Press Releases

Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held a hearing entitled, “H.R. 2122, the ‘Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013.”  Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement as his opening remarks:

“The so-called ‘Regulatory Accountability Act’ – which effectively will prevent agencies from issuing regulations – is among the most seriously flawed bills we have considered to date.

“My greatest concern is that H.R. 2122 will have a pernicious effect on the public health, safety, and well-being of Americans.  The ways in which it does this are almost too numerous to list here, so I will just mention a few.

“For instance, H.R. 2122 would override critical laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake.  These statutes include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act.  This means that agency officials will now be required to balance the costs of an air pollution standard with the costs of how many anticipated lives and illnesses that will result in the absence of such regulations. At the hearing on this bill’s predecessor in the last Congress, our witness testified that if this measure were in effect in the 1970's, the government ‘almost certainly would not have required the removal of most lead from gasoline until perhaps decades later.’  This is because the bill imposes numerous procedural hurdles on the rulemaking process, a process that most experts agree is already too ossified. The bill adds roughly 60 additional analytical requirements to the already substantial analytical process, which threatens ‘paralysis by analysis.’ By delaying the rulemaking process, we ultimately put American citizens at risk.

“Worse yet, some of these new requirements have been soundly rejected by respected administrative law academics and practitioners, such as the bill’s mandate requiring formal rulemaking. As our witness observed at this prior hearing, ‘Almost no serious administrative law expert regards formal rulemaking as reasonable, and it has been all but relegated to the dustbin of history.’ This explains why more than 40 leading administrative law academics and practitioners as well as the American Bar Association have raised serious concerns about these new requirements.

“My second concern is that many provisions in the bill will facilitate greater influence of business interests on rulemaking and agencies. We already know that the ability of corporate and business interests to influence agency rulemaking far exceeds that by groups representing the public. But rather than leveling the access playing field, H.R. 2122 will further tip the balance in favor of business interests by giving them multiple opportunities to intervene at various points in the rulemaking process, including through less deferential judicial review.

“Finally, the bill is based on the faulty premise that regulations result in economically stifling costs, kill jobs, and promote uncertainty. While supporters of H.R. 2122 will undoubtedly cite a study claiming the cost of regulations exceed $1.7 trillion, the Congressional Research Service, Center for Progressive Reform, and the Economic Policy Institute found the study to have been based on incomplete and irrelevant data.  With respect to the impact that regulations have on job creation, then-Chairman Smith said during the hearing on H.R. 2122's predecessor in the last Congress that the ‘American people urgently need jobs that only economic growth can give.  Standing in the way of growth and job creation is a wall of federal regulation.’ But the majority’s own witness at that hearing, Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, clearly debunked this argument.  He said that the ‘focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates’ and that the employment effects of regulation ‘are indeterminate.’

“Another argument – regulatory uncertainty hurts businesses – has similarly been debunked. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations has observed:  ‘[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out.  In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.’  Regulations that promote the health of our citizens and ensure the safety of American-made products will unquestionably lead to job creation and protect the competitiveness of our businesses in the global marketplace.

“Not surprisingly, the administration issued a veto threat in the last Congress regarding the bill’s substantively identical predecessor stating that it ‘would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory duties’ and that it also ‘would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public with basic protections,’ among other concerns.

“Rather than heeding these serious concerns, my colleagues simply want to push forward with a bill that has absolutely no political viability. It is a shame that we again will waste our time on legislation that has no future.”

###