This is Professor Pierce’s summary of a conference on the future of White House regulatory oversight and cost-benefit analysis (cba), along with an explanation of his views on the controversial issues that were discussed.
The participants agreed that OIRA should encourage ex post evaluations of rules, extend oversight to independent agencies, and continue its efforts to maximize the transparency of the review process. They also agreed that Congress should provide OIRA adequate funding and staffing.
Professor Pierce explained why he shares the concern of some of the other participants that the major changes that the Trump Administration is making in the methods used to apply cba, and the resulting major changes in the estimates of the costs and benefits of rules, will undermine the bipartisan consensus in support of bca that has survived through five prior administrations.
Professor Pierce also explained his views with respect to changes in the oversight process that were proposed by some participants and opposed by others. He explained why he opposes codifying cba and increasing Congress’s role in the process of applying cba. He also explained why he believes that any economically rational regulatory budget must have a regulatory cost ceiling that is many times the current cost of regulation.
GW Paper Series
GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2019-60; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-60
Pierce, Richard J., Takeaways from the Conference on the Future of White House Regulatory Oversight and Cost-Benefit Analysis (2019). GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2019-60; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-60. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3459052