[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCES CHECK-IN
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE,
BENEFITS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 24, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-293 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Blake Farenthold, Texas Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Ron DeSantis, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Mark Walker, North Carolina Val Butler Demings, Florida
Rod Blum, Iowa Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Jimmy Gomez,California
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Michael Koren, Professional Staff Member
Katy Rother, Senior Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman
Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Jim Jordan, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Ron DeSantis, Florida Columbia
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Rod Blum, Iowa Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
------
Subcommittee on HealthCare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules
Jim Jordan, Ohio, Chairman
Mark Walker, North Carolina, Vice Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois,
Chair Ranking Minority Member
Darrell E. Issa, California Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Columbia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 24, 2017................................. 1
WITNESSES
PANEL I:
Ms. Joo Y. Chung, Director of Oversight and Compliance, Office of
the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense
Oral Statement............................................... 3
Written Statement............................................ 5
Mr. Giancarlo Brizzi, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator,
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Dr. James C. Owens, Acting General Counsel, Department of
Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
PANEL II:
Mr. Jitinder Kohli, Managing Director, Deloitte Consulting
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
Ms. Diane Katz, Senior Research Fellow for Regulatory Policy, The
Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Mr. James Goodwin, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Progressive
Reform
Oral Statement............................................... 67
Written Statement............................................ 69
Mr. Clyde Wayne Crews, Vice President for Policy, Competitive
Enterprise Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 86
Written Statement............................................ 88
REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCES CHECK-IN
----------
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations, joint with
the Subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and
Administrative Rules
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
[chairman of the subcommittee on Government Operations]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Hice, Sanford,
Massie, DesJarlais, Grothman, Mitchell, Blum, Krishnamoorthi,
Maloney, Norton, Kelly, Lawrence, and Plaskett.
Also present: Representative Palmer.
Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations and
the Subcommittee on Healthcare Benefits and Administrative
Rules will come to order. And, without objection, the chair is
authorized to declare a recess at any time.
It is not every day that we get to hold hearings and
highlight good news about Federal regulations. Certainly, in
July, the administration announced in the course of just 5
months, Federal Government was able to achieve a reduction in
the net regulatory cost. Bravo. While still issuing new
regulations, this administration actually has saved $22
million, and I would like to reiterate, $22 million American
taxpayer dollars, over this course.
And to put that in abstract terms, at the end of the Obama
administration, it would have taken someone 3 years and 177
days to read through the entire Code of Federal Regulations. As
of today, that number has been reduced to 2 years and 217 days.
This amounts to an over 25 percent decrease in the size of the
CFR.
Now, this type of progress is shrinking the Federal
regulations, is really unheard of. And it is thanks to the
President's regulatory reform agenda. In January, President
Trump issued an Executive Order 13771, which established a one
in, two out, process where agencies must repeal two regulations
for every new regulation that the agency issues.
The order also directed the agencies that they must achieve
a net regulatory cost of zero in the fiscal year 2017. By all
accounts, the agencies will continue to surpass this goal. And,
in February, President Trump issued a second Executive Order
that provided a process by which the agencies would implement
the one in, two out, requirement. The Executive Order 13777
requires each agency to designate a Regulatory Reform officer,
and to implement regulatory reforms at their agency, and to
establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review the agency's
regulations to determine whether they should be repealed or
replaced.
Now, in September, I joined leadership from this committee
and the House Judiciary Committee to request briefings from 24
agencies on the work of their task force. The results from
these briefings are indeed impressive. Those agencies have
begun comprehensive reviews, not only for their regulations,
but guidance documents, policies, information collections, and
other written materials that impose burdens on the public.
Many agencies have already started to clean house by
starting the process to repeal and amend regulations. And this
kind of kick in the pants change-out our out of control
regulatory footprint was badly needed. The committee will be
hearing today from three of those agencies that
enthusiastically embrace this effort and have developed a
strong and effective task force.
We look forward to you sharing some of your best practices
with the committee today, and others seeking to do the same in
their agencies.
We will also hear from a panel of regulatory experts to
understand how these changes have been seen in unprecedented
levels of regulatory relief and what the process means for the
future of the Federal regulatory state.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to consider how we can support and improve upon
this effort. I'd like to thank each of you for being here today
as witnesses, and for your valuable work on this particular
area. We look forward to hearing from you and seeing where this
work takes us.
We are waiting on the ranking member at this particular
point, so what I would do is--we will go ahead and actually
swear in our witnesses, if we could, at this point.
All right. So I would first like Ms. Joo Chung, the
Director of Oversight and Compliance in the Office of the
Deputy Chief Management Officer at the Department of Defense.
Welcome.
Mr. Giancarlo Brizzi, is that right? Oh, man, I get an A
for today. The Principal Deputy Associate Administrator at the
Office of Government-wide Policy at the General Services
Administration.
And the easiest name out there, Dr. James Owens, the Acting
General Counsel at the Department of Transportation.
Pursuant to committee rules, we ask that all witnesses be
sworn in before they testify. So if you would please rise and
raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth.
All right. Thank you. Please be seated, and let the record
reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion. We would ask that
your oral testimony please be limited to 5 minutes, but your
entire written statement will be made part of the record. And,
as a reminder, there is kind of a clock in front of you there,
and so if it comes out with a big hammer, that means stop. And
we also will remind you, there's a red button, so if you'll
press that so we can hear you and we can take the notes
accordingly.
So, Ms. Chung, we will recognize you for 5 minutes.
PANEL I:
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF JOO CHUNG
Ms. Chung. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Meadows,
Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member
Krishnamoorthi, and members of the sub-committees. Thank you
for this opportunity to provide information about the
Department of Defense's regulatory reform task force and DOD's
regulatory reform efforts under Executive Order 1377 and 13771.
My name is Joo Chung, and I'm the Director of Oversight and
Compliance in the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer
at the Department of Defense. With our regulatory reform
efforts, the Department is committed to more faithfully hearing
to the regulatory principles that Federal agencies should
promulgate only those regulations that are required or
necessary, and that do not unduly burden the American people.
On April 20, 2017, the Department of Defense established
its regulatory reform task force, and I was designated as its
regulatory reform officer. The task force was established to
conduct a comprehensive retrospective review of all of its 716
existing codified regulations, including 350 defense Federal
acquisition regulation supplement clauses and provisions to
make recommendations for the Secretary on whether they should
be repealed, replaced or modified, in accordance with law.
The DOD task force is composed of senior leaders, and there
are three subgroups that have been established under the task
force to aid in the review of the defense Federal accusation
regulation clauses and provisions, the regulations under the
Army Corps of Engineers, and the regulations under the Defense
Health Agency TRICARE Rules.
The task force's efforts can be divided into three phases.
First, the establishment. Second, the review and
recommendations of the rules by the task force. And, third, the
implementation and sustainment of the reform efforts. In order
to review all 716 codified regulations at a steady and
actionable rate, the task force established a biweekly schedule
of a review with a goal of concluding its review by the end of
2018.
At the outset, the task force established scheduled reviews
by topic in order to evaluate regulations for consolidation and
to eliminate unnecessary, outdated, or ineffective rules, which
is a priority set forth in Executive Order 1377. The task force
has sent two reports to the Secretary, one on May 24, and one
on September 30. At the time of the second progress report, the
task force had reviewed 120 regulations and 19 defense Federal
acquisition regulation supplement clauses.
So far, the Department has identified approximately over
$10 million in savings, and has identified 88 rules that it may
be able to repeal, subject to final review by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Most of the task force's recommendations thus far have been
to eliminate or modify unnecessary, outdated, or ineffective
regulations, and several reviews have resulted in
recommendations to consolidate rules into a single DOD level
rule, which will provide the public with one governing unifying
regulation and consistent application of rules on the public.
To provide an opportunity for public engagement, the task
force published notices for comment, being reviewed by the task
force and the three subgroups, and has updated its public
facing website to provide additional transparency.
DOD understands that a key component of the regulatory
reform efforts is the implementation and sustainment efforts.
To that end, the Department's components have already started
the implementation phase of those recommendations that have
been approved, and the task force is closely tracking those
regulatory actions. Currently, the task force has reviewed 17
percent of its codified regulations, and we are on track to
meet our goal to review all of the codified regulations by the
end of 2018.
Mr. Chairman, regulatory reform is a part of the
Secretary's overall reform strategy. And DOD believes that the
deregulatory actions and cost savings of our reform efforts
will help reduce unnecessary burdens on the public and promote
agency accountability.
I thank the Chairman, ranking members, and the
subcommittees, for this opportunity to discuss the regulatory
reform efforts, and I'm happy to take any further questions.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Chung follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Chung.
Mr. Brizzi, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GIANCARLO BRIZZI
Mr. Brizzi. Chairman Meadows, Chairman Jordan, Ranking
Member Connolly, Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, and members of
the subcommittees, it is a pleasure to you appear before you
today to discuss GSA's regulatory reform task force and
regulatory reform activities, in accordance with the Executive
Order 13771, reducing regulation and controlling regulatory
costs. And Executive Order 13777, enforcing the regulatory
reform agenda.
My name is Giancarlo Brizzi and I am the General Services
Administration's Principal Deputy Associate Administrator in
the Office of Government-wide Policy. As one of the Federal
Government's central management agencies, GSA strives, through
its regulations, to provide a policy framework that affords
agencies the flexibility to accomplish their missions in the
most effective manner while adhering to laws, executive orders,
government-wide memoranda, and other applicable requirements,
and sound management practices.
GSA accomplishes this through four comprehensive
regulations. The Federal property management regulation, the
Federal management regulation, the Federal travel regulation,
and the GSA acquisition regulation. Building on the intent and
spirit of the executives orders, GSA expanded the scope of its
review to include nonregulatory policies and practices. This
provides an opportunity to review GSA's day-to-day work
activities that will lead to better service for our customer
agencies, and ultimately the American people.
GSA is fully committed to complying with Executive Order
13771, and is currently pursuing a number of deregulatory
actions that will reduce the burden on vendors doing business
with the Government. EO 13777 required GSA to appoint a
regulatory reform officer, establish a regulatory reform task
force, and evaluate existing regulations and make
recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, and modification.
Accordingly, GSA formally established its regulatory reform
task force, comprised of GSA's regulatory reform officer,
regulatory policy officer, senior procurement executive, and
two operational subject matter experts. It was important that
GSA's task force have both policy and operational perspectives
as it reviewed our regulations, internal policies and
practices.
GSA's regulatory reform task force established four working
groups consisting of subject matter experts to review
regulatory and nonregulatory policies and practices that will
result in recommending proposals in alignment with the
objectives of EO 13777.
GSA's task force working groups are organized around the
agency's primary functions and guidelines or regulations. The
working group's solicited reform proposals within the agency in
the case of travel from 17 other Federal agencies that
volunteered to contribute to the review. To ensure public
engagement, each of the four working groups published a notice
in the Federal Register to solicit reform proposals from the
public. These activities have generated over 2000 regulatory
reform comments, including nearly 1800 proposals generated by
GSA's internal working groups, and input from other Federal
agencies.
Examples of regulatory reform proposals currently under
review are being pursued, include making it easier for vendors
to do business with GSA. More specifically, GSA is looking for
ways to remove outdated requirements in the GSA acquisition
regulation that require contractors to submit multiple reports
or redundant information. Other proposals under consideration
are nonregulatory but important nonetheless. Include making
regulations more accessible to users on mobile devices or
simplifying internal forms.
We are optimistic that regulatory and nonregulatory
efforts, such as these, will, in the aggregate, have a
significant impact on improving GSA's regulatory and
operational landscape. After the working groups finish their
initial reviews, they may seek clarifications from the
submitters to ensure full understanding, and will ultimately
make recommendations to the task force.
The task force will then consider the recommendation,
consult with necessary internal/external advisers, and then
will make a formal recommendation to the GSA administrator. I'm
grateful for the opportunity to update the subcommittees on
GSA's regulatory reform task force, and look forward to working
with the committee and subcommittees as GSA continues its
efforts.
Thank you for your time today, and I welcome any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Brizzi follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you. Dr. Owens, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES OWENS
Mr. Owens. Good morning, Chairman Meadows, Chairman Jordan,
Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, and
members of the sub-committees. I am James Owens, Acting General
Counsel of the Department of Transportation. I am grateful for
the opportunity to present to you the Department's progress on
regulatory reform under Secretary Chao's leadership.
DOT has one of the largest rulemaking portfolios in the
Federal Government. To carry out its responsibilities, the
Department embraces a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes
transparency, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory restraint.
Our goal is to allow the public to understand how we make
decisions, which includes being transparent in the way we
measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in in or
deciding not to engage in a particular regulatory action.
The Department also embraces the notion that there should
be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize
consideration of nonregulatory solutions and have rigorous
processes in place for continual reassessment of existing
regulations.
The executive orders issued by President Trump at the
beginning of this administration have been instrumental in
helping the Department achieve regulatory reform goals. In
response to the executive orders, the Department formed a
regulatory reform task force. Our task force consists of two
components, a working group that meets with each of our
operating administrations once per month, and a leadership
council. Senior career and noncareer officials are members of
the task force.
In carrying out its work, the task force is guided by three
principles. First, reduce the unnecessary regulatory burdens on
the public without compromising safety. Second, further stretch
taxpayer dollars by streamlining the infrastructure permitting
process. And, third, enable innovation by removing unnecessary
regulatory barriers to transformative technologies.
Through our ongoing review and revision of DOT regulations,
we have been able to save the American public significant time
and money without reducing the safety of our Nation's
transportation system. DOT rules issued in fiscal year 2016
under the previous administration imposed an estimated $3.2
billion in annualized costs. In contrast, rules issued under
this administration in fiscal year 2017 resulted in
approximately $21.9 million in annualized cost savings.
In addition, rules anticipated to be issued in 2018 are
currently projected to yield substantially increased annualized
cost savings. In effect, we hope not only to continue to save
the American taxpayers money, but to save them more money and
faster. Approximately 12 percent of DOT rulemaking actions
issued in the previous administration were deregulatory. We
expect that in fiscal year 2018, the number of deregulatory
actions will increase to approximately half of all DOT
rulemakings.
One of the Department's goals in reducing regulatory burden
is to streamline the permitting process to further stretch
taxpayer dollars by enabling faster, better, and more efficient
infrastructure development. The Department has sought
stakeholder input to assist in this effort. And in June 2017,
we published a request for public comment asking for input to
help identify obstacles to infrastructure projects. In
response, we received over 200 comments containing over 1,000
ideas, and we are currently reviewing those ideas.
Other steps the Department is taking to expedite project
delivery, included proposal to encourage public private
partnership in transit project delivery, and the issuance of
updated guidance to help streamline environmental reviews.
Another of the Department's goals in reducing regulatory burden
is to enable innovations that will transform transportation. We
believe that the transportation of the future will be better,
faster, cheaper, and safer than it is today. And we are eager
to do what we can to make that a reality.
This administration is committed to enabling innovative and
new uses of transportation technology, whether that involves
automated vehicles, unmanned aircraft systems, or other
emerging technologies. Although the Department has made great
progress in implementing the administration's regulatory reform
agenda, our work continues, and we anticipate continued
deregulatory progress in fiscal year 2018, including plans to
consider potential burdens caused by nonbinding agency guidance
documents.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to discuss with you
the Department's regulatory reform agenda. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Owens follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Dr. Owens. Thank all of you for
your insightful testimony here. We're going to--since we went
ahead and started, I'm going to go ahead and recognize our
ranking members for their opening statements. I first recognize
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Chairman Jordan, and
Chairman Meadows, for convening this hearing. I'd also like to
thank Ranking Member Connolly, who couldn't be here, but he has
displayed incredible leadership on this committee as well. I
would like to commend all our witnesses for participating
today. So thank you very much.
There's an old saying that there is no Republican or
Democratic way to pick up the trash or fill a pothole. The only
thing that matters is that you deliver for your constituents. I
think that is a good mindset to have as we look to improve
efficiencies and cut unnecessary regulations. This shouldn't be
done with any partisan preconceptions, but rather with a
dispassionate and a rational mindset.
In my career as a small businessman, we made our business
decisions based on facts and numbers. If a product wasn't
selling, we would investigate why. If we had to change our
products or services, we did so because our research told us
that what we hadn't been doing--what we had been doing wasn't
working. We did this because we had a clear goal in mind. We
wanted to sell the best products and services, and keep making
money for our shareholders.
No matter how brilliant I thought my ideas were, I would be
letting down my partners and our customers if I insisted on
selling a product that our customers didn't want to buy. I
strive to bring that mindset to Congress as well.
If a policy or a change in regulation moves us toward what
my constituents sent me here to do, I'd be happy to support it.
I don't think many people in Schaumburg, Illinois, my home
town, expected that my first major legislation to be co-lead by
a Republican in rural Pennsylvania, named Representative
Thompson. But that's what we had to do because we had a shared
goal of improving career and technical education.
That is why today I'm particularly troubled by recent
administrative moves to undermine, for instance, health
protections and the coverage that millions of Americans have
come to depend on. The Department of Health and Human Services
recently decided to cut its open enrollment period in half
because it appeared to be a move that was based on ideology,
not practical circumstances.
Shutting down the website on the first day of enrollment
period and cutting down the enrollment period in half would
only serve to hurt our customers of that service, not help
them.
So, today, I hope that the testimony that we hear shows
that agencies are making decisions based on facts and not
ideology. I hope we hear the testimony that you provide today
showed that agencies are devising effective regulation, not
deregulation at any cost.
I'm very grateful to the chairman for calling this hearing
so we can further investigate the reasons behind administrative
actions and the policy goals that they serve, and provide
comment and insight on how agencies can more effectively serve
the American people.
I look forward to discussing this more with the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognize the
gentlewoman from the great state of Illinois, and my dear
friend, Ms. Kelly, for her opening remarks.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing to example the agency regulatory reform task force as
established by the current administration under Executive Order
13777, and to evaluate implementation of Executive Order 13771,
which requires agencies to propose the repeal of two
regulations in order to issue a new rule. And thank you to the
witnesses.
Since January 20, this Congress and the administration have
overturned, delayed, or repealed dozen of regulations that were
issued during the Obama administration. Under this
administration, employees have fewer requirements to protect
their employees from exposure to toxic chemicals, airlines can
be more opaque regarding baggage fees, and people with mental
disabilities can more readily purchase guns. Important rules to
ensure clean air and water are being rolled back.
All of this is being done under the guise of cost savings,
but I fear that it is being done without considering the impact
on all Americans. To get an overview of how Executive Order
13777 and 13771 are being implemented, and what direction the
White House or the Office of Management and Budget has given to
agencies to execute these two executive orders, the committee
should hear from Director Mulvaney, a former member of this
committee, and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Administrator Neomi Rao.
It is critical that we understand that overarching
strategies to this administrations's regulatory agenda,
considering the aggressive steps this administration has taken
to repeal, or otherwise halt rules that were carefully crafted
under the previous administration. The administration's
regulatory task forces were established ostensibly to identify
costly and necessary regulations that can be repealed. The
administration has not provided Congress with membership lists
for the task forces, and we are forced to glean what
information we can from public reporting.
These task forces appear to be filled with industry
lobbyists acting on behalf of special interests, and agencies
are moving to repeal regulations that benefit industry with
little regard to health and safety of the public. It is also
unclear with whom these task forces are meeting. Whether they
are balancing the interests of industry with those of consumers
and other parties, and which rules these task forces have
recommended for repeal.
We do not know which, if any, rules have been repealed that
is a suggestion of the task forces. The opaqueness of these
task forces from their members to their actions is of great
concern. Further, Congress has no way of knowing to what extent
members of the task forces are subject to conflicts of interest
laws and executive orders, if at all. And if any ethics waivers
have been issued to the these members.
I'm not taking a second look--I am not against taking--
excuse me--a second look at the regulations. There may be some
that need to be repealed and some that need to be strengthened.
However, any regulatory action undertaken by agencies must be
done in a transparent manner with public input from all
stakeholders, not just those who would benefit from a
regulatory repeal. Congress must be assured agencies are not
repealing existing regulations at a cost of the health and
well-being of Americans.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and
thank the chairman, again, for holding this important oversight
hearing.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. Again, as we back and
forth, we ask that, members, if you will just be very cognizant
of the clock. And I'll be gentle on my gavel, but I want to
make sure that we get everybody in to ask questions.
So the chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Mitchell for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And there you go, any
hope of a bipartisan committee meeting just went by the
wayside. Let me ask you for a brief response, if I can. Do any
of you believe that the executive orders has in some way
hindered your ability to effectively protect the American
people?
Mr. Brizzi. No, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Dr. Owens?
Mr. Owens. No, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Ms. Chung?
Ms. Chung. No, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. So, to be clear, you don't believe the
executive order to clean up outdated, duplicative regulations
that somehow put the American people at massive risk of some
form? We're good on that point right? At this point?
The task forces are required to review regulations on a
variety of broad categories, including eliminate jobs--or job
creation, to look at the cost benefit analysis, deal with
duplicative regulations. Have your agencies created additional
criteria by which you look at what regulations you're going to
consider? How else are you analyzing those?
Mr. Owens. We have not created new additional
considerations. We continue to look at the traditional cost
benefit analysis in determining which rules to move forward
with and which rules not to move forward with.
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Brizzi.
Mr. Brizzi. Sir, we have not changed the criteria, though
we have added new criteria for which we look at, not just on
regulations, we are doing a much more comprehensive review to
include internal policies and practices. We want to make sure
that we can target things that have a high impact with relative
ease in implementation. So there are a number of factors that
we look at.
Mr. Mitchell. You refer to high impact, Mr. Brizzi,
define--give a definition of high impact, please.
Mr. Brizzi. Yes, sir. Those items that could have a large
influence on the, either constituents, whether it's small
businesses or large businesses doing business with the
Government, making their life easier in terms of doing business
with us, or it could be internal management regulations that
have an impact on Federal employees who abide by those.
Mr. Mitchell. Ms. Chung.
Ms. Chung. We have also not changed our criteria. We've
looked at all of our regulations under the existing cost
benefit analysis that is required for all regulatory actions.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. One of the concerns that has
arisen from some of the comments already today is that somehow
the review of these regulations has been turned over to
political ideologs. I'd ask each of you, maybe starting with
Ms. Chung, have career staff been directly engaged in this
process, and how extensively, please?
Ms. Chung. Our task--the DOD task force is primarily
composed of career staff. I'm a career official. And we're
primarily, a majority, are composed of career officials.
Mr. Mitchell. Let me ask you, Ms. Chung, in selecting
people for the task force, was there some political ideology to
determine who would be selected in your Department?
Ms. Chung. No, sir. We decided to take a comprehensive
approach to look at all of our regulations, so we decided to,
naturally, look to appointing people on the task force that had
the most regulations.
Mr. Mitchell. I would hope----
Ms. Chung. That we have members from the three departments,
members from the Under Secretary that have the most
regulations, and general counsel, of course. We have a working
level group as well that--composed of subject matter experts
that review the regulations before they go to the task force.
So that's how we've conducted our processes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Brizzi.
Mr. Brizzi. Yes, sir. The committee or the regulatory
reform task force that GSA is comprised of five members, three
of which are career employees, two are political. But most of
the work and review is being conducted by working groups
comprised of career individuals or subject matter experts in
that particular field or regulation that they are reviewing.
Mr. Mitchell. And Dr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Our task force includes both career and
noncareer officials. Our working group consists of senior
career experts, including the assistant general counsel for
regulations, the executive director for policy, and the career
deputy general counsel. And then we work very closely with
career experts in the different operating administrations as
part of the general review process going forward.
Mr. Mitchell. Dr. Owens, in terms of your task force, you
didn't give me much of a breakdown in terms of career folks
versus political appointees. Can you give me an estimate what
that is?
Mr. Owens. So on the working group we have four noncareer
appointees and three career appointees. We additionally have a
leadership group that is comprised of the regulatory reform
officer and other senior political leadership, but that is more
of a review body that receives recommendations from the working
group, and ultimately from career staff.
Mr. Mitchell. So it's an accurate description, in your
opinion, that much of the review of these regulations is driven
by long term career staff, they are subject matter experts and
know this better than a whole lot of us political folks?
Mr. Owens. Absolutely. We could not do our jobs without
their career experts and their professional assistance.
Mr. Mitchell. Ms. Chung?
Ms. Chung. Yes, absolutely. I would support that statement.
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Brizzi?
Mr. Brizzi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned
that agencies are rolling back regulation documents, not
necessarily based on evidence, but based on a political
agenda--well without full information.
Just last week the Department of Education announced it was
repealing 72 guidance documents related to special education.
These documents do everything from informing States on what
processes they are to follow to receive grant funding, to
ensuring that students with disabilities are included in all
educational activities.
Some of these guidance documents have been on the books as
far back as 1980. While the Department of Education put out a
general request for comment on its regulatory reform plans,
disability advocates had no opportunity to comment on the
repeal of these same guidance documents. The Department,
unfortunately, didn't have all the facts from everyone
affected. I would like to ask each of our witnesses here today
a similar question.
Ms. Chung, is the Department of Defense repealing or
considering the repeal of any guidance documents, and if so,
are you going to issue a notice for comment in the Federal
Register to allow all interested parties to comment if you are
planning to repeal any guidance documents?
Ms. Chung. Sir, while reviewing internal guidance documents
is not a part of this, DOD's regulatory task force purview. The
Department is considering those, and I'm happy to take that
back for the record and provide you additional information on
the process.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes, thank you, Ms. Chung. Mr. Brizzi,
is the GSA repealing or considering the repeal of any guidance
documents?
Mr. Brizzi. I'm not aware of any repeal of guidance
documents, though, anything that were to come to consideration
before the task force would be considered, discussed. And we
would engage with stakeholders, whether it's other Federal
agencies, or industry groups as to the perspective or impact
they may have on those individuals.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So you would issue a notice for comment
in the Federal Register to allow all interested parties to
comment if you intend to repeal any guidance documents?
Mr. Brizzi. It would either be through a Federal Register
notice or some other means, whether it's industry day or some
type of a public engagement with those individuals. I'm not
sure whether it would be a Federal Register notice, but some
type of engagement.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Dr. Owens, similar questions. Is the
Department of Transportation repealing or considering the
repeal of any guidance documents, sir?
Mr. Owens. We're at the very beginning of our review of
guidance documents. We want to be sure that all guidance
documents that have been issued by the Department or will be
issued in the future, are in compliance with statute, including
the Administrative Procedure Act. We want to make sure that
we're not creating new law through guidance documents.
We also are undertaking a review of our guidance documents,
and where we determine that the guidance document may stray
beyond the legislative requirements, we will put that out for
notice and comment. We're also ensuring that significant
guidance going forward will be put out for notice and comment
before the--before it would come into effect.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it. So if you do intend to repeal
any of the guidance documents, you will put it out for notice
and comment in the Federal Register?
Mr. Owens. That would be my expectation, in most instances.
There are obviously minor guidance documents, such as changes
of forms and the like, that would not rise to the level of
going up for notice and comment. But certainly anything that is
significant, we would expect to seek public input.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I would like to--thank you. I would
like to ensure that if there is a repeal of any guidance
documents that you do put it out for notice and comment because
that is so important for stakeholders to have a say in your
intended action. I have another similar question.
Ms. Chung, what is the Department of Defense doing to
ensure the public has an opportunity to comment on changes to
regulations undertaken by your regulatory reform task force?
Ms. Chung. Sir, the Department has published notices for
comment for all of the reviews that the task force is
conducting. We have received--and the published notices for
comments for the subgroups with regulations that we're
reviewing. For two of our subgroups we have received many
comments, for example, in the regulations for the Army Corps of
Engineers, we have already received over 1,000 comments, and
we're currently reviewing all those comments for consideration.
In addition, we have published--we've updated our website
on our regulatory reform website, which includes a frequently
asked questions section. We have our most recent reports to the
Secretary published. We have our membership lists. We have our
various documents explaining our process and our terms of
references on that website.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it. Mr. Brizzi, can you answer the
same questions, and then Dr. Owens.
Mr. Brizzi. Yes. We have published Federal Register notices
seeking comments on our four regulations. We have received a
number of those comments and are going through the review
process. Should it result in any type of change to a particular
regulation, we would go through the regulatory process and do a
Federal Register notice for public comment.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it. Finally, Dr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. So over the summer we published a Federal
Register notice soliciting public comment on infrastructure
improvement. We received over 1,000 ideas pursuant to that
solicitation. A couple of weeks ago we put out another Federal
Register notice soliciting public comment on regulatory reform,
generally. And we are looking forward to receiving those
comments.
In addition, any substantive action the Department takes on
rulemaking will go out for notice and comment pursuant to the
APA.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Hice, 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to
our panel for being here and each of you for your leadership
with these executive orders.
I can only imagine in receiving an executive order and
beginning to implement that, you're going to have some people
within the agencies rather excited to update some regulations
and probably some not so excited about it. So just kind of
overall, have you received any push-back from career staff at
your various agencies?
Ms. Chung. We have not at DOD. I think what has resonated
very nicely with the DOD workforce is explaining why these
regulatory reform efforts should be undertaken. And so going
back to the regulatory principles and the philosophy has really
resonated with the workforce. So we have not received any push-
back.
Mr. Brizzi. GSA, we have not received any push-back from
either career or anybody else we have engaged with. In fact, if
anything, they see this as an opportunity not to only review
the regulations that we have, but more importantly, looking at
all of our day-to-day activities, our guidance documents, and
that's what they're really excited about. Those are the things
that impact them on a day-to-day basis and an ability to voice
their opinions and possibly achieve change and making their
lives better.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
Mr. Owens. At DOT we have been impressed by our career
staff, they have been extremely supportive of our efforts. It's
not only our efforts, it's their efforts as well. And without
their support, without their expert guidance, we would not be
able to move forward with this process
Mr. Hice. Well, I am impressed with it as well, with each
of your answers there. That's pretty fascinating. So with
regulations--with being duplicative or burdensome or whatever
it may be, you're receiving no push-back. Why? In one or two
sentences, why is it that your agencies are excited to proceed
with doing away with these?
We'll just go down the line again. Ms. Chung.
Ms. Chung. I'll be honest. I think it's very satisfying at
the Department to unify certain policies and requirements under
one regulation. And it's--I think the workforce is satisfied in
that unity that this brings.
Mr. Brizzi. At GSA, on the onset, we took a lot of time to
consider the process of which we would go through the
regulatory review. And we approached it in a manner that
allowed input from not only the employees that are dealing with
it day-to-day, but also engaging other agencies, which had
never been done before. And that's what has the employees
excited, they're not just looking at it from their own input
but from the stakeholder perspective as well. Again, that's
what has them excited.
Mr. Owens. At Transportation our career experts have a long
tradition, a long culture of pursuing cost benefit analysis, of
seeking a data-driven process to improve all of our regs, to
improve safety. And so as we have been working with them and
they understand that we are working through and following sound
science in all of our analysis, we have extreme support from
them.
Mr. Hice. Well, thank you. And I appreciate--you know, it's
the stakeholders out there that are living under these
regulations, and it's encouraging to me to have some government
agencies excited about helping people who are just suffocating
under so much regulatory burdens. So let's just continue that--
you guys are doing great with this, let's continue. As far as
the transparency to the public, are your changes online or are
there plans to put them online for the public to see?
Ms. Chung. Yes, sir. Our regulatory reform efforts are on
our website--our regulatory reform website. And our
recommendations to the Secretary, our reports are on the
website. Our process of how we conduct our reviews are on the
website.
Mr. Brizzi. From a transparency perspective, the Federal
Register notices, the comments that we received are public and
available. Additionally, the transparency that we have
undertaken is working with the agencies. Those agencies are
impacted by our internal management regulations, and so they
are part of the process. They're seeing the recommendations,
they're going through them and they're doing the analysis with
us, and then putting forward recommendations for change.
Mr. Hice. What about the general public?
Mr. Brizzi. We're also engaging stakeholders, such as small
businesses and large businesses, those who do business with the
Government, such as reverse industry day where they came in,
walked us through what they're doing when we're going through
the acquisition process. And that input was extremely valuable,
and us looking at what we're doing, how we could possibly shape
it to improve it for them.
Mr. Hice. All right. Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. We value transparency at Transportation. We have
published our task force reports on the Internet. We also
publish a monthly Internet report of all of our rulemakings and
where they stand. We also have continual outreach to external
stakeholders and to the public. We want to solicit all good
ideas and we want to make sure the public is engaged in our
process.
Mr. Hice. Well, again, thank you very much for what you're
doing. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned that the
Executive Order 13771, which requires the repeal of two rules
for every one rule issued, will impair the health, safety, and
welfare of the American public. The executive order does not
apply to, and I quote, ``regulations issued with respect to a
military function.''
Ms. Chung, why was this provision added to the executive
order?
Ms. Chung. I believe that that is an exception as well in
the Administrative Procedure Act, and so the executive order
was following that line of rationale.
Ms. Kelly. But you don't know the rationale?
Ms. Chung. It's an exemption under the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Ms. Kelly. It seemed that the President did not want to
impose heavy deregulatory burdens on the military. Ms. Chung,
is all of the Department of Defense exempted from Executive
Order 13771, or some--or are some things does--affected by the
order?
Ms. Chung. No, the entire Department of Defense's
activities is not exempted from the executive order. We are--
the regulations that we're reviewing, all of the 716 are
reviewed under the criteria for 13771. And we work with the
Office of Management and Budget in identifying significant
rules under that order.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Did the Department of Defense advise the
President not to apply the executive order to military
regulations?
Ms. Chung. To my knowledge, no.
Ms. Kelly. Had Executive Order 13771 been applied to
military regulations, what impact would that have had had they
been applied?
Ms. Chung. So currently when we look at the rules under
13771, there could be an exemption that applies to the
regulation as being exempt as a military function. So some of
those rules could meet that exemption. As a whole, all of the
regulations that we're reviewing, they do not wholly meet that
exemption. So we are working with OMB to determine which rules
would meet that exemption or which would not.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. It seems to me that Executive Order 13771
could have had a serious impact on our military, and similarly,
could be having a serious impact on regulations which keeps the
average American safe.
Mr. Owens, do you think that Executive Order 13771 is
having or will have an impact on safety regulations the
Department of Transportation is issuing?
Mr. Owens. No, ma'am. Safety is our number one priority,
and our intention is to--in identifying unnecessary regulatory
burdens, we are looking to remove those burdens without
compromising safety.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Do you think there would be more
safety regulations issued by DOT if the executive order did not
apply to the Department, and just how does--just as how it does
not apply to the military?
Mr. Owens. I do not think that there would be more safety
regulations in the absence of the executive order. Again, we
take safety extremely seriously. We apply a cost benefit
analysis to everything we do, which the Department has always
done. And any time that the safety benefits or the overall
benefits to society exceed the costs, that is a rulemaking we
want to engage in.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you. And I'm glad to hear that
safety is number one, because I have concerns that Executive
Order 13771 is putting Americans in harm's way, and should be
repealed immediately. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the president of--the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, which is not on either of
the subcommittees, but I ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to fully participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The chair recognizes Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
questions, and some of it is follow-up. But in a broader sense
of considering some of the reports that have been issued
showing that regulations cost our economy approximately $1.9
trillion a year. Some of the feedback I've gotten from private
sectors that they're dealing with obsolete regulations, they're
dealing with duplications, and in some cases, contradictions.
Ms. Chung, is there an effort to take a broader look at the
regulations to eliminate the obsolete, you know, what I guess
you could call the low hanging fruit?
Ms. Chung. Yes, sir. That was the approach that we took at
the outset is to schedule our reviews by topics in order to
review regulations that are of similar requirements to identify
rules that we could consolidate and that we could eliminate, if
they were outdated. So that was certainly one of the first ways
that we were looking at the regulations.
Mr. Palmer. What I found in talking with people is that
business is not necessarily adverse to regulations. What they
find problematic is the lack of clarity in some cases. Again,
I've been told that they're getting contradictory answers. They
could call one regulator one week and get an answer and, you
know, a few weeks later call the same agency, different
regulator and get a different answer. Is that part of the
process that we want to bring clarity to our regulations?
Ms. Chung. Yes, sir. Certainly that is within what we want
to do. One of the goals that we want to achieve in the
Department is to unify the requirements within our components,
and that's--for example, we have been looking at components
that have different regulations on the same topic, and
consolidating those requirements into one rule so that there is
one governing rule, and the public understands what that rule
and requirement is. So certainly that is the effort.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Brizzi, if we just kind of simplify this.
The objective here is not just about saving the economy money,
it's bringing predictability, it's sensible regulation. Would
that be a fair way of describing what we're trying to do?
Mr. Brizzi. Yes, sir. GSA is supporting other internal--or
other agencies across the Government. We don't like to think of
it in terms of deregulatory or making new regulations, it's
about getting the right regulations in place and protecting the
taxpayer in terms of funds, making sure that we protect
employees across the Federal Government by understanding what
it is and how they need to adhere to laws and guiding
principles from the administrations. So it's about getting the
right regulations.
Mr. Palmer. Well, the reason I keep pounding on this, Mr.
Chairman, is that we're talking about saving the taxpayers
money, but really what we're talking about are consumers
because regulatory costs, some people call it a hidden tax.
It's not a hidden tax, I mean, at least a tax might go to build
a bridge or a road or fund a school. It's just a hidden cost.
And, again, the reports indicated that the average household is
spending about $15,000 per year in regulatory costs that's
added to their burden, and that's particularly a problem for
low income families.
So when we talk about regulatory reform, that's one of the
things that I think we want to do. We want to make sure that we
have the right regulations, that these are clearly written so
that we reduce the amount of burden that's passed on to
families. That's a primary goal of mine while I'm in Congress
is to try to bring, to our regulatory regime, clarity, and to
reduce the burden on families, because I just think it's a
great idea to, you know, as far as the burden on taxpayers. But
it's really just an overall cost of living issue that--when we
have regulations on top of regulations, you lack clarity. Some
of them are obsolete, Ms. Chung, that is just an unnecessary
cost.
And I hope that as we continue to do this that we're not
compromising public safety, I don't think we are. I think what
we're doing is we're trying to remove a tremendous burden on
families.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate
in this hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognize the
gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department of
Transportation is tasked with keeping Americans safe on the
road and the skies, however, I am concerned that the executive
order will inhibit the permits ability to do that.
A 2012 highway transportation bill required the Department
to write a rule about rear seatbelt reminders. This rule would
alert drivers of individuals in the back seat, such as
children, are not buckled up. This rule has been delayed and
not yet implemented. It was supposed to be finalized in 2015
and it still has not been.
To put some reality to my concern, in 2016 over 200
children in Michigan--in Michigan alone--died in car crashes.
Over 140 of those children were under the age of 10. This
seatbelt rule could have saved some of their lives.
Mr. Owens, would it be possible for the Department to
finalize this rule, given the regulatory budgeting requirement
in Executive Order 13771?
Mr. Owens. We are, at DOT, we are committed to completing
all rulemakings mandated by Congress, and so we will move
forward with every single rulemaking. In terms of a cost
analysis--in terms of the cost analysis for the two for one in
the executive order, that's a different matter that we are
focused first and foremost on ensuring that we have our
rulemakings done.
We will, of course, endeavor to do so in the most cost
beneficial manner possible so that we can maximize the benefits
of society and minimize the costs. But I can assure you that
anything that is a mandatory rulemaking, something that
Congress has required us to do, we will move forward on.
Mrs. Lawrence. Where are you with the rear seat regulation?
Where are you?
Mr. Owens. I don't have that information in front of me,
but we can get back to you on that.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, Mr. Owens, when the Department of
Transportation task force is undertaking a review of
regulations, is it looking at ways to improve public safety or
is it just looking at reducing the regulatory burdens? And my
concern is that, in your quest, and you've outlined eloquently,
all three of you. How all hands are on deck, and this is a full
Department engagement, but yet still we have a mandate from
Congress that has not been fulfilled.
So please tell me, is it one or the other, or what is
happening here to improving safety or reducing the regulatory
business? And when you answer this, please be honest, because
my concern when so many of the people from the departments
come, you'll say what you think will be nice to hear. If you
don't have the manpower, because I'm concerned, 2015, and we
still haven't achieved it, and lives are being lost as a result
of rear seats not being mandated for children and others, but
yet still you sit here so eloquently and talk about how engaged
you are in the regulatory reform.
So please answer that question for me.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. We are committed to safety, as our
Secretary has said on many occasions, safety is our number one
priority at the Department of the Transportation. We are
committed to moving forward with all safety rules, rules that
are going to create significant benefits for society.
We are----
Mrs. Lawrence. But you have not fulfilled the requirement
that I'm speaking of?
Mr. Owens. I can't speak to what occurred in the prior
administration, but I can tell you that right now, we are
looking at every one of the rules that has been mandated by
Congress, and we want to move forward with them, and we're
conducting the analysis necessary to ensure that we can do so
in the best possible way.
Mrs. Lawrence. That's not really answering, Mr. Owens.
Answer that question. When you're all engaged with the
regulatory burdens, reducing them, and improving safety, are
those two different lanes? Are they combined, so you do one or
the other? And do you have the manpower--I'm asking that
again--to fulfill this? Because I don't want this rule to
continue to sit, and you're very excited about looking at
regulatory business, which if you protect the employees,
updating regulations, creating efficiency and reducing costs,
I'm all for that. But I am extremely concerned about safety
issues, and you not complying in a timely manner.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. There is no conflict between the EO
and safety. We are able to pursue both. And I can't speak to
our manpower resources, but I can say that we do have resources
to move forward. I certainly share your understanding that
rulemaking can take, under the APA, can take a very long time.
But I can assure you that we're moving forward with all of our
mandatory rulemakings with all the energy we can.
Mrs. Lawrence. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that while
we're looking at reducing costs and creating effectiveness,
effectiveness means timely response to safety concerns and
clearly mandates that you've already received from Congress.
Saying it's a long time is not acceptable to me, so that should
be one of your top priorities, because it does impact safety.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Blum. Thank you, Chairman Meadows. Thank you to our
panelists for being here today. I appreciate it very much. I am
a small businessman from the private sector for the last 30
years of my life, so the private sector feels the brunt of
overregulation. And that's why these two executive orders from
the President are exciting to me, and, I know, very, very well-
received in the private sector.
I have a kind of a philosophical question, I guess, for
each of you. Why does it take an executive order for our
agencies to take a regulation, even one, off the books?
You know, Ronald Reagan often said, ``The closest thing we
have to eternal life on this planet is a government program or
a government regulation.'' Why does it take an executive order?
Ms. Chung. You know, at the Department of Defense, we did
take on an initiative to conduct a regulatory reform effort
prior to these executive orders under the prior executive
orders.
However, I think that the executive orders do provide--
strengthen agency leadership support and formalizes the process
that may not exist. So I think it just strengthens leadership
engagement.
Mr. Blum. What does that mean, in layman's terms----
Ms. Chung. So----
Mr. Blum. --that a small business person in eastern Iowa
can understand?
Ms. Chung. While we were----
Mr. Blum. And I'm being respectful. But I'm not sure what
you just said.
Ms. Chung. Okay. So we were conducting a regulatory reform
initiative looking at our business process on a regulatory
program, quite honestly, a few years ago, kind of looking----
Mr. Blum. As a result of an executive order?
Ms. Chung. As a result of existing requirements, executive
orders and law.
When these executive orders were issued, it really
strengthened the agency leadership and galvanized the workforce
and formalized the reform effort into a task force.
So, I think philosophical----
Mr. Blum. So it takes an executive order to strengthen the
agency's leadership? I would say that isn't leadership. If it
takes somebody in the Oval Office to say, ``you shall do
this,'' that's not leadership. That's just following orders.
That's being a good foot soldier, correct?
You see, people in the real world don't understand this;
why it takes executive orders, why it takes the President of
the United States to say ``take a regulation off the books.''
Is there no incentive to do it?
Ms. Chung. I mean, we were looking at our regulations to
see if they were unnecessary and outdated.
Mr. Blum. Looking is fine, but----
Ms. Chung. And reviewing them and putting them into
process. But, yes, sir, you know, it does, sometimes executive
orders do strengthen the leadership and commitment to it.
Mr. Blum. Sir?
Mr. Brizzi. For GSA, we have always been looking at our
regulations and looking for improvements and ways we can make
them better, stronger, easier. So we have conducted reviews.
And, in fact, a lot of various regulations have been updated
because of those internal reviews.
I would say particularly with this executive order, it did
bring a new level of enthusiasm, if you will, and prioritized,
brought it up to the forefront in terms of reviewing the
regulations. But I would also add that we kind of approached it
in a different manner in that we just didn't look at our
regulations, but also seized upon the opportunity to look at
our internal procedures, policies, and ways that we can change
and make it easier.
Mr. Blum. Is there awareness within government of what
these--we all want clean air, clean water, all these types of
things. But is there an awareness within an agency of what this
does to people out there trying to make a living? Trying to
meet their payroll? Trying to provide for their families? Is
there an awareness of it? Just be honest.
Mr. Brizzi. For GSA, I believe that there is an awareness.
We do interact with industry a lot. They do come in and
speak to us with regards to our regulations and how it does
impact them. As also, any time we do make any updates to any
regulations, past or present and future, we do announce them on
the Federal Register. We do get public feedback and engage. So
there is awareness.
We don't always necessarily act on it, because we have to
weigh different factors. But we do engage and get that input
from----
Mr. Blum. I'm glad to hear you engage. That's good. Dr.
Owens.
Mr. Owens. I think the Department of Transportation it's
fair to say, has had a long history of applying what's called
retrospective regulatory reviews, and has long tried to clean
up its regulatory structure.
I can say that with the new administration, with those of
us who joined in January and later, whether or not an executive
order had been in place, we would have been making moves to
improve and reform our regulatory state, including removing
unnecessary regulations where possible.
Mr. Blum. Without the executive order?
Mr. Owens. Yes, without the executive order----
Mr. Blum. This process was already moving?
Mr. Owens. Well, the executive order came very early in the
administration, so those of us who joined at that time, we
didn't have a lot of time to get the institution up and
running. But I think it's fair to say that whether or not the
executive order had been issued, we at DOT would have been
pushing forward with an effort to ensure that we're removing
unnecessary regulations.
Mr. Blum. Based on history and based on the past, most
folks would not believe, out there in the real world, would not
believe what you just said. Because we don't see it in the
private sector. We don't see that at all. So I'm glad that your
agency is having the private sector coming and you're listening
to them in the GSA, and I would encourage all agencies to
listen to the folks that pay our salaries.
I yield back the time I don't have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I would
like to ask Mr. Brizzi, the procurement policies that you've
put out saying that the GSA is reviewing its procurement
policies for outdated regulations. And as I understand it now,
you've put out a product you need, or say what you need, and
you have competitive bidding coming in, and then you make a
decision of what is the lowest qualified bidder. But you're
going to change this, the proposal that was in the 2018
National Defense Authorization, Section 801, would require GSA
to establish online marketplaces for the procurement of
commercial goods. And I don't quite understand what you mean.
What do you mean by that? In other words, you're going to--you
tell me. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Brizzi. I personally cannot speak to that particular
legislation or what it's trying to achieve. I certainly can
look into it. But I would say, certainly we want to engage
industry, and we do want to get competitive bids and make sure
that when we procure something from the public, that we take
into consideration taxpayer money and get the best value
possible for the government.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, in the online marketplace provision, it
says that any procurement of a commercial product through the
marketplace, and I'm quoting here, ``shall be made under the
standard terms and conditions of the marketplace, and the
administrator shall not require an online marketplace to modify
its standard terms and conditions.''
So, for instance, suppliers are required to have a unique
identifying number, and to agree to certain conditions
regarding payment and timing.
So does the GSA propose to reconcile these existing
requirements with the language of the proposal that would
prohibit modification of the online marketplace's terms and
conditions?
Mr. Brizzi. Again, I can't speak to that particular
provision or the legislation that's being proposed. But once,
if enacted, we will certainly update and look at our
regulations to make sure those are compliant with any
legislation that is passed.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I'd like someone from your office to
come over and explain this new National Defense Authorization
rule, because the procurement for the Defense Department is
absolutely huge. And personally, I like the open bidding
practice that says what they need and lets the marketplace
respond to them. And this appears to mean that they're going to
allow them to purchase online, is how I'm reading it, I could
be wrong--instead of going through the competitive bid process.
And I don't know if I think that's a good idea.
If an online product wants to respond to an RFP, or product
request from the government or from the Defense Department,
then they can do so. Why in the world do we have to change the
online ordering programs and say that they can't modify the
terms and conditions? I really would like a clarification on
it.
Mr. Brizzi. Yes, ma'am. We'd be happy to provide that.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. And can anyone else comment on the
rule? Are you familiar with it, Ms. Chung or Mr. Owens? No?
Ms. Chung. I'm not.
Mr. Meadows. If the gentlewoman would yield, actually we
had a hearing on that, we'll be glad to get your staff a whole
lot of information on that particular issue.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, then maybe you can answer my question.
Mr. Meadows. I can, but I don't want to take up your time,
but you go ahead. I'll yield back.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. And I'm concerned about the President's
executive orders, what they may have on transportation safety.
And a few years ago, the National Traffic Highway Safety
Administration requested input on updates to the New Car
Assessment Program. And this program has been an innovative way
to spur improvement and upgrades in the auto industry.
Mr. Owens, what is the status of upgrading the NCAP to
incorporate new technology to save lives? Every day I read
about new ways to save lives.
Mr. Owens. So we are certainly committed to vehicle safety,
and we are very excited by the new technologies that are coming
into being in the automotive industry.
We are evaluating the NCAP program, and we want to ensure
that when we update it, it will be updated in the best possible
way.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, is the executive order having any type
of impact on the upgrading of the NCAP program?
Mr. Owens. No, it does not. The NCAP program is not a
regulation in any event, but it would not have an impact on
whether and what kinds of upgrades we would do to this. This is
a voluntary program that industry engages in, that industry
supports very much, and we want to ensure that consumers have
the best possible information available to them.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. The chair recognizes
himself for a series of questions.
So Ms. Chung, let me come to you. Mr. Blum from Iowa, I
guess, was hitting in on some of the, ``why are you doing it
now because of an executive order.''
Would you suggest that the executive order has given more
focus to actually reducing some of the regulations, even though
it's been part of your ongoing effort? Because of the executive
order, do you think there's more of a focus within your agency
on reducing regulations?
Ms. Chung. Yes, sir, I do. I think it has focused our
efforts to formalize and institutionalize the process.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so, Dr. Owens, let me come to
you, because obviously at DOT, there was a whole lot made of
safety. Is there ever a time where safety is sacrificed as
you're reviewing what regulations to get rid of?
Mr. Owens. Absolutely not. Safety is our number one
priority and as we analyze every possible rulemaking. We are
looking to maximize safety benefits and other benefits and
minimize the costs.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Dr. Owens, can you make the case that
when have you some of these regulations and guidances that are
out there that seem to just clog up the works, that the more
streamlined you make it, the more you can focus on safety?
Mr. Owens. I think that's a fair assessment. I think we are
looking to remove costs that are unrelated to safety so that
industry and the government can focus more on the safety
issues.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Brizzi, let me come to you, because
as we look at what GSA is doing and actually trying to
streamline the whole regulatory side of things, what would you
say has been the biggest impediment to actually getting that
done?
Mr. Brizzi. I wouldn't say there's been any impediments,
it's just a matter of rallying more troops and----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, some on my side would suggest the
deep state, or actually staff, but what I'm hearing is actually
it's been career staff that has been helping all of you make
these kinds of recommendations and changes. Is that correct,
Mr. Brizzi?
Mr. Brizzi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. So what we're saying is that the Federal
workforce, who has been here for a long time, is actually
participating in this, making constructive recommendations on
what we can get rid of from a regulatory point of view. Is that
correct?
Mr. Brizzi. Absolutely, sir, yes.
Mr. Meadows. And, Ms. Chung, are you finding the same
thing?
Ms. Chung. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Dr. Owens, are you finding the same thing?
Mr. Owens. That is correct. In one sense, aside from
industry and other stakeholders, our career staff are the
closest to many of these regs, and many of them understand what
is obsolete, what is outdated, what needs to be changed.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me make sure that I send a very
clear message to your agencies.
One, thank you for the job that you're doing. And today
you're getting the applause, and not only of members of
Congress, but certainly, the American people, who say that
regulation after regulation, many times all it does is puts one
regulation on top of another that makes it so laborious that
they can't figure out what they should abide by and what they
shouldn't.
But I also want to thank your agencies, those career
Federal employees, who many times get beat up by Members of
Congress. And I just want to say, would you share with each one
of them that we appreciate the fact that they are taking, not
only this seriously, but that as they embark on that that
they're making a real difference.
Saving millions of dollars, Ms. Chung, one of those, I
think you said they had already saved $10 million. Is that
correct? So, eventually, that adds up to real money, right?
Ms. Chung. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So will all three of you take that
back?
Mr. Brizzi. Happy to forward that message back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Mr. Owens. Delighted to do so.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Ms. Chung. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me also, in just the one
minute that I have remaining here, in executive order, Mr. Blum
is right, you know, why would an executive order be required?
Sometimes, I have found that there is not an incentive or
an encouragement for those who look at things the way that
they've always been done and try to look at them in a different
manner. And it is critically important that we let them know
that that type of focus is there. I mean, there's a bill out
there that we're looking at codifying this executive order in
law.
Would any of you say that that would, if we did that, that
it would sacrifice safety or readiness?
Mr. Owens. I would not believe that that would sacrifice
safety.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Brizzi?
Mr. Brizzi. I don't believe that to be the case.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Ms. Chung?
Ms. Chung. I don't believe so.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Well, thank you, and I will close
with this: Dr. Owens, you were talking earlier about guidance
and putting it in the Federal registry, and all of that. I want
to give you a chance to clarify your statement, because I don't
know that you actually meant that, because there is not a
statutory requirement to do so. And in publishing, in fact, I
think the rules that we--because when I heard that, it kind of
hit very quickly. And I think the rules would suggest that
rules of an agency, organization, or procedure, or practice, or
interpretive rules, or general statements of policy are not
really part of the notice requirement for rulemaking.
And so, since we still have you under oath, not to put
words in your mouth, but I assume that you want to abide by the
statute, but not make a commitment to go beyond what the
statute requires. Is that correct?
Mr. Owens. Absolutely. We will comply with the statute and
abide by all rules that apply to guidance documents.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Well, thank you. All of you have
been very delightful. And at this point, the first panel is
excused.
All right. The subcommittee will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome and introduce our second panel.
Obviously, all of you were here to hear the first panel as
we went through that. We look forward to having your expertise.
I'll go ahead and introduce, and, as usual, we start out
with the most difficult name first. And so, Mr. Jitinder.
Jitin-dee or -der?
Mr. Kohli. It's phonetic. You can just literally read it
out.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Kohli--how about that? Managing
Director of Deloitte Consulting, welcome. Thank you; Ms. Diane
Katz, Senior Research Fellow in regulatory policy at the
Heritage Foundation, welcome; James Goodwin, Senior Policy
Analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, welcome; and Mr.
Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., the Vice President for Policy and
Director of Technology Studies at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, welcome.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify, so if you will please rise and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
All right. Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative. And as a reminder, just 5 minutes on your verbal
testimony, but your entire written testimony will be made part
of the record. And Mr. Kohli, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
PANEL II:
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF JITINDER KOHLI
Mr. Kohli. Thank you. So you said I work for Deloitte
Consulting, and I do, but the reason I'm here is because I
served for 4 years as the head of the British Better Regulation
Executive. And in that capacity, I led our regulatory reform
program for the United Kingdom.
So we started that journey in about 2005, and I have been
going ever since in the United Kingdom. And in the remarks
today, I really want to talk about some of the lessons from the
British experience, which also reflect experience in other
countries. So the U.K. model has been emulated, not just by the
U.K., but also by other countries in Europe, the Netherlands,
Denmark, would be some of those countries, Australia and New
Zealand, Canada would be others of those countries. And indeed,
the concept of 1-in-2-out now acknowledged by the Trump
administration is a concept that was invented in London,
indeed, in the organization that I worked for.
So with that, let's talk a little bit about the U.K.
experience. So in the period I was responsible for better
regulation, serving Prime Minister Tony Blair, and then Prime
Minister Gordon Brown, we made a commitment to reduce the
administrative burden of regulation by 25 percent. And over
that period of time, we took out $3.5 billion--billion pounds
of costs from British business.
Given that the U.K. economy is about seven times smaller
than the U.S. economy, and given the U.K. economy, the pound is
a stronger currency--less strong now than it was maybe a year
ago, or a year-and-a-half ago, but nevertheless, a stronger
currency--that gives you a sense of the savings.
So what are the lessons of that experience? We were very
much the pioneers of that, of how to do regulatory reform, and
how to do it in a sustainable and effective way.
So the first lesson I would say, is that you have to focus
on the cost of regulations, not the number. Businesses don't
care about the number of pages or the number of regulations
that are out there. They care about the actual cost that they
face. Indeed, they don't really care about the regulation
itself, what they care about is the costs imposed by the
regulation. So if they don't understand a regulatory
requirement and they end up spending more time understanding
it, that's a real cost. If, however, 1000-page regulation only
touches one business in the land and doesn't impose much cost,
that's a very minimal cost.
So very much the focus in the United Kingdom was to think
about real cost and real businesses, and only when we could
demonstrate a real cost reduction on real businesses did we
count that. So one lesson I would take away is that--and
certainly, if you look at the administration's 1-in-2-out
policy, there are obviously some risks there, if you look at
just the number of regulations.
Secondly, it is, you know, in our experience, it was
essential to focus on maintaining protections at the same time
as trying to reduce costs.
If you are unable to maintain protections, you couldn't get
the kind of consensus that you needed in order to drive
regulatory improvement. In the U.K., we called it better
regulation. We didn't call it more regulation. We didn't call
it deregulation. And that was a very intentional decision.
Our policy was to focus on how we regulated in order to
make it better for the business community whilst at the same
time maintaining protections that are essential for our
society.
As a result, we focused on simple things. Simplifying
forms, automating processes; they're the kind of things that
yield very significant savings for business, and yet are far
away from the political limelight and have a real impact.
The third lesson, I'd say, is avoid exclusions. The
regulatory reform policy can only be effective if it's broad in
its coverage.
So, for example, if you're bringing in new controls on
immigration and they require, and they require--and you're
committed to a regulatory reform policy, you have to require
offsets for those as well. And indeed, one of the members
earlier was talking about the risks of exclusions.
Of course, you might need some flexibility if the
Transportation Security Administration requires limiting liquid
going through airport security, as we all know they did, it
would have been difficult for them immediately to bring in an
offset. But actually, they did bring in offsets later of sorts.
They brought in TSA Precheck, which we know saves people time
and money, but maybe, if you had a more effective--an effective
regulatory reform policy might make that happen faster.
The fourth thing we learned is this is almost entirely
about small businesses. Small businesses are the
entrepreneurial engine of the economy, and unlike large
organizations, which have compliance departments, small
businesses' compliance department is the entrepreneur, often at
11 p.m. At night.
And so, focusing on protecting that small business and
supporting that small business to succeed is what we want to
do.
I spent a lot of time with small businesses. And the thing
I heard most of all is, We want regulation. We believe in the
outcomes that regulation is there for, but we want it to be
easier to comply, and so that's where we put our focus.
I'm aware of time. The last thing I would say is
fundamentally, this is about culture change. What we were
trying to do was change the culture of government. And, indeed,
now with new techniques such as advanced analytics, it's easier
to change the culture of government. So what we--so regulatory
reform for us was about driving sustainable culture change.
And, indeed, 12 years later, the U.K. is still on that journey.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Kohli follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you so much.
Ms. Katz, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANE KATZ
Ms. Katz. Good morning. As we examine the administration's
regulatory reform agenda, I'd like to provide some context
about the regulatory landscape that the agenda is intended to
reform. But before I even do that, it's driving me crazy, I
have to correct an apparent misunderstanding on the part of
some Members about what these executive orders can and cannot
do with respect to----
Mr. Meadows. Are you suggesting that Members are sometimes
confused, Ms. Katz?
Ms. Katz. Well, I'm not going to go there.
Mr. Meadows. Go ahead.
Ms. Katz. Under no circumstance can the task forces or
agencies summarily get rid of health and safety regulations. If
Congress, if there's a statute, statutory requirement, they're
still required to fulfill that. And if they want to change it,
they have to go through the same process by which the original
rule was created, which is a long, protracted and very, you
know, transparent process of rulemaking. Thank you.
For the past several years, I and my colleague, James
Gattuso, have tracked the number and costs of new regulation,
and compiled the data in our annual Red Tape Rising reports.
This year's report, by the way, is entitled Red Tape Receding.
During its 8 years in power, the Obama administration
issued more been 23,000 regulations, and increased cumulative
regulatory costs by more than $122 billion annually, and that's
only counting major rules, nor dozens of rules issued by
independent agencies in the tally.
The $122 billion figure was nearly double the $68 billion
imposed under the administration of President George W. Bush.
On the day President Trump took office, his administration
inherited some 1900 actions in the rulemaking pipeline. And as
the number of regulations has grown, so, too, has government
spending on administration and enforcement.
The pace of new regulations during the Obama years was
unparalleled, but regulatory expansion have been occurring for
decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
The need for reform has never been greater, and the
Heritage Foundation's 2017 index of economic freedom, documents
the urgency. For the ninth time in the past 10 years, the U.S.
has lost ground compared to other countries.
In the business freedom component of the index, which
measures the regulatory burden, the U.S., this year, registered
its lowest score ever.
The benefits of reform are numerous and well-documented,
particularly for lower income Americans who bear a
disproportionate burden from regulation, but progress is hard
to come by.
As you know, the Federal regulatory apparatus is immense,
convoluted, and lethargic, and it involves decades of
legislative, executive, and judicial edicts.
So that means no single reform will be enough to reign it
all in. A variety of systemic and strategic reforms are needed
and we should welcome any new approaches.
The most important component of any reform proposal is that
it focus our attention and agencies' attention on reform.
My written testimony details the administration's reform
efforts in its first 6 months, but I'll briefly address EO
13777 and EO 13771. And obviously, everyone here knows what
those are.
Although agencies are currently required to document that
the benefits of a new regulation exceed the cost through a
cost-benefit analysis, there's no constraint on the
accumulation of new regulatory costs.
Regulatory budgeting has the potential to inject some
badly-needed discipline and rationality into the rulemaking
process if its operational challenges can be addressed.
The 2-for-1 requirement puts some long-needed muscle behind
the multiple, but nonbinding White House directives, for
agencies to conduct retrospective review. But there's some
practical challenge that may affect these EO's utility, and I
detail responses in my written testimony.
But suffice it to say, that we're at the point in time when
we need to do something more than has been done in the past.
The administration has taken a very good step in starting.
We'll have to see over the long term what it's able to
accomplish, but there's also lots that Congress needs to do as
well. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Katz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Katz.
Mr. Goodwin, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES GOODWIN
Mr. Goodwin. Chairman Meadows, Chairman Jordan, Ranking
Member Connolly, and Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, and members
of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today on the Trump administration's ill-conceived regulatory
reform task forces, the lack of adequate transparency and
meaningful public participation, and, indeed, whether their
efforts to undermine the regulatory safeguards we all depend on
should be taking place at all.
My prepared testimony for the record makes three points:
One, regulations are essential for safeguarding the public.
Two, the Trump administration's task forces and the regulatory
review processes that they were created to carry out are
fundamentally flawed, as both a theoretical and practical
matter. The work threatens to do much more harm than good and
this experiment in regulatory reform should be abandoned.
Three, given the Trump administration is unlikely to abandon
the pillars of his assault on public safeguards, Congress must
be vigilant, and must conduct vigilant and thorough oversight
of the task forces in the work they undertake.
I conclude by offering some recommendations on what this
oversight might entail.
My oral presentation will focus on these latter two points.
Point 1, the Trump Administration's regulatory reform task
forces and the work suffer from at least 4 fundamental flaws:
One, the public harms they will create; two, their lack of a
rational policy basis; three, their continuing disregard of
fundamental norms of administrative law; and four, their
intractable implementation problems.
Today, I will focus my remarks on the task force's
disregard of fundamental norms of administrative law.
As William Funk, a leading scholar on the subject, has
noted, transparency and public accountability are two of the
essential hallmarks of U.S. administrative law. Fidelity to
these principles is essential to ensuring that agencies are
dutifully fulfilling the missions that Congress has set out for
them in their authorization statutes. Transparency assists
Congress in performing its oversight activities more
effectively, while public participation serves as a mechanism
for connecting the abstract goals that Congress has articulated
in statues to the practical realities of the world in which
implementing regulations will give life to those goals.
Therefore, Congress, in particular, has an especially
strong interest in ensuring that regulatory actors comport with
the principles of transparency and public participation. And
Congress, in particular, should be outraged when regulatory
actors defy those principles.
To this point, the operation of the Trump administration's
regulatory reform task forces has been marked by a distinct
lack of transparency and balanced public administration,
rendering them susceptible to abuse by narrow interests.
With regard to transparency, Executive Order 13777 imposes
no real mandates on agency task forces to operate in an open
manner that will allow for meaningful public accountability or
congressional oversight. The order does not mandate that
agencies disclose the identity of their task force members, the
task forces are not subject to any open meeting requirements,
the task forces never need to explain the basis for the
recommendations. Indeed, these recommendations never need to be
disclosed at all.
With regard to public participation, individual agency task
forces have taken wildly divergent approaches to seeking public
input, suggesting that this process is, at best, a low
priority, and, at worst, window dressing.
When agencies did solicit public input, it was debatable
whether these opportunities truly offered members of the public
a credible avenue for impacting the task force's
recommendations. The deadlines for submitting comments are
often too short, and these deadlines often fell right before,
or even after agency task forces were required to submit their
initial reports of recommendations.
Point 2, going forward, Congress will have an important
role to play in supervising the regulatory reform task forces.
I outlined some steps that they should take as part of this.
The first step this and other committees should take is to
make full use of their oversight and information-gathering
authorities. The second step Congress should take is to monitor
the deregulatory actions the Trump administration is carrying
out to ensure that they are complying with applicable
procedural safeguards.
My prepared testimony outlines several criteria that
Congress may wish to use to inform these monitoring efforts.
As a third step, this and other relevant committees should
commit to taking appropriate and effective responses whenever
they identify potential instances of agencies failing to abide
by their administrative law responsibilities.
As a fourth and final step, this committee may wish to
investigate on an ongoing basis, other matters of critical
importance that are relevant to the work of the Trump
administration's task forces, such as the degree to wish the
work comports with basic administrative law principles, such as
transparency and balanced public participation.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you
might have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Goodwin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Goodwin.
Mr. Crews you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CLYDE WAYNE CREWS
Mr. Crews. Good morning. I'm Wayne Crews, Vice President
for Policy----
Mr. Meadows. You can pull the mike a little bit closer, if
it's on there.
Mr. Crews. Vice President for Policy at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute. And I thank the chairman and the members
for the invitation to address regulatory reform task forces, 2-
for-1 rule pacing and cost management.
These steps reaffirm sound regulatory review and agency
engagement, but will best function within a framework of
improved congressional accountability for what regulators do.
Politics obscures it now, but alongside overseas development,
like Britain's 1-in-3-out, proposals to monitor regulatory
costs have deep bipartisan pedigree. Regulatory budgeting dates
back to Jimmy Carter, and to Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who
became Clinton's Treasury Secretary.
A modern bipartisan root of Trump's 1-in-2-out is Senator
Mark Warner's 2010 PAYGO. After Trump's first 9 months, and
after OIRA's agency directives to include cost allowances in
the upcoming unified agenda, what makes us know the task forces
are solid ideas? What successes and weaknesses stand out?
Reagan's Executive Order 12291 that kick-started OIRA, showed
that the pen and phone can expand liberty in terms of
stabilizing rule counts and Federal Register pages. Trump's
reductions appear to be the most significant since then;
meanwhile, dozens of guidance documents have been rescinded,
such as the Labor Department proclamations on franchising and
independence contracting.
But too much of the regulatory apparatus is beyond OIRA's
scope. The core reality is the revoking a rule requires another
notice and comment rulemaking progression. And long term, task
force machinery can't overcome presidents who deprioritize
oversight. Meanwhile, the 800-pound gorilla independent
agencies get no OMB scrutiny, even under Trump's orders. And
until Trump's orders, guidance documents, memoranda, and other
regulatory dark matter rarely got scrutiny either.
Also, task forces must address unmeasured categories of
intervention that propel cost, not just discrete rules. When
government steers while the market merely rose, that creates
compounding costs, even if no budgetable rules get issued, such
as the re-embrace of a public utility model in the tech and
telecom sectors.
Rules with cost analysis amount to a small percentage of
the rulemaking enterprise. That, along with the administrative
state's broader weakening of democratic accountability, only
strengthens the case for Congress' restoration of Article I
checks and balances. In the meantime, as Neomi Rao advises,
Congress doesn't have to wait, it can revoke rules if Trump
can't.
Other steps include boosting OIRA resources and
implementing a bipartisan regulatory improvement commission
with goals and targets. As for 2-for-1, it may make sense to
emphasize equivalent burdens, perhaps dollar-for-dollar, rather
than rule-for-rule.
I highlight also the former U.S. regulatory program, a
sister document to the Federal budget and a model by which OIRA
could compile annual transparency statistics to better compare
apples to apples, to underscore when cost and benefits are not
quantified, and to better distinguish between additive and
subtractive rules and guidance.
At bottom, the benefit sought via regulation are also forms
of wealth, and they require market disciplines, not just
political ones, to flourish.
Markets and competitive enterprise make the world, not just
richer, but fairer, safer and cleaner. Regulation doesn't get
all the credit.
Disagreements over regulatory benefits are the core concern
that separate left and right today. These are irreconcilable.
But that's actually constructive because it underscores that
elected legislators must resolve controversial issues involving
regulations with massive impact.
But for lesser anxieties, my optimism rests in knowing that
some among us agree that sometimes, so-called market failures
might be rooted in long-standing political failures, and that
coercive top-down regulation isn't always the answer. On good
days, both the left and right understand regulatory capture and
rent-seeking.
Until Article I comes to the rescue, here's hoping that
today's invigorating savings and streamlining, remain permanent
changes to the regulatory and guidance landscape. When it comes
to economic expansion, you don't have to tell the grass to
grow, but you do need to move the rocks off it. Why not use the
new task forces as a lever.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Crews follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you. Thank you all for your insightful
testimony this morning.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Katz, let me start with you. You've made--you implied
that Members are confused on some issues. So let me pick up on
that.
I am one of them that you confused in some of your
statements, but particularly when you described--in your words,
not mine--but that the manner in which regulations come forth
is a hard process, a transparent process. From my perspective,
it's neither of those. I have run into businesses that are
totally unaware that regulations are being formulated. They
just wake up one morning and find out there's more regs in
their various industry, whatever it is, and they bypass
Congress. And all of a sudden, here is--I mean, we have one
legislative body, and that's not agency.
So what is the regulatory process by which they're created?
Ms. Katz. The Administrative Procedures Act covers most of
the rulemaking process. And what I meant by transparency was--
and this is the, you know, disadvantage to small businesses, is
that, you know, there are a lot of points along the way in
which businesses can, you know, offer their comment.
Unfortunately, small businesses can't afford the legions of
lawyers and lobbyists that big businesses do to keep track of
all that's going on in the regulatory space. But the
Administrative Procedures Act and the, you know, a variety of
other acts and executive orders, you know, do govern a very
systematic process of rulemaking. And in some respects, it's
too rigid, but it does exist.
Mr. Hice. I would like to have more information on that,
because I see these regulations, in essence, become law.
People, businesses have to abide by them. It's law. And there's
penalties if they don't. And these are laws that are not
created by Congress. And yet, they are happening without the
jurisdiction and oversight of Congress. And to me, that's very
problematic. That's not the way our system is designed to
operate. But let's move on from here.
Let me, Mr. Crews, let me hit you. In previous attempts
from other administrations, retrospectively, review
regulations, oftentimes, that actually resulted in more
regulations. What makes this effort different?
Mr. Crews. You have to have an engaged President, an
engaged executive to do it. There were cuts under the Obama's
administration retrospective review program, and I think that's
important in this debate too, because I heard you mentioned
James Gattuso at the Heritage Foundation. I heard him say if
the Obama's administration retrospective review program was a
legal thing to do, and an appropriate thing to do, this kind of
approach is, too. But when President Reagan came in, and set up
the initial central review process at OIRA, it already
preexisted because of the Paperwork Reduction Act, but that was
when there was a focus put on--doing cost benefit analysis of
regulations.
But the problem is, still, so many of them are missed, and
that's one of the reasons the cost can still go up like you
talked about, because if you're talking about a flow of over
3500 rules that are going through every year, and then you've
got a few hundred that OIRA reviews that are considered
significant, then of that, there are some that are major or
economically significant. And of those, you end up with just a
sliver, a dozen or so, that have a cost benefit analysis at
all, and there's a few extras that have cost analysis. So
there's a lot that can slip through.
And other forms of costs may come in the form of regulatory
guidance and things of that sort, because you mentioned small
business and business, you've certainly heard from them on
regulatory guidance in recent years, too. But I think that's
one of the reasons----
It takes effort and it takes setting goals. I think if you
try to do regulatory reduction commissions, or if you try to--
if you try to put this kind of regulatory review model in
statute, something like that, you still got to put goals in
place, so that the regulators know that it's time to trim
things. And this is not a partisan issue, too. I mean, when the
Regulatory Improvement Commission was debated, I remember a
report from the Progressive Policy Institute where they said,
these rules are stacking up. It's like pebbles in a stream. You
put, you know, you drop a little pebble in the stream, and
that's fine, but over time, it accumulates.
And one of the things that we don't ever do is go through
and try to say, well, how much of this makes sense anymore?
As I said in my testimony, it's not just regulation that
gets you health and safety benefits, too, you've got to get
those from other--you've got to have a lot of forces that are
ready to expand health and safety, as well as economic
efficiency. So it's just, it's too easy for rules to slip
through, is the essence of it.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Just a yes or no really for me, Mr. Kohli,
thank you for being involved in the U.K. and here, what you
did. The differences in our government, will it impact the
success of this effort here, the differences between the U.K.
and the U.S.?
Mr. Kohli. The U.K., not having a separation of powers, the
primary difference is around Congress. And the primary
difference between the U.K. and the U.S., is the U.K. requires
regulatory impact analysis for acts by Parliament. The U.S.
does not require regulatory impact analysis for acts of
Congress.
Mr. Hice. So can this still work here, is my question?
Mr. Kohli. It could. That's definitely a limitation in the
U.S. model, but it's a difference.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, again, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there's one
thing my constituents care about, it's effective and efficient
government. That is why it's concerning to me to see what the
Trump administration is doing, for instance, in the area of
healthcare. It appears that they are actively undermining
programs to help my constituents afford quality health
insurance.
I would like to ask whether there are legitimate reasons
for some of the things that the Trump administration is doing,
or whether they're just playing politics.
Mr. Goodwin, the Trump administration has indicated it will
stop necessary cost-sharing subsidizes that help Americans
afford health insurance. This has required Congress and some of
the lawmakers, especially in the Senate, to come up with an
agreement to help save health insurance for millions of
Americans, and even that plan is at risk of not being able to
be passed by the House.
Mr. Goodwin, is there a reason, other than politics, that
would explain why the Trump administration is putting the
health insurance of millions at risk?
Mr. Goodwin. Healthcare is a little outside my wheelhouse
policy-wise, expertise-wise, but I guess I can answer as an
interested member of the public, somebody who reads the
newspapers. And from my, sort of outsider perspective, it does
look like playing politics.
And, I mean, that still should be of grave concern, because
it really undermines public esteem for our governing
institutions when something like healthcare policy, people's
healthcare is being used as a political, or is being targeted
through political games.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Goodwin, the Trump administration
has also issued an emergency rule, which would allow any
employer to claim an exemption from providing woman with birth
control under the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Goodwin, is there a
reason, other than politics, that would explain why the Trump
administration is putting the healthcare of millions of women
at risk?
Mr. Goodwin. Similar answer as before, I can't think of a
legitimate policy reason, but, again, I'm outside of my
substantive policy wheelhouse. To me, it looks like playing
politics, and that's just as the damaging to the institution of
the presidency, I think.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And finally, Mr. Goodwin, the Trump
administration has announced it will be taking down the
healthcare.gov website for, quote unquote, ``maintenance''
every Sunday morning through the end of the open enrollment
period.
These morning hours, as you know, are the ideal time for
Americans, especially families, to shop for health insurance.
And this plan will make it difficult for many Americans to shop
for the right health insurance plan for them at times that are
convenient for them. Mr. Goodwin, is there any reason, other
than politics, that would explain why the Trump administration
is actively sabotaging the efforts of American families to plan
for their healthcare futures?
Mr. Goodwin. It doesn't look good. And it really would be
great if the Trump administration explained the policy basis
for that. Because otherwise, we're just left with the
impression that this is just an ideological driven action on
their part.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Goodwin. I'm
disappointed to hear that it appears that the Trump
administration is playing politics with the healthcare of
millions of American families. I hope the administration
considers doing better by them.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes himself for a series of
questions. Mr. Kohli, let me come to you.
Where did you see most of the cost reductions in your
implementation in the U.K.?
Mr. Kohli. Across the board. So I would say the largest
areas were around occupational health and safety, around
employment. We had a big area around--yeah, so those would be
the two largest areas, I would say, off memory, it's a little
bit dated. And but, again, I just want to emphasize the way in
which we did it. So you would have an agency like our food
standardization agency responsible for supporting, making sure
that restaurants followed good food hygiene.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Kohli. And they would regularly visit a restaurant
establishment and find that the establishment didn't know what
to do in order to comply with the law. And so was endangering,
was endangering the visits of people who went to the premises.
And so the approach was to give them much clearer guidance,
which said, Here are the ten things you need to do. And often
small businesses, particularly, found that extremely helpful in
helping them work out what to do, and therefore, it was
possible for them to reduce costs whilst maintaining
protections.
That similar approach was used by a number of our agencies.
Another thing that was a very important approach was looking at
eEnablement, so we were in the relatively early days of the
internet as we were starting this, and by taking processes away
from complex paper forms and putting them on easy intuitive
electronic processes, where we use design-thinking to design
the technique in a way that is intuitive for the user, can get
rid of all of that time when you're trying to work out what
you're meant to do and replace it with time when you're having
a seamless transaction.
So, you know, those kinds of things were very, very
powerful, and were the bulk of the changes that the U.K. made.
Mr. Meadows. And since many Members of Congress love to
watch C-SPAN and watch the debating back and forth in a
different style than what we're used to here, you know, perhaps
you can help me understand. When you actually implemented that
in the U.K., the cost savings, how did that get redirected? Was
it redirected somewhere else? Was it actually--I mean, how was
it realized?
Mr. Kohli. These are savings for business.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Kohli. And we had a very high-quality accounting
system for a pound of savings. We had to demonstrate it with a
genuine saving for business. We then had the numbers validated.
We now have an independent committee which validates all those
numbers, called a Regular Free Policy Committee, and, you know,
businesses would use that time, you know, for things that are
different to complying with regulations.
So let's take that small business restaurateur, the moment
when they're not trying to work out what the rules are, they
are using that to think about what should be on the menu next
week, you know, so it releases time back into the economy. But
the one thing I would say is, you know, we were able to get the
support of both the trade union community and consumer groups,
because our emphasis was absolutely about maintaining
protections.
And our emphasis was not about, you know, reducing air
quality or reducing worker safety, or anything like that. It
was all about maintaining protections and looking for places
where you could streamline the process. And indeed one of your
colleagues talked about how businesses sometimes find it hard
to learn about new regulations. You know, we had a review
around small businesses and guidance, and somebody said to me,
you know, we had a small business person lead that review. And
she said, Have you ever bought an electronic device, like a
television? I said, Yes. And she said, you know, When you buy
one, you get a quick start guide, which tells you what you need
to do when you--you know, when you start up the TV. Yes, you
get the 100-page manual, but you also get the quick-start
guide. And she said, Where is your quick-start guide for
regulation? And that was an incredibly powerful insight, and
one that, you know, allowed us to think about new ways to do
that. So within, you know, within a relatively short period, we
were setting up quick start guides for every new regulation.
Another thing we did in the U.K. is, almost all regulations
come into force on 2 days of the year. And so they're either
coming into force in April or in October, and so, while there
may be a number coming into force, because they're all coming
into force on the same day, it's easier for businesses to get
used to; whereas, if you have one coming in every month.
These are very easy things to do that do not impact on
protections but have real impact. But they're a long, long way
from the sort of political dialogue. And the last thing I would
say is, our approach was highly technocratic. It was about
technically boring things that made a difference in the real
world.
Mr. Meadows. Well, thank you. So I'm running low on time.
We'll have a second round where we'll be able to follow up with
some of the rest of you.
So let me finish very quickly, Mr. Kohli.
Mr. Meadows. Would you say that this type of regulatory
process where we're actually reviewing and removing regulations
should be a long term process or more of a spring cleaning kind
of once-a-year event that we go in and review it?
Mr. Kohli. Certainly the experience of other countries, the
United Kingdom, you know, Australia, the Netherlands, et
cetera, has been that introducing long term disciplines is
very, very important in the same way that long term disciplines
around high quality cost benefit analysis, which a number of my
colleagues talked about on the panel, is important. You know,
always thinking about ways to maintain protections while
streamlining is a good things as well.
Mr. Meadows. So long term.
Mr. Kohli. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. The chair recognizes the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Long before
I came to Congress, I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and had the experience of dealing with regulations
and guidelines. And so I'll preface my question by indicating
to you, in light of the high profile of sexual harassment in
today's headlines, that the Commission studied what were then a
few court decisions, District Court decisions, indicating that
sexual harassment was a violation of an antidiscrimination act.
And it had not been so declared.
When we--we did so, of course, we put the guidelines out
for comment, but I did something that may be fairly unusual,
and I wish we had done more often today. Obviously, business
did not want any kind of regulations of any kind, and I've
never heard of a business testifying in favor of regulations,
but I called in the leaders of the business roundtable and
other such business groups, and indicated what we had seen
happen. That essentially it looked like courts were opening
them to liability, and that the Government agency had given
them no indication of what in the world sexual harassment was.
There's a broad statute, it didn't put sexual harassment in
it. So employers didn't even know what to tell their managers
about how to handle this very delicate problem, so we have to
call them in. And I said, I know you don't want to see any
regulation, but if you do not even know what sexual harassment
is, how can you be protected against sexual harassment.
So you can talk about regulations all you want to, but I
had a good conversation at that time with the business
community, and got their input personally about how they had
handled sexual harassment. And I must tell you, some of what
had hit the newspapers would make anyone bow their head. And I
give you that experience because I had to cope with what
regulations--guidelines that had never been defined. And, by
the way, the Supreme Court went on to find that the guidelines
were constitutional, and I believe the guidance has been
helpful to business, as opposed to being left out there with
nothing said.
Therefore, it seems to me, you know, when I went beyond
notice and comments, but actually had the business leaders to
come in and see me, I have valued transparency because we did
accept many changes that could only come from them. That
experience, with chairing an administrative agency, has led me
to understand how important transparency is, instead of just
being a word that everyone will always buy into. So I'm
interested in these task forces. The public will be interested
in these task forces.
Do any of you know whether or not these task forces consist
of career civil servants or, for example, appointees, does
anybody know that? Yes, Mr. Crews.
Mr. Crews. In the panel this morning the indication seemed
to be that the majority where a lot of the members were career
employees, but other than that, I don't know. That's what I had
heard in prior reports as well, and I think that's probably
true. But I thank you for the comments on guidelines, it's
very, very interesting the distinctions between regulations and
guidances and what role the regulators take and what role
Congress takes.
Ms. Norton. Well, the guidelines were no different in the
long run to regulations because the Supreme Court in defining
what was sexual harassment used the guidelines, and said that
what the agency had found was, in, fact the definition from
here on in. And so you go to the Supreme Court today you will
find those guidelines used.
But the importance of the guidelines, as far as I was
concerned, was it told business what was a violation in the
first place. So the transparency is very important, it seems to
me, to all of us.
And, Mr. Goodwin, you've heard Mr. Crews say that he
thought that these were primarily career civil servants, and we
understand career civil servants operate under the guidance of
appointees. But it was reassuring to hear that he believes
there were career civil servants who then, of course, would
have to convince the appointee. But what is your view of who
should be on these task forces?
Mr. Goodwin. Well, I was encouraged, too, by the fact that
there is so many career employees on these task forces. I mean,
the first question that sprung to mind for me today was why am
I just hearing about this for the first time today. I didn't
know anything about these task forces, for the most part, the
identity of the membership, until today. So congratulations to
this committee for extracting that information.
But this is something I have been tracking for a long time,
and I know a lot of people have. So it's a little disappointing
that we're just now learning basic stuff about these task
forces, which are evidently so important and having such a
crucial--or making such a crucial contribution to the Trump
administration's domestic policy agenda. So I would note that.
And the other thing I would note is I hear so much about
how the--the deep state at these agencies and how they are
sabotaging everything that the Trump administration is doing.
And then one by one by one all of these agency representatives
said that, no, that's not the case at all, these people are
professionals. They are given a task and they do it well. And,
you know, I share the chairman in applauding them for that, I
think that's great. And it reflects really well on the public
servants in our agencies, and I hope we all learn something
from them.
Ms. Norton. Do you think, for example, we ought to at least
know the agenda of the task forces so as to know which kinds of
regulations they are focusing on so that we know, for example,
whether they are focusing on outdated regulations? Of course
regulations have to be updated, or lifesaving ones. Is there
any agenda published so that the public would know which
they're focusing on. Ms. Katz?
Ms. Katz. I can't say whether the agendas themselves are
published. I can say though that if the task forces recommend
to the agency that there be changes to particular rules, that
the agency does have to open, you know, a docket, if you will,
and take public comment on changing that regulation.
In other words, you have to create a regulation to get--to
end a regulation. And that's the process I was referring to
earlier in terms of there being a formal process.
Ms. Norton. Well there is already in place something to--
from OMB for a cost benefit analysis. Let's go and do--are
there difficulties in doing a cost benefit analysis that
everybody could agree upon is objective?
Mr. Goodwin. Well, I think what we're learning from the
cost benefit analyses on these rules that are being rolled back
under the Trump administration is that they're anything--well,
any sort of claim to credibility or objectivity that cost
benefit analysis may have had has been thrown out the window
with these cost benefit analyses.
Ms. Norton. Is there an objective way to do cost benefit
analysis?
Mr. Goodwin. I mean, there is, unless you're trying to
support a decision made by other means, and I think that's what
we're seeing with these cost benefit analyses. If they were to
do an honest cost benefit analyses for these regulatory roll-
backs, frankly, the roll-backs would look terrible as an
economic matter. And that's why, for example, at the EPA, the
Trump administration, and Administrator Pruitt, put out these
really fuzzy cost benefit analyses where, you know, problematic
data, assumptions, accounting tricks, kind of iffy accounting
tricks were used to justify these decisions that under any
reasonable applicable of cost benefit analysis would not pass a
cost benefit analysis test.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a final question
here. I'm really only looking for--Ms. Katz testified that, you
know, at such point as I suppose you were saying, Ms. Katz,
that the task forces had a change that they wanted the agency
to make, at that point there would be some transparency? Was
that your testimony?
Ms. Katz. The task forces only make recommendations to the
agency, they don't carry out----
Ms. Norton. Well see, that's important. So how do they make
recommendations without having--without being identified so
that they could receive some input from the public?
Ms. Katz. I do believe they get some input from the public.
Ms. Norton. Well, we don't even know who they are, how do
they--at the regulatory stage, you have to have input from the
public, but then you're making a recommendation to, let's say,
the head of the agency, but you've had no input from the public
at that point, but you are making a recommendation for changes
in the regulations.
Ms. Katz. Yes. And these are experts who are making the
recommendations. But I suppose it's up to every agency how much
input they want to get on their internal recommendations. But
as soon as there's any action involved, then public input is
immediate.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Crews, did you want to say something on
that?
Mr. Crews. Just a quick thing. I think it's important to
point out that--I think the agencies of their own accord could
have undertaken these kinds of task forces on their own. It
didn't have to come from a presidential executive order----
Ms. Norton. I think that's an important point.
Mr. Crews. Right. So we have to agree that a President--
because remember, these are executive agencies, not the
independent agencies. We have to agree that the President has
some authority in setting his own regulatory agenda.
Ms. Norton. He certainly does, and he wants as much
information as he can get.
Mr. Crews. But Diane is right. Once--but it could have been
done without an executive order, so that's one thing, so you
would know it's going to be internal people----
Ms. Norton. We're not questioning the legality of the task
forces.
Mr. Crews. Some are--a lot of the questions seem to be, I
think.
Ms. Norton. I think you can rely on, you know, whoever you
want to on your staff. I'm just--it's a transparency question
for me.
Mr. Crews. It comes out in the notice and comment, that's I
think----
Ms. Norton. But these people have already made a
recommendation. Look, when I chaired the EEOC, I was dependent
upon staff.
Mr. Crews. Right.
Ms. Norton. The earlier I had some notion of whether
business would think this is the worst thing in the world, the
better off I was. And I'm asking whether or not early
consultation with the public would be facilitated if the task
forces asked for some information from the public or from
experts, and if we knew who they were, instead of making them
look like they're part of some deep state that nobody knows
anything about ever, because we don't know anything--we don't
even know what they do until the agency head----
Mr. Crews. I hear what you're saying. I think that's where
things are headed. I think that's the trajectory. You might
remember a couple weeks ago now, there was a day--it was
October 2, Vice-President Pence gave a speech at the White
House, and after that there were break-out sessions across the
various agencies. I went to one of them, and what the key point
is that they are looking for comment from the public, and----
Ms. Norton. The task forces?
Mr. Crews. It wasn't the task forces. This was the break-
out sessions from the agencies, which you would imagine have to
include and be part of the task forces because a lot of the
theme of all of this was the executive orders and taking
another look at regulations.
So part of that ethos was getting input from the public. So
I think that's where it's all headed. And ultimately whatever
is put together in the docket would have to go through public
notice and comment anyway, because you can't get rid of a
regulation, you can only replace it.
Ms. Norton. Finally, I understand that, but----
Mr. Meadows. The chair is going to give a generous 8
minutes here. So go ahead, your final question.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're a good friend,
but you do understand I'm holding up the fort by myself on this
side of the table?
Mr. Meadows. And using everyone's time that's not here, but
go ahead. Last question.
Ms. Norton. And they have ceded to me, if that helps. And I
appreciate your generosity. What I'm really saying is that--and
I'm going from my own experience. I didn't have a sense of
what--I knew business was on the spot, because they could--
there could be liability if, in, fact they were sued.
I knew they didn't like regulations, so I had my own staff,
even before I called them, to consult with business so that I
would not, in fact, in the first instance, be issuing
guidelines that would send them up the wall. What I value so
much, Mr. Chairman, is that you have opened up for us the
notion of these task forces that we knew nothing about.
And, Mr. Crews, I appreciate what you said because--I hope
the chairman heard what Mr. Crews said, that he felt we were
headed toward more input for the task forces themselves from
the public so that by the time they got to the agency level,
their own recommendations would have more credibility because
somehow or the other the public had been--business to be sure,
and the public had been asked their advice, maybe not on any
final regulations, but at least on what the task force was
undertaking. So I appreciate, Mr. Crews, your notion that you
think they were headed in that direction.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. The chair recognizes
himself for a series of questions.
Ms. Katz, I want to come back to you because you've made it
very clear that this is an open and transparent process when it
comes to actually--I think you said you need to set up a
regulation to do away with a regulation. I think what you meant
is you need to set up a rule to do away with a regulation,
which requires the same comment period as we do that. And
you're in my wheelhouse now. This is what I live for.
And so, at this point, if we're actually going to do away
with a rules and regulations and guidance, is there not a
noticing period that's required under Federal statute any time
that we're going to have to adjust that, is there something
that's required.
Ms. Katz. For most rules, there would be. You know----
Mr. Meadows. What about guidance?
Ms. Katz. I'm sorry.
Mr. Meadows. What about guidance?
Ms. Katz. Well guidance--I may need your help on this. I
don't know if guidance has to go through a rulemaking
procedure.
Mr. Crews. No.
Mr. Meadows. So now you're really hitting in my area
because the gentlewoman made a good point. Many times guidance
is viewed just as strongly as rules and regulations, in fact,
we found that a lot of times administrations get around the
rulemaking process by offering guidance that carries,
essentially, the enforcement of law, but maybe not the
enforcement of law, depending on how it gets litigated. So do
you see a problem there?
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I could just yield a second of
your time to say----
Mr. Meadows. Well, you've used a second of everybody's
time, so why not. Go ahead.
Ms. Norton. The guidelines I speak of did not have to go
through the rulemaking process, and I deliberately put them
through the rulemaking process.
Mr. Meadows. Kudos to you. Ms. Katz.
Ms. Katz. Some things are reviewed by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Mr. Meadows. OIRA.
Ms. Katz. There are some that don't. And I think the
exchange with Mr. Hice and I--what I had meant when I referred
to transparency and openness was proper rulemaking. So I just
want to correct that. But that being said, the other real
loophole here is on independent agencies. And this is
particularly problematic because since 2010 and Dodd-Frank,
hundreds, if not thousands, of very costly and burdensome
regulations have come through these independent agencies.
They're the ones who are getting a free pass here, and that's
another problem.
Mr. Meadows. And so your premise is that they should not
get a free pass.
Ms. Katz. They should not get a free pass.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Crews, do you agree with that?
Mr. Crews. I would agree they should not get a free pass.
The independent agencies are heavy, heavy regulators. And it
had been the case that economic regulation in the U.S. was
declining and environmental regulation was rising. But in
recent years, after Dodd-Frank and then the healthcare
legislation, and now net neutrality legislation--and
regulation, and things of that sort. Economic regulations
trickling up, but the agencies can issue guidance rather than
issue rules.
Another piece of guidance that was a huge guidance was the
Waters of the United States Rule. That actually started out at
guidance. And, like you, they went through and did notice and
comment on that.
But there are many, many economically significant pieces of
guidance, but there are thousands of secondary guidances out
there that slipped through the cracks. There are guidance,
memoranda, notices, circulars, bulletins, administrative
interpretations, it is a whole word salad of these, and they're
not taken into account in the notice and comment process. And
they really can--the agencies can really slip aside and use
guidances and said--so it's something you have to watch as you
do a two for one or any kind of regular campaign.
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Goodwin, would you agree with Ms. Katz
and Mr. Crews that they should be included in the review
process?
Mr. Goodwin. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Meadows. Why is that? Because you're all about
transparency, and all of sudden now you're disagreeing with
your two colleagues on the left and right.
Mr. Goodwin. I reject the premise that OIRA is transparent
to begin with.
Mr. Meadows. So you think that OIRA should be done away
with?
Mr. Goodwin. Yeah. Absolutely.
Mr. Meadows. Why is that?
Mr. Goodwin. Because it adds nothing of value to the
rulemaking process.
Mr. Meadows. In what quantitative analysis would you
suggest that? It adds nothing?
Mr. Goodwin. I mean----
Mr. Meadows. What studies? What quantitative analysis--you
know, you've been here, and I get a little frustrated, Mr.
Goodwin, because you act like you don't know what's going on.
You're an expert witness. You act like all of this is new
information, and actually there's been online portals with the
task force and so forth, and you're opining on what is and what
is not accurate. So what quantitative analysis do you have to
support that OIRA should be done away with?
Mr. Goodwin. I don't know if quantitative analysis is
necessary----
Mr. Meadows. So you just have your opinion?
Mr. Goodwin. No. I have several examples of rules that were
weakened as a result of the rulemaking process.
Mr. Meadows. And which ones would those be?
Mr. Goodwin. Oh, EPA's coal ash rule.
Mr. Meadows. So would you agree with WOTUS's rulemaking
guidance to rulemaking analysis with regards to how OIRA was
involved in that? Do you agree with that? You're an EPA lawyer,
right, so you probably are well-informed on that.
Mr. Goodwin. I'm not sure what you're asking me about.
There was a WOTUS guidance, which Mr. Crews was talking about,
which did undergo OIRA review. There was the original WOTUS
rule which underwent two OIRA reviews,.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Goodwin. And now there's----
Mr. Meadows. And where did they go wrong on that?
Mr. Goodwin. On the WOTUS rule itself?
Mr. Meadows. Yeah.
Mr. Goodwin. It could have been stronger, I think.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me go back to something. You've
been talking about how the budgetary analysis that the Trump
administration has done is bogus. You know, you didn't use the
word bogus, but you questioned its validity under the Trump
administration on some of this rulemaking roll-back. Is that
correct?
Mr. Goodwin. You mean the cost benefit analysis.
Mr. Meadows. Yes.
Mr. Goodwin. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so which--specifically which
cost benefit analysis are you referring to?
Mr. Goodwin. The two that I have in mind is the Waters of
the U.S. repeal and the Clean Power----
Mr. Meadows. What quantitative analysis--now you're in my
wheelhouse again. I know you're a moot courtier, so if you want
to debate it back and forth, I'll be glad to debate this. So in
what quantitative analysis would you suggest that that was
wrong? Are you an economist?
Mr. Goodwin. No.
Mr. Meadows. Do you have a degree in statistics?
Mr. Goodwin. No, I have a masters in public policy.
Mr. Meadows. What about comparative analysis?
Mr. Goodwin. To the extent that that's incorporated----
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Goodwin, you're an expert witness here
and making statements, sworn testimony, I guess. Based on what
analysis are you suggesting that those were quantitatively
incorrect?
Mr. Goodwin. Well, I mean, my own assessment of them as
well as the assessment of other experts on them, including
folks at NRDC, the Resources for the Future, all kinds of folks
who have looked at these things, and we all agree that these--
oh, and a researcher at--a Ph.D economist at Harvard.
Mr. Meadows. You're giving credentials, you're not giving
quantitative analysis. What quantitative analysis would you
suggest to support your testimony here?
Mr. Goodwin. Okay. So for example, with the Waters of the
United States Rule, the repeal by the Trump administration.
They took the one large category of benefits that they could
find, the protection of wetlands and they just zeroed it out,
based on some pretty flimsy----
Mr. Meadows. Pretty flimsy, according to you?
Mr. Goodwin. No, according to everybody that has looked at
it.
Mr. Meadows. Everybody? Well, not according to me. I'm not
in the everybody. Ms. Katz, were you part of that? Did you
think it was bogus.
Ms. Katz. I wish I had.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Goodwin, my point is, when you make
statements you need to back them up with proof. And so let's go
under the previous administration. Were there any of their
analysis, cost benefit analysis, that was incorrect?
Mr. Goodwin. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. On which ones?
Mr. Goodwin. Off the top of my head, the coal ash rule that
I just mentioned before.
Mr. Meadows. So you're saying that they made the wrong
analysis on implementing coal ash. That may make headlines.
Mr. Goodwin. The cost benefit analysis, yeah.
Mr. Meadows. So you said it would actually benefit us a lot
more. Is that what you're saying? I'm trying to figure out
where you're coming from on this.
Mr. Goodwin. It's been awhile since I looked at it, but the
rule itself was stronger then--during the OIRA process it was
weakened, and part of the process for weakening it--or part of
the justification for weakening it was a cost benefit analysis
that was flawed. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So can you get to this committee your
analysis on where the Trump administration has gone wrong on
the cost benefit analysis? Your personal----
Mr. Goodwin. Oh, yeah, sure. It's cited in my testimony as
well.
Mr. Meadows. So you're saying today is the first day that
you really understood anything about the make-up or the input
from these task forces? Today is the first day? That is your
testimony?
Mr. Goodwin. I know very little about what was in these
things beyond--I think in the New York Times report was all I
ever really saw of----
Mr. Meadows. But I thought you were the expert witness here
today?
Mr. Goodwin. How can I be an expert on something that's not
transparent?
Mr. Meadows. Well but it is. I would say that--I had my
staff look up, I said, certainly this has to be transparent.
And there's actually online portals at DOD, Commerce, Interior,
and other agencies already, and you're the expert, and yet you
don't know about those online portals, and actually the
requests for information?
Mr. Goodwin. Oh, I saw the Department of Interior one. All
it did was----
Mr. Meadows. But I thought today was the first day you
found about it?
Mr. Goodwin. No, no, no. I said the membership----
Mr. Meadows. That was your sworn testimony.
Mr. Goodwin. No, I said today was the first day I knew
about the membership of the task forces and who those
individuals were.
Mr. Meadows. So are the task forces a good thing or a bad
thing?
Mr. Goodwin. No, they are a bad thing.
Mr. Meadows. And you base that on?
Mr. Goodwin. I identified four flaws in my testimony.
Mr. Meadows. In terms of--so it's a bad thing based on--
well, I thought, according to you, I got a quote from you that
basically said that you didn't think that this deregulation
executive order was really amounted to anything.
Because, according to you, it was like a bumper sticker or
a stump speech, something that is hard to be translated into
regulatory policy. But we're hearing today that it's actually
been translated into regulatory policy. And it's actually saved
millions of dollars. So would you revise that statement?
Mr. Goodwin. Well, $22 million, which according to my
calculations is $0.07 per American.
Mr. Meadows. So what is you're saying is because it's only
$22 million, that's not a big deal?
Mr. Goodwin. No, I'm just saying it's not as--there's,--you
know, to the extent that--so what we heard today from the----
Mr. Meadows. Is $22 million a big deal?
Mr. Goodwin. It's not as big a deal as people are making it
out to be. Here is the important things----
Mr. Meadows. No, that's not an important thing. I think at
this particular point is, what I'm seeing is, is we've asked a
host of people to come here from an expert witness standpoint.
What I got from you was disappointing, Mr. Goodwin, because
what it came in was with more rhetoric on what you thought,
with perhaps an agenda.
Actually, since you mentioned The Times article, they just
passed me a note. The Times article that you referred to
actually included many of the names of the task force members.
So maybe you didn't read it.
Mr. Goodwin. No, I did. That is what I said, to the extent
that I knew anything about the membership, it was from that
article.
Mr. Meadows. Here's what I want the message to go away
with. I want to thank each one of you for your testimony. Mr.
Kohli, thank you for giving us a good model of which, actually
we saw it implemented in the U.K. and how it's making a
difference.
Mr. Goodwin, I come back to you and say that perhaps we can
look at this in a more open way from a cost benefit analysis.
And I'll be glad to work with you in the future, looking at it
from a different perspective.
Ms. Katz and Mr. Crews, thank you so much for your expert
testimony, in terms of what it's doing.
Mr. Goodwin, I would disagree with you from a standpoint of
the value of OIRA. Under the previous administration and under
this administration, I think they perform a critical role. And
to suggest otherwise really makes me question really your
testimony from an administrative procedures point of view.
I mean, again, you're in my wheelhouse, and I'll be glad to
follow-up. If you want to come by my office, my door is always
open. I'd be glad to do that. But here is the concern I have.
This is saving real dollars for the American people. And you
may not think $22 million is a lot, but I think it's a whole
lot. And every dollar, whether it's $0.07 or not, is money that
can be directed towards other things and it's critically
important.
And I think what we ought to do is applaud these task force
and the efforts that are there. It shouldn't be a spring
cleaning kind of event, Mr. Kohli, it should be an ongoing
event. And as we look at that, to try to implement this across
the board.
If there is no further business before the subcommittees,
the subcommittees stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[all]