Bill Overview
Title: Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
Description: This bill establishes procedures to reduce the number of federal regulations. Specifically, it requires each agency to establish a regulatory reform task force chaired by a designated regulatory reform officer. Each task force must, among other duties (1) review each existing agency regulation; (2) estimate the potential cost savings of repealing or modifying each regulation; and (3) identify regulations that are appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification based on cost, effectiveness, and impact on employment. The bill further prohibits agencies from issuing a new regulation with an economic impact of at least $100 million without identifying two regulations for repeal that will offset the cost of the proposed new regulation. Agencies also must submit a list of all planned regulatory actions for inclusion in the semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, including (1) the estimated economic effect of each action, and (2) proposed deregulatory actions to offset the cost of each proposed new regulation. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget must establish an annual regulatory budget for each federal agency that specifies the net allowable increase in regulatory costs for each agency during the next fiscal year.
Sponsors: Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in federal regulations
Estimated Size: 330000000
- Many individuals and businesses are affected by federal regulations, particularly in industries that are heavily regulated such as finance, healthcare, environmental protection, and manufacturing.
- Reducing regulations could potentially impact all businesses by lowering compliance costs, changing operational procedures, and altering the competitive landscape.
- Regulatory changes often affect employment as they may lead to new job creation, reduction in workforce, or shifts in job roles depending on how industries are affected.
- The general public may also be impacted as changes in regulations can have downstream effects on product prices, job availability, and health and safety standards.
Reasoning
- I have ensured that the interviewed individuals come from varying sectors including both highly regulated industries and sectors with less regulatory oversight to cover a broad spectrum of impacts.
- The interviews needed to account for the budget constraints, so the focus was on identifying cost-effective impact measures mainly perceived through compliance costs, operational changes, and workforce development opportunities.
- I prioritized sectors most likely to see immediate effects such as finance, healthcare, and environmental engineering for high impact individuals while including individuals from less regulated industries to showcase low impact possibilities.
- I also ensured a balance between occupational roles (e.g., business owners, employees) and demographic factors (e.g., age, location) to represent the diverse US population.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support some regulatory reform because it can reduce unnecessary costs in my business.
- It's crucial to have sensible regulations to protect the environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will affect me much, but reducing unnecessary regulations sounds good.
- It's important to maintain regulations that safeguard data and privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Oil & Gas Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried deregulation could compromise safety and environmental standards.
- Cost reduction might help the company compete better globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulation changes can be a hassle, but it might open up new financial products.
- There needs to be a balance between efficiency and consumer protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm retired, but regulatory changes in healthcare could affect my medical expenses.
- I think the regulatory system should ensure affordability in essentials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry deregulation will lead to negative environmental impacts.
- Effective regulation is crucial for long-term sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Auto Industry Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulatory changes could protect my job by lowering production costs.
- However, they need to ensure that rights and safety standards are not compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Regulator (Fairbanks, AK)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing regulations could undermine my work, affecting both employment and environment.
- It's crucial to ensure policy changes do not jeopardize essential safeguards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Start-up Founder (Portland, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulation adjustments could open new avenues but also bring uncertainty.
- I hope it supports innovation without hindering operational stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With such changes, there could be more job opportunities in regulatory consulting.
- However, excessive deregulation might limit traditional career paths.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1400000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 3: $1300000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- The magnitude of cost savings relies heavily on the effectiveness of task forces in identifying inefficient regulations.
- Potential opposition from affected industry sectors can alter the expected outcomes.
- It is critical to balance cost reductions with maintaining essential regulations that protect health, safety, and the environment.
- Coordination among various agencies is necessary to efficiently manage regulatory changes.