Statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Legislative Hearing on: the REVIEW Act and the Regulatory Predictability for Business Growth Act of 2015

Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing continues the Judiciary Committee’s efforts to deliver urgently needed reforms of Washington’s regulatory system—a system that virtually every day places new obstacles in the path of American jobs and economic growth. We consider today two bills: Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Chairman Marino’s (R-Pa.) REVIEW Act (H.R. 3438); and, Rep. Steve Russell’s (R-Okla.) Regulatory Predictability for Business Growth Act (H.R. 2631). These are new bills, developed in response to Supreme Court decisions issued during the Court’s 2014 term. The REVIEW Act contains a simple, common-sense reform responding to a problem highlighted by the Court’s decision in the case of Michigan v. EPA. The problem is that, too often, new regulations that impose enormous costs on our society are successfully challenged in court, but are not stayed while litigation is pending. While these regulations are ultimately overturned, compliance with them has been required while litigation is pending, there can be no question that large amounts of precious resources have been wasted—resources that could have been spent creating jobs, investing in development, and growing America’s economy for the benefit of all. The REVIEW Act solves this problem with a simple, bright-line test that says, if a new regulation imposes $1 billion or more in annual costs, it will not go into effect until after litigation challenging it is resolved. Of course, if the regulation is not challenged, it may go into effect as normal. This is a balanced approach. And, it provides a healthy incentive for agencies to promulgate effective but lower-cost regulations that are more legally sound to begin with. The other bill we are examining, the Regulatory Predictability for Business Growth Act, responds to the case of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association. The bill would make sure that, notwithstanding the Court’s decision finding a current gap in the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies will provide notice to the public and an opportunity for comment before they change longstanding interpretive regulations. This is only fair. Job creators must live day to day with the interpretations agencies espouse, and the broader public relies on agencies’ good-faith adherence to sound and settled interpretations of law. Both deserve notice and a chance to comment on changes in interpretive rules before those changes are made. These are simple but powerful reforms that will help to improve Americans’ daily lives. I urge my colleagues to consider well and support these important pieces of legislation. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and yield back the balance of my time. Click here to learn more about today’s hearing.