In the latest of numerous attempts, the Senate on March 14, failed to gain enough support to pass a scaled-down regulatory reform bill. The proposals, S. 942, would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which requires federal agencies to consider the impact of new rules on small entities, including small businesses and local governments. The amendment would strengthen the RFA by allowing small entities to challenge federal agencies in court when they do not follow the procedures of the act.
The Senate bill did not include a provision in a similar House version (H.R. 994), which would require federal agencies to periodically review their rules to determine if they should be continued, changed or terminated, nor language that would give Congress veto authority over rules before they take effect.
The House bill, scheduled for floor debate on March 5, was pulled from the schedule after several Republican members expressed concern about being viewed as opponents of environmental protection.
Both proposals are narrower than legislation considered last year, S. 343/H.R. 9, which would have required federal agencies to conduct extensive cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments before issuing new regulations. The House passed H. R. 9 last March but S. 343, the Senate companion bill, was pulled from the Senate floor last July after three attempts failed to cut off debate.
Republican leaders in both houses decided to take action on the scaled down bill last month to try to break the stalemate. But the same partisan disagreement that has blocked action on the broader bill returned to block action on the narrower version.
The dispute is over how much restrictions should be imposed on federal agencies that enforce regulations. Most Republicans feel significantly more restrictions are needed to protect state and local governments and the public from federal agencies they say over-regulate. Most Democrats believe such restrictions will undermine public environmental, health and safety rules.
Even if the Senate is successful in passing a regulatory reform bill, the president has threatened to veto any measure that will undermine the enforcement of public health, safety and environmental rules.
Although a high priority of the Administration and congressional leaders, the prospect for enacting regulatory reform legislation looks bleak. Unless members can iron out their differences, regulatory reform will continue to be an elusive concept.