House Judiciary Committee Approves Bill to Solve Problem of Overreaching Federal Regulation

Press Release

The House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2122, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013 by a vote of 13-9. This bipartisan reform bill increases government accountability and addresses overreaching federal regulation that stifles job creation. Specifically, the bill requires agencies to choose the lowest cost alternatives that meet statutory objectives and improve agency transparency and fact finding. The Regulatory Accountability Act is one of several bills that the House Judiciary Committee has introduced to reform the United States' regulatory system.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chief sponsor of the Regulatory Accountability Act, praised today's Committee vote.

Chairman Goodlatte: "Overreaching federal legislation unnecessarily burdens job creation in an already-tough economy. The approval of the Regulatory Accountability Act is an absolutely vital reform to the regulatory system that keeps America globally competitive. There is no reason for Americans to choose between regulation that keeps us safe and economic growth that allows us to prosper. This strong, bipartisan bill reforms the Administrative Procedure Act, the 'constitution' of federal regulation, and successfully promotes a regulatory system that will thrive for generations to come."

The Regulatory Accountability Act is strong, bipartisan reform to solve the problem of overreaching federal regulation. It passed the House on a bipartisan vote in 2011 and provides the following:

* Requires agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative that meets statutory objectives (while permitting costlier rules when needed to protect public health, safety, or welfare, if the added benefits justify the added costs).

* Improves agency fact-gathering, fact-finding and identification of regulatory alternatives.

* Requires agencies to use the best reasonably obtainable science.

* Provides on-the-record but streamlined administrative hearings in the highest-impact rulemakings--those that impose $1 billion or more in annual costs--so interested parties can subject critical evidence to cross-examination.

* Requires advance notice of proposed major rulemakings to increase public input before costly agency positions are proposed and entrenched.

* Fortifies judicial review of new agency regulations.

Source