Sec. 810. Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform
663 words·~3 min read·
/bill/114/hconres/27/eh/section-810·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
The House finds the following: Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job creation and dampened the economy, slowing the Nation’s recovery from the economic recession. Since President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the administration has issued more than 468,500 pages of regulations in the Federal Register including 70,066 pages in 2014. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the total cost of regulations is as high as $2.03 trillion per year. Since 2009, the White House has generated more than $494 billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 billion in regulatory costs currently pending.
The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation ( Public Law 111–203 ) has resulted in more than $32 billion in compliance costs and saddled job creators with more than 63 million hours of compliance paperwork. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the States. The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations are primarily targeted at the coal industry.
In June 2014, the EPA proposed a rule to cut carbon pollution from the Nation's power plants. The proposed standards are unachievable with current commercially available technology, resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power plants provide roughly 40 percent of the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing and construction, and will make life more difficult for millions of low-income and middle class families already struggling to pay their bills.
Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and conversions may further increase the cost of electricity. A recent study by the energy market analysis group Energy Ventures Analysis Inc. estimates the average energy bill in West Virginia will rise $750 per household by 2020, due in part to EPA regulations. West Virginia receives 95 percent of its electricity from coal.
The Heritage Foundation found that a phase-out of coal would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, resulting in an aggregate gross domestic product decrease of $2.23 trillion over the entire period and reducing the income of a family of four by $1,200 per year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come from the manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the highest job losses. It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the public burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation that— promotes economic growth and job creation by eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and simplifying Federal regulations; requires the implementation of a regulatory budget to be allocated amongst Government agencies, which would require congressional approval and limit the maximum costs of regulations in a given year; requires congressional approval of all new major regulations (those with an impact of $100 million or more) before enactment as opposed to current law in which Congress must expressly disapprove of regulation to prevent it from becoming law, which would keep Congress engaged as to pending regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies from being implemented and becoming effective; requires a three year retrospective cost-benefit analysis of all new major regulations, to ensure that regulations operate as intended; reinforces the requirement of regulatory impact analysis for regulations proposed by executive branch agencies but also expands the requirement to independent agencies so that by law they consider the costs and benefits of proposed regulations rather than merely being encouraged to do so as is current practice; and requires a formal rulemaking process for all major regulations, which would increase transparency over the process and allow interested parties to communicate their views on proposed legislation to agency officials.
Connections1 off-index
1 reference not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 111-203
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 810
Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform
Pub. L.Pub. L. 111-203
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources