In the News

Today, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Vice Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) voted against H.R. 50, legislation that would impose numerous new requirements that will slow down the regulatory process and give regulated industry an unfair advantage over public health organizations, doctors, scientists, and ordinary Americans when new rules are made.

“We have seen this bill before. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now,” said Congressman Gerry Connolly.

“This legislation is an attack on health, safety, and environmental protections. It would take away protections designed to keep regulatory agencies independent, and it would give private industry an unprecedented influence over the public rulemaking process,” Cummings said. “This bill also would give regulated companies the ability to weigh in on rules before other stakeholders. This is a gross distortion of how this process should work, and it would put the interests of polluters and other corporate offenders ahead of the American people.”

“Proponents of this bill may argue that regulations are burdensome and costly. But in fact, the benefits of agency regulations far outweigh the costs,” Connolly added.

The most recent draft report from the Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget on the benefits and costs of regulations found that the estimated annual benefits of rules between 2006 and 2016 – which covers nearly all of the regulations in the Obama Administration – were between $219 billion and $695 billion. OMB estimated that the costs of those same rules were between $59 billion and $88 billion.

Connolly called H.R. 50 an assault on health, safety, and environmental protections. Specifically, H.R. 50 would:

Give Private Industry an Unfair Advantage in the Regulatory Process:
This bill would require agencies to consult with the private sector before a proposed rule is even made public. For example, agribusiness would have the ability to influence food safety rules before health experts. This would give corporations an unfair advantage in the rulemaking process.

Allow Opponents to Delay or Invalidate Rules Through Litigation:
The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) expressly prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change the law by eliminating this prohibition, allowing regulated industries to abuse this expanded judicial review and tie up rules in litigation for years.

Allow Judges to Second Guess Agency Experts:
Under H.R. 50, regulated industries could go to court to seek review of the adequacy of analyses prepared by agency experts, including cost and benefit estimates. Currently, a court can order an agency to perform an UMRA analysis if the agency has not completed one, but the statute prohibits courts from reviewing the adequacy of the agency’s analysis.

Politicizes Independent Regulatory Agencies:
H.R. 50 would repeal the provision that excludes independent regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of UMRA, potentially compromising the independence of those agencies. Examples of independent agencies that would come under the purview of the Office of Management and Budget for purposes of UMRA compliance include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. The bill would continue to exclude the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee.