substantial number of small entities'' within ten years after
it is published.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pub. L. 96-354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama, requires
each agency to ``periodically review its existing significant
regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13610, also issued by President Obama,
requires each agency to report twice a year to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs on the status of their
review efforts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\77 Fed. Reg. 28,469 (May 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2014, a report prepared for the Administrative
Conference of the United States highlighted the impact of these
mandated reviews, concluding that ``agencies identified tens of
billions of dollars of cost savings and tens of millions of
hours of reduced paperwork and reporting requirements through
modifications of existing regulations.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Joseph Aldy, Report prepared for the Administrative Conference
of the United States, Learning from Experience: An Assessment of the
Retrospective Reviews of Agency Rules and the Evidence for Improving
the Design and Implementation of Regulatory Policy (Nov. 17, 2014)
(online at www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
Aldy%2520Retro%2520Review%2520Draft%252011-17-2014.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill would create a new unelected Commission to review
existing regulations for repeal--including regulations that
protect against conflicts of interest in the federal government
and protect whistleblowers from retribution--based almost
exclusively on cost and without consideration of the benefits.
Under the bill, agencies would have to repeal an existing
health or safety regulation in order to promulgate a health or
safety regulation in response to new threats, based solely on
cost. The bill is silent on how the agencies should to
calculate the costs of every rule. The bill establishes a
regulatory ``cut-go'' process that would force agencies to
prioritize between existing protections and responding to new
threats to health and safety. Referred to as the ``most extreme
of all antiregulatory reforms'' by the Center for Progressive
Reform, regulatory cut-go would prohibit an agency from issuing
any new rule--even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm
to public health--until the agency first offsets the costs of
that new rule by repealing an existing rule specified by the
Commission.\5\ This requirement would endanger public health
and safety and unnecessarily delay federal rulemaking by years,
wasting taxpayer dollars and agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Letter from Center for Progressive Reform to Chairman Tom Marino
and Ranking Member Hank Johnson, House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law (July
15, 2015) (online at http://progressivereform.org/articles/
071515_OIRA_Oversight_Hearings_Letter_Judiciary_Committee.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill would take regulatory review out of the hands of
agency subject-matter experts and place it in an unelected
Commission. The Commission could devise any methodology for its
review of rules, and no rules would be exempt. The bill would
require the Commission to prioritize major rules in its review
as well as those that have been in effect for more than 15
years.
The Commission would have virtually unlimited authority to
subpoena witnesses or documents. Most agency Inspectors General
do not have such broad authority to compel witness testimony.
This broad subpoena power, combined with the Commission's
uncircumscribed jurisdiction over all regulations, would mean
that it could compel any American to testify on any subject. A
schoolteacher could be compelled to testify about education
rules, or a senior citizen could be compelled to testify about
Medicare or Social Security rules.
The Commission's report to Congress, containing all of the
rules that it would recommend for repeal, would be subject to
an up or down vote. This requirement, which would not allow
Congress to vote on each regulation subject to repeal
individually, would usurp the authority of Congress.
Ranking Member Elijah Cummings offered an amendment that
would have exempted rules that protect whistleblowers or impose
penalties on individuals who retaliate against whistleblowers.
Agencies issue rules that protect individuals who blow the
whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, as well as health and safety
issues. This amendment was rejected.
Rep. Brenda Lawrence offered an amendment that would have
exempted rules relating to the protection of the public,
including children, against lead poisoning. As the tragedy in
Flint, Michigan demonstrates, federal rulemaking to address
imminent harms to public health are often necessary. This
amendment was also rejected.
Rep. Jamie Raskin offered an amendment that would have
exempted any regulations relating to potential conflicts of
interest of executive branch employees. This amendment would
have ensured that agency ethics rules would stay in place. This
amendment was also rejected.
Rep. Raskin offered another amendment that would have
exempted rules that relate to the Clean Air Act. Cleaner air
provides exceptional economic benefits because it results in
the improved health and productivity of Americans and reduces
medical expenses for air pollution-related health. This
amendment was also rejected.
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi offered an amendment that would
have required the Commission to begin its review by looking at
the oldest operative regulations and then proceed
chronologically to the newest rules. He argued that the
Commission should focus on regulations that are outdated,
duplicative, or otherwise easily removable. This amendment was
also rejected.
The SCRUB Act is opposed by a broad coalition of groups,
including:
Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a
coalition of more than 150 consumer, labor, and good
government groups;
the Center for Progressive Reform, a
nonprofit research and educational organization with a
network of Member Scholars working to protect health,
safety, and the environment through analysis and
commentary; and
the American Sustainable Business Council, a
group representing more than 200,000 businesses and
325,000 business professionals, including industry
associations, local and state chambers of commerce,
micro-enterprise, social enterprise, green and
sustainable business, local living economy groups,
woman and minority business leaders, and investor
networks.
The SCRUB Act is a dangerous solution in search of a
problem. Congress already has authority under the Congressional
Review Act to disapprove any rule that an agency proposes.
These dangerous procedures would waste valuable resources,
taxpayer dollars and place the health and safety of Americans
at risk.
For these reason, Committee Democrats strongly oppose the
SCRUB Act.
Elijah E. Cummings,
Ranking Member.
[all]