fbpx

Constraining the Adminstrative State in the 114th Congress

Today Republicans will take control of both houses of Congress, and the House of Representatives will have more Republicans than at any time since the New Deal. Given their party’s emphasis on limiting federal government, it is important for these lawmakers to consider transformations of administrative procedure that bring back some limits.  In the long run structural reform can be more powerful than discrete policy changes.

Since the New Deal, administrative government has become a dominant force in political and social life. Executive branch agencies– not Congress– are responsible for most of the federal obligations imposed on individuals and companies. To be sure, executive agencies are operating under statutes Congress passed, but these delegations are often broad and, in some cases, almost unbounded. Moreover, the Supreme Court has permitted agencies to put their own gloss on  the ambiguities in their statutes and even on the regulations that they write. This kind of executive power undermines democratic accountability and liberty,  particularly because bureaucracy generally has inherent tendencies to expand government.

But Congress can cut back on the enormous discretion of the administrative state. Here are four measures that the new Republican Congress should consider:

  1. Enact a version of the REINS Act to prevent agencies from issuing regulations that cost more than a certain amount. Agencies would instead  recommend this class of costly regulations to Congress rather than promulgate them with the force of law. The legislation would also commit Congress to an up or down vote on these costly regulations. Congress, not agencies, then would be directly accountable for these major rules. The threshold amount of cost for requiring congressional consideration of an agency proposed regulation should be set quite high at least initially so we could see how Congress handled such new responsibilities. As problematic as the excesses of the administrative state are, radical and destabilizing change could create a backlash in its favor. Some have criticized the REINS act as simply an underhanded trick to use gridlock to kill regulations. But many of the mechanisms of gridlock, like endless legislative delay and filibuster, would not be available in congressional consideration of regulations. And requiring some legislative consensus before passing rules that impose large obligations on citizens is part of the basic constitutional design that protects freedom.
  2. Require agencies to use cost-benefit analysis in carrying out all statutes. Cost-benefit analysis can constrain executive branch discretion and makes for more efficient regulation.
  3. Extend OMB’s cost-benefit review of agency regulation to independent agencies. OMB is more expert in cost-benefit analysis and their review will keep independent agencies more honest in their analysis and effectively reduce their discretion.
  4. Overturn Auer deference—the doctrine that gives agencies substantial deference in interpreting their own regulations.  Why should one party to the litigation get a thumb on the scale for its  own legal interpretation? Article III judges are likely to provide more unbiased interpretations.  Auer deference also gives agencies incentives to write vague regulations which they can then interpret in their favor.

The President may veto some or all of these proposals. But even if he does, the legislation nevertheless offers substantial advantages. First, this Congress can  then apply some of these ideas to specific agencies as appropriation riders which the President will have difficulty vetoing. Second, subsequent Congresses will have the bills on the shelf ready to be enacted when the next President who is a friend of limited and accountable government takes office. Third, Congress will be sending a signal to the judiciary to tighten up on its own review of agency regulations.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 06, 2015 at 13:04:59 pm

OH, fair enough; but why not make it so that administrative agencies can not *bind* citizens, can not impose obligations on them without the specific accompaniment of a legislative authorization, i.e. legislation.
It is all well and good to attempt to limit the damage that these agencies inflict upon the citizenry by placing a monetary threshold on such actions, but it is not too difficult to envision a system where there are multiple "little" directives that can bankrupt me - or for that matter limit my liberty.
Also, OMB may appear to be fine but there is much latitude in how they "score" the effects of regulations. Shall we use static or dynamic scoring?

Lastly, deference to administrative agencies is akin to granting the King his prerogative. I thought we fought a revolution over that - perhaps, I missed something, Oops maybe the Black Robes missed that when they had to study judicial construction.

all in all your proposals would represent an improvement over current situation

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 07, 2015 at 15:20:11 pm

I've seen the REINS kind of requirement fail in business. What happens is that projects, or in this case regulations, will be broken down into smaller regulations. Instead of big regulations being implemented, a lot of small regulations will be implemented that have the same effect. The REINS kind of thing may catch a few of the bigger regulations, but it will produce as an unintended consequence the generation of a lot of smaller regulations. At work this created a greater loss of control, instead of a greater ability to control. Think in terms of trying to reduce the damage caused by a giant meteor from hitting the earth by blowing it up. It just creates a lot of smaller meteors that spread out over a greater area which creates more harm than would a solid meteor.

Having seen this fail before, I can say that I'm not seein' it. I'm not votin' for it. I'm voting against.

read full comment
Image of Scott Amorian
Scott Amorian

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.