Overview
Title
Establishing new congressional oversight to address regulatory reform.
ELI5 AI
The S. CON. RES. 40 wants to make sure the rules made by the government are good for people and the economy by having a special group of Congress members check them carefully, like how a teacher might check a student's homework to make sure it's done right and fair. This group will have the power to ask for a lot of information and even call important meetings to find the best ways to make rules that don't cause problems or waste money.
Summary AI
The S. CON. RES. 40 proposes new congressional oversight to improve regulatory reforms. It aims to establish a Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform to review how rules are made by federal agencies, suggest reducing unnecessary regulations, and recommend legislative processes to ensure rules undergo thorough scrutiny. The committee will also explore creating a permanent committee to monitor rules that significantly impact the economy and will have powers to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. This resolution seeks to ease economic burdens and enhance transparency in federal rulemaking.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The Senate Concurrent Resolution 40, titled "Regulation Sensibility Through Oversight Restoration Resolution of 2024" or the "RESTORE Resolution of 2024," aims to establish a new Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform. This committee's main duties include reviewing the rule-making processes of federal agencies, holding hearings to curb regulatory overreach, and suggesting legislative improvements to these processes. The resolution outlines how this committee will operate, including its composition and authority. It also establishes a timeline for the committee's tasks and termination.
Significant Issues
Several issues have been identified in the resolution's provisions. First, the resolution grants considerable powers to the Joint Select Committee, such as issuing subpoenas and accessing vast amounts of information from government departments, without clear oversight mechanisms. This lack of oversight could pose ethical and legal concerns, especially regarding privacy violations.
The resolution could also introduce bureaucratic hurdles that may delay regulatory actions. The requirement for agencies to seek congressional advice and conduct reviews before finalizing rules can impede the timely implementation of necessary regulations. This might impact the responsiveness of federal agencies to emergent needs.
Furthermore, the language used in some sections is broad and open to interpretation, which might lead to inconsistent application of rules and procedures. This ambiguity poses a concern over how additional rules might be established and enforced.
The financial implications of the resolution also raise questions. The provision allows up to $3 million to be appropriated for the committee's expenses, yet it lacks a detailed breakdown of anticipated costs or justification for this budget. This could lead to concerns about wasteful spending.
Public Impact
For the general public, this resolution could have both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, increased oversight might reduce unnecessary regulations, potentially easing the regulatory burden on the economy and improving efficiency. However, the potential delays in implementing new rules could hinder the government's ability to address urgent issues promptly, affecting areas like environmental protections, health, and safety.
The resolution's impact on privacy is another key consideration. Given the committee's broad authority to access information, there is concern about potential violations of privacy rights, which could affect public trust in government transparency and accountability.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal Agencies: The resolution could complicate their rule-making processes, requiring additional steps that might delay the implementation of new regulations, challenging their ability to govern effectively.
Businesses: Companies may benefit from reduced regulatory burdens but could face uncertainty due to possible delays in the enactment of new rules, impacting business planning and operation.
Consumers: While they might benefit from a streamlined regulatory environment, consumers could also suffer if the resolution delays rules intended to protect public health and safety.
Lawmakers and Oversight Bodies: The resolution places significant responsibility on these stakeholders to ensure balanced oversight. The absence of strict oversight mechanisms could lead to criticisms of overreach or misuse of power, affecting their credibility and public perception.
Overall, while the resolution aims to streamline rule-making and reduce regulatory burdens, it must navigate the challenges of maintaining necessary oversight, ensuring privacy, and avoiding excessive bureaucratic hurdles.
Financial Assessment
One of the key considerations in the S. CON. RES. 40 resolution revolves around its financial aspects, particularly regarding appropriations and economic impact assessments.
Financial Allocations
The resolution authorizes an appropriation of $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2025 to cover the expenses of the Joint Select Committee. This funding is intended to support the operational costs of the committee throughout its active period. However, there is a lack of detailed breakdown or justification for this significant sum. The absence of specific budgetary allocations or an explanation of how the funds will be utilized raises concerns of potential inefficiency or wasteful spending. Without transparency or a clear allocation plan, the appropriations might not be sufficient to ensure financial accountability, which is vital for public confidence.
Economic Impact of Regulatory Review
The proposed resolution also emphasizes the review of rules having an economic impact, particularly those likely to affect the economy by $50,000,000 or more annually. The Joint Committee is tasked with examining these rules to ensure they align with legislative intent and are economically justified. While this scrutiny aims to mitigate unnecessary regulatory costs, it introduces potential delays and bureaucratic hurdles. The economic assessment requirement seeks to prevent significant negative impacts on the economy; however, it also runs the risk of slowing necessary regulations that might cost-effective or beneficial in the long term.
Relation to Identified Issues
The financial provisions in the resolution relate closely to several issues highlighted in the document. The lack of a detailed justification for the $3,000,000 appropriation underscores concerns about whether the expenditure is warranted and how efficiently the funds will be utilized. This financial ambiguity is directly linked to broader concerns about expanding government oversight without proven cost-effectiveness, as mentioned in the issues section.
Furthermore, the economic reviews for rules impacting the economy by $50,000,000 or more could lead to increased governmental spending and oversight. If these rules are delayed unduly or rejected without solid economic grounds, it may contribute to inefficiencies or lost economic opportunities. The resolution's attempt to establish a permanent review committee highlights potential financial implications and the necessity of weighing benefits against the cost of expanding regulatory frameworks.
In conclusion, the financial aspects of the resolution, including appropriations and economic implications, play a crucial role in understanding the broader scope of the legislative proposal. Addressing these financial concerns will be key to ensuring both the efficacy and accountability of the proposed Joint Select Committee's operations.
Issues
The resolution establishes a Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform with significant powers, such as issuing subpoenas and accessing extensive information from governmental departments (Section 6). The lack of explicit oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse of these powers could raise concerns about potential overreach and privacy violations, making this a critical legal and ethical issue for the public.
The process mandated by the resolution for reviewing proposed rules could introduce significant bureaucratic hurdles. These include seeking advice from Congress before and after a public comment period and potentially delaying the issuance of rules for up to a year (Section 3). This may cause delays in necessary regulatory actions, impacting the efficient functioning of federal agencies and the economy, which is a major concern.
The language used to describe the powers of the Joint Select Committee, particularly in Section 5, is broad, with terms like 'necessary or advisable' being subjective and open to interpretation. This could lead to inconsistent or unchecked application of additional rules and procedures, presenting both legal and ethical issues.
The Joint Select Committee's role in reviewing rules that have significant economic impact (over $50 million annually) before agencies can finalize these rules (Section 3) might increase governmental spending and oversight without proven cost-effectiveness. This issue is crucial from a financial perspective, questioning the necessity and efficiency of such measures.
Details regarding the composition of the Joint Select Committee may cause confusion, such as unclear descriptions of membership distribution relative to each Congressional session's makeup (Section 4). This can have political implications, affecting bipartisan representation and decision-making.
There is a lack of clarity on what happens if the Joint Select Committee fails to submit a report within the 90-day timeline after its termination (Section 7). This lack of enforcement measures could lead to ineffective oversight and missed accountability, posing a legal and procedural concern.
The provision for appropriations of $3,000,000 for the expenses of the Joint Select Committee (Section 8) lacks sufficient justification or a breakdown of anticipated expenses. This could raise issues of potential wasteful spending, which is pertinent to financial transparency and accountability.
The broad authority granted to the Committee regarding access to information and materials from various governmental departments (Section 6) may conflict with privacy laws or existing regulations, leading to significant legal challenges and public concern over privacy rights.
The resolution's proposal to create a permanent Joint Committee on Rules Review (Section 3) calls for analysis without providing clear evidence or metrics for its necessity or benefits. Financial implications and effectiveness remain unanswered, raising concerns over unjustified expansion of government oversight.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this resolution gives its short title, stating that it can be referred to as either the "Regulation Sensibility Through Oversight Restoration Resolution of 2024" or the "RESTORE Resolution of 2024".
2. Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a group called the Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform. This committee's purpose and references within the resolution are included, and it is identified as the "Joint Select Committee."
3. Duties of Joint Select Committee Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Joint Select Committee is tasked with reviewing how government agencies create rules, holding hearings to reduce unnecessary regulations, and suggesting laws to improve this process, such as requiring agencies to consult Congress and consider public comments before finalizing rules. They will analyze the possibility of a permanent committee to review significant rules, ensure agencies address potential issues, and allow Congress to disapprove of certain rules.
Money References
- The Joint Committee on Rules Review would— (1) review each proposed rule that an agency determines is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $50,000,000 or more before the agency promulgates the final rule; (2) require each agency to submit to the Committee— (A) the text of each proposed rule of the agency described in paragraph (1); and (B) an analysis of the economic impact of the rule on the economy; (3) require each agency to revise a proposed rule submitted under paragraph (2) if the Committee determines that the proposed rule— (A) needs to be significantly rewritten to accomplish the intent of the agency or address the recommendations or objections of the Committee; (B) is not a valid exercise of delegated authority from Congress; (C) is not in proper form; (D) is inconsistent with the intent of Congress with respect to the provision of law that the proposed rule implements; or (E) is not a reasonable implementation of the law; (4) delay the effective date of a proposed rule for a period of not more than 1 year beginning on the date on which the agency submits the proposed rule under paragraph (2); (5) allow an agency to promulgate a final rule without any delay in the effective date of the rule if the agency designates the rule as an emergency rule, unless the Committee by majority vote determines that the rule is not an emergency rule; and (6) if applicable, recommend that Congress should overturn a final rule promulgated by an agency by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. ---
4. Composition of Joint Select Committee Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Joint Select Committee will have 30 members, half from the Senate and half from the House of Representatives, chosen to reflect the political party ratios for each chamber on the date the act is enacted. Members will be appointed within 30 days, any vacancies will be filled the same way as the initial appointments, and the committee's leadership will include a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elected from the majority and minority parties of each chamber, respectively. A majority of members from both the Senate and the House must be present to conduct business.
5. Rules and procedures Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Joint Select Committee's investigations and hearings will generally follow the Senate's Standing Rules, but they can create additional rules if both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson agree, or if the majority of the committee believes it's necessary.
6. Authority of Joint Select Committee Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Joint Select Committee is authorized to use the same powers as a Senate committee, including holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and accessing government information. They can work with other Senate and House committees to accomplish their duties.
7. Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Joint Select Committee to submit a final report to both the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days of its termination, including the results and findings from its activities and any other necessary information. Additionally, the committee is allowed to provide interim reports if deemed necessary.
8. Administrative provisions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the administrative aspects of the Joint Select Committee, including hiring and managing their staff, setting staff compensation, using facilities from other Senate or House committees, detailing government employees, and acquiring temporary services. It also includes establishing ethical rules and approving a $3 million budget for the committee's expenses for fiscal year 2025.
Money References
- (g) Authorization of appropriations.—For the expenses of the Joint Select Committee, there are authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, to remain available until expended.
9. Effective date; termination Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The resolution states that it becomes effective once adopted, and the Joint Select Committee will end one year after its members are appointed. After the committee ends, its records will be given to other committees chosen by the majority leaders of the Senate and House, with the agreement of the minority leaders.