This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law will hold an oversight hearing that looks at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the powerful White House bureau that sits at the center of the regulatory universe.
Originally created to oversee federal agencies' implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, a series of presidential executive orders stretching back to the Reagan administration has endowed OIRA with a powerful gatekeeping role over executive agencies' rulemaking output: no final rule of any consequence can see the light of day without OIRA's imprimatur. As CPR has documented for several years now, OIRA has generally wielded this power in an anti-regulatory fashion, typically working on behalf of politically connected industry lobbyists to block, delay, or dilute public safeguards. This pattern has held for presidential administrations from both parties.
Headlining the hearing is OIRA Administrator Howard Shelanski. He is set to appear as the sole witness in the hearing's first panel.
Predictably, the Republican majority on the committee has also lined up a second panel with the usual suspects of anti-regulatory advocates as witnesses. If history is any guide, we can expect them to trot out their standard litany of anti-regulatory gripes, followed by sanctimonious calls for OIRA to step up and crack down on "unaccountable bureaucrats" and "regulatory overreach."
Fortunately, CPR Member Scholar David Driesen, a leading expert on cost-benefit analysis and the role of OIRA in the rulemaking process, will be on hand as part of the second panel to offer a measure of reason. Professor Driesen's testimony provides a compelling reminder of the invaluable role that regulation plays in enhancing the quality of life for all Americans and for promoting essential social values and goals that the free market is incapable of producing on its own. It also provides an important critique of OIRA's centralized regulatory review process and the use of cost-benefit analysis as a measuring stick for evaluating the quality of regulatory decision-making.
Much of Professor Driesen's testimony is focused on the practical and theoretical problems with cost-benefit analysis and OIRA centralized review. On cost-benefit analysis, he points out that it is impossible to "reliably and objectively quantify the costs and benefits of most government standards, because of data gaps and huge uncertainties." Describing his own empirical research, Professor Driesen also provides a powerful account of how OIRA's review role functions as a "one-way ratchet" — that is, he explains how OIRA's interventions in individual rulemakings serve almost invariably to weaken safeguards and virtually never to strengthen them.
Professor Driesen closes his testimony by offerings several recommendations for overhauling the practices of cost-benefit analysis and OIRA centralized review to minimize or avoid their anti-regulatory consequences.
The hearing is scheduled for 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6 and will take place in Room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
Showing 2,868 results
James Goodwin | July 6, 2016
This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law will hold an oversight hearing that looks at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the powerful White House bureau that sits at the center of the regulatory universe. Originally created to oversee federal agencies’ implementation of the Paperwork Reduction […]
Evan Isaacson | July 5, 2016
For decades, politicians, advocates, and the press have lamented America's aging, deteriorating, or even failing infrastructure and called for change – usually to little avail. Perhaps another strategy should be to celebrate success wherever we see it and spotlight achievements to demonstrate that we can change the situation if we choose key public investments over […]
Brian Gumm | June 30, 2016
NEWS RELEASE: New Report: When OSHA Gives Discounts on Danger, Workers Are Put at Risk As Agency Prepares to Increase Maximum Penalty Levels for Workplace Health and Safety Violations, It Should Reexamine Settlement Policy Workplace health and safety standards exist for a reason. When companies ignore them, they put their workers in significant danger. Every year, […]
Robert L. Glicksman | June 28, 2016
The most important lessons can be the hardest to learn. Sometimes they even take a crisis. We can hope that the sorry saga of Flint, Michigan’s lead-poisoned water will be such a teachable moment for at least some of the anti-government crowd, finally driving home the point that government has a vital role in protecting […]
Hannah Wiseman | June 22, 2016
In a merits opinion issued on June 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (Judge Skavdahl) held that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management–the agency tasked with protecting and preserving federal lands for multiple uses by the public–lacks the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) on federally-owned and managed lands. Using a Chevron step 1 […]
Daniel Farber | June 21, 2016
One of the recurring questions in standing law is the extent to which Congress can change the application of the standing doctrine. A recent Supreme Court opinion in a non-environmental case sheds some light – not a lot, but some – on this recurring question. The Court has made it clear that there is a […]
Mollie Rosenzweig | June 20, 2016
Earlier this month, revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) cleared the Senate and now await President Obama’s signature. TSCA’s failure to provide EPA with meaningful authority to protect Americans from toxic chemicals was widely recognized, yet the path to revising the law was fraught with controversy. The chemical industry and public health and […]
| June 17, 2016
This morning, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its annual assessments of progress made by the seven jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The bottom line: nothing has really changed in terms of the content or tone from the previous annual assessments, and they do not appear to reflect a shift in strategy by […]
James Goodwin | June 14, 2016
This afternoon, Speaker Paul Ryan is scheduled to announce the House majority’s latest plan to weaken the U.S. system of regulatory safeguards on which all Americans depend. The following is Center for Progressive Reform Senior Policy Analyst James Goodwin’s reaction to this plan: Speaker Ryan and his anti-regulatory apostles in the House would have you […]