Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Crpt 118Hrpt856
- Case
- Crpt 118Hrpt856
Summary
House Report 118-856, Part 1, from the Committee on Small Business of the 118th Congress, submitted by Mr. Williams of Texas and ordered printed December 10, 2024, to accompany H.R. 9085, the Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024. The report recommends passage without amendment and states that the committee ordered the bill reported on September 10, 2024, after a markup at which one amendment was offered. It describes the bill as limiting agencies' ability to delay periodic review of rules to one year instead of five, requiring an explanation for delay, a public comment period and reporting of compliance costs and paperwork hours. It includes a CBO table of estimated budgetary effects for H.R. 9030, H.R. 9031, H.R. 9033 and H.R. 9085. Minority views signed by Ranking Member Nydia M. Velázquez oppose the bill and support an amendment offered by Ms. Davids.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-118hrpt856/
, SHA-256 cbbffd3ddaa5a76f51f0ba261de96af19ba8e1193965a978fb6cfe1bf824ff7e.Full text
118TH CONGRESS REPT. 118–856
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
2d Session Part 1
REGULATORY REVIEW IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2024
DECEMBER 10, 2024.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, from the Committee on Small Business,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 9085]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 9085) to amend title 5, United States Code, to make certain
modifications to how agencies conduct periodic reviews of agency
rules, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Bill Summary ........................................................................ 2
II. Need for Legislation .................................................................................... 2
III. Hearings ....................................................................................................... 2
IV. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 2
V. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 3
VI. Section-by-Section of H.R. 9085 ................................................................. 8
VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 8
VIII. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 11
IX. Oversight Findings & Recommendations .................................................. 11
X. Performance Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 11
XI. Statement of Duplication of Federal Programs ........................................ 11
XII. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits ..................................................................................................... 11
XIII. Federal Mandates Statement ..................................................................... 11
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 11
XV. Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................... 12
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
XVI. Statement of Constitutional Authority ...................................................... 12
59–006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
2
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 12
XVIII. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 14
I. PURPOSE AND BILL SUMMARY
On July 22, 2024, Rep. Meuser, along with Rep. Hunt introduced
H.R. 9085. The purpose of H.R. 9085, the ‘‘Regulatory Review Im-
provement Act of 2024,’’ is to limit agencies’ ability to delay the re-
view of rules to only one year as opposed to five and provide an
explanation for why they are delaying the review. Further, when
reviewing the rule, agencies must offer a comment period for stake-
holders to weigh in on the rule’s impact. Agencies must also report
on the cost and paperwork hours imposed on businesses since the
rule took effect.
II. NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Agencies are required to periodically review their rules once they
have been in effect for 10 years. Currently, agencies have the op-
tion to delay the review for one year up to five times without an
explanation.
This legislation limits agencies’ ability to delay the review of reg-
ulations to only one year as opposed to five and requires an expla-
nation for why they are delaying the review. It is important to hold
federal agencies to account for their periodic review of rules, as
well as to prevent abuse of their ability to delay a periodic review
for a seemingly indefinite timeframe. Further, the bill also requires
that when reviewing the rule, agencies must report on cost and pa-
perwork hours imposed on businesses since the rule took effect.
Finally, the bill requires that when reviewing the rule, agencies
must offer a comment period for stakeholders to weigh in on the
merits and burdens of the rule while it was in effect. The agency
must then use this comment period to complete a qualitative and
quantitative analysis of the rule’s impact when evaluating whether
it should stay in place.
Each year there are hundreds of new rules promulgated. These
requirements compound each year, and the government should al-
ways be looking at what requirements are no longer relevant and
can be removed. By ensuring that agencies truly do their due dili-
gence in reviewing rules every 10 years, it will hopefully reduce the
compounding impacts of years’ worth of regulations.
III. HEARINGS
In the 118th Congress, the Committee held one hearing exam-
ining the issues covered in H.R. 9085. On May 22, 2024, the Com-
mittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Burdensome Regulations: Examining
the Biden Administration’s Failure to Consider Small Businesses’’
which examined the impacts of the Biden Administration’s burden-
some regulatory landscape and explored ways to support small
businesses and overcome agencies’ noncompliance with the RFA.
IV. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee on Small Business met in open session, with a
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
quorum being present, on September 10, 2024 and ordered H.R.
9085 reported to the House of Representatives. During the markup
one amendment was offered.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
3
V. COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representa-
tives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the mo-
tion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The Committee
voted to favorably report H.R. 9085 to the House of Representatives
at 2:40 PM.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
4
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 5 here HR856P1.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
5
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 6 here HR856P1.002
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
6
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 7 here HR856P1.003
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
7
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 8 here HR856P1.004
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
8
VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION OF H.R. 9085
Section 1: Short title
This bill may be cited as the ‘‘Regulatory Review Improvement
Act.’’
Section 2: Changes to periodic review of rules
When reviewing rules, agencies have the option to delay the re-
view for one year and must provide an explanation for why they
need the extension. Further, when reviewing a rule, the agency
must:
• Solicit public comments on whether the rule shall remain in
effect.
• Produce a qualitative and quantitative summary of the pub-
lic comments and the agency’s economic analysis of the rule.
• Include the cost of compliance and paperwork hours required
of businesses since the rule took effect.
VII. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the Congressional
Budget Office, to the extent practicable, to prepare estimates of the
budgetary effects of legislation ordered reported by Congressional
authorizing committees. In order to provide the Congress with as
much information as possible, the attached table summarizes infor-
mation about the estimated direct spending and revenue effects of
some of the legislation that has been ordered reported by the
House Committee on Small Business during the 118th Congress.
The legislation listed in this table generally would have small ef-
fects, if any, on direct spending or revenues, CBO estimates. Where
possible, the table also provides information about the legislation’s
estimated effects on spending subject to appropriation and on inter-
governmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Un-
funded Mandates Reform Act.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014
05:45 Feb 11, 2025
ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS AND MANDATES INFORMATION
Spending
Direct Pay-As-You-Go Budgetary
Last Budget Revenues, subject to
Bill Number Title Status spending, procedures effects after Mandates Contact
action function 2025–2034 appropriation,
2025–2034 apply? 2034
2025–2029
Jkt 059006
H.R. 9030 Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act ....... Ordered reported 09/10/24 Multiple Between Between Not estimated Yes Insignificant Yes Margot Berman
functions zero and $500,000 and
PO 00000 $500,000 zero
H.R. 9030 would require federal agencies to describe the type of business that would be affected by a proposed rule, explain whether the rule would impose significant economic effects on a sub-
stantial number of small entities, and display that information on their website. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 9030 could increase direct spending by some regulatory agencies, a few of which
are allowed to charge fees to cover their operating costs. CBO estimates that the net increase in direct spending would be insignificant. Enacting H.R. 9030 could reduce revenues because costs in-
curred by the Federal Reserve reduce remittances to the Treasury, which are recorded in the budget as revenues. However, CBO estimates that any reduction in revenues would be insignificant. CBO
Frm 00009 has not estimated the bill’s effects on spending subject to appropriation. If federal regulators increase annual fees to offset the costs of implementing the bill, H.R. 9030 would increase the costs of
an existing private-sector mandate on entities required to pay those fees. CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold es-
tablished in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) for private-sector mandates ($200 million in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as de-
fined in UMRA.
Fmt 6659 H.R. 9031 Assurance for Small Business Act Ordered reported 09/10/24 Multiple Between Between 12 Not estimated Yes Insignificant Yes Margot Berman
of 2024. functions zero and ¥$500,000
$500,000 and zero
9
H.R. 9031 would require each rulemaking agency to report to the Congress on how the agency determines whether a rule would impose significant economic effects on a substantial number of small
entities. Enacting H.R. 9031 could increase direct spending by some regulatory agencies, a few of which are allowed to charge fees to cover their operating costs. CBO estimates that the net in-
crease in direct spending would be insignificant. Enacting H.R. 9031 could reduce revenues because costs incurred by the Federal Reserve reduce remittances to the Treasury, which are recorded in
Sfmt 6602
the budget as revenues. However, CBO estimates that any reduction in revenues would be insignificant. CBO has not estimated the bill’s effects on spending subject to appropriation. If federal regu-
lators increase annual fees to offset the costs of implementing the bill, H.R. 9031 would increase the costs of an existing private-sector mandate on entities required to pay those fees. CBO esti-
mates that the incremental cost of the mandate would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) for private-sector man-
dates ($200 million in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.
H.R. 9033 LABOR Act of 2024 ........................ Ordered reported 09/10/24 500 0 0 Not estimated No No No Margot Berman
H.R. 9033 would require the Department of Labor to convene a small business advocacy review panel before proposing rules that would have significant economic effects on a substantial number of
small entities. Under current law, only the Occupational Safety and Health Administration within the Department of Labor is required to do so. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 9033 would not af-
fect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill’s effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX
H.R. 9085 Regulatory Review Improvement Ordered reported 09/10/24 Multiple Between Between Not estimated Yes Insignificant Yes Margot Berman
Act of 2024. functions zero and ¥$500,000
$500,000 and zero
HR856P1
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014
05:45 Feb 11, 2025
ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS AND MANDATES INFORMATION—Continued
Spending
Direct Pay-As-You-Go Budgetary
Last Budget Revenues, subject to
Bill Number Title Status spending, procedures effects after Mandates Contact
action function 2025–2034 appropriation,
2025–2034 apply? 2034
2025–2029
Jkt 059006
H.R. 9085 would expand the information that agencies must include in a 10-year review of a rule’s effect on small entities, including the cost for entities to comply with the rule once it goes into
effect and an analysis of public comments an agency receives about the rule. The bill also would reduce the time from 5 years to 1 year for an agency to complete a review. CBO estimates that en-
PO 00000 acting H.R. 9085 could increase direct spending by some agencies, a few of which are allowed to charge fees to cover their operating costs. CBO estimates that the net increase in direct spending
would be insignificant. Enacting H.R. 9085 could reduce revenues because costs incurred by the Federal Reserve reduce remittances to the Treasury, which are recorded in the budget as revenues.
However, CBO estimates that any reduction in revenues would be insignificant. CBO has not estimated the bill’s effects on spending subject to appropriation. If federal regulators increase annual
fees to offset the costs of implementing the bill, H.R. 9085 would increase the costs of an existing private-sector mandate on entities required to pay those fees. CBO estimates that the incremental
cost of the mandate would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) for private-sector mandates ($200 million in 2024, ad-
Frm 00010 justed annually for inflation). The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.
Fmt 6659
10
Sfmt 6602
E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX
HR856P1
11
VIII. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY,
AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives and section 308(a)(I) of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following opinion and
estimate with respect to new budget authority, entitlement author-
ity, and tax expenditures. The Committee does not believe that
there will be any additional costs attributable to this legislation.
H.R. 9085 does not direct new spending, but instead reallocates
funding independently authorized and appropriated.
IX. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the over-
sight findings and recommendations of the Committee on Small
Business with respect to the subject matter contained in the H.R.
9085 are incorporated into the descriptive portions of this report.
X. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals
and objectives of H.R. 9085 are to require an annual report from
OCRM to Congress on the performance, cost, and risk associated
with 7(a) loans generated through loan agent activity.
XI. STATEMENT OF DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, no provision of H.R. 9085 is known to be dupli-
cative of another Federal program, including any program that was
included in a report to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public
Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic As-
sistance.
XII. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND
LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS
With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee finds that the bill does not con-
tain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
XIII. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal man-
dates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
12
XV. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or
accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Con-
gressional Accountability Act.
XVI. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House, the
Committee finds that the authority for this legislation in Art. I, § 8,
cl.1 of the Constitution of the United States.
XVII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omit-
ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,
and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omit-
ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,
and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 6—THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY
FUNCTIONS
* * * * * * *
§ 610. Periodic review of rules
(a) Within one hundred and eighty days after the effective date
of this chapter, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register
a plan for the periodic review of the rules issued by the agency
which have or will have a significant economic impact upon a sub-
stantial number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by
the agency at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal
Register. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether
such rules should be continued without change, or should be
amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of ap-
plicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities. The
plan shall provide for the review of all such agency rules existing
on the effective date of this chapter within ten years of that date
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
13
øand for the review¿, for the review of such rules adopted after the
effective date of this chapter within ten years of the publication of
such rules as the final rule, and for the solicitation of public com-
ments on whether each such final rule should remain in effect. If
the head of the agency determines that completion of the review of
existing rules is not feasible by the established date, he shall so
certify in a statement that includes an explanation for the delay
published in the Federal Register and may extend the completion
date øby one year at a time for a total of not more than five years¿
by not more than one year.
(b) In reviewing rules to minimize any significant economic im-
pact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities in a man-
ner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the
agency shall consider the following factors—
(1) the continued need for the rule;
(2) the nature of complaints or comments received con-
cerning the rule from the public, including any analyses or
summaries conducted by the agency under subsection (c);
(3) the complexity of the rule;
(4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or con-
flicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with
State and local governmental rules; øand¿
(5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other
factors have changed in the area affected by the ruleø.¿; and
(6) the cost of compliance and the number of paperwork hours
the rule has required since the rule took effect.
(c) Each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register
a list of the rules which have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, which are to be reviewed pur-
suant to this section during the succeeding twelve months. The list
shall include a brief description of each rule øand the need for¿, the
need for and legal basis of such rule, and an economic analysis of
such rule, and shall invite public comment upon the rule. Before
conducting a review under this section, each agency shall produce
a qualitative and quantitative summary of such comments that in-
cludes an analysis of such comments by the agency.
* * * * * * *
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
XVIII. MINORITY VIEWS
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires
agencies to develop a plan to review rules that will have a signifi-
cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
within 10 years of their issuance. The purpose of the review is to
evaluate whether the rules need to be modified to minimize the sig-
nificant impact on small entities. If an agency determines that
completion of the review of existing rules is not feasible by the es-
tablished date, the agency head must certify in a statement pub-
lished in the Federal Register and may extend the completion date
by one year for a total of not more than five years.1
Over the past four decades, Presidential candidates have cam-
paigned on the issue that there are too many rules on the books
that are obsolete, unworkable, and burdensome. Most recent, Presi-
dent Obama issued Executive Orders 13,563 and 13,579, which re-
affirmed the need for agencies to carry out retrospective analysis
of existing rules.2 Accordingly, ‘‘$37 billion in savings, paperwork
reductions were achieved, 70 notable regulatory provisions were re-
moved from the books, and more than 800 retrospective review ini-
tiatives were completed.’’ 3 President Trump took an alternative ap-
proach with Executive Order 12,771, which required agencies to re-
peal two regulations for every new one. The Office of Advocacy be-
lieves agencies should conduct 610 reviews and set forth guidance
for agencies to follow. However, older studies found that agency
compliance with 610 requirements have varied considerably since
1980.4
While there is little data to determine if agencies are complying
with the 610 requirements, this bill is problematic for a number of
reasons. First, the requirement that agencies can only delay the
retrospective review for one year is not always feasible, particularly
in times of a national emergency. For example, the economic relief
program stemming from the COVID–19 pandemic increased SBA’s
loan portfolio to more than $1.3 trillion,5 and aiding small busi-
nesses was SBA’s main priority. A requirement to complete retro-
spective reviews during this period would have detracted from their
efforts to aid small businesses in the midst of an economic crisis.
Second, the bill requires agencies to take into consideration the
1 See the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164 (1980) (codified
as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 610).
2 Exec. Order No. 13,563 § 6, 76 Fed. Reg. 3,821, at 3,822; Exec. Order No. 13,579 § 2, 76 Fed.
Reg. 41,587.
3 Howard Shelanski, Retrospective Review, by the Numbers, THE WHITE HOUSE: PRESIDENT
BARACK OBAMA (Aug. 31, 2016), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/08/31/retrospec-
tive-review-numbers-0.
4 GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., REEXAMINING REGULATIONS: OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO
IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS AND TRANSPARENCY OF RETROSPECTIVE REVIEWS (Jul. 16, 2007).
5 U.S. SMALL BUS. ADMIN., FY 2025 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, FY 2023 ANNUAL
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
PERFORMANCE REPORT (Mar. 11, 2024).
(14)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
15
costs and paperwork hours, but it does not require the agencies to
consider the benefits of the rules.
Committee Democrats continue to attempt to work in good faith
with the Majority to pass common-sense legislation that would
make regulations and regulatory processes more accessible to small
businesses. To that end, Ms. Davids proposed an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to this bill. The Davids amendment would
1 strike most provisions of the bill, with the exception of the re-
quirement for agencies to explain the reason for their delay. To
gather more up-to-date data, the amendment would requires agen-
cies to submit a report to the House and Senate Small Business
Committees every two years detailing the number of reviews con-
ducted, reasons for delays, and legislative recommendations to im-
prove the 602 process. I support the commonsense amendment of-
fered by Ms. Davids to make the Section 610 process work better,
and I oppose H.R. 9085, the ‘‘Regulatory Review Improvement Act’’
as there has been no testimony from agencies or up to date infor-
mation or data to support the change to the 610 process.
NYDIA M. VELÁZQUEZ,
Ranking Member.
Æ
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:45 Feb 11, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR856P1.XXX HR856P1
File and source
- File
- CRPT-118hrpt856.pdf
- Size
- 476,872 bytes
- SHA-256
- cbbffd3ddaa5a76f51f0ba261de96af19ba8e1193965a978fb6cfe1bf824ff7e
- Our copy
- CRPT-118hrpt856.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.