Testimony Before the Committee on the Budget of the United States Senate, Hearing on 'Moving Toward a Stronger Economy with a Regulatory Budget'

Abstract

Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to share with you my concerns about regulatory budgeting and to explain why I think this strategy could hurt everyday Americans while producing no benefit to the overall economy. As a former official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I’m very proud of the professionalism and resourcefulness of America’s regulatory agencies. And, as a law professor, I know that our regulatory system can be much improved. But rather than focusing on artificially imposed caps, I think we would do better by instead providing executive agencies with the tools and resources they need to write the smartest, most effective rules possible. Agency resources should, of course, enable policy makers to identify deficient rules already on the books and to fix or remove them. (And, in fact, periodic retrospective review, is already required of most agencies.) But a regulatory budget — whose fixation is quantity, not quality — will not lead to smarter regulations, a stronger economy, or a healthier and more secure citizenry. It will stand against those those things, making the concept, however well-intended, ultimately counter-productive.