Should Government Agencies Streamline Their Rule-Making Process And Justify Spending? (H.R. 5)

What is H.R. 5?

(Updated November 24, 2020)

This bill would look to improve the  monetary efficiency of government agencies. Every single one: from the FDA to the EPA, and everything in between. It would do so by requiring agencies that have an economic impact — defined as cost to taxpayers or businesses — of $100 million or more to open up their own analysis of how they use their budget to outside analysts. 

The bill would also change the way rule-makers consider alternative rules, plus the impact of potential rules they are considering implementing. The judicial review process under this legislation would prevent judges from deferring to regulators’ assessments made throughout the public comment and hearing processes.  It would also require that agencies with an impact of $1 billion or more hold public hearings on their budgets.

Current procedures for rule-making would be changed to require federal agencies to make all preliminary and final factual determinations based on evidence. They would also be mandated to consider:

• The legal authority under which a rule may be proposed.

• The specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule.

• Whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency may address with a rule, and whether these rules can be amended or rescinded.

• Any reasonable alternatives for a new rule.

• The potential costs and benefits associated with potential alternative rules.

Argument in favor

The government spends a lot of money on regulatory agencies. This bill would ensure that these agencies are running efficiently, while offering civilians the chance to get involved and provide input to the rule-making process.

Argument opposed

This is a thinly-veiled attempt at large scale deregulation. It will hamstring everything from scientific research to consumer protection — and burden federal agencies with bureaucratic homework.

Impact

Taxpayers, people who want to join public hearings on the rule-making process, federal agencies, their staff and the rules that apply to them, federal judges, the Office of Management and Budget Administration, Congress, and the U.S. Economy.

Cost of H.R. 5

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

: Rule-making notice requirements for agencies would be altered to require that proposed major or high-impact rules be published in the Federal Register. Public comment periods would then be established, and opportunities for interested parties to hold hearings before any such rule could be held. The ability for interested persons to petition for amendment or repeal of a specific rule would also be established.

Electronic access to transcripts of testimony, exhibits, and other documents filed in a rule-making proceeding would be made available. The scope of judicial review would be revised to prohibit a court from deferring to an agency’s:

• Interpretation of a rule if the agency didn’t comply with APA requirements.

• Determination of the costs and benefits or other economic or risk assessment if the agency failed to conform to the guidelines on such determinations and assessments established by the Administrator.

• Determinations made in the adoption of an interim rule.

• Guidance.