The Role of Science in Regulatory Reform
Opening Statement By Chairman Brad Miller
Good morning. I want to welcome all of you to this hearing on to examine options for regulatory reform.
Today’s discussion is a sequel to two hearings that this Subcommittee held in the last Congress on the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA. Though rarely in the headlines, OIRA has, in the years since its creation under President Reagan, quietly become the most powerful regulatory office in the Federal government.
This fact was highlighted when an Executive Order promulgated by the Bush Administration, E.O. 13422, gave OIRA even greater powers, powers that could be exercised behind closed doors. In changing the review process, it strengthened the influence of OIRA, which is staffed mainly by economists, over the final content of regulations first drafted by regulatory agencies’ scientific and technical experts. The order had the effect of placing in the hands of the President, OIRA, and a faceless political operative in every agency, power over regulatory efforts that was consistent neither with statute nor with the Constitution.
Since this Subcommittee last met to discuss OIRA, the regulatory landscape changed. Within ten days of his inauguration, President Obama withdrew E.O. 13422 and gave the Office of Management and Budget, of which OIRA is a part, 100 days to develop a set of recommendations for a new approach to regulatory review.
Mr. Obama said that “far more is now known about regulation” than when the Clinton Administration issued Executive Order 12866, which set out the fundamental principles and structures that currently govern regulatory review. He said that “a great deal has been learned…not only about when [regulation] is justified, but also about what works and what does not.” He has ordered that a successor to E.O. 12866 be drafted.
From eight points that the President directed OMB to address in its recommendations, we have chosen three that, with the help of our panel of expert witnesses, we will explore today:
1. “The relationship between OIRA and the agencies.” We will give special attention here to the way OIRA uses or challenges scientific information.
2. “Disclosure and transparency.” Today’s focus will be on the standard of transparency that should be expected of OIRA in the regulatory process.
3. “The role of cost-benefit analysis” in the regulatory process.
The President’s action has rekindled debate on such basic issues as the role of science and economics in regulation, and the role of Congress and the White House in deciding, how regulations are Issued and the discretion that the underlying law allows the executive branch. From the 183 responses -- many of them long and detailed -- that OMB received to its request for public comment on the matter, it appears this debate will be vigorous.
And well it should be. The questions facing the President and the Nation are weighty: What kind of OIRA should we have? Should it be one that, as has so often been the case, acts as a gatekeeper, hindering the regulatory process through delay and the application of extra-legal criteria? Or should it be one that sees itself as a partner with the agencies, sharing the goal of promoting timely, sensible, and effective regulation?
Coming up with the right answer to these questions could be the difference between a government that follows the law -- acting effectively and efficiently to protect the public's health and safety -- and one that cripples the ability of its own Executive agencies to carry out the laws passed by Congress. I look forward to our testimony and discussion.
I now recognize Mr. Broun for his opening remarks.
Witnesses
Panel
1 - Dr. Rick Melberth
Director Federal Regulatory Policy OMB Watch Federal Regulatory Policy OMB Watch
Download the Witness Testimony
3 - Ms. Rena Steinzor
Professor of Law University of Maryland University of Maryland
Download the Witness Testimony
2 - Ms. Caroline Smith DeWaal
Director Food Safety Program Center for Science in the Public Interest Food Safety Program Center for Science in the Public Interest
Download the Witness Testimony
5 - Dr. Cary Coglianese
Associate Dean Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science University of Pennsylvania Law School Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Pr
Download the Witness Testimony
4 - Mr. Wesley Warren
Director of Programs Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
Download the Witness Testimony