Truth in Regulating Act
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Nondelegation • Judicial deference • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
The Truth in Regulating Act (TIRA) was a federal law passed in 2000 establishing a pilot program for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct independent reviews of economically significant rules proposed and issued by federal agencies. Under TIRA, the chair or ranking member of a congressional committee with jurisdiction over the issuing agency could submit a review request to GAO.[1][2]
The law went into effect on January 15, 2001, and expired three years later. During that time, Congress never enacted specific appropriations to fund TIRA evaluations. Only one TIRA evaluation request was ever submitted to GAO during this period, and because of the lack of appropriations for that purpose, no evaluation was conducted.[1][2][3]
Background
The Truth in Regulating Act was based on a bill introduced in 1999 by Senator Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama. An amended version of Shelby's bill, proposed by Senators Fred Thompson (R) of Tennessee and Joe Lieberman (D) of Connecticut, passed the Senate unanimously on May 9, 2000. Companion legislation sponosered by Representatives Sue Kelly (R) of New York and David McIntosh (R) of Indiana passed the House of Representatives on October 3, 2000. President Bill Clinton (D) signed the bill into law on October 17, 2000.[4][5][1]
Speaking in the House of Representatives on October 3, 2000, Representative Paul Ryan (R) said of TIRA:[6]
| " | It establishes a regulatory analysis function with the General Accounting Office. This function is intended to enhance congressional responsibility for regulatory decisions developed under the laws Congress enacts.[7] | ” |
| —Representative Paul Ryan[6] | ||
Provisions
Evaluation process
Under TIRA, a chairman or ranking member of a committee in either the House or Senate could request that the Comptroller General of the United States (head of the Government Accountability Office) conduct an independent evaluation of an economically significant rule. The act described the process as "a substantive evaluation of the agency’s data, methodology, and assumptions used in developing the economically significant rule," in particular an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these aspects of the rulemaking and the implications of those findings.[1]
The Comptroller General would then submit a report to Congress containing the following:
| " | (A) an evaluation of the agency’s analysis of the potential benefits of the rule, including any beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the persons or entities likely to receive the benefits;
(B) an evaluation of the agency’s analysis of the potential costs of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the persons or entities likely to bear the costs; |
” |
| —Truth in Regulating Act[1] | ||
The act directed the Comptroller General to prepare and submit this report to the relevant committees in both houses of Congress within 180 days of receiving a review request.[1]
Definition of economically significant rule
The act used the same definition of economically significant rule as originally used in President Bill Clinton's 1993 Executive Order 12866:
| " | ...any proposed or final rule, including an interim or direct final rule, that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities...[1][7] | ” |
Funding and duration
The act authorized appropriations of $5.2 million for each fiscal year of the program's three-year duration. Before the end of those three years, the act also required the Comptroller General to submit a recommendation to Congress for or against making the program permanent.[1]
Aftermath
TIRA took effect on January 15, 2001, 90 days after it was signed. The act authorized appropriations of $5.2 million for each fiscal year of the program's three-year duration. However, according to a 2006 letter from the Comptroller General to the House Committee on Government Reform, "During the 3-year period contemplated for the pilot project, Congress did not enact any specific appropriation to cover TIRA evaluations, and the authority for the 3-year pilot project expired on January 15, 2004."[2]
Only one request was ever made from Congress to the GAO for a TIRA evaluation. In January 2001, the chairs of the jurisdictional committees in both houses of Congress asked the GAO to evaluate the Department of Agriculture's forest planning and roadless area rule. However, because Congress had not appropriated any funds to the GAO for the purpose of conducting TIRA evaluations, the agency advised the committee chairs that it could not complete their request.[3]
See also
- Economically significant rule
- Executive Order 12866
- Administrative Procedure Act
- Congressional Review Act
- Rulemaking
- U.S. Government Accountability Office
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Congress.gov, "Truth In Regulating Act," accessed January 11, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, "B-302705 Truth in Regulating Act of 2000 (TIRA)," June 7, 2006
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Morton Rosenberg, Constitution Project, draft report prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States, "The Congressional Review Act After 15 Years: Background and Considerations for Reform," September 16, 2011
- ↑ Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, "Senate Unanimously Approves Truth in Regulating Act," May 10, 2000
- ↑ Senate Committe on Governmental Affairs, "Thompson Announces Final Congressional Passage of Truth in Regulating Act," October 4, 2000
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Center for Effective Government, "Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Comments on the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000," February 26, 2002
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||||||
