[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    DEATH BY A THOUSAND REGULATIONS:
                  THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S CAMPAIGN
                      TO BURY AMERICA IN RED TAPE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 14, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-43

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                              __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-639 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2023
______________________________________________________________________________

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on June 14, 2023....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

                              ----------                              

Mr. Anthony Campau, Principal, Clark Hill Public Strategies
Oral Statement...................................................     5

Prof. Casey Mulligan, Professor in Economics, University of 
  Chicago
Oral Statement...................................................     6

Mr. Adam J. White, Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray 
  Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason 
  University Antonin Scalia Law School
Oral Statement...................................................     8

The Honorable Sally Katzen (Minority Witness), Professor of 
  Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence, New York 
  University School of Law
Oral Statement...................................................    10

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Memo, March 16, 2023, re: Biden Family; submitted by Rep. 
  Burlison.

  * Memo, May 10, 2023, re: Biden Family; submitted by Rep. 
  Burlison.

  * Report, ``Burden is Back: Comparing Regulatory Costs Between 
  Biden, Trump, and Obama''; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, National Association of 
  Manufacturers (NAM); submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Report, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Per Curiam, 
  ``Regulatory Budgeting in the U.S. Federal Government''; 
  submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, American Chemistry Council (ACC); 
  submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, Opportunity Solutions Project 
  (OSP); submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Report, Public Citizen, ``Your Wish Is My Command: Corporate 
  Capture of the Regulatory Process Evident in Trump's First Two 
  Years''; submitted by Rep. Lynch.

  * Article, Politico, ``Former Guiliani Associate Raises 
  Questions About Hunter Biden's Hard Drive From Hell''; 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Campau; submitted by Rep. 
  Gosar.

  * Questions for the Record: to Prof. Mulligan; submitted by 
  Rep. Gosar.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. White; submitted by Rep. 
  Gosar.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    DEATH BY A THOUSAND REGULATIONS:
                  THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S CAMPAIGN
                      TO BURY AMERICA IN RED TAPE

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 14, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, 
Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Fallon, Donalds, Armstrong, 
Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Boebert, Fry, Edwards, Burlison, 
Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, 
Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Bush, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, and Moskowitz.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order. I want to welcome everyone 
here today.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today's hearing will shine a bright light on President 
Biden's whole-of-government regulatory blitz that began on his 
first day in office. From sweeping executive orders to massive 
costly agency regulations, the Biden Administration has spared 
no expense when it comes to transforming America, much of which 
has been done without a clear delegation from Congress.
    In just his first few days in office, President Biden 
issued far-reaching executive orders that radically altered how 
Federal agencies approached climate issues. The Department of 
Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 
Health and Human Services, and several other agencies launched 
a government-wide effort to push out regulations to 
fundamentally change American life. It is estimated that just 
three of Biden's Administration's rules will cause $1.5 
trillion to be spent over the next decade. We know what that 
means for businesses and consumers: higher cost of doing 
business, higher prices, and fewer choices in the marketplace. 
And we know that this overreach will only continue the 
expansion of the executive branch power at the expense of the 
American people.
    It did not have to be this way, and it was not long ago 
that we were on the right track to limit Federal regulatory 
excess that holds back economic prosperity. The prior 
Administration implemented substantial reforms to limit 
regulatory overreach, producing great economic successes. 
According to the 2020 Economic Report of the President, the 
Council of Economic Advisers estimated that regulatory reform 
was on track within 5 to 10 years to raise real incomes by 
$3,100 per household per year by increasing choice, 
productivity, and competition. That is over $3,000 more in the 
pocket of every household in America as a result of a smart 
approach to regulation. Also, according to that report, just 20 
of the Trump Administration's deregulatory actions were 
expected to save consumers and businesses about $220 billion 
per year after they went into full effect.
    President Biden ran on being a ``unifying'' President, but 
instead he has used his platform to strip away those regulatory 
reforms we know were positively impacting the economy and 
replaced them with historic levels of new red tape. The Biden 
Administration wasted no time eliminating deregulatory 
policies, and instead cleared the way for President Biden's 
radical, costly, and burdensome agenda. The last thing any 
consumer or business wants to do is spend more time and more 
money on paperwork. That is something on which we can all 
agree.
    With historically high inflation, most consumers and 
businesses simply do not have extra cash laying around to pay 
someone to fill out reams of more paperwork for them. 
Fortunately, Republicans in Congress know what a thoughtful, 
efficient, and results-driven regulatory system looks like, and 
that is what I and my colleagues in this Republican majority 
are here to support. This Committee and the House Majority will 
continue to hold the Biden Administration accountable for its 
extreme regulatory overreach and pursue legislative solutions 
to ensure commonsense regulatory reform.
    When America is not tied down with red tape or buried under 
heaps of Federal paperwork, America's small businesses, 
workers, and communities are capable of soaring to new heights 
of prosperity, and with more economic prosperity comes more 
economic opportunities. And these opportunities will do more to 
help Americans create, innovate, and thrive than any regulation 
pushed through by unelected bureaucrats. We saw this during the 
previous Administration, and the results speak for themselves.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today to 
testify, and with that, I yield to the Ranking Member for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you kindly. Most Americans 
support government regulation across a whole wide range of 
industries and social activities, on everything from auto 
safety, to food and drug inspections, to alcohol and tobacco 
advertising, to mine safety and occupational safety and health 
rules. But the public sees the process of crafting regulations 
as opaque and inscrutable, and often it is, which is why 
regulated industries and their well-paid lobbyists have so 
often been able to capture the regulatory bodies that are 
supposed to be regulating them.
    The truth is that regulations have a profound effect on 
every aspect of our daily lives. Regulations affect the quality 
of the air we breathe, the safety of the food that we eat, and 
the quality of the water that we drink. Regulations keep us 
safe at work and protect us against hazardous chemicals and 
asthma-causing air pollution. They influence the ways we travel 
and how we bank. They help us ensure that the products that we 
buy are safe for our children.
    Now, some politicians like to say that they are anti-
regulation, but of course they are pro-regulation when it comes 
to restricting our personal rights and our freedoms. Take a 
look at what is happening in Republican-controlled legislatures 
and local governments across America. Republicans in states 
like Florida, South Carolina, and Missouri are using government 
to regulate what kinds of healthcare Americans can access, what 
kinds of books we can read, which bathrooms we can use, the 
ways in which people vote, and what students learn in school 
about slavery and American history, Jim Crow and racism. 
Republicans are vehemently pro-regulation when it comes to 
advancing an ideological agenda that is theirs.
    It is true that the corporate-dominated GOP today does not 
support railway safety regulation, anti-pollution rules, and 
occupational and mine safety rules, but the modern regulatory 
state was actually created on a bipartisan basis. The key 
difference between the parties today is that Democrats believe 
that government regulation must be used to serve the public 
interest of everyone, the common good of all. Republicans want 
corporate CEOs and industry lobbyists to take over the 
regulatory process and write the rules that serve their own 
interests, and the GOP wants to use regulation to control 
women's bodies, to screen the books that we read, and to take 
over our school curriculums.
    Former President Trump used his rulemaking authority to 
deregulate industry for his business buddies, to divide the 
public, to roll back more than 100 critical environmental 
protections, and to advance regulations to restrict women's 
access to healthcare, to weaken anti-discrimination rules, and 
to undermine protections for students with Federal loans, to 
name just a few of his agendas. He also handed the regulatory 
process directly over to corporate special interests, 
essentially allowing corporations to run the agencies that 
should have been promoting public health and safety and 
protecting the environment.
    In contrast, the Biden Administration is using evidence-
based, commonsense regulations to protect American freedom and 
to ensure that corporate interests will act in the public good. 
The so-called regulatory burdens that our colleagues assail are 
rules in the public interest. They include rules to protect 
Americans against financially ruinous, surprise medical bills 
and junk fees, like exorbitant credit card late fees, or check 
bouncing fees, a rule to make it easier for people to get 
hearing aids over the counter, a rule to ensure drinking water 
does not include chemicals that are carcinogenic, and a fuel 
efficiency rule projected to provide net benefits of up to $1.6 
trillion by 2055, including by improving public health and 
reducing climate change.
    The American people must pay attention to the methods by 
which we create our rules. These methods, which are contained 
in the Federal rulemaking process, had not been updated in 
decades. But in April, President Biden issued an executive 
order to modernize them, strengthening democracy by further 
advancing the transparency, the inclusivity, and the 
effectiveness of Federal Regulations. President Biden's 
regulatory modernization plans promote efficiency and fairness. 
Well-funded corporations should no longer have outsized 
influence on Federal rulemaking simply because they have the 
time and resources to bombard Federal officials. The Biden 
changes require Federal officials to proactively seek out the 
voices of those who are underrepresented in, but still 
critically affected by, the rulemaking process, including 
people with disabilities and people living in rural areas.
    President Biden's regulatory modernization plans 
incorporate the interests of future generations. Up to this 
point, agency cost benefit analyses undervalued the benefits of 
regulations for our children and our grandchildren. The 
proposed changes should have bipartisan support. They use the 
same formula used by the George W. Bush Administration to 
ensure that future generations receive the consideration they 
deserve. President Biden's modernization plans will allow us to 
better tackle national problems.
    In 1981, the threshold for qualifying a rule was 
significant, was set in an annual impact of $100 million. 
However, the threshold was never raised to adjust for inflation 
in more than 40 years. The new threshold of $200 million allows 
officials to focus scarce resources on timely review of the 
most significant and substantiated rules. President Biden's 
regulatory modernization plans will better measure Americans' 
actual lived experiences. The proposed changes reflect the 
reality that the costs and benefits of a regulation affect 
different groups of people and communities with different 
degrees of intensity. Corporate interests that prioritize 
short-term profits over long-term public safety and welfare 
will likely oppose these changes in regulatory protections 
because they have a financial interest in the status quo. But 
Democrats are committed in ensuring that everyone is fairly 
represented and considered in the rulemaking process.
    Regulations are a legal tool in democracy to serve the 
public good. Republicans want to dismantle certain government 
regulations or red tape to allow corporations and industry to 
regulate themselves, even when the public health and safety and 
our environmental security are on the line. Democrats are 
committed to ensuring that government protects and benefits the 
health and safety of all the American people while preserving 
the individual liberties and rights of the people. I yield back 
to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back. I am 
pleased to welcome an expert panel of witnesses, who each bring 
experience and expertise that will be valuable to today's 
discussion. I would first like to welcome Anthony Campau. 
Hopefully, I pronounced that right. Campau.
    Mr. Campau. Campau, yes.
    Chairman Comer. Campau from Clark Hill Strategies, who 
previously served as Chief of Staff and Counselor at the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB. Next, we have 
Casey Mulligan, who currently serves as a professor of 
economics at the University of Chicago, and previously served 
as Chief Economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under 
the Trump Administration. Next, we have Adam White, who is co-
Executive Director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study 
of Administrative State within George Mason's Scalia School of 
Law. Mr. White is also a Senior Fellow of the American 
Enterprise Institute. Last, we have Sally Katzen, professor of 
practice and distinguished scholar in residence at the New York 
University School of Law. Professor Katzen previously served as 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs during the Clinton Administration.
    I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today, 
and I look forward to your testimony. And with that, I now 
recognize Mr. Campau for his 5-minute opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF ANTHONY P. CAMPAU

                               PRINCIPAL

                      CLARK HILL PUBLIC STRATEGIES

    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Comer, 
Ranking Member Raskin, and distinguished Members of this 
Committee, it is an honor to be here with you today. Thank you 
for having me. I would like to note at the outset that I am 
here in my personal capacity to share with you some perspective 
based on my experience in government, not on behalf of my firm 
or any client. My aim is not to wade into any particular rule 
or area of policy, but to talk with you generally about some 
basic good regulatory practices and some important regulatory 
process reforms.
    To be clear, the measures I am about to discuss are not 
political. They are reforms anchored in experience and good 
regulatory practices that, frankly, are agnostic to one's 
policy preferences. We built on keen insights of the Carter, 
Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. We rooted our 
reforms in the longstanding good government recommendations of 
bodies like the Administrative Conference of the United States, 
the American Bar Association, the Organization for Economic 
Development and Cooperation, and the World Bank. Our government 
champions these values around the world, and you will find most 
of them reflected in the good regulatory practices chapter of 
the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which passed both 
chambers of Congress with overwhelming majorities, bipartisan 
majorities.
    That said, prior to 2017, something was terribly off with 
our Federal regulatory system. New regulations were issuing at 
an astounding rate, and many of the core principles and 
practices I am about to discuss were getting short shrift. The 
White House Council of Economic Advisers said that from 2000 to 
2016, the annual trend was for regulatory costs to grow by $8.2 
billion each year. Some analysts measured the cumulative costs 
of regulations in the trillions of dollars in 2016, even 
exceeding the total amount of taxes collected that year, and 
small businesses regularly reported that cumulative regulatory 
burdens was their No. 1 concern.
    Then in 2017, for the first time in my former office's 
record, something astounding happened. Rather than continuing 
to climb higher and higher as they had every year in the 
previous records, the total cost of new regulations across the 
Federal Government actually went down through the floor, 
beneath the X-axis into negative territory. They said it could 
not be done, but we did it. By the end of just our second 
fiscal year, we had saved on net $33 billion in new regulatory 
costs. During the same period in the previous Administration, 
the government imposed a net $245 billion. That is a $278 
billion difference in approach.
    So, what made possible that dramatic turnaround? The U.S. 
Federal Government implemented a set of regulatory process 
reforms that significantly improved the overall regulatory 
environment, allowing the government to continue protecting 
health and safety while also providing more room for 
innovation, public engagement, personal freedom, consumer 
choice, and economic growth. Those reform measures included, 
one, providing more transparency on regulations under 
development; two, improving agency guidance practices, 
including by making it easier for the public to actually find 
the guidance that governs them; three, providing more 
opportunities for public engagement in the rulemaking and 
guidance processes; four, developing and sticking to a 
regulatory budget; five, conducting a retrospective review of 
older standards; six, encouraging the use of rigorous benefit 
cost analysis in an ever larger universe of actions; and seven, 
ensuring regulatory policy was anchored in the best reasonably 
available public-facing information.
    Unfortunately, many of these reforms were implemented by 
executive orders that have since been rolled back. 
Consequently, the Federal Government is again issuing rules at 
a record pace. One recent study noted that at its halfway 
point, the Administration had already imposed $110 billion more 
regulatory cost than the Obama Administration at that same 
point. It is also worth noting that this estimate only covers 
rules that actually include economic analysis. Most rules and 
the vast majority of guidance documents include no such 
analysis, which means they are left out of these calculations. 
Further, recent actions have adjusted the relevant thresholds 
for analysis, making it possible, if not likely, that even 
fewer rules will be included in these calculations in the 
future.
    Congress should step in and make these commonsense, well-
grounded regulatory process reforms permanent. I have covered 
the measures in more detail in my written testimony, and I look 
forward to discussing them with you today. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Did we swear 
these witnesses in?
    Chairman Comer. We did not.
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, OK.
    Chairman Comer. We did not, and that was my fault, so we 
will do that right now.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative.
    So now, I recognize Professor Mulligan for your opening 
statement.

                      STATEMENT OF CASEY MULLIGAN

                         PROFESSOR IN ECONOMICS

                         UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

    Mr. Mulligan. Good morning, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member 
Raskin, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 
to discuss with you today how our Federal regulation has 
evolved over time. Thousands of new regulations are issued each 
year. My testimony summarizes new regulations since 2009, their 
time pattern, and the magnitude and character of their 
aggregate costs.
    One finding is that the rules finalized by the Biden 
Administration through the end of 2022 imposed costs of nearly 
$10,000 per household, which is $1,300 more than the burden of 
the Obama Administration rules during the comparable timeframe. 
Regulatory paperwork, or red tape, is notorious, and it is 
significant. However, opportunity and resource costs are 10 
times the red tape.
    Remember the government orders that shut down schools and 
businesses. Those rules took away valuable opportunities to 
learn, trade, innovate, and realize our full potential. The 
time it took to write and read the shutdown order or the cost 
of the paper it was written on paled by comparison to the lost 
opportunities.
    Another misconception is that regulation is primarily about 
keeping the air and water clean. Excluding three or four fuel 
economy rules, less than a third of rules and their costs are 
environmental. Much more common are business regulations, rules 
about employment contracts, telecommunication, consumer 
finance, or healthcare business, to name a few. If you look at 
my written testimony, about the third page, I have a chart, 
Figure 1, that shows additions to regulatory costs by 
administrative rulemaking in the current and two former 
Administrations so that we can compare 2-year periods with, 
say, 4-year periods or 8-year periods. The figure shows 
everything on the per year of rulemaking. Both measures show 
that President Trump either reversed or sharply slowed 
additions to regulatory costs. Both measures show the Biden 
Administration adding costs, surpassing those in President 
Obama's comparable period.
    The first measure of regulatory costs comes from the 
agencies that promulgate the rules. A big problem with their 
estimates is they typically treat the red tape like it is the 
only cost. Therefore, I prepared a second cost measure. The 
Biden Administration has been adding costs according to that 
measure at a rate of $617 billion per year of rulemaking, not 
counting regulatory cost created by statutes and other non-rule 
regulatory actions. The inflation-adjusted equivalent shown in 
my Figure 1 is $5,000 per household per year of rulemaking for 
the rules finalized in 2021 and 2022. These costs are spread 
over time rather than concentrated in the first year that the 
rule takes effect. If that pace accelerates, as it did during 
the Obama years, cost would near $60,000 per household after 8 
years of rulemaking. President Trump's pace was in the opposite 
direction.
    A common view is that people are unaffected by regulation 
if it does not apply to their company, or it does not restrict 
a product that they buy. That is a mistake. Ultimately, we are 
all affected through higher prices, lower incomes. A nice 
example is the wages of barbers, which far outpaced inflation 
for a century. During that same time, their productivity on the 
basic hair cutting at least hardly changed at all. But barbers' 
real wages increased almost entirely due to what was happening 
outside their industry. It is the same with regulation. The 
wage trend in your occupation depends a lot on what is 
happening in other jobs.
    My written testimony shows a couple of detailed examples 
where deregulation reduced internet service prices so much that 
it moved the aggregate inflation rate. Another example connects 
deregulation with falling prescription drug prices. Earlier, we 
estimated that candidate Biden's regulatory agenda by itself 
would reduce real wages by 2.5 percent relative to Trump's 
policy. Although Biden's regulatory campaign promises are not 
yet finished, the executive orders and agendas indicate that it 
intends to fulfill those promises. That involves losing maybe 2 
years' worth of normal wage growth due to just the added 
regulation.
    Small businesses are especially burdened, as the Chairman 
mentioned. New Federal regulations are also regressive, 
especially because many rules from health insurance and onward 
are, in effect, forcing middle-class and lower-income families 
to have champagne tastes on a beer budget. I estimate that 
something like the Biden pace of regulation would, as a share 
of income, cost the lowest-income families seven times more 
than the high-income families.
    I look forward to continuing the discussion.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. White 
for your opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF ADAM J. WHITE

                         CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

                   THE C. BOYDEN GRAY CENTER FOR THE

                   STUDY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

                        GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

                       ANTONIN SCALIA LAW SCHOOL

    Mr. White. Thank you, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member 
Raskin, distinguished Members of the Committee. I am grateful 
for the opportunity to testify today, and in my opening 
statement, I would like to make four main points. The first has 
to do with the administrative agencies themselves. Any 
conversation like this about administrative agencies and 
regulations tends to involve a lot of numbers, a lot of very 
specific rules, often a lot of acronyms, but I would like to 
focus on two main themes or trends of recent years.
    The first has to do with the regulatory initiatives and 
ambitions of a number of agencies. Agencies now, more than 
ever, are the center of gravity in government and policymaking 
and the center of gravity in terms of the political energy 
around policymaking. And because of that, or with that, a 
number of agencies are showing great ambition in pursuing 
transformative rulemaking initiatives, transformative not just 
in terms of the industries or the public interest, but also 
transformative in terms of the agencies themselves. A number of 
longstanding agencies are pursuing ambitious new regulatory 
programs that would fundamentally change the mission of the 
agency.
    At the same time, the second trend I want to focus on is 
the issue of regulatory uncertainty. A number of agencies are 
achieving their policy aims right now not just by imposing new 
regulations, but by taking down a lot of guidance or other 
rules or standards that allowed for regulatory certainty to 
take hold. Agencies are leveraging uncertainty, and I think 
that is very, very worrisome in terms of the stability of the 
rule of law.
    My second point has to do with the Supreme Court. At the 
same time that this is happening in the administrative 
agencies, the Supreme Court has undertaken a number of 
decisions in recent years and decades to make administration 
more lawful and less unsteady. I think the most prominent in 
recent years has been the major questions doctrine through 
which the Supreme Court has tried to read agency statutes, 
especially longstanding agency statutes, much more reasonably 
in terms of not just the Constitution, separation of powers, 
but also in terms of the experience of those agencies going 
back decades or more. The major questions doctrine, I think, is 
an important judicial tool for limiting agency adventures.
    But at the same time, the Roberts Court has issued a number 
of decisions that helped to make administration steadier, more 
predictable, more transparent, and more analytically rigorous, 
and including not just cases involving the Biden Administration 
or the Obama Administration before it, but even the Trump 
Administration. During the Trump Administration, we saw a 
number of Supreme Court decisions that pushed back against 
agencies for not sufficiently explaining their regulatory 
decisions. So, across the board, the Roberts Court, for nearly 
2 decades, has tried to make the administrative process more 
lawful and more steady, and I think that is important because 
of my third point.
    My third point is about the Constitution, and especially 
the Constitution's founding purposes. Of course, the 
Constitution was created to ensure checks and balances and to 
protect individual liberty, but another theme of the founding 
generation was the need for good administration, by which they 
meant steady, lawful, and energetic administration. And a 
number of the Roberts Court's decisions, I think, trend in that 
direction, at least in terms of the steadiness of 
administration.
    In my written testimony, I go on probably at too much 
length about the writings of the founders and explaining how 
they saw good, steady administration, but I think it is 
important not just for its own sake, but also it is an 
important way to understand what the Roberts Court is doing. 
Alexander Hamilton said that the true test of a government is 
its tendency and aptitude to produce a good administration, and 
I think that is something we all need to keep in mind.
    And then my fourth and final point is about Congress. So, 
much of what we are discussing today is just a downstream 
effect of the fact that, over the course of decades or more 
than a century, Congress has delegated immense powers and 
immense discretion to administrative agencies. A lot of what 
Congress is doing in terms of procedural reform, what the 
Roberts Court, the Supreme Court is doing is trying to dampen 
the effects or limit the effects of immense agency discretion.
    So, the first thing Congress could do to help solve some of 
these problems will be to modernize and reform the underlying 
substantive legislation. But in addition to that, there is a 
lot the Congress can do, as I describe in my testimony, to 
improve the procedures that agencies use and also to improve 
the procedures for judicial review of agency action. And I 
would say that as we enter a moment when the White House and 
OIRA are beginning to undertake changes of their own, that I 
think will unsettle some things, I think now, more than ever, 
it is important for Congress to ensure greater stability in the 
administrative state.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. Now I recognize Sally Katzen for 
an opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN

                       PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE AND

                   DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR IN RESIDENCE

                   NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

    Ms. Katzen. Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for including 
me on this panel.
    Now, the title of this hearing, ``Death by a Thousand 
Regulations,'' is certainly catchy and clearly sends a message, 
but with respect, I do not believe it is either accurate or a 
constructive frame for considering a very important subject in 
the lives of Americans. The title reflects the fact that 
regulations do not have a good name in some quarters. 
Criticizing regulations and calling for their repeal is a 
popular applause line, but whenever focus groups are asked to 
identify which specific regulations should be repealed, they 
are often stymied.
    As Ranking Member Raskin said, they do not want to repeal 
regulations that ensure that their medicines are safe and 
effective, that their meat is inspected, properly labeled, and 
free of contaminants, that the air is clear, their water 
drinkable, the National Parks accessible, their automobiles 
protective in the case of accidents, that they are protected 
from injuries and illnesses in their workplaces, their markets 
are transparent and a level playing field, just to name a few.
    Now, while some accuse the agencies of running amok, it is 
important to remember that no agency is a free agent. They can 
only do what Congress has delegated to them. Congress decides 
the objectives or the goals, but it does not have the bandwidth 
to specify the details to stay current on changing technology 
or evaluate the science. So, Congress delegates to agencies, 
and then some turn around and condemn the agencies for doing 
what they were told to do: carrying out the law.
    Meanwhile, the agencies operate within well-established, 
precise procedural and substantive constraints, which involve 
public participation, responsiveness to comments, analysis of 
the intended and unintended consequences of their proposals, 
review by OIRA to ensure that the benefits of the proposals 
justify the costs, and then challenges in courts, where 
independent judges determine whether an agency has used the 
proper procedures, whether any of its findings in policy 
determinations are arbitrary and capricious, and whether they 
stay within the statutory limits set by Congress.
    Now, regulations that survive this process have contributed 
much to our well-being and success as a Nation. Nonetheless, 
some will complain and object to any burden or restraint placed 
on them, and these complaints are seemingly accepted 
uncritically by some and, indeed, amplified for those who are 
looking for simple sound bites.
    Now, several of the other witnesses today recite numbers of 
regulations and the cost of regulations. I have not heard very 
much about the benefits of regulations. Numbers, as we know, 
can be slippery in any context. What are you measuring? What is 
the baseline? What is the appropriate time periods? People can 
pick and choose, and so in my written testimony, I include some 
numbers, too, which support the fact that the Biden 
Administration is at or below the level of his Republican 
predecessors.
    I also provide examples of what I would characterize as 
unequivocally good regulations, such as an HHS Medicare 
Advantage auditing requirement that focuses on measures to 
reduce over billing, which is a crime. This rule will reduce 
the drain on the Medicare Trust Fund and benefit all qualifying 
seniors, or the FDA rule finalizing the sale of hearing aids 
over the counter rather than solely by prescription, thereby 
making these products that are extremely beneficial to older 
individuals more available at dramatically lower costs. And if 
I focus on benefits for an older generation, please forgive me. 
My self-interest is showing.
    I briefly describe other rules, such as the MATS rule, 
which is limiting the amount of mercury, which is a neurotoxin 
that is particularly pernicious to the unborn and little 
children. Are these regulations killing us? Hardly. Are they 
tying us up in red tape? Certainly not.
    Now, while many are concerned about and trumpet 
deregulation, Adam White has worried about the disruptive 
effects of lack of stability and uncertainty for businesses. I 
am even more concerned with the fact that deregulations can 
lead to disasters, the deep recession in 2008, and the very 
recent failure of some banks caused by the deregulation of the 
banking industry, the death of workers in plants and in coal 
mines from lack enforcement of safety regulations, the 
disproportionate number of patients during COVID in nursing 
homes that died compared to the rest of the population, and the 
recent spate of railroad derailments.
    Now, those who call for deregulation will often say that, 
whatever benefits are there, this restrains our freedom and our 
liberty, contrary to the American way. Now, to be sure, the 
traffic signal at the busy intersection might delay, and 
thereby restrain, your freedom if you approach a red light and 
have to come to a stop. But it is a modest delay, and the 
benefit of not being plowed into by a car coming on the cross 
street certainly justifies----
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Katzen, if you could wrap it up. We are 
a minute and a half over the 5 minutes, but we will let you 
wrap it up right here.
    Ms. Katzen. Thank you, sir. Certainly, justifies the burden 
imposed on you. So, I think there may be some restraint on 
individual activity, but the aggregate liberty is enhanced for 
all Americans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your graciousness.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. Now, we will begin the 
questioning portion, beginning with the gentleman from Arizona, 
Mr. Gosar, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The total cost of all 
regulations on the books amount to a little more than $1.9 
trillion in 2021. This means that if the U.S. regulatory state 
was its own country, it would have the 8th highest GDP in the 
world. Think about that. Not surprisingly, Joe Biden is the 
greatest regulator in history. In his first year in office, he 
oversaw regulatory burdens that was four times as great as 
Obama in his first year in office. Biden's regulations have 
sought to eliminate combustion engines, gas stoves, fossil 
fuels, and power plants. However, a less conspicuous area of 
regulatory overreach is Biden's war on critical minerals.
    In January of this year, Biden's Interior Department 
canceled copper mine leases held by Twin Metals in Northern 
Minnesota due to regulatory violations, even though the leases 
were previously renewed by the Trump Administration. A few days 
later, Biden's EPA cited a seldom-used section of the Clean 
Water Act to kill the Pebble Mine in Alaska, abandoning the 
extractions of one of the largest deposits of copper and gold 
because they said it would harm salmon populations. Pebble 
Mine, for example, contains an estimated $400 billion worth of 
critical minerals which are essential to our economy and our 
R&D. Just think about how many jobs were lost and livelihoods 
affected. Resolution Copper, a mine near Superior, Arizona, 
some of whose regulatory hurdles have been instrumental in 
overcoming through legislative action in 2015, continues to 
remain idle as its managers wade through regulation barrier 
after regulatory barrier.
    Another impact of crushing regulation, ironically, is an 
over-reliance on under-regulated mines in Third World countries 
infamous for human rights violations and environmental 
degradation. While the EPA worries about the potential problems 
with salmon in Alaska, unregulated gold mining in the Third 
World poisons 15 million people. We desperately need to rein in 
regulations instead of continuing to let them barrel out of 
control.
    To that end, Trump's executive order eliminating two 
regulations for every one is a policy approach that I admire. 
The dirty truth is that lobbyists who can represent big 
businesses love regulations as they destroy the competition, 
which does not have the resources and lawyers to comply. In 
fact, the military is a great example of that. Congress has the 
duty to protect small businesses, who are the backbone of the 
economy as they are job creators by curtailing the state.
    Now, questions. Mr. Campau, in your testimony, President 
Trump's policy to remove two rules for every one rule added was 
actually not as impactful as requiring each agency to have a 
regulatory budget. Could you please go into that a little bit 
more?
    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Congressman. The point that I was 
making there was that the regulatory budget is often known by 
the shorthand phrases like ``two for one'' or ``one and two 
out.'' And I just wanted to note that it was, in fact, an 
instrument in service of what I consider to be the sort of core 
regulatory budget, which was in the first year, in 2017, a 
zero-dollar cap on new regulatory activity, and then in the 
outyears, a number to be determined by the Administrator of 
OIRA in collaboration with the agencies in a ground-up process.
    So, there was some criticism around the two for one. Well, 
what constituted an out? What constituted an in? And what I 
said was that there was some flexibility in the ins-and-outs 
calculations, which was clearly articulated in the guidance 
that implemented the order. But the core of the budget, which 
was the dollar aspect of it, was, I think, pretty much not 
criticized. The total savings over the course of the 4 years 
was just under $200 billion on net across the entire Federal 
Government.
    Mr. Gosar. That is incredible. So, Mr. White, coming back 
to you. So, part of the testimony was about implementation and 
enforcement. So now, at least one-third of our budget is 
associated with healthcare, so there was a rule passed. It was 
one of the last bills signed by President Trump about excluding 
the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Exemption for medical 
insurance industries. Would there be some reason why you would 
feel that the Department of Justice would not enforce that?
    Mr. White. Thank you, Congressman. I am very sorry to say I 
am not familiar with that particular legal provision. Let me 
say more generally that given the sheer number of regulations 
currently on the books, in addition to all the statutes, 
agencies have enormous enforcement discretion, which can then 
be leveraged, or that, at the very least, creates a lot of 
uncertainty.
    Mr. Gosar. And quickly getting to that point.
    Mr. White. Yes.
    Mr. Gosar. Congress can dictate in their appropriations 
more specifically where the money can be spent. Is that one of 
the regulatory controls as well as the reauthorization of those 
programs?
    Mr. White. Yes, it can be, and it should be. Congress' 
power of the purse is one of the most important tools it has 
for the sake of good policymaking and good enforcement, and 
anything Congress can do to improve its use of that tool, I 
think, would be a good thing.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we get regulation 
right, we avoid disaster. When we get regulation wrong, we 
court disaster, like on April 5, 2010, when a massive methane 
and coal dust explosion ripped through the Upper Big Branch 
coal mine in West Virginia of the Massey Energy Company, 
killing 29 miners, the country's worst coal mine disaster since 
1968 when 78 people were killed in an explosion then.
    The 1968 disaster led to passage of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970, which helped to cut workplace 
fatalities by 60 percent within 30 years. That is thousands and 
thousands of lives that were saved. But by 2000, rightwing 
propaganda and corporate greed had undermined enforcement of 
occupational and mine safety laws. The Massey coal company in 
West Virginia had hundreds of regulatory violations, but weak 
enforcement and regulatory capture meant that the company acted 
essentially with reckless impunity before the explosion took 
place.
    Just 15 days after that explosion rocked the mountains of 
West Virginia, another catastrophe rocked the Gulf of Mexico, 
when BP's Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig exploded and 11 
people were killed there, and 200 million gallons of crude oil 
poured into the Gulf of Mexico in one of the worst oil spills 
in history. In response, the Department of Interior created the 
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and put 
important rules in place to make sure this devastating chapter 
would never be repeated. But the Trump Administration rolled 
back those regulations for creating what it called potentially 
unduly burdensome requirements for Big Oil to comply with.
    Now, Ms. Katzen, can you explain what the corporate crusade 
for deregulation means in reality, giving us a few examples?
    Ms. Katzen. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. I think it is fair to 
say that most businesses are very concerned about their bottom 
line, and they will seek to protect it. And to the extent that 
there are proposals that will increase their costs, and thereby 
decrease their profits, that they rail against them. We have 
seen during different periods during President George W. Bush, 
there was a group that got together and came up with a wish 
list of regs to get rid of that had very little substance to 
them and where the costs saved were miniscule compared to the 
benefits derived from them.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. And that is not because the 
corporations are evil.
    Ms. Katzen. No.
    Mr. Raskin. It is because they are rationally seeking their 
profits, and they want to give the return to the shareholders. 
But the role of a government is to regulate in the interest of 
the entire public, not just the people who profit from a 
particular business.
    The Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970, and in that 20-year 
period, it looks like the benefits were massive in terms of the 
health of the population, but also economically, those have 
been estimated to be in the range of $6 trillion to $50 
trillion. That is what it has meant to our economy to have 
clean air in the country. So, isn't the premise of regulation 
that it is not just going to take care of our people in terms 
of food safety and water safety and so on, but it is going to 
economically benefit all of society?
    Ms. Katzen. Yes, that is certainly a component of it. And 
while the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, it was amended in 
1990 because of its success, and the provisions for EPA were 
strengthened and enforced because so much good had flowed from 
the original act.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. Nobody likes regulation, especially when 
we are talking about government theocrats telling women what 
kind of healthcare they can and cannot get in different parts 
of the country, or trying to restrict people's travel in order 
to keep them from getting the healthcare they want. But when we 
say we want to get rid of regulation in the abstract, everybody 
would agree to that. But as you were saying before, if we are 
talking about dismantling Clean Air Act rules, or Clean Water 
Act rules, or mine safety rules, or airline safety rules, vast 
majorities of the American people reject that. Isn't it true 
that an effective functioning regulatory state promotes the 
freedom of the people?
    Ms. Katzen. I believe it does, and it promotes the economy. 
It is interesting that we are talking about ``Death by a 
Thousand Regulations'' at a time when the growth of jobs in 
this country is terrific. We have got less unemployment than 
ever, and the strength of the economy is remarkable, so I am 
not quite sure how these two play together very well.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foxx from 
North Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very, very 
grateful to you for scheduling this hearing, and I thank the 
witnesses for being here. I particularly thank Mr. White for 
his very clear comments about what the effect of regulations 
are on our economy and on our culture. We all know the Biden 
Administration's regulatory overreach is out of control. It is 
all too common for me to hear from my constituents about new 
rules and regulations from the Administration that will put 
them out of business and destroy their livelihoods.
    We cannot allow this disregard for the cost imposed by the 
Federal Government through regulations on families, businesses, 
and even local governments to continue increasing unaddressed. 
Last month, I introduced H.R. 3230, the Unfunded Mandates 
Accountability and Transparency Act, or UMATA as we call it. 
This bill would bring real transparency and accountability to 
the regulatory process by requiring the true cost of new major 
regulations, including those passed on to state and local 
governments to be carefully calculated and considered before 
implementation.
    The Biden Administration has displayed a pattern of grossly 
underestimating the cost of new regulations while greatly 
exaggerating the purported benefits by gaming the current 
system. We need to make sure that Federal rules and regulations 
do not unduly burden families and job creators and slow our 
economic engine. So, I am going to ask Mr. Campau, Professor 
Mulligan, and Mr. White, would the reforms contained in UMATA 
help reduce the burden of future rules and regulations? Mr. 
Campau?
    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx. Yes. UMATA, the 
statutes amending, is a terrific statute, and I think it 
unfortunately does not get implemented as robustly as it ought 
to be, and I welcome the changes in UMATA.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
    Mr. Campau. I think that they----
    Ms. Foxx. Professor Mulligan?
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes. Thank you for your question. I have also 
been looking at the individual rules from the Biden 
Administration, and they are dramatically undercounting costs. 
Sometimes they say they are cutting costs when they are really 
creating them. And anything you could do to get a better 
accounting for those costs so that the people and the Members 
of Congress could know better what is happening, I would think 
that would be helpful.
    Ms. Foxx. And Mr. White?
    Mr. White. Thank you, Congresswoman. I would just add, 
first, I think it is good for Congress to set these analytic 
standards for agencies. Second, I think it is important for 
Congress to ensure meaningful judicial review of agency 
analysis to make sure that they are properly rigorous. I am 
thinking it is just the end of the school year. I know it is 
better when students do not grade their own exams, but rather 
have the teachers grade them, and I think it is a good thing 
when there is at least some check and balance outside of the 
executive branch on the agencies' analysis.
    Ms. Foxx. Yes, and I think you all have alluded to it 
today. We can write legislation a lot more tightly than we 
write it, and that has been something I have been working on 
for a long time.
    You all have talked about the Trump Administration issuing 
a series of executive orders to reform the way Federal 
regulations are issued. Many of these ideas were inspired by 
legislation worked on in the House and by Members of this 
Committee. Are there aspects of UMATA that were implemented in 
the Trump executive orders? Mr. Campau, I will give you that 
question.
    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, we tried to 
expand and strengthen the role of analysis. It is something 
that has been agreed upon over the decades on a bipartisan 
basis that analysis is important, and we tried to strengthen 
its role anywhere whenever we could. I noted in my written 
testimony several ways that we went about that, and the 
transparency aspects of it as well absolutely crucial. We took 
major transparency steps with respect to the unified agenda 
with respect to posting rules for engagement earlier on across 
the board.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Professor Mulligan, I do not have much 
time left, but you mentioned in your testimony that the cost in 
the Biden Administration in the first 2 years is about $10,000 
per household of rules and regulations. It is really a 
staggering burden. Is there anything that the Biden 
Administration has done to justify this absurd new regulatory 
burden?
    Mr. Mulligan. No, I am not sure they have acknowledged it.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Connolly from 
Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Well, 
Professor Katzen put her finger on the title of this hearing, 
which shows you the intellectual dishonesty of you all being 
here because this hearing is all about confirmation bias. And 
that bias is predicated on a false narrative and a mindless 
narrative that all regulation is burdensome, most of it is 
unnecessary or duplicative.
    It reminds me of the scene in ``Amadeus'' where Amadeus 
puts on his very first production for the Emperor of the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire. And the Emperor goes to greet him 
after the performance, and Mozart asks him, ``What did you 
think,'' and the Emperor goes, ``Well,'' and the Court Composer 
goes, ``Too many notes,'' and the Emperor goes, ``Yes, too many 
notes. Cut out a few, it would be perfect.'' That is the 
approach to regulation, for every new regulation, let us cut 
out two, as if they are all the same. There is no intellectual 
distinction between saving a life and making sure a drug is 
pure.
    Professor Katzen, Upton Sinclair, at the turn of the 20th 
century, wrote a book called ``The Jungle''. It led Theodore 
Roosevelt, a Republican President, to actually insist on 
regulation on food safety for the first time in America. Did 
Americans benefit from that series of regulations do you think?
    Ms. Katzen. I think they did.
    Mr. Connolly. Ralph Nader wrote a book called ``Unsafe at 
Any Speed.'' That book led directly to more intensive 
regulation of the auto industry. Did that save lives?
    Ms. Katzen. I think it did.
    Mr. Connolly. And by the way, did the auto industry crash 
as a result of this ridiculous or--from that lady from North 
Carolina's word--absurd regulation?
    Ms. Katzen. I do not think it did. It is still thriving.
    Mr. Connolly. No. No. Rachel Carson wrote a book called 
``Silent Spring'' that led to the environmental movement in the 
United States and the creation of EPA under a Republican 
president, Richard Nixon. Well, we have already heard you, but, 
I mean, do you think that that movement, the environmental 
movement in both clean air, clean water, and looking at 
dangerous pesticides and chemicals, was that a good thing?
    Ms. Katzen. I think that was a very good thing, and your 
questions also show that books are good----
    Mr. Connolly. Yes.
    Ms. Katzen [continuing]. And should not be banned.
    Mr. Connolly. Oh, well, that is the kind of regulation some 
people seem to like. Now, is there a cost when we do not 
regulate? They have talked a lot. We have only heard about the 
cost of regulation. What about the cost of the lack of 
regulation? Does that ever happen?
    Ms. Katzen. It has happened, unfortunately, too frequently 
with disasters, such as those mentioned by Mr. Raskin and some 
of the ones that I have talked about, where lives are at stake, 
or in the financial area where savings are lost.
    Mr. Connolly. So, during Trump's 4 years, and apparently, 
that was just the paragon of deregulation. Thank God, you know, 
somebody cared. He reversed rules requiring oil and gas 
companies to monitor and repair leaks in the facilities, 
blocked coal companies from dumping debris into local streams, 
and mandating braking system upgrades for high hazard trains, 
hauling flammable liquids like oil and ethanol. Gosh, what 
could go wrong with rescinding those kinds of regulations?
    Ms. Katzen. Derailments and explosions and threatening the 
air, and, therefore, the lives of the people in East----
    Mr. Connolly. Any example come to mind of what could go 
wrong with that recently?
    Ms. Katzen. Recently, yes, there have been several. Three 
or four, I think.
    Mr. Connolly. And, for example, the one in Ohio, if I 
recall, not only did they have to evacuate parts of the 
community, but they are not worried about long-term 
environmental costs from the exposure to toxins from that 
derailment. Is that correct?
    Ms. Katzen. That is correct, and it is consistent with what 
we saw after 9/11. We thought after 9/11, that it was just at 
that time, but people who were on the site have suffered 
unbelievably torturous----
    Mr. Connolly. So really, it is sort of in the eye of the 
beholder, isn't it, in terms of deregulate or regulate at your 
peril, and somebody else is deciding what risks you ought to 
take. And the risk of this philosophy of regulation is bad, let 
us deregulate everything we can, is that the risk then falls on 
the public in terms of health, safety, and life and limb, and 
we have seen the consequences of taking that risk all too 
often. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been really 
interesting. We have got one witness who basically thinks 
regulations should be apparently endless because they all save 
lives. So, I thought I would just bring up some places that we 
regulate.
    You checked out the ketchup regulations lately? You checked 
that out? The ketchup regulations define very clearly what 
ketchup is. Normally, we would say how about the marketplace 
determine that. I go in and I get the one brand, and I think it 
is a little too thick. I am not going to buy it next time, or I 
buy one. It is a little too thin, I do not buy that next time. 
The ketchup regulations are not designed necessarily for safety 
because you got a whole host of safety regulations over here. 
Ketchup regulation is about thickness, et cetera.
    How about this one? I could pull it up on here. You go over 
cheese. Just look at the cheese regulations. Those have nothing 
to do with safety, but you got Asiago cheese and old Asiago 
cheese, and you got brick cheese, and it is pages and pages and 
pages of regulations. And guess what? If you do not adhere, and 
if your Asiago cheese does not quite meet that regulation, 
guess who investigates you? It is the same people who made the 
regulation. Who is going to impose sanctions upon you? The same 
group of people. Let us see who else. Oh, buns, buns, hamburger 
buns, bakery goods, pages and pages. They are in three 
different sections of the CFR. Man, you can go after buns, but 
by golly, we are not overregulated. Microphones, they are 
regulated. Everything comes back to regulation.
    And so, I think one of our witnesses testified just moments 
ago that they are the center or axis, or whatever, of basically 
lawmaking and policymaking in America today. Really are. Really 
are.
    How about this one? This was fun, coming from Arizona. The 
EPA was going after Arizona, demanding that we pay to clean up 
some pollution in the Grand Canyon. They acknowledged that it 
was causing no harm to either the Canyon or to personnel. But 
the thing that really drove us crazy is that all of that was 
coming over, being blown over from the Southern California L.A. 
Basin, but we were going to get stuck paying for cleaning it 
up. And the process that they were invoking upon us, based on 
their regulations, would have cost us tens and tens of millions 
of dollars, and yet they admitted it would not change the 
appearance, nor would it actually clean the air. That is what 
you get when you rely solely on regulations.
    How about this one in Arizona? OSHA came after Arizona and 
said you have not, as required, adopted our Federal fall 
standards, our regulations. We are going to come after you and 
shut you down, and we are going to take away your ability to 
enact our OSHA standards that we are imposing upon you. Our 
response was, but our fall standards are more rigorous and 
statistically show a safer fall standard than the Fed's, but we 
ended up getting sued. We sued back, and we had to settle and 
say we will be less safe, and we will have to adopt the Federal 
standards.
    When I hear people say that ``man, if you do not have 
Federal regulations, you are not going to be safe,'' I think, 
well, who is actually applying those Federal regulations? It is 
virtually every state. Arizona DEQ applies the EPA standards 
for the most part. Arizona's Occupational Labor Department 
imposes, in many cases, more rigorous regulatory standards than 
OSHA, but we are stuck because OSHA wants to come in and pose.
    You want to know why people say we are getting 
overregulated? It is because even when a state undertakes its 
own regulatory constraints and its own regulatory framework, 
the Federal Government insists upon its regulations coming in 
as if everybody in a state is a total dumpkin. That is 
overreach, and that is the authoritarianism of the fourth 
branch of government, Federal regulation, Federal Ministry of 
State. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair recognizes the 
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have to 
commend Congressman Connolly for his strong performance, and he 
took my reference to ``The Jungle'' that I wanted to discuss 
today as well. But, you know, it is really just astonishing to 
me that we are having a hearing today about regulations, not a 
specific regulation, just regulations. Are they good? Should 
they exist? Let us dig into it.
    We long know that regulations are written in blood. That is 
very often what is communicated by people, by communities, by 
labor, by workers, by many more, and even now, you know, 
hearing a mockery of cheese, right? You have a Republican 
saying, oh, look at how tightly regulated our government is. We 
even regulate cheese. Well, pregnant women cannot eat all forms 
of dairy because this is bacterial. This is a food that 
contains bacterial growths, and it poses risks, but perhaps if 
the other side of the aisle had more fluency and had more 
knowledge of a woman's body, perhaps they would suffer less in 
this policymaking.
    Let us look at other current regulatory rollbacks that 
Republican party is currently trying to pursue. Let us talk 
about airlines. Right now, we are seeing that lawmakers and 
Republicans are currently trying to push rollbacks on airline 
regulations. This has come with the forceful pushback from the 
Pilots Association as well as communities that have suffered 
and who have lost families on this, but let us dive in. What we 
are seeing right now is Republicans trying to rollback a rule 
on the number of hours that pilots must require in order to be 
licensed. And, Ms. Katzen, are you familiar at all with the 
Federal Aviation Administration's 1,500-hour rule?
    Ms. Katzen. Very lightly. Yes, I am aware of its 
requirements.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. This rule requires a pilot in 
training to have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time before 
flying a commercial plane. Seems pretty reasonable to me. If 
you are dealing with thousands of people and transporting 
thousands of people and commanding an airplane, seems like you 
should have pretty thorough training. This rule was enacted, 
not because of some bureaucrat having an idea somewhere, but it 
was enacted in 2010, following the Colgan airplane crash that 
tragically killed 50 people near Buffalo, New York. Now, once 
the rule was mandated by Congress, FAA implemented the law. And 
we are hearing the same arguments from the other side of the 
aisle saying these regulations are too onerous, that it is too 
much of an imposition, but these families have paid the price. 
They have paid the price. When we see these regulations, and we 
have heard it, you know, themselves, including from the 
President of the Pilots Association, saying these regulations 
are written in blood.
    Food regulations. This Committee has overseen PFAS 
poisoning. Communities that are often low income that do not 
have anyone to protect them. Rural, urban, inner city, 
wherever, they are poisoned when they are not protected, and 
that is the actual term. People discuss the term 
``regulation.'' What these are, are protections for people, 
often who have no one else to protect them, who do not have a 
corporate legal team to protect them, who have endured loss, 
who have endured disease, fertilities, cancers. This is why we 
have regulations.
    Ms. Katzen, from your experience, and expertise, even 
though a rule is mandated by Congress, for a rule like this to 
be implemented, it would still have to go through an extensive 
process, correct?
    Ms. Katzen. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And a rule like this will go through an 
extensive process oftentimes to ensure safety for people, 
right?
    Ms. Katzen. Correct. And the input of those on the ground 
who may know more than those who are drafting the rule, so it 
is an informed process.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And unsurprising to no one, this 
regulation had a massive impact on fatalities with the pilot 
training hour requirement. From 1990 to 2010, the FAA counted 
1,720 fatalities involving passenger and cargo flights. Once 
the rule was finally implemented, from 2011 to 2021, the FAA 
counted only 14 fatalities--14--only 14 fatalities after 
implementing this rule, when the direct years prior to that we 
saw 1,720 Americans dead. And yet we are here discussing 
rolling back a regulatory state, not even pointing out a 
specific area, not even a specific area. I mean, what are we 
here for? I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. But the purpose 
of the Committee hearing is to talk about many different 
regulations, and I am amused that the gentlelady is concerned 
about raising the age, the regulation that limits the age for 
pilots, when there is a shortage of pilots, but they are OK 
with the President of United States who is more than 20 years 
older than the middleman age----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chairman, as you are referring me, 
it is not age. It is training hour time, the number of hours 
that an individual is training, not the age.
    Chairman Comer. Well, part of the regulation is the age as 
well. The Chair recognizes Mr. Armstrong from North Dakota for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All regulation is 
burdensome. The question is whether or not it is necessary. 
Being burdensome does not mean it is bad, and in a lot of 
different instances, it is absolutely appropriate. But we 
reference ``The Jungle,'' and I would reference another book 
from that time. It is called ``An Unlikely Trust.'' It is about 
the relationship between J.P. Morgan and President Teddy 
Roosevelt because at the time of Carnegie, at the time of 
Rockefeller, at the time of one of the most popular Presidents 
in the history of the country, J.P. Morgan was the most 
powerful man in the world.
    And as we are busting trusts, and as we are moving through 
all of those things, in developing workers' rights, and 
fantastic things from, quite frankly, a fantastic President, 
big business figured out something else. They can comply with 
regulation. The cost of compliance for a large company is 
pretty simple to do when you have an entire floor full of 
lawyers, full of people. And what that costs them in regulatory 
compliance, they make up for in market share because you know 
who cannot comply? Small businesses.
    Dodd-Frank was never supposed to apply to small businesses, 
never was, because regardless of how you feel about the 
financial collapse, 2010, you know who did not do it? The 
credit union in North Dakota. But you know who had to comply 
with Dodd-Frank? The credit union in North Dakota. And when you 
have three employees, and you have to hire two more just to 
deal with Federal regulatory and compliance, you know, you do 
not have any more, a credit agency in North Dakota. And we are 
talking about death by a thousand cuts, and that is fine, but 
sometimes there is just one.
    Right now, the Biden Administration is running a 
regulation, Rule 111 of the Clean Air Act, and it is going 
through the process, and there are a lot of egregious things 
that exist in it. But you know who is going to be OK with that? 
Larger oil companies. They will figure out how to comply. You 
know who is not? Small oil companies, the ones that produce oil 
and gas in Western North Dakota, and how they continue to deal 
with this. Professor Mulligan, talk to me about that, and the 
nature of the regulatory regime and how it exists, and why it 
is so detrimental to small businesses as compared to large 
corporations?
    Mr. Mulligan. Thank you for your question. I think you 
explained it pretty well in terms of the specialized resources 
that a large corporation would have to deal with that. You may 
find the 2020 Economic Report of the President interesting. 
There we talked about. Yet first of all, my testimony was about 
things since 2009. ``The Jungle'' and those things were, like, 
before my grandparents who are all dead. The regulations had 
been going in and out in the last few years are very different 
than the ones from a century ago.
    But in the economics for the President, we talk about how 
President Trump was deregulating entry into business, helping 
small businesses get in. And we saw some evidence how the 
stocks crashed of some of the bigger companies who were 
protected by these regulations, and these allowed medicines to 
get to people quicker, so it saved lives. The idea that 
regulation saves lives, a lot of the regulations we have today, 
they cost lives because they reduce competition. They make it 
harder for people to get healthcare, to get medicines and 
things like that, so the small businesses are very important 
even for saving lives.
    Mr. Armstrong. For me, the most concerning aspects of the 
proposed Rule 111 is it would delegate regulatory authority to 
third-party non-government organizations. The EPA is saying 
this is such an important thing for emissions and all of these 
things that they are going to allow activist NGOs to monitor 
air quality in Western North Dakota. And instead of placing the 
burden of proof on the actual activists who are regulating 
this, the burden goes on to the company to prove that those 
that does not work. That sounds terrible. That is insane. I 
mean, I think the issue about the regulatory regime has a lot 
more to do with pushing an ideology, which is where people get 
frustrated with us.
    So, Mr. White, should Congress revisit? I mean, the Supreme 
Court is doing it for us, right? The EPA has been struck down 
twice in the last 18 months. But how should we look back at 
focusing Congress, so we ensure that these agencies are 
actually passing a regulation based on conduct and not 
ideology?
    Mr. White. Well, first of all, the point you raise about 
the outsourcing of enforcement power outside of government is a 
very important point, and I am glad you raised it. Second, I 
think Congress needs to modernize the Clean Air Act and other 
statutes. Congress needs to write more standards itself so that 
the agencies can focus on enforcement because as mentioned 
before, enforcement is often sorely lacking. Sometimes the 
problem is too much enforcement. Sometimes the problem is too 
little enforcement. Congress should write the policies. 
Agencies should enforce them.
    Mr. Armstrong. And then I would just say, this particular 
issue, the fight is not between regulation and no regulation. 
The fight is between dual regulations are allowing states that 
are already doing this work, like North Dakota, like New 
Mexico, to continue the regulation. The Federal Government is 
heavy handed, and it is not very dynamic. And with that, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bush from 
Missouri for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Chairman. St. Louis and I are here 
today in defense of strong government regulations that keep the 
public safe. Republicans claim that regulations slow down the 
economy and stifle innovation, but it is pure fantasy to expect 
entire industries to self-regulate without government 
oversight. Regulations like workplace safety standards enforced 
by OSHA, environmental protection provisions enforced by the 
EPA, FDA requirements for food production, all keep our 
community safer. A world without regulations will look like 
asbestos in our schools and workplaces, every corporation 
dumping chemicals into rivers, and unfettered use of child 
labor, and no safety standards for building construction, for 
housing, transportation, agriculture, or consumer products.
    According to my colleagues across the aisle, these 
regulations do not matter, but that does not mean they are 
anti-regulation. Republicans want to regulate access to 
abortions. Republicans want to regulate access to gender-
affirming care. Republicans want to regulate books for school 
children. None of those issues make us safer.
    We have decades of research that proves giant corporations 
like Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, Microsoft, Monsanto will cut 
corners to save a few pennies, all while making their chief 
executives and their shareholders even more rich. If we rely on 
these industries to self-regulate, we will undoubtedly end up 
with more public health crises. like oil spills and water 
contamination, and I am not willing to pay that price. St. 
Louis, home to Coldwater Creek and home to West Lake landfill, 
we are not willing to pay that price.
    While these examples are extreme, you may say, the premise 
is not. Federal regulations and modern and effective regulatory 
process keeps our community safer. Regulations keep the 
financial system strong. They strive to keep drug prices low 
and healthcare accessible and affordable. They ensure that 
people trying to get a good education or buy a home for their 
families are not defrauded by opportunistic and greedy 
corporations.
    Ms. Katzen, can you provide an example of a Federal 
regulation that was rolled back during the Trump Administration 
that has resounding impacts today?
    Ms. Katzen. Well, there were many examples of rollbacks. 
Profound, that may be in the judgment of the observer. I am 
thinking of one that recently the Biden Administration is 
resurrecting, and that is the gainful employment. We have an 
industry of for-profit educational institutions that, with some 
misleading data and other activities, attract a number of 
people to spend a lot of money. And then they have no 
opportunities ever to recoup that, because they are not well 
trained, and they are not able to find the kind of employment. 
And during the Obama Administration, they restricted taxpayer-
supplied support for those for-profit institutions, and 
President Trump rolled that back. Now President Biden is going 
forward again to reinstate that.
    There are other examples in the environment. I think, Mr. 
Raskin talked about mountaintop mining where companies come in 
and just slice off the top of the mountain, and it rolls down, 
and it contaminates the streams and the water supplies for the 
communities around it. And then I think coal dust. I mean, 
there are any number of instances where deregulation and 
rolling back protections has led to disasters.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you for those insights. As you say it, 
there are countless examples of industries and companies 
failing to self-regulate with catastrophic economic results. 
This year, the United States experienced the second, third, and 
fourth largest bank failures in history after banks like the 
Silicon Valley Bank lobbied to repeal regulations put in place 
by Dodd-Frank and then failed catastrophically. The oil and gas 
industry pushed for deregulation and lax oversight that 
contributed to the disastrous BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 
killing 11 people and causing an estimated $65 billion in 
economic losses. At the urging of industry and referencing 
standards drafted by the very industry it was supposedly 
regulating, former President Trump's Department of Interior 
rolled back safeguards to prevent another disaster. This is 
absurd.
    I will turn it back over to you. Thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Grothman from 
Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. At least before redistricting--I 
do not know that it is true anymore--I had more manufacturing 
jobs in my district than any other district in the country, and 
I frequently hear two things. First of all, the level of 
regulation compared to even 10 or 12 years ago, and I do not 
think we had a crisis of under-regulation in the state in this 
country 10 or 12 years ago. But the cost of new regulation and 
the degree to which businessowners telling me they never could 
have begun their company today because you have to pile on 
these regulations one by one, but to get all of these 
regulations when your major goal should be to produce a product 
and get it out the door, would have made it impossible to start 
the company in the first place.
    And by the way, I have never heard of anybody ever in a 
million years saying we should go back to the days of 1950 when 
we just put chemicals in the water. The chances of that 
happening are zero, but I would like a comment from, we can 
say, Dr. White, as to the cost of regulations on a big 
business, a big multinational business, or the small guy and 
the cost of regulations in the United States compared to our 
competitors in other countries.
    Mr. White. Thank you, Congressman. As it happens, I am 
going to be spending next week in your state near Eagle River 
where I am going to be enjoying not just the cheese that was 
discussed earlier, but also nature and being out enjoying 
nature. It is important to pursue both of these aims.
    And to your point, Congressman, I just want to say, first 
of all, big businesses can certainly bear the cost of these 
things more than smaller businesses, and the effect of that is 
a loss of innovation, a loss of startups, a loss of new jobs. 
We are often spurred to act in favor of regulation because of 
accidents and disasters, and that is a good thing. But we also 
need to be spurred toward caution of over-regulation and the 
cumulative cost of regulations because of the other disasters 
that do not attract headlines, the disasters of families that 
do not have enough employment income, jobs that are lost, 
innovations and startups that are lost. The lost opportunity 
for the United States and its small businesses and large 
businesses to supply the world with natural resources that we 
can produce much more cleanly and safely than other nations, 
each of those is a disaster. And it is a disaster that we guard 
against through smart regulatory analysis, looking at not just 
the benefits of regulation, but also the costs and making sure 
it is transparent.
    Mr. Grothman. Do you think sometimes, and I wonder about 
this sometimes. I can think of examples leading in this 
direction, that big business likes regulation because they know 
it forces out the little guy. I mean, if you have six factories 
with a thousand employees each, you can adapt to the 
regulations a lot more than some startup with 40 employees. Do 
you believe that is kind of behind some of these regulations, 
it is a way for big business to hurt the little guy?
    Mr. White. Well, I remember a decade ago, when I was a 
lawyer helping to represent a community bank that filed the 
original constitutional lawsuit against Dodd-Frank, I was 
struck by statements from the leaders of major banks, who would 
often say that the large regulatory programs like Dodd-Frank 
were the moat that kept competition from smaller upstarts at 
bay.
    Mr. Grothman. Exactly. I wish you could kind of repeat that 
a little. The people who liked the big regulations are the big 
guy who can, you know, spread the cost of learning about them 
over a variety of different branches or different factories or 
whatever. And that is why I can think of examples here of big 
businesses who contact me because they are for big regulations 
because they know it keeps the little guy at bay, and banking 
is one area of that, right? To get the little bank with 15 
employees, it is a lot harder to get up to speed as far as what 
is going on than one of these big national dailies, right?
    Mr. White. Yes, sir. Surely the larger companies and larger 
banks would like to do away with a lot of regulation 
themselves, but at the very least, they know that they are in a 
better position to bear the costs. And a lot of these 
regulatory frameworks force consolidation among the smaller 
banks, regional banks, smaller companies into bigger companies, 
creating a lack of competition and reinforcing a lot of the 
problems that we see today.
    Mr. Grothman. Any one of you can jump in on this. One area 
I have also felt there is way too much regulation is in the 
nursing home industry. And I felt that way 30 years ago, in 
which nurses who work there would tell me they spend all day 
filling out paper and did not have enough time for their 
patients. Would any of you like to comment on that, the 
percentage of manhours in a nursing home spent filling out 
paperwork as opposed to spending your time taking care of the 
older generation?
    Mr. Campau. Congressman, I will take that. There is the 
discussion about whether we want regulation or deregulation. I 
would just note that in 2018, I believe our single biggest 
deregulatory action, categorized as deregulatory action, was a 
reduction in the paperwork associated with exactly what you 
have just said, in nursing homes, inpatient hospitals, skilled 
nursing facilities, home healthcare providers. It made almost 
no material changes to the standards themselves. It just 
reduced the interval of reporting, and just that reduction in 
paperwork generated $8.2 billion in regulatory savings. That is 
an extraordinary figure across the government and, again, 
making almost no material change at all to the actual standard 
themselves.
    Ms. Katzen. But the reduction in some of the standards of 
care did result in a higher proportion of people in nursing 
homes dying during the COVID pandemic than senior citizens in 
their own homes or in hospitals generally. And the nursing home 
industry clearly suffered a huge loss of life at that time.
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes, and that was a tragic situation that 
would have lasted longer if it were not for Operation Warp 
Speed, which was a deregulation that President Trump did in the 
FDA and got the vaccines quickly to first and foremost the 
nursing home residents.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown from 
Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by 
highlighting Savannah Williams-Huynh, our 2023 congressional 
Foster Youth Delegate. Savannah, welcome to the Oversight 
Committee.
    Today I am pleased that we are holding a hearing to discuss 
the Biden Administration's policies to protect the safety and 
well-being of the American people. Unfortunately, President 
Biden inherited a Federal Government in disarray. Today we have 
learned policies enacted by the previous Administration 
protected industries, like Big Pharma, and Big Oil, and the 
wealthy, at the expense of everyday people. Right-wing 
extremists, including some on the Federal courts have 
repeatedly struck down regulations that enhance public health. 
So, Ms. Katzen, because of our limited time, I would 
respectfully request if you could respond by answering ``yes'' 
or ``no.'' Does the Administration have the legal authority to 
enact rules to lower drug prices and mandate affordable 
reproductive healthcare services?
    Ms. Katzen. Yes, sort of.
    Ms. Brown. OK. Ms. Katzen, are some of the rules and 
regulations put forward by Biden-Harris Administration designed 
to restore access to public health protections that the Trump 
Administration stripped away?
    Ms. Katzen. Yes.
    Ms. Brown. OK. Thank you. The Biden-Harris Administration 
has restored Federal funding to reproductive healthcare clinics 
that provide a comprehensive array of essential reproductive 
healthcare services. These efforts ensure that women in all 
communities, regardless of income, have access to safe and 
comprehensive medical care before, during, and after pregnancy. 
Such access to affordable healthcare is especially important 
for Black and Brown women who bear the brunt of the maternal 
mortality crisis in this country.
    Last, the Republicans' REINS Act goes as far as requiring 
both Chambers of Congress to approve a major rule before it can 
go into effect, giving each Chamber veto power over all 
agency's actions. Ms. Katzen, what would it mean for public 
health if a single Chamber of Congress had the power to block a 
major regulation?
    Ms. Katzen. The REINS Act has many problems embedded in it, 
and there are some constitutional questions about Chadha and 
one-house vetoes that are pertinent, but it would be an 
absolute nightmare. Congress has a great deal of difficulty 
doing its primary job of preparing a budget every year. How 
could it conceivably spend the time and effort to review the 
regulations that multiple agencies have been producing in 
response to authorizing legislation? A nightmare.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you very much. The Biden-Harris 
Administration is using its rulemaking authority to defend and 
enhance access to lifesaving healthcare. The burdens of unjust 
regulations are not coming from the Biden-Harris 
Administration. They are coming from the agenda on the other 
side of the aisle. While Democrats work to protect Americans, 
my colleagues attempt to regulate our history and culture. We 
regulate pollutants. They regulate books. We regulate tax 
cheats. They regulate the LGBTQ community. We regulate assault 
weapons, and they regulate abortion.
    So let me propose a question. Which requires strict 
government regulation, giant industries or our school 
librarians? Through rulemaking, President Biden is taking 
decisive action to ban ghost guns, expand access to over-the-
counter hearing aids, remove chemicals from our air and 
drinking water, and so much more. And because of that, I am 
proud to support the people-centered regulatory action of the 
Biden-Harris Administration. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Will the lady yield a question?
    Ms. Brown. No, the lady will not.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Well, Mr. Fallon, I guess, the Chair 
recognizes you for 5 minutes. I was just going to ask what the 
President's position was on regulating tax cheats, but the 
Chair recognizes you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Chairman. Thank you. I think we might find that 
out soon with a lot of the information that we have been 
discovering of late.
    You know, my colleague, Mr. Donalds, said the rhetoric that 
you hear in committees are sometimes really remarkable. Want to 
regulate books. Federal Government has not done that. That is 
happening at the state level. And, yes, you know what we want 
to regulate? I do not know. Explicit pornography in elementary 
schools. Yes, I am all for banning those kinds of books in an 
elementary school. Just, it is really astounding. Limited 
government, low taxes, reasonable regulation. This is why I ran 
for office in the first place because I believe in those three 
things. We heard earlier that we are anti-regulation. That is 
absolutely patently absurd. We are for reasonable regulation 
because there is also such thing as over regulating.
    And as a small business owner, I take particular umbrage 
with that because I started with absolutely nothing. It is an 
American Dream story kind of thing, and many Members of 
Congress have done that. And you get crushed if you are a small 
guy or gal trying to start a business with sometimes 
regulation. It is a very dangerous thing to be very cutting. I 
just think that we need to address that because really hearing 
some of this, the Socialist Marxist talking points over and 
over again, is just a beating. And I really try to talk about 
substantive things here and not just constantly attack our 
friends across the aisle.
    So as the Chairman of the Economic Growth, Energy, and 
Regulatory Subcommittee, we are no stranger to regulations and 
the avalanche that has been unleashed by the Biden 
Administration. Under Joe Biden, agencies across the government 
have been issuing crippling and costly regulations at a record 
pace. This is actually happening, and it is real, and it has 
real consequences, and it costs the American taxpayer and the 
American citizen more in the long run because it is 
philosophical. Do you trust unelected government bureaucrats, 
or do you trust the American people more? I trust the American 
people more, and I will default to that every day.
    Again, I am not saying we need to live in a world of sans, 
absent of regulation, but we need to be reasonable about it. 
That is one of the reasons why my home state of Texas, and 
Florida, and North Dakota, states like that, are booming and 
successful because we understand that concept, that there needs 
to be a balance between entrepreneurialism, and business, and 
the environment, and protections for consumers. There always 
needs to be a balance, and that is why other states like 
Illinois, New York, and California are bleeding opportunity in 
business and people because people, ladies and gentlemen, vote 
with their feet. And that is why you got one more electoral 
vote and we got two because we are doing it the right way. And 
people do not move to Texas for our majestic mountain visitors 
or our refreshingly cool longest afternoons. California has got 
all of that. They are doing it because they want opportunity 
and prosperity and to live the American Dream.
    You know, so according to the Foundation for Government 
Accountability, Joe Biden has issued more than $200 billion in 
new regulations in his first year in office. Two billion. So, I 
have got just a couple of questions to some very smart people 
that are visiting with us today, as witnesses.
    Professor Mulligan and Mr. White, some of the most 
substantial and, you know, things that were impacted by more 
regulations are low-income communities get to have to bear the 
brunt of that, unfortunately, whether it be through higher 
electric bills or vehicle costs, and they do not have a lot of 
margins of error, as well as retirees and investors through 
climate disclosures and ESG rules impacting returns. What are 
some of the examples of downstream impacts of excessive 
regulation? Professor, do want to go first?
    Mr. Mulligan. Higher prices.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    Mr. Mulligan. And in my testimony, it was Figure 2, I 
showed how the earlier Congress had deregulated 
telecommunications and the big drop in the price of your 
cellphone plan and your home internet plan, which is a big part 
of the budget for lower-income families. It was such a big 
thing that the Federal Reserve was puzzled. Why is inflation 
going down? And it is because one thing that this previous 
Congress had done to deregulate and make it easier for a wider 
range of choice for internet consumers.
    Mr. Fallon. So, you are saying choice actually brings down 
the cost and free market competition?
    Mr. Mulligan. It was competition, yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Interesting. Well, do you think these increased 
regulatory burdens? So, they clearly increased prices, but what 
do you think? Does it have a disproportionate impact to small 
businesses, these kinds of regulatory burdens?
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes, definitely. Often the regulations more 
or less prohibit what the new guys are trying to create and 
trying what the incumbent companies are making.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. And, you know, we are a country of the 
underdog, and a lot of the time, you know, big businesses get 
besmirched. But they were at one point a small business, and 
they just did things well, but they wish to keep them on their 
toes. We have also seen very large corporations fail eventually 
due to competition and not keeping up with trends and market, 
and what have you.
    Last question, Mr. Mulligan. I understand that your 
research has found that if the Biden Administration continued 
the Obama Administration's regulatory pace for a full 8 years, 
the cumulative cost on rulemaking could exceed, is that right, 
$60,000 a household?
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes, 60,000 per household.
    Mr. Fallon. That is remarkable. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
Thanks.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia from 
California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 
to just thank our witnesses for being here.
    I just want to just go back to something because it is 
truly crazy, some of the comments that have come out of this 
hearing. And I want to go back to something that was said about 
deregulating nursing homes, which was a completely shameful 
comment in my opinion. It has been clearly recorded, 
particularly during the pandemic, that the deregulation of 
nursing homes is actually what caused likely thousands of 
seniors in nursing homes to die during the pandemic.
    And, Ms. Katzen, I just want you to address again, one more 
time, because I was Mayor during the pandemic, the entire time, 
back home in Long Beach, California. And the issue of 
deregulation around nursing homes and our inability to actually 
meet that challenge caused countless loss of life, and so can 
you expand on that just a little bit? I know you mentioned that 
just a minute ago.
    Ms. Katzen. Thank you for your question. There had been a 
lot of efforts from 2010 on to increase the regulations of 
nursing homes, not only in terms of the training of personnel, 
but also the number of people who were taking care of people 
who could not take care of themselves, and they were fiercely 
fought by the industry. And when there was an opportunity, 
there were rollbacks on the requirements. Flash forward to the 
pandemic, and I cannot get out of my mind the front-page 
pictures of people talking to their loved ones through windows 
and being unable to comfort those who were in nursing homes, 
who then died as a result of a lack of care.
    Mr. Garcia. That is a horrifying image that we all 
remember. And I want to remind folks that we get elected to 
Congress and are here in government because we actually believe 
in doing the most good, and that we actually believe that 
government is actually here to actually help people. And so, I 
am one of those that believes that government is here to 
actually help people. And I know that we spent in this Congress 
last week fighting about, and infighting, and losing control of 
the House, and losing control of votes, and we are carrying on 
all of these hearings. I mean, this hearing seems to be about 
fighting for big polluters and not actually people that need 
our help.
    And I want to talk about regulations really briefly as it 
relates to pollution. It is a huge concern of mine back home in 
my district, though. In 1977, Congress, of course, passed the 
Clean Air Act and, which we know, delegating broad authority to 
the EPA to regulate air pollutions. And I want to note that 
this has worked incredibly well. This was a major regulatory 
change, regulations passed and with a lot of opposition, of 
course, in L.A. and Long Beach back where I am from. Back 
before the Clean Air Act, we had over 200 days a year where air 
was either unhealthy to hazardous, I mean, horrible. It was 
much like the air in D.C. just last week. Now, just last year, 
the 200 days was reduced. Now we had 27 unhealthy air days, and 
only one was actually hazardous.
    So, it is clear that smart regulation, climate regulation 
can actually save lives, direct lives. Regulations around 
protecting people in nursing homes can actually save lives. And 
so, we know that government intervention, when necessary, 
especially against large corporations that really oftentimes 
have zero to little interests in helping people, actually 
works. So, it is hard to understand why so many of my 
Republican colleagues constantly are fighting against basic 
laws that actually help and support people.
    And the other thing I just want to note, which I think is 
important before I yield back the remainder of my time, a lot 
of the regulations that we are talking about today also are 
helping communities that need the most help, and oftentimes, 
these are communities of color. These are low-income 
communities. They are depending on us to survive, to live, and 
to provide them a better life experience.
    And just to the Committee and to the Chairman, I know a few 
weeks ago, we had one of my Republican colleagues mention how 
important it was also to have diverse experiences and diverse 
witnesses when we have Committees. And I just want to make a 
note for the record, I appreciate always having a diverse set 
of experiences as witnesses. And if it was important for these 
hearings on D.C., it certainly is important when we have 
discussions about regulations and how they impact people, 
especially low-income people, communities of color, every 
single day. And so that is something that I would appreciate 
seeing forward in future hearings. And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes, Mr. Palmer, from 
Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Mulligan, 
you wrote a book called ``The Redistribution Recession,'' and I 
think it was based on what the Obama Administration did with 
their American Restoration Recovery Act. And in that, I think 
you pointed out that all of the predictions, for all of the new 
rules and regulations that the Obama Administration was 
imposing through that, resulted really in a reduction in 
employment. Is that correct, or am I off a little bit on that?
    Mr. Mulligan. You are correct. Thank you for reading that.
    Mr. Palmer. I try to look for factual information and try 
not to make things political. My concern is, having grown up 
dirt poor myself, is how people misunderstand regulations and 
business taxes for that matter. And some people in this room, I 
think, think that there is no real downside to regulatory 
costs. But the fact of the matter is, and you correct me if I 
am wrong on this, businesses do not pay taxes, and they do not 
pay regulatory cost. Who pays that?
    Mr. Mulligan. Consumers and workers when they earn the 
money and when they go spend it.
    Mr. Palmer. So, it is very inflationary, isn't it? And as I 
understand it, the first year of the Biden Administration, they 
added over $200 billion in new regulatory costs, three times 
what the Obama Administration did in the first year they were 
in office. Does that ring a bell with you?
    Mr. Mulligan. In my testimony, I point out that they are 
missing a lot of costs, so it is more like $600 billion.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, and they are on track to add even more 
before the end of this first term, which will further increase 
the burden on low-income families. I mean, we do not live in 
$2.5 million houses. You know, I lived in a house my dad built 
himself and shared a bedroom with my brother that had cardboard 
join the two floors. So, when you start adding on those 
repertory costs to get passed on to the consumer, whether it is 
in the form of groceries or household utility cost, it is an 
enormous burden on people.
    One of the things that concerns me about some of the 
regulations and policies of the Biden Administration is what 
has happened in Europe just this past winter when just a few 
weeks ago, a report came out that indicated 68,000 Europeans 
died because they could not afford their household utility 
bills. These people had cardiovascular problems, respiratory 
problems. I am concerned about that happening here in the 
United States as they continue this, the regulations that are 
impacting our power grid. Do you have any concerns about that?
    Mr. Mulligan. One of the things I did look at it and was in 
Figure 3 in my testimony, was how low-income households are 
affected by the cost of so many things. In particular, one of 
the categories in that chart is energy, and energy is a big 
part of the budget for low-income households. And it can be 
very tough on them if regulations or other things raise energy 
prices.
    Mr. Palmer. How about how it impacts business? One of the 
things that came out was a report from the Gallup research arm, 
and it said that prior to 2008, there were about 100,000 more 
business startups than there were closures, but by the end of 
2014, there were 70,000 more business closures. When you get 
right down to the core numbers, there are about 6 million or 7 
million businesses, maybe somewhere in that range, that really 
provide employment for the United States. Does that sound about 
right?
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes. In that order of magnitude, yes.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes. So, when you overregulate business and you 
start losing businesses, we start to lose our really 
entrepreneurism here because, as I tried to point out to 
people, when you over regulate the economy, you overtax the 
economy, money is just like water. It will always seek the 
paths of least resistance, and that is, you start losing 
capital investment. Has that been your experience as an 
economist?
    Mr. Mulligan. I mean, one of the issues with central 
planning and regulation is it is not very innovative. It is 
much easier as a regulator if things were like they were 
yesterday. And your small businesses, their entire intention is 
to make things different than they were yesterday, have a new 
idea, a new thing.
    Mr. Palmer. But you also hear all the time about how low 
the unemployment rate is, but you never hear anyone talk about, 
at least on the other side of the aisle, about how low the 
labor participation rate is. And is that a function of 
regulations, or is that a function of policies that maybe pay 
people not to work?
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes, I think that some of the other tax and 
spending policies. What we do see from the regulation is very 
low real wages. Real wages has fallen, I think, a record 25 or 
26 months in a row, very low productivity of workers. As we 
predicted, regulation would lead to that.
    Mr. Palmer. And that is death by thousand cuts. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee from 
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On October 27, 2018, a 
virulent anti-Semite used an AR-15 and three handguns to murder 
11 congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue in my district of 
Pittsburgh. The man accused of this heinous act, the deadliest 
antisemitic attack in our Nation's history, is on trial in 
Federal court as we speak. This is just one of hundreds of mass 
shootings that have damaged our communities. So, the question 
is, how did we get here? How do we end up where a loud and 
proud bigot is able to buy an arsenal of weapons of war and use 
them to murder people in cold blood?
    It starts with Republican pro-gun obsession that seizes 
every opportunity to prevent agencies, like the ATF and the 
FBI, from enforcing regulations and prevents introducing new 
commonsense regulations. They have even limited the authority 
to expand background checks on gun purchases. They have 
systematically blocked ATF's ability to create a searchable 
online data base to trace weapons. They have done their best to 
neuter Federal agencies, and now they want to expand their 
plans across the government through the REINS Act.
    Ms. Katzen, why is it that, historically, Congress has 
granted agencies broad discretion in their rulemaking 
authority?
    Ms. Katzen. First, may I say that I was born and raised in 
Pittsburgh, and I am Jewish, and the Tree of Life massacre 
truly touches home. But you do not have to live there or come 
from a place to mourn each mass shooting that occurs in this 
country. It is unbelievable to me that it persists, and I am 
sorry to abuse your time----
    Ms. Lee. No, please.
    Ms. Katzen [continuing]. To make those views expressed. 
Congress delegates to the agencies because the agencies have 
the expertise and the experience to be able to translate broad 
objectives into specific requirements or responsibilities. They 
have people who are schooled in the technology, or in the 
science, or in the economics, or even in the law. And they are 
able to do this kind of work, and that is why the delegation 
occurs.
    Ms. Lee. So would a bill like the REINS Act, in your 
opinion, undermine the expertise of agencies and bring undue 
political pressure into the rulemaking and approval process?
    Ms. Katzen. I am sorry, yes, I believe strongly that the 
REINS Act would be taking a step in the wrong direction.
    Ms. Lee. So, does Congress already have the authority to 
strike down final rules they disapprove of through the 
congressional Review Act?
    Ms. Katzen. Yes, they do.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. My Republican colleagues want to 
pretend that thoughts and prayers are enough to stop bullets as 
if they do not have the power to make our community safer. 
Instead, this week, Republicans chose to advance a resolution 
that would thrust more guns and gun accessories onto our 
streets. Their resolution seeks to prevent ATF from closing a 
loophole created by gun manufacturer selling pistol braces that 
convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle. The same pistol 
braces have been used in the Club Q shooting in Colorado last 
year and at the Covenant School shooting in Nashville just a 
few months ago.
    This issue should be simple. We want our neighbors to be 
able to worship without fearing for their lives. We want our 
children to come back home from school every day. We want our 
queer and trans friends to be able to celebrate pride, free 
from the threat of violence. We owe the American people real 
action toward better gun safety. And I with that will yield the 
balance of my time. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Timmons from South 
Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for joining us today. It is quite clear that the 
Biden Administration is attempting to strong-arm its Big 
Government agenda on this country via regulatory action. 
Whether it is the EPA, DOL, or ATF, executive rulemaking under 
this Administration has ensured each and every part of the day-
to-day life of the American public will face a greater 
compliance burden than they did just a few short years ago.
    Today I would like to focus on the ATF's recent regulatory 
actions, specifically their rule entitled, ``Factoring Criteria 
for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces.'' This rule is 
not only a direct reversal of a previous interpretation made by 
the Agency, but it is also an irrefutable attack on the Second 
Amendment. By categorizing pistols using stabilizing braces as 
short-barreled rifles, the ATF has turned millions of Americans 
into felons who are in direct violation of the National 
Firearms Act and now face up to 10 years in prison if they do 
not register, surrender, or destroy their firearm. This 
represents a dark new precedent where executive agencies can 
subvert congressional authority to become judge, jury, 
executioner, and now legislator.
    And I live in the upstate of South Carolina. I represent 
Greenville and Spartanburg. I can assure you that I have 
probably 5,000 to 10,000 constituents that are affected by 
this. So, Mr. White, what precedent does the ATF's reversal of 
the definition of a pistol brace set?
    Mr. White. Excuse me, sir. What precedent does it set?
    Mr. Timmons. What precedent does it set?
    Mr. White. I am not quite sure how to answer that, sir. I 
would say, first of all, the change of policy on that issue, it 
will raise a number of questions under current administrative 
law, the scope of the policy, the so-called major questions 
doctrine. The Supreme Court has said that when agencies change 
policies that affect people's settled reliance interests, that 
is going to be a big consideration for judicial review. And so, 
to the extent that this has retroactive effects on things that 
people already own, on guns that people already own----
    Mr. Timmons. Can you think of another instance where the 
Federal Government has criminalized owning something that 
previously was legal to purchase?
    Mr. White. I am trying to think of a----
    Mr. Timmons. Ms. Katzen, can you think of another example 
where the Federal Government has criminalized the ownership of 
something that previously was legal to purchase? And do you 
think that is appropriate?
    Ms. Katzen. I am not sure that the interpretation of the 
regulation is criminalizing something which was previously 
legal. There is a requirement now----
    Mr. Timmons. My brother bought one less than 6 months ago, 
and now he is a felon if he does not register it.
    Ms. Katzen. Oh, but then he is not a felon if he does 
register.
    Mr. Timmons. So, but----
    Ms. Katzen. I can buy a car, but before I drive it, I have 
to learn how to drive it, and I have to take a test.
    Mr. Timmons. But if you bought a car and none of that 
existed, and then we said, OK, if you do not do all of these 
things, it is now illegal and you will go to prison. Is there 
another example you can think of where the Federal Government 
retroactively changes a criminal code? Not even Congress. Not 
even Congress. Just the executive branch.
    Ms. Katzen. It is not retroactively changing if there is a 
condition precedent that, if undertaken, would no longer leave 
you in jeopardy----
    Mr. Timmons. How many Americans do you think follow the 
ATF's rulings? I mean, there are 40 million out there. Let us 
just say it is, what, 2 million, 3 million people. Do you think 
they are all required to go to the ATF's website and see that 
this is now illegal, and that the FBI should be able to go and 
arrest them and say you are going to prison for 10 years for 
owning something that it was illegal when you purchased it? Do 
you think that is appropriate?
    Ms. Katzen. I do not think that will occur.
    Mr. Timmons. Oh, really? Oh, really? But it can.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Timmons. Oh, absolutely.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, isn't that precisely what is happening in 
a lot of red states with abortion? There was a constitutional 
right to get one and now it is a crime?
    Mr. Timmons. That is the judicial branch making a decision 
about existing law----
    Mr. Raskin. And then a legislature----
    Mr. Timmons [continuing]. Not an executive branch.
    Mr. Raskin. But I thought you were looking at it from the 
standpoint of the citizen. Someone had a constitutional right 
to get this healthcare and suddenly it is a crime.
    Mr. Timmons. I do not think there is a single scenario 
where somebody has been entitled to an abortion and then the 
Supreme Court decision, and then state law has changed that has 
resulted in them going to prison. So, I mean, this is real. 
This affects millions of people, and it is different than that. 
I appreciate your nuance, but it is not the same, and it is not 
affecting millions of Americans' Second Amendment Rights.
    Look, this is wrong. We are weaponizing the Federal 
Government. The left continues to use the executive branch to 
achieve objectives they cannot achieve in Congress, and we have 
to stop that because as the pendulum swings so wildly, our 
society is going to have a very difficult time adjusting to 
this new status quo. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Moskowitz from Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Breaking news. 
Federal Government has too much red tape, right? Here we go 
again. Not a serious hearing and actually looking at specific 
government regulation and red tape. Look at the name of this 
hearing. It does not say executive branch red tape or Federal 
Government red tape. It is titled, ``The Biden Administration's 
Campaign to Bury America in Red Tape.'' This is their hearing, 
literally, just red tape with Joe Biden's name written on it. 
Just make it real simple for people. That is the point of this 
hearing. It is not about solving problems. It is about red 
painter's tape with Joe Biden's name written on it. Look what 
Joe Biden has done. Look, it is right there. Here is the proof.
    Professor Katzen, serious question. Was red tape invented 
by Joe Biden?
    Ms. Katzen. No, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK, good. You know, my colleagues across the 
aisle used to be the party of smaller government, and I wish 
they still had credibility in wanting to shrink the size of 
government. They want more government now
    --government in women's bodies, government in the bedroom, 
government in the library, government in corporate investments, 
government in Disney World--you know, and all we want to do is 
go back to Trump. I mean, every hearing, it is like, oh, just 
if we could just go back to what Trump did, you know, the loser 
of the 2020 election, the loser of the Georgia Senate races, 
the loser of the 2018 midterms.
    By the way, just to jog your memory, the Trump 
Administration finalized more Federal rules in the last year of 
its Administration than any other final year of any presidency 
in American history, more than Obama. I know it is inconvenient 
timing, but perhaps we actually need more regulation with 
Presidents taking nuclear codes, and cuddling with them, and 
showering with them in their homes.
    You know, I want to answer the Representative's question on 
ATF and pistol braces. Has that ever happened before? Well, in 
fact, yes. It happened under the Trump Administration. With 
Trump's ATF, they banned bump stocks. Bump stocks were legal, 
and then they were not. The Trump Administration's ATF did 
that. By the way, good decision. People should not be able to 
turn guns into automatic weapons. Let us not forget that some 
of our colleagues, you know, went on camera when Sacha Baron 
Cohen got into their office and said that they think 
kindergartners should have guns. We heard that this is all 
about big corporations, that big corporations now like 
regulation. Well, by the way, just a little public service 
announcement. If you are mad at big corporations, you do not 
have to take their money anymore. That is not, like, a 
mandatory thing.
    By the way, Professor Mulligan, you brought up Operation 
Warp Speed. I just want to give you an update on that. Some of 
our colleagues across the aisle now do not believe that 
deregulation was very good. They have soured on the 
deregulation of Operation Warp Speed and actually believe that 
that led to bad outcomes. I do not agree, but I just wanted you 
to have that update if you have been following the rhetoric 
coming from that side of the Chamber.
    We heard about the marketplace. Let the marketplace decide 
these decisions. Really? We had a whole hearing on ESG. That 
was the marketplace talking. Nope, they did not like it. 
Government regulation, we got to ban it. They want to ban it, 
more regulation, because they did not like what the marketplace 
had to say.
    Listen, regulations are hurting small businesses. They are, 
so let us actually work together and solve that problem. 
Paperwork for a mortgage is too burdensome. Let us make that 
easier. That should be the point of this hearing. How can we 
help the American people? How can we reduce regulation? Let us 
talk about specific ideas that we can do that together. No one 
here believes that we do not have enough regulation. No, there 
are things that we could reduce things to make it easier for 
the American people.
    By the way, we are going to have to remove red tape and 
shrink bureaucracy if we want to compete with China. We are 
going to have to do those things, but maybe Congress should 
work again. You know, you are mad about all the rulemaking in 
the executive branch. It is because this place stopped 
lawmaking. We do not make laws here anymore because we are too 
busy doing this. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Donalds, for 5 minutes. You have got big shoes to 
fill from your colleague in Florida that you succeeded here.
    Mr. Donalds. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, my 
colleague from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, this is actually old hat 
for us back from our days in the Florida Legislature.
    Look, a couple of things. These hearings, I do agree, 
typically are fun, but the reality is, is that regulations at 
the Federal level, and I think it is important to show us a 
couple of things. Regulations at the Federal level, over-
regulation at the Federal level does have a massive undue 
burden on small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and micro 
businesses. It is your mom-and-pop businesses that are started 
by a lot of people in our country, all across every 
socioeconomic background. The big players, the Fortune 500 
guys, they do not really care too much actually about 
regulation. The area we are seeing that more, I believe, than 
in any other part of our government happens to be in the 
financial industry. In the financial industry, the big banks 
really do not care.
    I had a meeting actually with some of those larger banks, 
their representatives, and I said, well, guys, you know, the 
regulatory environment and banking is really restrictive. It is 
going to cause us major issues. What if we just got rid of 
Dodd-Frank? You know, it was passed on a partisan basis many 
years ago. I believe it is probably the worst financial 
regulatory framework we have ever created. It actually has done 
the thing that we were told it would never do. It actually made 
the big banks bigger, and we were told that it would stop too 
big to fail. Well, we all see now that is not true. What do you 
think about getting rid of it, and you know what they say? They 
say, well, we have kind of already built out our programming 
and compliance system, so it is kind of hard to get out of 
that. Meanwhile, small banks are being eviscerated.
    Let us talk about where we are today. In March 2022, the 
Department of Labor began to scrutinize and recommended against 
all 401(k) plans that include the opportunity to invest in 
cryptocurrencies, i.e., that is telling small businesses and 
businesses that in 401(k) plans that they actually sponsor for 
their employees, that cryptocurrency options should not be 
allowed for the employees to invest in. Mr. White, do you view 
this as an overregulation from the Biden Administration?
    Mr. White. Thank you for your question, and, yes, I do.
    Mr. Donalds. No. 2, the EPA, under the Biden 
Administration, has actually set a very ambitious and 
unrealistic emissions-regulated goal for electric vehicle 
deployment throughout the United States. I just had a meeting 
with a bunch of car dealers, and you know what they are telling 
me? They are saying that nobody comes into a car dealership 
looking for an electric vehicle, but the Biden Administration's 
own emissions policy is force feeding electric vehicles onto 
the auto markets here in the United States. Professor Mulligan, 
do you believe this is an excessive over regulation of the auto 
industry?
    Mr. Mulligan. Yes. We looked at the even more gentle 
regulations through the compliance market was costing hundreds 
of dollars per ton of CO2 when President Obama said it was only 
worth $50, so it has Americans way overpaying for a 
comparatively minor environmental benefit. Added on top of they 
are cutting back the supply of electricity that we are supposed 
to charge these things with. So economically, it is really 
amazing thing for me to watch, but it is going to be hard for 
consumers to deal with.
    Mr. Donalds. Now, listen. Director Chopra is actually in 
Financial Services right now. I will be seeing him soon. But 
the CFPB is trying to enact Rule 1071, something from Dodd-
Frank that has taken them about 12 years to try to figure out, 
and they finally want to get around to that, too. And the 
desire is to increase reporting requirements of financial 
institutions when they give loans to small businesses, et 
cetera, and all these kind of business levels. Ms. Katzen, do 
you think that the CFPB extends itself into overregulating 
companies within our entire economic system? Do you think that?
    Ms. Katzen. No, sir. I think they have been acutely aware 
of the statutory authorities that they have been granted, and 
that they have done remarkably well in helping individuals who 
are often confronted with financial documents they cannot 
understand, they cannot deal with.
    Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you this question because last time 
I checked, Ms. Katzen, the CFPB does not help people read their 
financial documents. What the CFPB does is they walk around 
fining companies for activities that the CFPB thinks that are 
not helpful to the consumer. But what we also understand and 
what I definitely understand is that the CFPB is unaccountable. 
They do not have to report to Congress, and, frankly, that is 
in front of the Supreme Court now. And they try to defend 
having their own director not being answerable to the President 
of the United States.
    So, do you think it is constitutional to have an agency 
with policing powers and finding powers under the auspices of 
the U.S. Government to be wholly unaccountable to Congress? Do 
you think that is constitutional?
    Ms. Katzen. That case is before the Supreme Court----
    Mr. Donalds. No, I am not asking the Supreme Court. I am 
asking you.
    Ms. Katzen. Well, they had previously decided the Seila Law 
case in which they held that the director could be fired by the 
President. He did not have an at-cause will. And the reason 
that the CFPB is able to select certain documents that they 
want to question is because of complaints that come in and from 
information that they receive. They do not just----
    Mr. Donalds. All right, Ms. Katzen. I am over time. I am 
over time, and that is an interesting point you were making. 
Mr. White, I am going to let you answer because I see you are 
chomping at the bit, and I think that is going to close us out. 
Go ahead.
    Mr. White. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I will just say I 
have been working on this issue for more than a decade since 
Dodd-Frank was created. I helped C. Boyden Gray and others file 
the original constitutional lawsuits. And while it is true that 
with respect to the CFPB, the Supreme Court has corrected the 
problem of a lack of executive branch accountability, from the 
start, the greatest flaw in the CFPB's construction was making 
it independent of Congress' power of the purse and allowing the 
CFPB to treat the Federal Reserve as its own independent slush 
fund. I am very glad that the Supreme Court is reviewing that 
issue this fall, and I hope the Supreme Court follows through 
similarly as to in the Seila Law case.
    Mr. Donalds. All right. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair recognizes Mr. Frost 
from Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Frost. So, this week, House Republicans have us voting 
on the REINS Act, a proposal they say will reform the 
rulemaking process and cut red tape, when the reality is that 
this is a plot to take power away from experts and put it in 
their own hands. And for those who do not know, this bill would 
mean that many agency rules could not advance without the 
approval from Congress and that they are automatically vetoed 
after 10 weeks of inaction. That means Members of the Majority 
can kill regulation without even ever having voted on them, 
forever. This is a power grab by Republican Members of Congress 
with no experience in the specialized agency matters and 
allegiances to big and often unknown lobbyists. This would be a 
nightmare.
    And so, let us look at what rules and regulations House 
Republicans have tried and thankfully failed in trying to 
reverse under the current process. Mr. White, are you familiar 
with the EPA's rule on heavy truck emissions?
    Mr. White. In general, yes.
    Mr. Frost. Republicans tried to shut down the EPA's change 
in heavy truck emission standards enacted to keep our air 
clean. By 2045, it would have prevented kids from missing over 
a million days of school, up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths 
and a net $29 billion in benefits annually. Mr. White, is 
knowledge and experience of clean air and fair industry 
standards a prerequisite for becoming a Member of Congress?
    Mr. White. No. We trust the people to vote on merit.
    Mr. Frost. No, it is not a prerequisite. Unlike those 
involved in the rulemaking process at the EPA, Mr. White, are 
you familiar with the Department of Labor's prudence and 
loyalty in selecting plan investments and exercising 
shareholders rights rule?
    Mr. White. No, not specifically.
    Mr. Frost. Mr. White, are the Republicans who held a vote 
to overturn this rule experts in securities investments and 
financial risk, or are they some of the same Republicans that 
voted to overturn rules that would have prevented our recent 
bank collapse?
    Mr. White. Well, I do not know which Republicans 
specifically voted for it. I know there is expertise in the 
Agency. I also know there is expertise in the private sector 
and among state regulators and others, but beyond the 
specifics, I do not know much about that vote.
    Mr. Frost. Are you familiar with the ATF's rule to 
reclassify stabilizing braces?
    Mr. White. Generally, yes.
    Mr. Frost. Yesterday, House Republicans held a vote to try 
and overturn this rule, which would require background checks 
for rifles to be converted into assault weapons. Mr. White, is 
the ATF a body of elected Republican officials who in 2017 
received $5.9 million from the gun lobby?
    Mr. White. I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that 
question.
    Mr. Frost. I will ask it again. Is the ATF a body of 
Republican elected officials who received over $5 million from 
the NRA?
    Mr. White. No, the----
    Mr. Frost. They are not. The ATF has not. In fact, they are 
not beholden to the NRA, which is exactly why I trust them to 
make decisions that are not biased toward the gun manufacturers 
and the gun lobby.
    Mr. White. May I just add one more sentence?
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Mr. White. Let me just say very briefly, I am very 
concerned about gun violence in our cities and in our schools, 
and I know that the Supreme Court's rulings under the Second 
Amendment leaves space for some reasonable regulation on this. 
I want to say also it is important for a lot of these decisions 
to be made in the communities and the states where they are 
most familiar with both the context, the community, and the 
problems. And my concern with all that being decided by one 
particular agency is that we lose a lot of expertise about the 
community itself.
    Mr. Frost. OK. Thank you, Mr. White. Are you aware that 
over 90 percent of Americans are for universal background 
checks?
    Mr. White. I did not know that, and I myself----
    Mr. Frost. Yes, most Americans, most Republicans, most 
Democrats, and most NRA members are for it, yet it has not 
happened here. Pistol braces were used to make modified assault 
weapons in mass shootings in Boulder, Nashville, Colorado 
Springs, and Daytona. They need to be regulated as assault 
weapons.
    I also want to say we heard a lot about the theme of the 
Founders. I reject the attempt to use the Founders to justify 
this power grab. In history, we take the best with us, and we 
learn from the worst. There are many themes that the founders 
had that we reject now: women being able to vote, me being a 
slave. We take the best, and we learn from the worst. As Mr. 
White has established, House Republicans' version of 
deregulation is simply a power grab. It is great for gun 
manufacturers. It is great for the oil and gas lobby, and it is 
bad for everyone else.
    And one other thing. My colleague was asking the question 
of times, examples where government has taken away rights that 
people had before et cetera. My colleague brought up the right 
to bodily autonomy. I also want to bring up the fact that in 
Florida, we passed Amendment 4, the people passed an amendment 
to give voting rights to people with previous felonies. Twelve 
of those people went to vote and were given a card that said 
you are registered to vote, and Ron DeSantis and the Republican 
legislature sent a police force to their door, arrested them, 
brought them to jail for a right they were told they had by the 
government. This has happened before, but just in ways that 
impact poor and working people. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fry from South 
Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since taking office, the 
Biden Administration has usurped an incredible amount of 
authority to push what they cannot do in Congress, but push 
their liberal agenda, ultimately trying to fundamentally change 
the makeup of this country. I mean, think about it. Since day 
one, they have gone after the constitutional rights of law-
abiding gun owners. They have pushed a ridiculous amount of 
regulations on our businesses, small businesses. They are 
prioritizing ESG standards over Americans' retirement funds. 
They have put green energy over practical energy production. 
They have decided Americans should not own gas stoves, as 
absurd as that sounds, and they even feel the need to regulate 
puddles.
    Under the leadership of this administration, agencies like 
the ETF, ATF, EPA, SEC, and FTC feel emboldened to extend their 
scopes of power beyond what Congress has intended and instead 
of pursuing a responsible and effective regulatory agenda. 
Government agencies were never meant to act like this. This is 
Congress' role, yet this Administration continues to push it 
and costing families and businesses all across this country an 
insane amount of money. They have been stifled in court cases, 
West Virginia v. EPA most recently, but it is not enough. They 
continue to push this.
    So, Mr. White, Biden's administrative state approach varies 
greatly from the approach of President Trump and allows for 
much less gatekeeping by the current OMB. What lessons can be 
learned from both approaches?
    Mr. White. Well, thank you for your question. I think the 
first lesson learned is that transparency is important. Some of 
the Trump Administration agencies' and OIRAs' most significant 
modernizations were promoting transparency around the 
rulemaking process. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. 
That is a timeless lesson. But I think it is also a lesson we 
are relearning now in the aftermath of the Administration and 
the agencies pulling down a lot of the curtains that have been 
raised up by the previous administration.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Professor Mulligan, the House has 
passed eight CRA resolutions rebuking the Administration's 
regulatory overreach. Has the Administration made any effort to 
halt that overreach?
    Mr. Mulligan. I have not followed up on those CRA motions 
and actions.
    Mr. Fry. Mr. White, do you care to comment on that?
    Mr. White. I am sorry to plead ignorance, but I have not 
followed them as closely either.
    Mr. Fry. Have you seen any attempt by the Administration to 
curtail their regulatory authority in light of Congress and a 
lot of the courts?
    Mr. White. No, sir. In fact, I am concerned about the 
brazenness with which a number of agencies, including the SEC, 
seem insistent upon thwarting the Supreme Court's recent 
decisions regarding how to read the statutes that govern 
administrative agencies.
    Mr. Fry. In what ways would you say they are doing that?
    Mr. White. Well, for example, let me take one example out 
of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC is pursuing 
a truly transformative agenda to make financial regulators into 
the new climate regulators and perhaps the new everything 
regulators. It flies in the face of not just the history of the 
SEC, the statutes that created the SEC and govern the SEC, but 
also the Supreme Court's decisions, not just the most recent 
Roberts Court's decisions, but Supreme Court decisions going 
back decades.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Mr. Campau, did I pronounce that 
correctly? The Biden Administration has issued regulations 
creating 218 million hours of regulatory paperwork for 
businesses. What impact these regulatory burdens will be felt 
on small businesses?
    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Congressman. As has been discussed 
here, before 2017, every year, an NFIB study of small 
businesses said that cumulative regulatory burdens was their 
No. 1 concern. So, we know going back a long ways that that is 
an issue.
    As addressed earlier, one of the questions you asked was 
about sort of the difference. One difference that, you know, 
just stood out to me and sort of process that I could not 
understand is we had a requirement to post, for example, all 
Agency guidance on a centralized website. Pretty simple. It is 
not requiring them to do. It is not changing policy at all. It 
is just saying post it where people can find it, and that 
requirement is now gone. Why? I do not understand what could 
possibly be a justification for that. Also, just the end of 
last week, we had worked to expand the role of cost-benefit 
analysis to the tax rules, and that was just taken away on 
Friday. They have gotten rid of that, so there is no more 
review. There is no more economic analysis and tax rules.
    Mr. Fry. You know, under the U.S. SBA Office of Advocacy, 
they have released 75 comments, reports on rules by the 
Administration. Can you fill us in on any of the substance of 
those comments?
    Mr. Campau. No, I am not familiar with those specific 
comments, but they weigh in generally. Advocacy plays a very 
important role in the review process and working with OIRA to 
make sure that small business interests, concerns are accounted 
for. I think it is really important that that continue to be 
protected.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
witnesses for their willingness to appear before the Committee 
and help us with our work.
    Ms. Katzen, according to the reviews conducted by various 
nonpartisan government watchdog organizations, the Trump 
Administration engaged in a sweeping effort to reverse or 
rollback critical Federal agency regulations at the behest of 
private industry and to the great detriment of the health and 
safety of the American people.
    As reported by ProPublica, an independent investigative 
organization, President Trump began his Administration in 2017 
by ordering Federal agencies to establish so-called 
deregulation teams. He then promptly stacked those teams out of 
public view with political appointees with deep industry ties 
and significant conflicts of interests. As a matter of fact, in 
2019, Public Citizen, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group, 
issued a report entitled, ``Your Wish is My Command: Corporate 
Capture of the Regulatory Process Evident in Trump's First Two 
Years.'' I would like to get unanimous consent to enter this 
into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Lynch. So one day, people were protected and had 
environmental protections, and the next day, they did not. 
Professor Katzen, would you agree that industry representatives 
should not have a disproportionate or controlling influence 
when it comes to the process of agency rulemaking?
    Ms. Katzen. I would. Relying on the adverbs and adjectives 
that you used, disproportionate influence, they do have a lot 
to contribute. And the whole OIRA process that we have been 
referring to here encourages those who are either burdened or 
benefit to come forward and contribute to the process of 
rulemakings. Because they are on the ground, they are in the 
factories on the plants. They know the implications, and they 
should be heard, but so should the beneficiaries.
    Mr. Lynch. Well, therein lies the rub. These were 
deregulation teams, and they were industry representative. That 
was my question.
    Ms. Katzen. Exactly.
    Mr. Lynch. So, what happens to the representation for 
vulnerable communities if that is the arrangement that is made 
for deregulation?
    Ms. Katzen. There is none, regrettably.
    Mr. Lynch. This corporate-driven regulatory agenda proved 
particularly harmful in rolling back critical environmental 
protections that were in place solely to protect the health and 
safety of American people. According to The New York Times 
analysis, the Trump Administration officially reversed, 
revoked, or otherwise rolled back more than 100 environmental 
rules in 4 years. These included landmark protections against 
carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and cars, and 
trucks, and limits on water pollution, prohibitions on toxic 
chemicals, reducing standards on methane emissions for oil and 
gas facilities, and regulations to ensure clean water. 
Professor Katzen, can you please discuss how agency regulatory 
actions would benefit from greater transparency and more 
equitable and meaningful public participation?
    Ms. Katzen. Thank you for the question. President Biden on 
day one made it clear that he wanted everyone at the table, not 
just some select few who had dollars in their pockets, and that 
it was important to be able to open the process to what I call 
the regulatory beneficiaries, those who are expected to benefit 
from the regulations. We have had a fabulous system of notice 
and comment for rulemaking, but it has been disproportionately 
those who are going to be burdened by the regulation, the 
proposed regulation, rather than those who might benefit. They 
have not been at the table, and, therefore, it is sometimes 
conceivable and, in fact, has occurred, that a regulation may 
be issued to meet a particular problem which does not really 
solve the problem that the people want solved because they have 
not been heard. They have not been welcomed in the process.
    And the most recent modernization of the most recent 
Executive Order 14094--or missing a number--specifies that 
agencies are to do their best to bring the marginalized 
communities, the regulatory beneficiaries to the table, and 
that OIRA is to do its best to make sure that their voices are 
heard in the process.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 
courtesy, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins from 
Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the pleasant 
aspects of this Committee is that I frequently have the 
opportunity to speak after my friend, Mr. Lynch, and he is my 
friend. America may be surprised to hear that. He referred to 
Republicans. It was interesting. He stated the Republicans 
support a corporate-driven regulatory agenda. May I say to my 
good friend across the aisle that Republicans support an 
American-family driven reduction of Federal regulatory 
oppression agenda. Republicans support the reduction of massive 
accumulation of Federal debt agenda. Republicans support the 
logical conclusion that the reduction of the size and scope of 
the Federal Government will reduce the oppressive power and 
expense of the Federal Government. Republicans support states' 
rights.
    If I was in charge, I would bring regulatory powers of the 
Federal Government back 50 years. I will be 62 in a month, and 
I recall I am old enough to recall as a young man when the 
Federal Government was not in everyone's way, and it is an 
American family issue.
    If a farmer owns a one--square-mile farm, it is very common 
the way plots were laid out long ago. DOL police showed up last 
year to enforce a bathroom facility regulation. He had 15 
employees, all men on a farm. He had two bathrooms, one in the 
mechanic shop, the farm building, the farm maintenance 
building, and the other in a trailer where some of the 
employees, laborers, lived during harvest season. The DOL 
police showed up, told them according to the law they had to 
have a bathroom facility within 1 quarter mile distance for 
everybody. The farmer said I would have to have 12 toilets out 
here. It is insane. The DOL agent gave him a citation, a fine.
    American families are quiet about things like this. You 
know why? You know why they do not want to complain? Because 
they do not want the IRS coming after them. They do not want 
the EPA coming after them. They recognize that the Federal 
Government's regulatory authority has most certainly been 
weaponized.
    I had 10 farmers who suffered this in a wave of regulatory 
oppression. EPA fuel police showed up with yellow strips to 
check the saddlebag tanks of diesel trucks to see if there was 
any trace of red dye farm fuel in those tanks. If you know 
anything about farm operations, you know that fuel is carried 
in five-gallon cans where it is needed, whether it is farm fuel 
or standard diesel fuel. They cannot get mixed, minute amounts. 
Nobody wants red dyed farm fuel in their diesel trucks, but it 
can end up in small amounts in a tank, and the strips are 
sensitive enough to test that. Those farmers were fined $10 
grand a piece and would not allow me to fight on their behalf 
because they did not want the IRS after them. The list goes on 
and on and on.
    In the first 2 years of the Biden Administration, 
regulations issued, of course, the economy a staggering $309 
billion. That is $309,000 million that is primarily absorbed by 
American families and small businesses because they do not have 
the attorneys and the staff power to deal with the regulatory 
expense. That number I just cited is a 50-percent increase 
compared to the first 2 years under the Obama Administration 
and eight times more expensive than the rules released in all 4 
years under President Trump.
    Mr. Campau, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771 
known for its, ``one-in/two-out'' approach to regulations. Was 
this approach successful in encouraging the economic prosperity 
in America?
    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Congressman. I believe it was. We 
built on the experience that we had seen in U.S. states and 
around the world. They have a regulatory budget in place in 
Canada for a long time and United Kingdom. Other places around 
the world have used them, thought they make a lot of sense. It 
does not mean you do not have any regulation. It means that you 
just approach regulations in a more thoughtful manner, and that 
is what we endeavor to do, and I think it worked.
    Mr. Higgins. I do not think I could follow up that answer 
with a more logical statement. Mr. Chairman, my time has 
expired, and I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognize Ms. 
Norton from the District of Columbia for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is 
obviously intended to paint regulations as bad and attack 
Federal rulemaking, but we should remember that the purpose of 
the regulatory process is to ensure that the Federal Government 
is accessible and accountable to the public. Every rule in the 
Federal Register is finalized after a thorough and intensive 
public comment period, and public comments are crucial because 
who better understands the impact of proposed regulations than 
the people who will be affected by them? Many of these 
regulations are extremely technical. The public comment period 
also allows subject matter experts to weigh in and help the 
Federal Government create the most effective and least 
burdensome regulations possible.
    Ms. Katzen, how do OIRA and Federal agencies take public 
comments into account before a proposed rule is finalized?
    Ms. Katzen. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for the question. The 
APA requires notice and comment, and the courts have been 
diligent in requiring that the agencies address those comments 
and the reason and basis for the rule that is finally 
promulgated. And so, when the agencies receive the comments, 
they have to read them. They have to respond to significant 
comments. There is a whole casebook that I teach on the 
obligations of the agency to be responsive. And when OIRA is 
reviewing a final rule, they will often inquire as to how the 
agency has evaluated the comments that have come in because 
that public participation is critical.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. Katzen, that is interesting. I wonder if 
you can give us an example of when an agency significantly 
changed its final rule because public comments revealed 
unexpected impacts or burdens on people?
    Ms. Katzen. There have been many, many occasions when that 
has occurred. It is a proposed rule, and it means that the 
agency is trying to figure out how best to handle this subject. 
And when it receives the information, it can twist or tweak 
certain parts of its proposal to make it stronger or make it 
weaker as the case may be.
    There is a limit to how much it can change without giving 
additional notice. If it wants to change dramatically the rule, 
then the logical outgrowth rule of administrative law requires 
that they go back for additional comments. But I have seen any 
number of cases where the agency will say, oh, we were unaware 
of that, or that is useful information, and will change various 
aspects of their proposed rule.
    Ms. Norton. For years, Republicans in Congress have tried 
to pass legislation to take the regulatory review process away 
from the executive branch and put it squarely in the hands of 
Congress. The Republicans REINS Act, which would do just that 
is slated for debate on the floor this week. Ms. Katzen, the 
public commentary process has long been a pillar of Federal 
rulemaking. How would the REINS Act or similar legislation 
effect that process?
    Ms. Katzen. The REINS Act leaves the matter solely in 
Congress' hands. Either House of Congress can refuse to act, 
and then all the work that has been done, all of the 
information that has come in, all the analysis that has been 
undertaken is gone. It is just what the Members of Congress 
decide they want to pursue. And so, the public participation is 
eliminated, in reality, and replaced by an up or down, or what 
may be a non-vote.
    Ms. Norton. Well, Ms. Katzen, you have written that the 
REINS Act originates from the faulty assumption that agencies 
are not given sufficient scrutiny. Do you think Federal 
agencies need additional constraints or checks? Why or why not?
    Ms. Katzen. Well, I think, Congresswoman Norton, that there 
are many tools available to Congress for oversight, for 
hearings, for inquiries, and that there is not an additional 
need for additional legislation. And one always has to be 
concerned about the unintended consequences of actions that may 
be taken. And in this area, in particular, I think Congress has 
the power of the purse, the Senate has a voice in the 
appointment of officials at the agency, and there is always a 
vast oversight and opportunities for hearings by which the 
Congress can make its voice known formally. And then there are 
informal channels as well, so that I think the REINS Act would 
be wholly unnecessary and very disruptive.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The lady's time has expired. I 
will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions, but I must 
add Ms. Katzen's description of the REINS Act, what a noble 
concept, putting the power of regulation in the hands of 
Congress.
    Mr. Campau, you wrote a report last September titled, 
``Regulatory Budgeting in the U.S. Federal Government,'' where 
you describe how President Trump's Executive Order 13771 
achieved a net regulatory cost savings of over $198 billion 
over 4 years. Can you explain how this was possible?
    Mr. Campau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think it was 
certainly a very collaborative effort across the entire 
government, across the professional career civil service ranks 
and the political ranks, to work together to find opportunities 
for improvements. I think one sort of misconception about 
deregulation is that sometimes there is an idea that, oh, you 
are just, you know, slashing and burning. But really, I noted 
it a little bit earlier, but a lot of the regulatory reforms 
were just that, reforms. We call them regulatory reform task 
forces. They were reforms that made improvements to programs 
that generated savings while still protecting health and safety 
and other important concerns.
    So the architecture was that, basically, when a new dollar 
of regulatory cost was going to proceed, we wanted to find a 
way to offset it if we could. Part of the way we did that was 
to direct agencies to build on the retrospective analysis 
program that the Obama Administration put in place. We said, 
let us take that and let us implement it even further.
    Chairman Comer. Very good.
    Mr. Campau. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. Mr. Mulligan, my understanding 
is that President Trump reduced regulatory costs almost as fast 
as President Obama and Biden added them. Can you elaborate how 
that was accomplished?
    Mr. Mulligan. You know, I was there for part of the time, 
and I wonder because we had these different things going on at 
the same time. You had the regulatory budget. You also had Mr. 
Pai at the FCC. He was not part of the regulatory budget, but 
he still deregulated, so. And then you had other leaders, like 
Scott Gottlieb, who somehow had just a personal touch where he 
was able to expedite the work at FDA and make it go faster. So, 
I think it is worth understanding how it was done, and we can 
see the results.
    Chairman Comer. Absolutely. My Democrat colleagues are 
complaining about efforts by Republicans to change the 
regulatory environment with respect to airline pilot shortages, 
or with respect to heavy truck emissions when we have a supply 
chain crisis, or Dodd-Frank bank regulations reform because we 
have fewer banks, higher fees, and we have created a situation 
because of Dodd-Frank of banks that are too big to fail. So, 
Mr. White, I am concerned that some of the biggest new Biden 
regulations fly in the face of the Supreme Court's decision 
last year in West Virginia v. EPA. This is an important issue 
in my district, a big coal district. Do you share that concern?
    Mr. White. I do, Congressman. The recent decisions out of 
the Supreme Court, including the ones regarding the major 
questions doctrine, they are not silver bullets. They are not 
panaceas. They are not going to stop every agency in its tracks 
on every rulemaking, but these decisions are important for the 
most significant transformative agency actions. And we live in 
a time, in a moment where agencies have a lot of significant 
transformative actions they want to undertake.
    Chairman Comer. So, if the Biden Administration continues 
to resist compliance with the court's ruling, what could the 
consequences be?
    Mr. White. Well, that is a hard question to answer because 
there is outright defiance of court orders, which I do not 
expect. But what I do think you could see is a lot of soft 
resistance to Supreme Court decisions and lower court 
decisions, which is much harder for courts to monitor on a 
case-by-case basis. It makes congressional oversight, 
congressional Congress' legislative and appropriations powers, 
though, more important.
    Chairman Comer. You know, I have to clarify something for 
the record. Many of my Democratic colleagues have made 
statements that say Republicans do not support regulations. We 
support commonsense regulations. We always need to examine, and 
evaluate, and seek input on burdensome and costly regulations, 
and I think that is what we have with this Biden 
Administration. There is no input from the private sector. You 
have unelected bureaucrats that continue to make enormous 
regulatory decisions that have a huge impact not just on 
private industry, but on consumers. And we have a huge 
inflation crisis in America right now, and we believe that many 
of the burdens and regulations by the Biden Administration, 
particularly in the energy industry, have led to an 
inflationary environment that is having a devastating impact on 
consumers.
    Before I yield to the next questioner, I ask unanimous 
consent to submit these documents and statements into the 
record: ``The Burden is Back,'' by Casey Mulligan; ``Regulatory 
Budgeting in the U.S. Federal Government,'' by Anthony Campau. 
I cannot pronounce that word.
    Mr. Campau. It is ``Campau,'' sir.
    Chairman Comer. Campau. All right, Campau. I mispronounce 
everything. I apologize for that. These Members are used to 
that.
    Statement for the record by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, statement for the record by the American 
Chemistry Council.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Casar for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Here we are again, another hearing that seems to 
primarily be about how great Donald Trump was as he campaigns 
for President, but Donald Trump was great because he hated 
regulations. He wanted to get the CFPB's consumer protections. 
He did not like the EPA's clean water guarantees. Why not hack 
up the ATF and their gun safety rules?
    Well, another example I would like to bring up is his 
scoring for national security regulations. The most recent that 
I want to talk about is an executive order from 2009, a 
regulation that states, ``An official or employee leaving 
agency service may not remove classified information from the 
agency's control,'' and as we saw yesterday, our own DOJ 
believes that Trump did just that. And for the first time in 
history, a former President of the United States was indicted 
on Federal criminal charges, 37 of them.
    This is a serious and sobering moment, but it is important 
for us to remember and recognize that after pressuring local 
elected officials to change election results and overthrow 
democracy in the White House for the first time in American 
history. And then after that did not work, and summoning his 
supporters to overthrow the government on January 6, Trump left 
the White House with some of our most sensitive national 
security secrets, including information, according to the 
indictment, on things like nuclear weapons. The indictment says 
that Trump kept these documents in ballrooms and in bathrooms 
that tens of thousands of guests could have accessed. Any one 
of these people could have stolen this information that was 
classified for the United States. He even allegedly showed 
those classified documents to his visitors, actively putting 
our national security secrets at risk. The indictment says that 
when the FBI subpoenaed these documents to get them back to 
safety, Trump hid 64 boxes of them and then lied to law 
enforcement, saying it had all been returned.
    Such actions violate both Federal laws and Federal 
regulations, and these rules, like so many of them my 
Democratic colleagues have discussed today, are to protect the 
national interest, to protect consumers, to protect workers, to 
protect kids in our schools, to protect our clean water and our 
clean air. We need to advocate and continue to advocate for the 
Federal Government to be able to advance commonsense 
regulations, and we should stop having such open scorn toward 
regulations as a whole and instead talk about what the right 
sets of rules should be.
    Ms. Katzen, do you agree that it is important to have 
Federal regulations to protect things like our national 
security secrets, our clean air, and safety for workers and 
consumers?
    Ms. Katzen. Yes, I do believe that regulations are 
beneficial. I think one of your colleagues across the aisle 
suggested that I was in favor of all regulations, all places 
all times, unlimited. That is not the case. I too, am 
interested in sensible regulations in regulations where the 
benefits justify the costs, and where good, common sense plays 
a role.
    Mr. Casar. Well, thank you for that, and I look forward to 
more good common sense in the conversations that we have here 
today. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Burlison.
    [Presiding.] Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. 
Boebert from Colorado for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Katzen, should 
bureaucrats implement rules and regulations that are not 
delegated by Congress?
    Ms. Katzen. It is not the bureaucrats that do it. It would 
be an agency.
    Mrs. Boebert. The bureaucrats working in the agency, should 
they be in charge of enforcing rules and regulations not 
delegated to them by Congress?
    Ms. Katzen. No, and that does not occur.
    Mrs. Boebert. No? Well, Ms. Katzen, you stated while some 
elected officials accuse the agencies of running amok, no 
agency is a free agent, and they can only do which Congress has 
delegated them.
    Ms. Katzen. Correct.
    Mrs. Boebert. I agree with that. However, we see in 
agencies all the time rules and regulations that are enforced 
on the American people that were not delegated to them by 
Congress. For instance, just in the last 5 years, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has changed its longstanding 
positions on firearm products three times through 
administrative fiat. Would you agree with that process in the 
ATF?
    Ms. Katzen. I have no quarrel with what the ATF has done 
because in each instance, it has----
    Mrs. Boebert. But you said here that they can only do which 
Congress has delegated to them. So now these changes have 
resulted in products that were previously classified as lawful 
by the ATF, and now they are being considered illegal or 
regulated under the National Firearms Act. And more recently, 
we have seen with the ATF's rule to categorize pistol braces on 
these stabilizing braces as heavily regulated, short-barreled 
rifles, essentially making gun owners nearly obtaining maybe 40 
million firearms with stabilizing braces, criminals overnight, 
felons even. And so, Ms. Katzen, would you say that this is an 
abuse of that separation of power because that rule is not 
something that Congress has delegated, but the ATF has taken it 
upon itself to regulate this rule that they created to make 
millions of Americans fight felons.
    Ms. Katzen. With respect, I was trying to answer your 
question before you interrupted me to say that the ATF had, in 
each of these instances, sufficient statutory authority from 
Congress, and that any challenges to them----
    Mrs. Boebert. Ms. Katzen, it is my time. So, Congress never 
authorized the ATF to ban pistol braces. Congress never 
authorized ATF to do that to make millions of Americans felons 
overnight. And so, I would go back to your statement that you 
said in your testimony, that these agencies are not free 
agencies, and they can only do which Congress has delegated to 
them to do.
    Ms. Katzen. Congress is not----
    Mrs. Boebert. Ms. Katzen----
    Ms. Katzen. Excuse me. You----
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. My time. No, ma'am, it is my time. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Katzen. Oh, I am sorry. So, you are not interested in 
my views.
    Mrs. Boebert. Ms. Katzen, it is my time. Thank you. In your 
testimony, you stated----
    Ms. Katzen. I am sorry. You are not interested in my views.
    Mrs. Boebert [continuing]. Congress delegates, but then 
some officials are quick to condemn the agencies for doing what 
they are told to do, carrying out the law. Well, last year, the 
Biden Administration's EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 
attempted to regulate wetlands and ditches under the Clean 
Water Act. That is clearly not the intent of the Clean Water 
Act. The intent of the Clean Water Act was to manage major 
Federal navigable waters, so now this rule was recently upended 
by the Supreme Court's recent decision. Now, would you agree 
that the Biden Administration has a pattern of purposefully 
misinterpreting the law in order to carry out their political 
agenda?
    Ms. Katzen. No, ma'am. I think, in fact, that the law keeps 
changing, and the Supreme Court had a very hard time trying to 
figure out----
    Mrs. Boebert. Well, I have not seen that law change during 
Congress. So, this was the intent of the Clean Water Act, and I 
have not seen that change. So, I would say that this is another 
example of the Biden Administration and the EPA misinterpreting 
the law to carry out their own political agenda.
    Now, Ms. Katzen, when discussing regulations made by the 
Biden Administration, in your testimony, you also state are 
these regulations detrimental to our well-being. Hardly. Are 
they tying us up in red tape? Certainly not. Well, going back 
to WOTUS and the Sackett family who this Clean Water Act 
decision impacted, the family was threatened with fines of 
$10,000 per day, had their property misclassified as a wetland, 
and were prevented from building their family home. It may not 
be a $2.5 million home like yours, but that sounds like a lot 
of red tape to me. Do you disagree?
    Ms. Katzen. Excuse me. I really take that as a personal 
assault. My home----
    Mrs. Boebert. Do you disagree that this was an overreach?
    Ms. Katzen. I disagree. You are casting aspersions on me or 
my----
    Mrs. Boebert. Ms. Katzen, my time has expired. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield. Thank you.
    Mr. Burlison. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, could we just ask all of our good 
members to respect the civility and decorum and the integrity 
of the witnesses who have come forward at their own expense to 
testify before us today? An insult is not a substitute for an 
argument. I yield back.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair would advise the members to adhere 
to the House standard of decorum and proceed in order.
    Ms. Crockett of Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. This Committee runs my pressure up, and I do 
come prepared to Committee, and then there is always somebody 
from this side that does something ridiculous that throws me 
all the way off, so, oh Jesus. OK. So, this is where we are 
going to start, Ms. Katzen.
    First of all, let me apologize because that was uncalled 
for. So let me do what she would never do, which is to be an 
adult in this room or in this Chamber, so let me start there. I 
am also going to start with some nonsense that she was trying 
to spew. And unlike Mrs. Boebert, I am legally trained, and I 
have passed a few bar exams, and I also legislated before I got 
here. So, I do want to start with correcting the record a 
little bit, and if you want to add to that, please do.
    There was conversation about ATF because my colleagues love 
to talk about their guns, baby. And I am from Texas, so let me 
be clear. I also own firearms. Democrats own guns, too. Let me 
make it clear, I own guns and I am licensed to carry. That is a 
regulation. Regulations are not necessarily bad. It did not 
stop me from being able to get a gun.
    So, we were talking about, or you all were talking about 
the ATF, which I was not going there. I did not plan to go 
there, but you know what? I honestly wish the ATF would run 
amok because we know that, seemingly, the people that run this 
Chamber do not have the courage to come up with one of the 
things we have heard is commonsense regulations when it comes 
to guns, and to be clear, our Constitution, the Second 
Amendment anticipates people having common sense. 
Unfortunately, we have not done that, and unfortunately, it has 
cost us lives.
    So, when you were testifying a little bit earlier, you 
talked about unintended consequences, and the fact that we are 
supposed to be able to anticipate that as lawmakers when we are 
writing laws. Unfortunately, not only have we ignored the 
unintended consequences, but we have got foreseeable 
consequences that are continually ignored, and that is why we 
are talking about regulation, at least on this side of the 
aisle. And our definition of ``common sense'' is one that does 
not keep us in the pockets of corporations but keeps us in the 
pockets of the people because what I am trying to do is save 
lives.
    My job here is not to make sure that I am pushing the 
bottom line for some corporation, but it is to make sure that 
the people that put me into the seat, which were actual people, 
individuals, to make sure that I can save lives.
    So, let us talk about my state because we always got good 
stuff coming out of Texas. Unfortunately, my state decided that 
it did not want to be a part of the overall national grid. 
Because my state did not want to deal with all of the ``red 
tape,'' the cost of that was lives. So, we had this winter 
storm, and here it was, I was freshly being sworn into the 
Texas House. And I do not know what I am supposed to do because 
I started getting calls because there is this thing called 
climate change. Hello? Nobody is in the Chamber on the other 
side. The climate change is this real thing.
    And so, in Texas, we had this terrible storm that took 
place, and even though we are an energy capital, not just in 
this country, but in the world, for clean and dirty energy, 
unfortunately, we could not keep our own lights on, and it was 
all because they wanted to avoid red tape. You know what the 
cost of that was? It was human lives, and I think that that is 
what is being lost. You know what happened in Palestine or East 
Palestine? The cost was human lives. Unfortunately, seemingly, 
some people do not want to consider human lives as an actual 
cost. The only cost that they ever talk about is dollars. Well, 
let me be clear: I am not here because of corporate dollars. I 
am here because of people.
    And so, I am curious to know, and I usually run out of 
time. I am going to be clear. I always run out of time because 
they always give me too much to do, but because of the way that 
you were treated, I am going to allow you the courtesy of 
expounding upon what it was that you were talking about with 
these agencies, which is pretty much what I understood, which 
is they only did what they were delegated to do because if ATF 
could do more, I am sure that we would actually get rid of the 
assault rifles that are constantly killing our babies every 
single day in this country. But go ahead, Ms. Katzen, with the 
last 20 seconds.
    Ms. Katzen. Well, I appreciate your comments, and I thank 
you for them. And I do not disagree with anything that you said 
about the situation in Texas where they declined to be part of 
the national pool and then suffered the consequences, which 
were real.
    And what I was trying to say earlier was that what the ATF 
has been doing is consistent with the authority that they had 
been granted by Congress. And to the extent they exceeded that 
authority in any way--this is the most litigious country in the 
world--someone will take into court. And if they really did the 
wrong thing, if they did not stay within the constraints, the 
courts will so determine. I have complete confidence in that, 
but thank you again for your comments, ma'am.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. And with that, I yield.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 
It was said earlier today, Mr. Campau, that the board of this 
group of witnesses are not diverse enough. I wanted to know if 
you would like to make a comment to that?
    Mr. Campau. Oh, well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I just 
note that the question was about whether we are from different 
backgrounds and different experiences. I was born into very 
humble circumstances and lived in government housing as a 
child, and grew up stirring my powdered milk into water and 
eating. You know, those early times were challenging, but my 
mother worked two shifts on the road crew building roads for 
us, and my father was helping to build a small business to get 
us out of those circumstances, out to a little home in the 
country.
    And so, you know, my childhood was wonderful. But, you 
know, we certainly started off in very humble circumstances, 
and I watched my parents, who did not have college degrees, 
work very hard to get us out. So, that was my background if the 
comment is about background and experience, and my grandmother 
is from Mexico, and I guess maybe does not look like it if I am 
sitting here in a suit in front of you today. But I am honored 
to be here. Thank you for having me, and it is a pleasure to be 
a part of this conversation.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. It is an honor that you are here. 
Thank you. It was said earlier in a question that the 
Republicans or Transportation is trying to change the 1,500-
hour rule. Ironically, the Transportation Committee was 
actually passing the FAA authorization bill across the hall 
that had no references whatsoever to the 1,500-hour rule. 
However, it did have a reference to the age that we force 
pilots to retire in commercial airlines from 65 to 67, and so I 
think that may be where the confusion is. But to touch on that 
subject, Professor Mulligan, what is the implication, or how 
does it impact the economics of the airline industry or the 
cost to the consumers and really to the individual when this 
body arbitrarily picks a date, like, but you know, the forced 
age of 65 for retirement?
    Mr. Mulligan. One of the problems with regulation is it 
does not adapt well to changes, and, you know, companies have 
to adapt to change. Otherwise, another company, you know, beats 
them out. They lose customers, et cetera. And adapting, we have 
had a lot of changes in the last couple of years in personnel 
areas, and it has been tough on airlines in many industries.
    Mr. Burlison. And so, the costs are then borne upon the 
consumer, right? And the individual who potentially could have 
saved more money, waited to retire at a later age, build more 
wealth, that those options are not available.
    Mr. Mulligan. That is right.
    Mr. Burlison. And I think this may be a question for Mr. 
White. Are you familiar with the anti-delegation doctrine?
    Mr. White. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. Maybe this is an opportunity to nerd out 
about this topic, but you know, the Constitution is very clear 
in Article I, Section 1. It says, ``All legislative powers 
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United 
States, which shall consist of the Senate and House of 
Representatives.'' What is the authority that Congress has to 
actually violate the constitution and give up that authority to 
the executive branch?
    Mr. White. I spent a semester on this. So, I will just say 
very briefly, from the very beginning of our Federal 
Government, the Supreme Court and the rest of government 
recognized that Congress would sometimes need to give some 
discretion to the departments. But giving away too much 
discretion to the executive risks the effect of basically 
transferring the legislative power itself out to agencies.
    So, from the early 1800's onwards, the Supreme Court and 
others have grappled with this. Sometimes it has informed the 
way that Congress read statutes. Sometimes it has spurred the 
Supreme Court to declare statutes unconstitutional because they 
were so open-ended that they in effect gave Congress's 
legislative responsibility to another branch of government.
    Mr. Burlison. Are there any court cases going through today 
that would touch on this topic?
    Mr. White. Well, yes, there are coming up to the lower 
courts. The case I alluded to earlier in the Supreme Court 
regarding the CFPB's funding structure is, in many ways, a 
delegation case. Congress, in effect, delegated its power of 
the purse out to the CFPB, but cases like West Virginia v. EPA 
and others involving how we interpret statutes, they are very 
much infused with these similar non-delegation principles.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by 
saying in the words of Taylor Swift, this is going to be a 
cruel summer if this is going to be our song, having hearings 
like this on a ``Death by a Thousand Cuts,'' talking about 
deregulating the very programs that protect our families and 
communities. But seriously, do not blame me. I have to say that 
I knew this was trouble when I walked in, but we know this game 
all too well.
    Our friends across the aisle call for deregulation of 
companies and deregulation of fundamental public health, 
safety, environmental rules, but yet they want to regulate our 
bodies, they want to regulate who we love, they want to 
regulate the kind of books we can read, and they want to 
regulate the identities of our children and their lives. 
Obviously, this is nothing new.
    But let us talk about the dangers of deregulation if we 
want to talk about deregulation today. Let us talk about the 
Trump decision to deregulate banks, which helped to contribute 
to the recent failure of multiple banks. Let us talk about the 
deregulation of the transportation sector that led to the 
disaster and train derailment in East Palestine. Let us talk 
about the deregulation being pushed right here in this body 
this week over gun stabilizing braces on the very anniversary 
of the deadly shooting at the Pulse Nightclub in Florida. And 
let us talk about the failure of this body to regulate the safe 
use of firearms that has led to countless, countless shootings, 
and our communities and kids fearing for their lives. And let 
us talk about the deregulation of the oil and gas sector that 
happened during the Bush Administration that led to the largest 
oil spill ever in the history of the world in the Deepwater 
Horizon spill in the Gulf. Long story short, this kind of 
deregulation is not only dangerous, it is treacherous, and it 
costs, as my colleague said, human lives, threatening the 
health and safety of our communities.
    Ms. Katzen, we have been here a long time this morning and 
you have shared a lot about your views, but I feel like much of 
this conversation has been muddied by the comments that we have 
heard from our colleagues. So, I want to give you--we are end 
of this hearing--really the final word to help explain to the 
American people why do we have regulations, why are they 
essential to protect the health and safety of our communities, 
as well as our democracy and the functioning of our 
institutions. And can you please explain the rigor with which, 
as a former OMB-er, that these regulations are drafted, 
reviewed, and put into place?
    Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much for that question. First, 
there is the misnomer. Regulations is not one thing. There are 
lots and lots of different kinds. We just passed Tax Day. If 
Tax Day is on April 15th, falls on a Saturday, you are not 
going to file your taxes until the following Monday. That is 
done by extending the time. That is done by regulation. Who can 
complain about that, or if there is an America's Cup race on 
the West Coast and you want to protect the little boats that 
are racing from the big ships that are coming in, you set a 
course. You do that by regulations. No one can complain about 
that. Those are kinds of things in our lives that are 
straightforward, that are honest, that lead us to lead an 
orderly life.
    Now, there are some big-ticket items, and these are the 
things that people get very agitated about, but on the big-
ticket items what happens is a very long process. It can take a 
year, but more likely 2, 3, or 4 years for the staff to develop 
the science, the technology, to put out a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that invites comments from those who will benefit by 
the rule and those who will be burdened by it. Those comments 
are reviewed carefully, thoughtfully, and they are reportedly 
determined to see whether this makes sense. And then the rule 
will be going through OIRA review, which also looks at the 
economics. Is this going to have more benefits than costs?
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Ms. Katzen. We are running short 
on time, but I think it is essential to punctuate this final 
point. And as somebody who worked at OMB, perhaps one of the 
only members sitting up here on the dais who has actually 
worked on regulations and understands the process, they go 
through extensive review. They include public review. They 
include a process that looks at the economic impacts. And those 
who are regulated are not untouchable, and, in fact, if we do 
not have commonsense regulations, this is why we cannot have 
nice things. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Burlison. Your time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note for the 
record you are wearing something from the Jim Jordan collection 
today.
    Mr. White, do you think Congress has ceded too much of its 
decision-making power to executive agencies?
    Mr. White. Yes, I do. And if I may add, Presidents love to 
say, if Congress will not act, therefore, I will. I think the 
reverse is also true. It is because Presidents act so much that 
the Congress does not.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. You mentioned in your testimony that the 
administrative agencies are imposing regulations through 
increasingly unaccountable and unsteady methods. Could you 
provide examples of that trend?
    Mr. White. Well, a couple of examples that I offer in my 
written testimony center around the Federal Trade Commission, 
where for the last couple of years, it has systematically 
pulled down guidance documents and other materials that gave a 
measure of legal certainty to the processes around mergers and 
acquisitions and consumer protection, and they have replaced it 
with legal uncertainty.
    Mr. Burchett. Do you think those methods have eroded public 
trust in our government?
    Mr. White. Oh, I absolutely do. I think that people now 
have come to understand that the administrative process is both 
everything and nothing. It is everything in that it seems to 
touch on every subject under the sun, and it is all or nothing. 
But it is also nothing in that people just assume, well, the 
next Administration will change everything anyway.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you. Professor Mulligan, I was going to 
say I will take a mulligan, but I am sure you have heard that 
your whole dadgum life, so I will not even say that.
    The regulatory burdens imposed by the Biden Administration 
forced businesses to spend apparently more than 218 million 
hours on paperwork, or 24,000 years. I am not sure who did the 
math, but I will stand by that. How might this affect a 
business' productivity?
    Mr. Mulligan. Well, there are two types of regulations that 
you mentioned. Basically, they take more resources to do what 
they used to do, and that is definitely a hit to productivity. 
Other regulations are more redistributive, that they take money 
from the smaller businesses and kind of give it to the bigger 
businesses, and that more affects capital investment and things 
like that rather than productivity per se.
    Mr. Burchett. Do you think that consumers are affected 
negatively by overregulation?
    Mr. Mulligan. Definitely. And in my testimony, particularly 
in Figure 2, was a dramatic one that a lot of us noticed. FCC 
regulation was really preventing more economical internet plans 
from coming in the market and people were overpaying.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. This Administration apparently has 
increased the number of regulations since 2021, and it has cost 
the taxpayers, according to my notes, $318 billion with a 
``B.'' How do these regulations, how do they get down to the 
American household? Maybe some specifics if you had. Sorry to 
put you on the spot, but----
    Mr. Mulligan. Well, there are rising prices as with the 
internet, also making it difficult for new companies to come in 
in the medical area. In my testimony, I mentioned the Economic 
Report of the President, 2020. We had more analysis of how FDA 
made it difficult for even generic drugs to come in. That made 
drugs too expensive. Prescription drug prices people notice a 
lot. As soon as President Trump got that situation under 
control, we saw drug prices fall for the first time in 46 
years. So those are examples.
    It also works on wages. People who have less can even spend 
on these more expensive things because they are not as 
productive, as in the example you gave, because wages and 
productivity are closely linked together. A company cannot 
really pay a worker more than that worker can produce.
    Mr. Burchett. And what was the cost to each household? Do 
you have an average on that?
    Mr. Mulligan. Of the Biden regulations?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Mulligan. Through the end of 2022--I have not gotten 
into this year's, which are also quite interesting--I think it 
was $9,600 on average per household.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. And that is not included in inflation as 
well. Is that----
    Mr. Mulligan. Some of it is reflected in inflation, much of 
it is not.
    Mr. Burchett. Much of it is not?
    Mr. Mulligan. Is not.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. I believe that is about it, I 
believe. Mr. Chairman, I will relinquish my 30 seconds.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Burchett. Sure. Why not? I will regret it, but go 
ahead, Mr. Raskin, because you know I love you, brother.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I was just going to ask did you have 
nothing funny left to say.
    Mr. Burchett. No, I am just tired. I have been running back 
and forth. Dadgum, I went to the Hill to give one of my 
incredible speeches that I understood Steven Spielberg was 
probably waiting in the wings to talk to me because Matthew 
McConaughey wanted to play me in the Tim Burchett story, but I 
am not going to. He cannot even walk the streets of Texas now. 
They said that he walks down Texas, and in Texas they go, are 
you Tim Burchett, and he says, no, I am Matthew McConaughey, 
and then he just lowers his head and walks away.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burlison. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize Mr. Goldman of New York for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate that the Majority is holding this hearing today, 
although I certainly wonder if they will ever learn the lessons 
from the devastating impact on the economy that Republican 
deregulation has had, including the 2008 financial crisis, the 
ensuing Great Recession, and the recent Silicon Valley Bank 
failure.
    But it is a little surprising that this is the hearing we 
are having when the only thing that I hear my Republican 
friends talk about outside of this room is this so-called Biden 
bribery investigation. But then again, perhaps I should not be 
surprised because a hearing would require them to present 
credible evidence to support these debunked allegations against 
the President and when all they have is specious 
disinformation.
    So let me take a minute to correct that disinformation. We 
have heard so much about this FBI 1023 Form and how it includes 
sensational allegations about a massive, alleged bribery scheme 
by President Biden, so I was really eager to read that document 
this week. Did the Majority actually find some actual evidence 
of wrongdoing by the President? Of course not, but it is even 
worse than that. This document that they will not stop talking 
about is shockingly just a 3-year-old secondhand, hearsay, 
uncorroborated, rehashing of Rudy Giuliani's bogus allegations 
that he got from corrupt Ukrainian officials.
    Now, we all know that Former President Donald Trump was 
impeached because he tried to extort President Zelensky to 
announce an investigation into this Ukrainian company, Burisma, 
that would benefit Trump's political campaign. The theory goes 
that the then Vice President urged Ukraine to fire its 
prosecutor general because he was investigating Burisma, and 
the President wanted to help his son who was on the Burisma 
board. You know where Rudy Giuliani got this information from? 
That fired prosecutor general himself, the corrupt prosecutor 
general, and we know with absolute certainty now that the truth 
is exactly the opposite.
    And to be very clear, then Vice President Biden executed 
official United States foreign policy, shared by the EU and the 
IMF, to urge Ukraine to fire the prosecutor general because he 
was not prosecuting corruption in Ukraine, and there was no 
Ukrainian investigation into Burisma. That was a British 
investigation, which collapsed because the corrupt Ukrainian 
prosecutor general refused to help with it.
    But do not take my word for it since what I say is not 
evidence because I, like my Republican colleagues, obviously 
have no firsthand knowledge of what happened in Ukraine in 
2016. Instead, we know this from people who do have that 
knowledge: numerous State Department officials and members of 
the intelligence community who are the country's foremost 
experts on Russia and Ukraine, like Masha Yovanovitch, a 
decorated Foreign Service official, who was the Ambassador to 
Ukraine from 2016 until she was unceremoniously and 
undeservedly fired by President Trump in the spring of 2019; 
and Bill Taylor, another former Ambassador to Ukraine who took 
over from Ambassador Yovanovitch; Fiona Hill, one of the 
country's foremost Russia experts; and George Kent, perhaps the 
State Department's foremost Ukraine expert who served as Deputy 
Chief of Mission to Ukraine from 2015 to 2018. He said there 
was a broad-based consensus that the prosecutor general never 
prosecuted anyone known for having committed a crime and 
covered up crimes that were known to have been committed.
    But you know who else also debunked these allegations? 
Mykola Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma himself, who supposedly 
has all these recordings. He stated in a political article in 
October 2020 that he had no business dealings or meetings with 
world leaders, and that no one from Burisma ever had any 
contact with Vice President Biden or people working for him 
during Hunter Biden's engagement. And you know how we also 
know? Because the Trump DOJ knew about these allegations, 
examined them, and declined to prosecute them because if they 
did prosecute them, Bill Barr would have had to appoint a 
Special Counsel to investigate then candidate for President, 
Joe Biden.
    Chairman Comer has asked why is this Committee the only 
committee that is investigating him, and that is the right 
question. Why? Because everybody else who has looked at it has 
found these allegations to be completely bogus, so let us move 
on and do what the American people sent us here to do. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Sessions for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, Chairman. I have come 
back. I was not in line to ask any questions, and I have 
listened to our Committee. By and large, we are giving our own 
diatribes about the things that we want instead of asking you 
questions. I am going to see if I can do this in 1 minute and 
then give you time.
    The CFPB has issued new regulations that directly impact 
minority-owned businesses and women. The Program 1073 or 1070, 
when it was originally done in 2010, the plan had 16 different 
pages of the bill and about nine key characteristics that they 
wanted people to look at. That has now turned into 900 pages 
and 90 different things that must be considered before giving a 
loan to women and minority-owned businesses. And that means 
this is going to be so expensive and time consuming when you 
got to go through instead of a few of these questions, you got 
to go through a list of 90.
    That is what Republicans are talking about in this hearing, 
regulation that has gone above not just unintended consequence, 
but will harm what they thoughtfully were trying to impact or 
make better. That is what we should be asking you. Where do 
rules' over regulation cause unintended or bad consequences 
that we really should be aiming our time at? Three minutes.
    Mr. Campau. Congressman, I think I am not familiar with 
that particular rule. But one of the things that we have heard 
around the world and our experience here in the Federal 
Government and in our states is that you mentioned paperwork. 
Paperwork is often one of the areas where the most sort of 
regulatory reform dollars, if you will, can be found. And so 
again, it is often not necessarily changing dramatically the 
underlying standard, but it is making the paperwork to comply a 
little bit more manageable.
    And that is something that Administrations for a long time 
have sort of said they have cared about and have worked on, but 
it is something where, you know, I think there have been a lot 
of improvements, but I think there could be an awful lot more. 
But around the world we found that paperwork reduction is a key 
way----
    Mr. Sessions. So earlier, we got involved in this, people 
accusing us of being against regulations. That is wrong. You 
are reading that wrong. Overregulation, is that what you are in 
reference to, people can get so detailed in something that they 
miss the advantages of having a good regulatory system?
    Mr. Campau. Yes, that is right. And so instead of, for 
example, filling out the compliance form once a week, maybe you 
fill it out once every 2 weeks, or once a month, or once a 
quarter. And just something like that does not change the 
standard, but it reduces the number of hours, the number of 
dollars that you spend to fill it all out, all of that.
    Mr. Session. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Katzen. Yes. Thank you for that question because there 
is a very delicate balance between asking too many questions 
and not enough. At the same time that we are worried about 
whether or not a student qualifies for student loans, or 
someone qualifies for welfare payments, or someone qualifies 
for veterans benefits, you have to get certain information, or 
there is a legitimate concern that we are squandering taxpayer 
money.
    On the other hand, as you point out, if you make it too 
onerous to apply or too lengthy to review the materials that 
are submitted, then it defeats the purpose, so it is a question 
of judgment. And it is something on which I think there should 
be an ability to discuss and compromise on individual paperwork 
requirements rather than painting a broad brush and saying let 
us get rid of them all.
    Mr. Sessions. And I agree, and I wish we had got more of 
this. One last point. And the problem is also when you go from 
16 to 90 questions, what you are doing is putting the person, 
who is the customer who wants a loan, at risk in case they 
answer something wrong also. So, it goes deeper than just 
overregulation. It goes deeper to harm people.
    I want to thank you for taking time to be here. This is a 
beating on your part, but I think that you do understand we 
could use some coaching on this as you write things and give us 
advice. So, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my 
time.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking 
Member Raskin for closing remarks.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as usual, I 
have found if you hang around long enough in these meetings, 
something good happens. And I think both sides have now 
professed our support for regulation today, and I think Mr. 
Sessions just reiterated that we all want good regulation, and 
both sides have registered our opposition to bad regulation.
    The primary threat to American freedom today, I would 
argue, comes from those who want to control women's access to 
healthcare. So, I wish that we would deregulate women's access 
to healthcare and deregulate women's bodily movement across 
state lines as people try to impose a straitjacket on women's 
access to healthcare that was constitutionally protected not 
long ago. I did notice that after the Dobbs decision was handed 
down, many of our colleagues who used to talk a lot about 
abortion have gone completely mum about it. They used to say 
abortion was murder. They used to say abortion was a Holocaust. 
They used to say we need a Federal ban, criminalizing abortion 
and people who participated in it all across the country.
    Now, like the dog who caught the car, their Supreme Court, 
which is well packed at this point, has adopted their extremist 
view, and it leaves them speechless because the people of 
America completely reject it. And we saw that in Kansas where 
the people of Kansas rejected by more than 30 points an attempt 
to criminalize abortion in their state. We saw it in Wisconsin 
in a recent Supreme Court election, where the people 
overwhelmingly rejected their absolutist anti-choice agenda.
    And so now, the cat has got their tongue. And they want us 
to believe that real safety rules, and auto safety rules, and 
air safety rules, and food and drug safety rules are a threat 
to freedom, but let us not look at what is really taking place 
across the country, which is this outrageous assault on the 
rights of women to obtain the healthcare they need. I believe 
that Virginia is the last state in the South where women can 
obtain access to complete reproductive services, including 
abortion, on the same terms that they had access to it under 
Roe v. Wade, so we should be having a hearing about that.
    Another major threat to American freedom today comes from 
the imposition of random gun violence on the population all 
across America. We have rates of gun violence that are 20 times 
higher than that affecting the nations in the European Union. 
Here is a case where regulation would clearly advance not just 
public health and safety, but public freedom, too, because 
there is no freedom when people are afraid to go outside or to 
send their kids to school or to go to public events and 
concerts because of random gun violence running amok at rates 
not seen anywhere else in the advanced industrialized world.
    Ninety percent of the American people favor a universal 
violent criminal background check on sales of firearms in the 
country. All we need to do is close the internet loophole, we 
just need to close the private gun show loophole, we just need 
to close the private sale loophole, and we will be able to save 
a lot of lives. We are still going to have a much higher rate 
of gun violence and gun death than the other countries I 
mentioned, but at least we will be able to save some lives that 
way.
    I mean, we know that because a lot of the mass murderers 
cannot get an AR-15 until they turn 18, and then they turn 18, 
they go out and get it, and then they participate in a 
massacre. Well, it saved lives while those people were 17 or 
those people were 16. That was a regulation which clearly saved 
people's lives.
    So, I agree with those colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who say that regulation should not be used for anti-
competitive purposes by big businesses against small businesses 
or others. I agree with that. Right now, there is a trend in 
the states where certain businesses want to control the use of 
the word ``meat'' or the use of the word ``milk.'' They want to 
make it illegal for businesses to say that they have plant-
based meat, or that they have oat milk or soy milk, or wheat 
milk. Well, what about leaving that to the free market and to 
the judgment of consumers? And yet, there is this major assault 
on the freedom of businesses to define their own product and to 
form contractual relationships with their own consumers.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I know that the House of 
Representatives and the Majority in the House is having a 
problem managing some internal conflict, and I feel if you live 
by insurrection and extortion, you suffer by insurrection and 
extortion. And now, the insurrectionists and legislative 
extortionists have their own internal insurrectionists and 
extortionists, and it is making it very difficult for the 
Majority to operate.
    Well, even with all of these political problems in the 
House, they are trying to pass the REINS Act to 
unconstitutionally seize control of the entire regulatory 
process. And they want, basically, the Congress of the United 
States to pass upon every single regulation and rule in the 
country, on airline safety, rail safety, traffic safety, food 
and drug. In other words, they want to bring the entire process 
of protecting our people to a grinding halt, which we know 
exactly what would happen, as Ms. Katzen said. We are having a 
problem even passing a budget, and now we want to take over the 
entire rules-making process that has been developed over 
decades in order to enforce the legislative will.
    This is a big country. We got 300 million people here. We 
have a lot going on in a modern industrialized economy and 
society, and nations all over the world depend on regulatory 
and administrative agencies to implement the will of the people 
as ratified by their legislature. So, this is how modern 
democratic society works, and to try to overthrow all of it 
with the REINS Act would basically make the rest of the 
government and the rest of the country operate the way the 
House of Representatives has been operating, where tiny 
legislative factions have been able to throw a monkey wrench 
into everything we are doing. And I do not think that is going 
to be a good future for America.
    Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 
to you.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I will now give closing remarks.
    It has been nearly 2-and-a-half years since President Biden 
took office, and already we have experienced a massive 
regulatory blowout, rarely, if ever, seen in our Nation's 
history. From proposed rules to eliminate gas stoves to 
regulating internal combustion engines of cars, eliminating 
them off the market entirely, every day seems like a new 
opportunity for the Biden Administration to change the way that 
you and I live our lives.
    This was not always the case, and we know that from the 
economic success and regulatory freedom seen under the Trump 
Administration. Executive Order 1371 reined in Federal 
regulations and resulted in at least $198 billion in net 
savings during President Trump's term in office. This is 
amazing when you think about how the Obama Administration 
imposed nearly $900 billion of regulatory costs over just 8 
years. The patterns we are seeing now are startling, and the 
Biden Administration appears to be going all-in on its 
regulatory agenda with no regard for the consequences to our 
economy or consumers. This House Majority, and more 
specifically this Committee, is committed to holding the Biden 
Administration accountable for their actions and overreach.
    In closing, I want to say thank you to our panelists once 
again for your important and insightful testimony today. And 
with that----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there is one final request, a 
unanimous consent request to submit an article for the record. 
And so, I would ask unanimous consent for this article from 
Politico, entitled, ``Former Giuliani Associate Raises 
Questions About Hunter Biden's Hard Drive from Hell.''
    Mr. Burlison. Without objection.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. I also have two documents--our memorandum 
from date May 10th and March 16th--that I will be entering into 
the record without objection.
    So, moved.
    Mr. Burlison. And I would also like to urge Mr. Goldman and 
his colleagues to read our two bank records and these 
memorandums on the Biden family influence peddling and business 
schemes. These bank records do not lie.
    And with that, without objection, all Members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and submit 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Mr. Burlison. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]