Information about the vote from special interest groups and other information providers in our Report Cards:
FreedomWorks
On Passage: Regulatory Accountability Act - H.R. 5.
Introduced by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the Regulatory Accountability Act seeks to reform the regulatory process, making it more transparent for the American people and more accountable to Congress. It also includes language to reverse the Chevron deference, which has been used by regulatory agencies to enact law without judicial review.
National Taxpayers Union
h2017-45.
h2017-45.
League of Conservation Voters
SIGNIFICANTLY HINDERING NEW PUBLIC PROTECTIONS.
Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) sponsored H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, which would add massive analytical burdens to the already lengthy process that federal agencies go through when developing new safeguards and regulations, including those that protect public health and the environment. It would also create endless opportunities to slow the regulatory process through legal challenges, which would shift the balance of power to deep-pocketed corporate interests who oppose new safeguards. The House approved H.R. 5. The Senate took no action on this legislation.
AFL-CIO
Regulatory Accountability Act.
This bill would upend 40 years of labor, health safety and environmental laws by requiring agencies to adopt the cheapest rules, rather than those deemed most effective. This anti-regulatory bill would make protecting workers and the public secondary to limiting cost and impacts on businesses and corporations. The bill passed the House amended.
National Federation of Independent Business
H.R. 5 On Passage: H R 5 Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.
This legislation establishes strong protections to help ensure that federal agencies fully consider the impact of proposed regulations on small businesses and modernizes the more than 70-year-old Administrative Procedure Act. This group supported this bill.
Citizens Against Government Waste
Rule-Making Process Changes – Passage.
Passage of the bill that would modify the federal rule-making process, including by codifying requirements for agencies to consider costs and benefits of alternatives. The bill would create additional steps that agencies would need to follow when planning "major" rules with annual costs of more than $100 million or "high-impact" rules with annual costs of more than $1 billion. For example, agencies would need to hold an advanced-notice comment period prior to proposing such rules to determine whether to continue the rule-making process. The measure would postpone the effective dates of "high impact" rules until any lawsuits filed within 60 days of the rule's publication in the Federal Register are resolved. It would effectively overturn two Supreme Court decisions that require federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of the underlying law or rule when considering legal challenges to rules. It would also require agencies to evaluate the "indirect" impacts of proposed rules on small businesses.