New York Times Op-ed: Regulatory 'Reform' That Is Anything But

by William Buzbee | June 15, 2017

This op-ed originally ran in The New York Times.

After decades of failed efforts to enact "regulatory reform" bills, Congress appears to be within a few votes of approving reform legislation that would strip Americans of important legal protections, induce regulatory sclerosis and subject agencies that enforce the nation's laws and regulations to potentially endless litigation.

This is not reform. These bills would sabotage agency regulation with legislative monkey wrenches. Key compromises about agency power and procedures, worked out under the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, would be discarded by these overwhelmingly anti-regulatory bills. And because they would be statutory changes, not mere presidential edicts, these changes would likely long outlive the Trump administration.

It is easy to complain about regulation, of course, and much could surely be improved. But government rules are the foundation of the safety net that protects Americans. Are you ready to abandon protections of your drinking water? What about that school hamburger? Is it O.K. to eat? Can you depend on Medicare or Medicaid? Are toys safe? Can workers fight overtime violations or discrimination? Will government agencies be there to police mortgage, student-loan and retirement-savings abuses? Will the education of special-needs students be protected?

Few members of Congress would dare vote directly to eliminate protections like those. But by imposing a byzantine, burdensome process on all agencies, Congress could dodge accountability but nonetheless derail the implementation of popular laws.

Read the full ...

Requiring Formal Rulemaking Is a Thinly Veiled Attempt to Halt Regulation

by Bill Funk | May 22, 2017
Originally published on The Regulatory Review by CPR Member Scholar William Funk. Professor Kent Barnett recently opined in The Regulatory Review that formal rulemaking really is not that bad and may actually be a good thing in certain circumstances. His argument deserves closer review because the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) would require the equivalent of formal rulemaking—or what the bill calls a "public hearing." Barnett may well be right to suggest that in some situations the costs of formal rulemaking could ...

Ahead of Markup, CPR Member Scholars Voice Concerns over the Senate Regulatory Accountability Act

by James Goodwin | May 16, 2017
Today, 27 Member Scholars of the Center for Progressive Reform, leading academics who specialize in administrative law and regulatory policy, submitted a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson and Ranking Member Claire McCaskill outlining their serious concerns with the Senate Regulatory Accountability Act. That bill is among several aimed at undermining our system of regulatory safeguards that are set to be marked up by the committee at its business meeting on Wednesday. Others set ...

Anything but Moderate: The Senate Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

by James Goodwin | May 02, 2017
Today, Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholars and staff are releasing a comprehensive analysis of the Senate Regulatory Accountability of 2017 (S. 951), which Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) introduced last week. Our analysis explains how S. 951 would drastically overhaul the Administrative Procedure Act, which has successfully guided agency enforcement of public safeguards for over 70 years. A summary of the key findings of the analysis is also available.  The bill is the latest legislation to ...

The Regulatory Accountability Act: Putting the Screws to Health, Safety and Environmental Regulation

by Sidney Shapiro | September 23, 2011
Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) once remarked, “I’ll let you write the substance … you let me write the procedure, and I’ll screw you every time.” Legislation introduced yesterday in the Senate by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) and in the House by Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota) to amend the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) proves Rep. Dingell knew what he was talking about. The APA is the law that governs the way the ...

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015