Be discussingill the Trump Administrations regulatory policies, live coverage here on cspan. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] her appearance today is reminding me of one of the first events i did at brookings, it was probably eight years ago, i hosted an administrator, one of my first events, i was nervous. I was Walking Around outside getting warmed up and there was a group of protesters out front, one of whom was wearing an oscar the grouch costume with the a fake sign in front of him, they were singing a , a playly written song on oscars song, i love trash. It was creative and effective because without that i would never have rebounded remembered the ash disposal role. Rule. Ash disposal there is nothing so exciting happening outside the room. The story does highlight a serious point, which is that the job of the office of an ministration and Regulatory Affairs is always controversial. Is responsible for vetting agencys tallies of the benefits and costs of federal regulation. Or turn itk a rule back to the agencies. It is a powerful position and office within the federal government. Ra officer is frequently called the regulatory star at and giventory czar the current administrations proper emphasis on deregulation, roleps administrator raos is more important than ever. Before joining the Trump Administration, she was an associate purpose of law at the Antonin Scalia a law school at george mason university. Mason shening george served in all three branches of government, she was counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee under orrin hatch. Thomasrked for clarence and she served as associate counsel and special assistant to president george w. Bush. I am delighted to have her here. Today is she will speak for approximately 20 minutes and then i will join her on stage for question and answers and then we will turn to all of you for further questions and answers from her. With that, please join me and welcoming administrator rao. [applause] ms. Rao thanks so much to ted for inviting me to be here today and to brookings for hosting this event. Every time i have a public experience i asked my staff and close advisers for jokes. No one ever comes up with any. I try to joke about the fact that we no longer have any jokes. My chief of staff has said to me, you are the administrator of the office of information and Regulatory Affairs, it is just not funny. Jokes. Y, i have no well see if i can do better next time. Today, i wanted to discuss the Regulatory Reform efforts of this administration and to focus on three main points. I want to speak a little bit about what we have done in this past year, what we plan to do in the upcoming year, and then give you some of the principles why we believe so strongly in our Regulatory Reform effort. First, a little bit about what we have done. From my perspective, this past year was a banner year for Regulatory Reform. Soon after taking office, the president issued an ambitious series of executive orders that directed agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one and to impose zero regulatory cost in fiscal year 2017. When those executive orders came out there was a lot of skepticism. When you look back at the past year, what we see is those executive orders focused attention on a very big problem of cumulative regulation. The administration did not go after the problem with little scissors, but with something much lore much more like the beautiful gold scissors the president used to cut the red tape at his december speech. The president directed the agencies to deregulate. Some of the ways we have done this, the administration has slowed the production of new, costly regulations. We issued only three new regulations in fiscal year 2017. We have tried to redirect the regulatory inertia and as part of our effort to change the delayed we withdrew or 1500 planned rules. Those are roles that are currently in process and rules we are thinking about. It demonstrates the magnitude of what has been halted or postponed. It also shows that what the administration is doing is carefully reconsidering the direction, the scope, and the content of many proposed regulations. Across the government, we have regulatoryated 22 actions for every one new regulation, a ratio that far exceeds the 241 the president one the the two for president called for. s owning to oira calculations, we have had a total net savings of over 8 billion. To provide some context about what this kind of production , regulatoryrically costs have increased in administrations of both parties. In the previous administration, during just there last eight annualizedy imposed regulatory costs of over 15 million. We are planning to continue this ,n 2018, for this fiscal year agencies are committed to overing regulatory cost by 10 billion. How we been doing that . I have gotten questions about implementation. These are significant reforms we have had to put in place and we have been working with the oira to do this. A small staff, we have about 45 career officials and they are excellent. Working closely with the career Civil Servants and other agencies to implement the president s executive orders in a way that is careful and responsible. One thing to highlight about what we have been doing, we have tried to be exceptionally transparent and how we have calculated two for one and the cost savings. We have focused on developing a system that would meet the president s goals. Inwant real reduction regulatory burdens and want to incentivize agencies to eliminate and streamlined burdens of all sizes. This, wewere doing wanted to maintain the high standards of regulatory analysis we expect from agencies. At oira we provided advanced guidance about how would we would about how we would be implementing executive orders and we showed our work on the website. The numbers demonstrate a fundamental reorganization of the regulatory system. We have slowed the pace of new rules but also of smaller roles. We have eliminated many costly regulatory actions, which include rules and guidance documents and information collections and we have pushed agencies to be open in their actions and not simply to redirect their regulatory activity to guidance or other some regulatory forms of action. We welcome input about our system because we are continuing to implement these farreaching reforms and we are working on improving our process both in working with agencies and in informing the public. While we have been working through the requirements of these executive orders, we have sought to continue and institutionalize longstanding regulatory practices. On the fema on the theme of publishes an oira agenda of regulatory and deregulatory actions. And this past summer when we updated the agenda we released a list of inactive items, this was a list that was long maintained by administrations that included items agencies work considering propagating but they did not want to be on the agenda. That was never made public. We have now made that list public. People have information about all the different potential regulatory and deregulatory actions agencies might be considering. Now that this information is all publicly available on our are working with agencies to remove stale items from the agenda. I understand there are some items and some agencies that are left over from the george w. Bush administration. We are pushing to make sure that our agenda reflects real Agency Priorities so the public can have a must a much better sense of what is coming. We have also made a number of technical changes, the agenda is now searchable, and my staff is in a process of working on making some of these changes consistent with the federal register, with new rules going forward. While there have been new reforms, there is also a lot of continuity in what we are doing. We are continuing to follow longstanding principles of centralized regulatory review that you can find in executive order 12 866 issued by president clinton. Samee continuing with the costbenefit standards. That is some of the technical parts of it. Reform efforts go beyond some of the numbers you can see on our website. They go beyond individual deregulatory actions. We are also systematically trying to crack down on bad regulatory practices and make sure agencies are proceeding in a manner that is consistent with law. Even when an agency has Legal Authority to proceed, we want to make sure they are working to solve an actual problem. We want to make sure there is some reason for the government to act, such as a substantial market failure. We are pushing hard to the manned fair analysis of the cost and benefits of regulation. Too often in the previous administrations the benefits were exaggerated and the costs downplayed. We want to have a fair accounting of both of those. Satisfied thate an agency has Legal Authority and the regulation may be necessary, we want to make sure that agencies work to regulate in a manner that is giving fair notice to the public and in a way that respects to process. This is the theme on which we have been working very closely with the White House Counsels Office to ensure that agencies are not proposing new regulatory requirements through guidance or onters or speeches or faqs the website. We are trying to change the culture so that when an Agency Issues guidance, it is a guidance about existing requirements and backdoor to imposing new requirements without the process and accountability that is necessary for a legitimate administrative system. That is some of what we have been up to in the past year. What is next for the president s regulatory agenda . Let me say a little bit about that. Focusing on continuing with the momentum we have built up over the last year with Regulatory Reform. In the second year, we want to work closely with agencies to identify serious areas for reform. The fall unified agenda a you will see that 448cies are proposing some deregulatory actions and 131 regulatory actions which is a better which is better than a three for one ratio. Deregulation takes time. Reconsidering big rules requires research and analysis and the full rule making process. Agencies are working to identify areas where reform can happen and produce significant benefits for the american people. Ways we canof the assist with that is we work agencies across areas, often regulatory regimes involve multiple agencies and this is an area where oira can add value. Another thing we are doing, we have been doing and will continue to do is to look closely at some of the statutory authorities that oira for promoting Regulatory Reform. One of our main statutes is the paperwork reduction act. Paperwork reduction burdens are not funny, but they are extremely costly and burdensome. One of my predecessors said do not forget about the paperwork burdens. It can often impact individuals and small businesses. Bere are a lot of savings to had in streamlining or eliminating paperwork burdens. Has authority under the congressional review act. The act was used multiple times this year to strike down regulations. Requires that all agencies, including the independent agencies, submit their roles to oira for a major determination under the act. What that means is when there is to oira,at has to come oira determines whether it provides more than in cost. Part of our obligation is to make sure agencies are complying with the cra and failure to comply can threaten the below the can threaten the validity of rules and we know Congress Takes this seriously. The cra can also promote costbenefit analysis because agencies have to explain whether their role is above or below the 100 million threshold. Another thing we are considering at oira, and the speech is part of this, is sharing with the public a message of responsible and beneficial Regulatory Reform. We want to be clear that we are not dismantling Important Health and safety regulations. We are proceeding with deregulation in a way that is careful and we are applying the same costbenefit standards to both regulatory and deregulatory actions. I sometimes hear from critics that deregulation is just a way to help big business or special interests. If you look closely, you will see that many regulatory burdens are often put in place by big business or powerful interest groups. Regulation often creates barriers to entry, it can eliminate competition and can goodsthe cost of ordinary and services. It can blunt and stifle innovation. On ise are focused listing regulatory requirements that are no longer working for the american people. That is some of what we are thinking about for the coming year. I want to Say Something about why we care so much about Regulatory Reform, why are we doing this, why is it so important to the administration . Here there are reasons that are practical and principled. Let me start with the practical. Lifting excessive government regulations can stimulate the economy. In the past few months there has been a lot of reporting about this. Many economists have identified a link between this years booming Economic Growth and the slowdown in regulatory activity. Even the New York Times ran a story drawing this connection. Effects, removing burdens can help create jobs and leaving individuals more free gives them the opportunity to work hard and do great things. Sum, one of the most important effects of this administrations initiative has been to change the environment. To me,ses frequently say and individuals have said that they are no longer fearing arbitrary new burdens being imposed by guidance documents or new regulations. Mulvaney said heut the cfpb, i think what said there applies to other agencies as well. This administration is no longer pushing the envelope with regulations. What are some of the principles behind what we are doing . There are a lot of great practical effects but the principles are important. From my perspective as a former law professor, Regulatory Reform is part of a larger effort to promote a more Constitutional Government and thereby to enhance individual liberties. Efforts help promote Constitutional Government and a number of ways. First, i think there is important democratic accountability when you have more president ial accountability. Regulatory reform is quite clearly a key component of this administration and the president has set a very ambitious regulatory policy across the government. , and through a centralized review process, we can work with agencies to make sure they are promoting president ial priorities to illuminate unnecessary burdens. Another way we promote more Constitutional Government is by highlighting and promoting due process and fair notice, which i mentioned earlier, by cracking down on sub Regulatory Guidance or regulatory dark matter, we are ensuring that when agencies impose new requirements they are following administrative procedure. Ive always found it interesting that one of the ways legal scholars depend defend the constitutionality of an expanded states they say agencies promote Constitutional Values or they follow Something Like an administrative constitution. This means something quite different from the original constitution, i think it is too often the case that agencies have failed to follow even this much dinner first even this much thinner version of constitutionality. By requiring agencies to follow procedures, we can ensure notice and decisionmaking. Ands also important to us our Reform Efforts to make sure that we in the executive branch respect the roles of the other departments of government. Towork with agencies interpret statutes to mean what they say. Doing that, we respect the lawmaking power of congress and we work not to expand the authority of the executive ranch beyond what the law allows. Admittedly, Statutory Authority is also open ended, but agency should not act as if they have a blank check from congress to make law. We also work hard to respect the row of courts in reviewing administrative actions and we are mindful of precedents and process. Perhaps most importantly, listing unnecessarily regulatory board ins burdens results in individual liberty. Government regulation serves vital health and safety goals and congress has ensured we already live in a highly regulated society. Even against that backdrop, Government Intervention should still serve a purpose, it should not be a solution in search of a problem. There are many regulations on our books that are outdated or ineffective. Regulations have simply piled on top of regulations in a system no one would have designed with a clean slate. We are looking closely at those regulations and eliminating access and ordered to restore freedom. When the government acts, it should do so in service of the people. Those are the principles that , a regulatory policy that works by promoting Economic Growth and innovation and jobs and the prosperity that accompany greater freedom. Thank you so much for your attention, i look forward to the questions fromd the audience. [applause] ted thank you again for being here and your thoughtful comments. I will start off with questions on the executive order at the beginning of the Trump Administration and that you lead with in your speech. And a lot of order the guidance surrounding it and the agency actions, theres a lot of focus on cost. In your speech you are focused on cost, the premise being we have too many regulations. Risk if we focus on too much cost. There are regulations out there that might be costly, but are enormously beneficial. You mentioned that oira is also benefits. Focus toon is if you much on cost, you might be foregoing an official budget. Ons because of a can you speak to how that concern might be alleviated or whether or not you see it playing out . Ms. Rao one of the things that is important to keep in mind, we do think about the benefits as well as costs. The benefits are important to us and i think this is reflected in the ordinary oira process, which requires that for the regulatory action, it has to be more beneficial than costly. We are getting rid of regulations that are not benefiting the public. I think that is an important first step. Agencies are continuing to move forward with regulations that are required by statute or they think are necessary to meet statutory goals. I do not think theres anything in our system that is stopping that from happening. This highlights a fundamental disagreement on what the role of net benefits are and whether we are seeing haas and if net benefits from the regulatory process and regulation. Every year oira every year omb does release an assessment of the cost of the regulations they have seen. Should i be looking at that more skeptically, is it that the process of it exists previously even though omb and your staff pop tabulated this has positive net benefits, but they were wrong . Ms. Rao i think it is important to look more closely at some of those numbers. Overstaten easy to and we are costs trying to be much more rigorous about that. I think it is good to look at those skeptically. On the requirements themselves, the two for one threeement, which is a for one requirement ms. Rao a projection. Ted a budget that is projected to be negative for the coming year, the seem to be process changes designed to constrain agencies from what you per from what you perceive as over regulatory impulse. My question is, i can see how they would work under different administrations. If you look at the cabinet members of this administration, they do not seem to have that impulse or need of constraining. If you look at the success of the first year as you laid out on deregulation, where these binding . Was it more so because of the political appointees to have these agencies being predisposed against regulation or did these actually trigger you going back to the agencies and saying you have to meet these requirements, take a look at the regulatory budget, which is driving this more. Ms. Rao i think it is both. It is part of a broader view of the administration. I think the president appointed people to the cabinet because they were interested in getting rid of regulatory burdens. He has also made it clear that this is an Important Administration priority. I think that is all reinforcing we have donewhat his work with the agencies to make sure they are meeting the president s priorities. Some agencies have an easier time with that and others so we do have an Important Role in the accountability. The Regulatory Reform ideas come up through the agencies. We asked them to project their own cost caps. We do not impose a cost cap on the agencies. These are numbers they have developed in consultation with oira. Ted my understanding is they each did have a no net increase regulatory budget for the first year. Are you seeing they are not, they arrived at it . The executive order set for 2017 there should be zero new regulatory costs. Looking ahead for 2018, the agencies set their own regulatory cost cap. To yourting in daytoday job a bit, how much do you find these mechanisms and the role youre playing to be assisting them on the way but you share the same philosophy. It beingdo you find more policing it, maybe aggressively policing it and maybe returning some roles and citing maybe returning some rules and citing the executive order as the reason why. Ms. Rao we try to make it cooperative. Ted you are succeeding. Ms. Rao we do work closely with the agencies. Want to movencies more aggressively with deregulation. Year, they the first do not have political appointees. Theyre been very slow confirmation processes. We have a lot of expertise, we have worked with the agencies to generate ideas and help with their analysis. That has been very constructive. There are areas we can give them about thethink more deregulatory of forms reforms that are harder to take off. Ted you mentioned that this towards anmoving us Administrative State that is more consistent with the constitution, Constitutional Values. There is a suit that is being brought by a Public Citizen for one role,o citing it as unconstitutional. Can i further can i infer you disagree with that lawsuit . [laughter] ms. Rao i think that would be fair to say. I do not know if i can speak to the lawsuit specifically, but the president executive orders ,nd the regulatory cost cap many times throughout those orders, it was stated they had to be executed consistent with law and our executive orders must be consistent with the constitution. Agencies move forward with very costly rules that are required by statute, for instance the department of energy moved forward with a walk in refrigerator wall on energy efficiency. Very costly rule. Theaused them not to meet cost cap, and that is what happened. Then a positive Cost Allocation and we are working with them to try to offset that. , whereot a rigid system there is an important statutory requirement, agencies have to legislate have to regulate. To be will work with them as consistent with the executive order as possible. Im not overly concerned about that because the way we are doing this is to be mindful of legal requirements. Ted given the legal challenges and looping back to what i referred to of how binding are these requirements, is this think, ityou actually seems to me like the likelihood of it persisting in future administrations, where clearly on the administrative on the democratic side they are highly critical of it. Even on the republican side even on the public side, nobody has tried this in the United States. Is this something that is designed for the ages or is this something that is a Trump Administration mechanism that when he is out of office will be the end of it . Ms. Rao it is hard to predict what will happen. Centralized regulatory review has persisted across administrations, although there been challenges and concerns. I will say that we hope that Something Like this can persist be atime because it should bipartisan issue that agencies are regulatory are regularly looking at existing burdens and often they move forward with new regulations without looking backwards. In the Obama Administration, obama issued an order incurring encouraging agencies to do a review. For one is the idea that we should regulate that we should regularly revisit regulatory burdens. Said something that i found interesting. As i gave you an introduction, roles most commonly known is on the benefits and costs and on the numbers and analysis. You are satisfied that it has Legal Authority. I will start with an example, which is the Clean Power Plant. The Administration Proposed rescinding the Clean Power Plan, which was a regulation from the Obama Administration. Their proposal is based on a legal argument. ,s that the purview of oira that you have to sit down and evaluate whether or not there forlegal reasonings rescinding regulations, and are you empowered to turn back the proposal if it is not . Ms. Rao it is absolutely part it is as role and longstanding part of the role, if you look at the executive order president clinton issued it makes it clear that part of the review process is to terminate federal regulations consistent with law. That is not just oiras determination. Go to the department of justice and they look at the regowdy of rules from other agencies. We work with the executive office of the president and the white house counsel. I think it is part of the review process, there is a check to make sure agencies are acting consistently with the law. If you think of part of the president s role as making sure the laws are faithfully executed, that should be true with regulatory policy as well. Ted this is my economist bias, i have worked in years past with staff ofyou have a lawyers and legal experts who evaluate the legality of the claim of a legal argument like with the Clean Power Plan or is that something you rely on other agencies . Ms. Rao it is both. The front office at oira, the other political appointees are all lawyers. Omb has an office of general counsel which has a lot of andlatory Legal Expertise we will also go to the department of justice and the White House Counsels Office, so we have a broad bench for Legal Expertise we can rely on. Clean power plan reminds me of Climate Policy and one of the things the Obama Administration did was set up an eragency working group to on the social cost of carbon. What are the benefits of the regulation that reduces a ton of carbon . The Trump Administration rescinded those guidelines in march. . Hat is your view now some of these regulations youre going to be reviewing have some impact on Climate Policy, on carbon emissions, how they go about estimating the benefits, and they arrive at different benefits for different agencies or even within agencies across different roles, or is there some uniformity . Ms. Rao i know youve worked on this issue a lot. In march issued an executive order directing a reconsideration of this. One of the things the executive order said is that these types of effects need to be focused domestically which is consistent with the statutory requirement and that agencies should be using a discount rate that is more consistent with the usual practice. That is, in part, what we are doing. We are looking closely at this issue across different areas. You are looking closely to make sure ted youre looking closely to make sure theyre are all applying existing parameters and guidelines or reevaluating what an appropriate is for Climate Change . It varies from context of context. If you have any thoughts, let us know. Ted i have a few. Are the guidelines oira issued in 2001 or 2002. Our understanding of climate has changed since then which would a reevaluation. That was the spirit of the interagency review process in the Obama Administration. Strikes me as something worth considering from an oira point of view is due those guidelines issued 16 years ago still apply or should they be amended, particularly on this issue . One more question on the executive order and the three 41 in the regulatory budget. One in thee for regulatory budget. Are the consequences, what are the steps you can bring if an agency is proposing a regulation that is not being afset appropriately enough in , what is the consequences for that agency . Ms. Rao one of the consequences is there not meeting the president s priorities. The president has spoken about deregulation, and i think they are motivated that motivated by that. Do you want, at the end of the physical year, do you want your agency to be last . I think there is pure pressure and that has been good, competition between the agencies to be the best at Regulatory Reform. I think that is part of it. We recognize that the system has to be flexible in terms of, because we have a whole statutory system we have to respect while implementing the eos. Most agencies have lots of savings they can go after. We can work with them to help identify more savings and encourage them to do that great not necessarily to discourage them from taking the regulatory action that might be important or required by law, but really to push them to be more aggressive in finding other things they can cut back on. Ted one of the other things the executive ordered did which has a greater chance of being longlasting, is it created Regulatory Reform officers and a Regulatory Reform task force which is someone in each agency with a group around him or her in charge of keeping track of compliance, looking for regulations that might more it deregulation or elimination. How is that mechanism working, are these people working in concert with your team, are they integral to the process of figuring out where the deregulatory process is . Where is that process right now . Work with the Regulatory Reform officers, we do not keep tabs on the pacific on the specific makeup or the work of the task force except through our ordinary checkins with Regulatory Reform officers. We work closely with them and it varies across agencies. Are seniorhey political officials, sometimes their career officials and i think it is very, how agencies have approach that process. We work with all of them irrespective of who they are. Ted i want to shift to the scope of oira and the regulatory review process. You said something i think could use clarifying. The congressional review act. Is that that act requires independent agencies submit to a determination about whether or not the regulation is a major regulation, is that correct . Ms. Rao the cra applies to all agencies. Ted it does not require that those independent agencies for theheir regulation standard interagency review spearheaded by your office. Editorializing a bit, is that something you think should happen . I know youve written about this in your academic life. What should be rather what should be the requirements of independent agencies, does it vary by types of agencies, what should be the proper role visavis involvement with the executive office and the process you have spearheaded at oira . Question, should the independent agencies be subject to a centralized review process, it has been around since president reagan when they did the initial setting up of the centralized regulatory review. Office of Legal Counsel saying it was unconstitutional, each subsequent administration has thought about this. Even president obama issued an executive order suggesting the independent agencies should participate in this. This has been an ongoing thing. Ive written in my Academic Work , there is no constitutional reason to treat independency independent agencies as distinct from other agencies, at least as far as they are issuing regulations. To the extent they are regulating, there is no constitutional reason to treat them differently. Many people have argued across the spectrum that there are Important Reasons to bring the independent agencies and the centralized review. The American Bar Association has supported this, the administrative conference of the United States has supported this, they support it for all good reasons, why people consider oira to be good for other agencies is we can make sure the regulations are consistent with law. Those are Good Government practices irrespective of where the regulation originates. The concern i have is you are focused on regulation, understandably, but the legal argument would not preclude more executive office and perhaps omb or oira oversight of nonregulatory action. In my head it is the Federal Reserve. WasFederal Reserve act established because the determination was in the setting of Monetary Policy we need protection from political input. It was explicit in the design of the Federal Reserve act. What youre saying is there might be a constitutional issue about that, congress could not create an office that is an taskedve office that is with oversight of that administration, am i right . Ms. Rao the question is always about the fed. Think anyone suggests there should be white house review of Monetary Policy. I do not think anyone is suggesting that. No worries. Ted i think there is an interesting legal conversation about that. Has ao independence variety of components, one of that is certain conventions. Certain conventions against political interference with Monetary Policy during there are also statutory prohibitions. There are both legal and pragmatic reasons for some of these. Some of these features of independents and i think they all work together. I humbly recognize im debating a constitutional lawyer, i do think that is the issue. There is any knowledge meant that there is under some conditions or circumstances a need for insulation from political influence and that congress establishes that Monetary Policy with the Federal Reserve. Now we are in a debate about there is a great area there and what falls on both sides of it. To me it is a clearcut constitutional issue that cannot be independent from this kind of oversight. Well save that for another time. To the scopeck because it brings up another thing. We at brookings have a center called the Hutchins Center on Monetary Policy. The work of my good friends at the hutchins ,enter, which is irs rules which traditionally have been exempt from oversight and the is that iscess that something you see changing or promote changing or come back to what i think are the challenges of doing that . There again is the question of your scope. , should taxs rules, there are probably more tax rules and any other agency, should that be under the purview of your office . Ms. Rao you may recall that in april the president issued an executive order that required omb and the department of the treasury to rethink some of these exceptions. That was issued in april and we are thinking about this. It is an issue that has received a lot of attention in congress. Held ae senator hatch number of hearings about this. Has issued reports criticizing this exemption and there was recently an article in the wall street journal about it, it is something were looking at closely. In terms of some of the never reviewsra particular matters or individual rulings, that is not what we do for any agencies. In the irs contacts, when we are issuing generally applicable rules, im not sure theres any challenge their. Im not sure there is any challenge there. Ted if youre looking a lot of iese rules on the irs side, if you go online, the cost benefit analysis for a tax rule is different than when you are talking about pollution. The goal of the taxes to raise 1 billion. Raise 1 billion, it gets spent somewhere. That is the goal of tax. There is literature about what the economic costs are, but the broad point is it does create some challenges or reconsideration of the standard, getting back to the document of 2001. Is not totally different from rules we might see in other contexts. We have ways to account for that. Im going to turn to the crowd in a few minutes but i wanted to followup with a few more questions on transparency, because you mentioned that as a priority. The gao Just Launched an investigation following a wall street journal investigation on the prevalence of fake comments on proposed rules, funding there are a number of fake comments that are flooding the notice and comment process. Is this something that surprised you, is this something you having countered, is this something in light of this exists you are on alert for . How are you responding to this. Ms. Rao we were not aware of the extent of the problem previously and when you become aware of the problem we taken extremely seriously. Closely with the website that takes in a lot of these comments, we are already working hard to try to implement procedures that can cut back and eliminate these problems. It is something we take very seriously. We are really trying to get on top of that. This is a slight good news story. This is making lemonade out of lemons. I was always skeptical of the role of Public Comments, i think it is them i think it is an important component of the regulatory aspect of our rulemaking process, if you ask my brother or cousin or mother, they have no idea such a thing exists even when the regulations apply to them. The fact that someone is gone through great pains to do fake comments suggests that someone sees value in the process that is my optimistic view. That aside or related to that, how do you view that, the Public Comments process as it currently exists . You alluded to trying to improve it. Just the sheer number of how can weey get, ensure that people are getting the information about proposed regulation, that their comments are taking are taken theously, and how can public better influence the regulatory process . Ms. Rao those are great questions. Ple often say how we can how can we get involved in the regulatory process . Most people do not have any idea that they can file comments online. People should be encouraged to do that. Agencies take the comment seriously. When someone reads all the comments and they have to give everyesponse, not to single comment but two points that are serious that are raised in the comment. I think it is a very important aspect of our regulatory system. Is what gives it legitimacy. What people can do to make their comments more salient, i think when businesses provide concrete evidence of how rules are impacting them, that is useful to agencies. Ted would you agree with me that it is underutilized now . Ms. Rao it is hard for me to have a sense of that. Im note ive sure ive ever done Public Comments. Im going to turn to questions. Please keep it to a question. Right here on the aisle . My right side. There you go. Hi, im with inside health policy. Im wondering if you could give us your take on the fdas approach to deregulation. Is taking anner unconventional approach, saying the agency can actually deregulate by promulgating new regulations. Wheredering if that that stands with the administrations push to deregulation . Ms. Rao i think it is the case that deregulation can require a new regulation. Something that existed. Sometimes certain forms of regulations can increase competition or innovation because they provide certain boundaries around the marketplace and i think the act be a kind of deregulatory action. Ted right here on the second row . Wait for the microphone. Hi, i am ted. Im a blogger for forbes. Tot things do you plan to do put the independent financial under oirasencies umbrella and i have a followup question. Ted very quickly. Ive heard the argument that if you put the independent regulatory agencies under oira, it makes rulemaking more susceptible to the whims of investors which means you could have more booms and busts. Before, as i mentioned with respect to the independent agencies, it is something we are thinking about and considering. That is what im able to say at this moment. Ted lets go all the way in the back. Thank you. Im with bloomberg. Estimatingve been costs and benefits for years. That benefitseve have been overstated and costs have been understated . You think the methodology needs to change do you think the methodology needs to change . Ms. Rao if you consider, looking at the social cost of carbon, the effects of that were considered globally. If you are looking at regulation benefits across that is a particular choice. That may not have been supported by the statute. You have to look carefully at these things. To overstateasy the cost or benefit depending on what youre trying to achieve. We want to be scrupulous about that on both sides. Back, wait for the microphone. Jamie, you through some red meat to the audience, that you are systematically trying to crack down on bag regulatory practices. Can you identify what some of those are and how you are cracking down . Ms. Rao the examples i gave are largely related to changing regulatory requirements. Even ife problematic, you support the policy, without followede, it hasnt process, the public has been allowed to comment. We think should not be able to change obligations on the public without following the proper administrative procedures. Agencies want to do this, proper procedures take time, require analysis. That theycomments dont like, the push against what they want to do. This of course hampers our efforts to undo things, we are taking seriously the idea that agencies should follow administrative procedures and give the public fair notice of the things they plan to do. Ted in the aisle . I was wondering, not just looking at the cost and benefits of changes to regulations but also the cost and benefits of the entire regulatory scheme, like, standards. Standards, not the entire scheme of cost and benefit analysis . Ms. Rao im not sure exactly, i think that type of question varies from context to context and it depends on the regulatory change being proposed. In some cases, where we are going to be looking at reforms, we will have to open up the cost and benefits of the larger regulatory scheme. That, itk point on ties back to what we were talking about of benefits and ct and trying to limit the cost. First and foremost, deference to the statutes and the constitution. It is entirely conceivable you might have Something Like standards that you think are consistent with what the law is but you find are costly or negative net benefits. There is no action on your part about that point, is that correct . In other words everything has to be dictated by the law whether or not you like the regulation. It is not presumed it will always be a positive net benefit. Ms. Rao i think that is right. Statutes might require regulatory actions, if that is what the statute requires ted your role is to assess those benefits and costs even if it is suggesting they are costly . Ms. Rao i think that is part of the role. This gentleman ms. Rao at least the public has awareness of what the statute might be. Charlie clark, reporter with government executive, my question is about the expertise of career officials who have been balancing these decisions for decades. Feel that current Regulatory Reform is driven by lobbyists who parachute in pursuing their own interest. To the career bureaucrats feel do the career bureaucrats feel they are being respected . Ms. Rao for myself as the administrator i very strongly respect the expertise of my career staff. Reform effortse, arent being driven by people parachuting in and asking us for the Regulatory Reforms. My career step often come forward with great ideas. That may the rules, not have been net beneficial. They understand the limitations of previous Regulatory Impact analysis. They have been helpful in coming forward with ideas for Good Government reform measures. We work closely with them. There werely oira, prompt letters, they thought there was regulation, either was necessary, but was not necessarily being done, prompting the agency to regulate. Has that happened under your term . Ms. Rao no, i have not issued any prompt letters. Ted wait for the microphone please. Hi, going back to the woman from bloomberg. I did not understand your answer. How have you been evaluating the cost being overstated and the benefits being understated . Ms. Rao ms. Rao there are some instances in which you, when you take a careful look at analysis it seems like we could do better, on a fair statement of cost and benefits. Ted with respect to what i asked about the annual reporting of benefits and costs, your answer was you were skeptical of those assessments. Ms. Rao in some cases, yes. Ted this side of the room, with the yellow tie. It pays to wear a yellow type if you want to be called on. Thank you for coming in this morning. My name is andrew, im a graduate student at georgetown university. This semester im taking a course in energy, that i find fascinating. Im wondering what you at oira, and administrator pruitt, secretary zinke he and secretary perry are doing to limit the onpliance cost burden natural Gas Producers in the United States and what that means for the Energy Revolution in america . All of those agencies you mentioned are looking closely at a number of these issues. Im not sure of what specifically is happening right now. You can look at the agenda to see what is coming up next but these are things they are considering seriously. Ted in the third row. Hi, we have not talked too much about budgets at the agencies. Is their incompatibility, and i worry about this, between these large cuts we are looking at at Agency Budgets and their ability to do the analyses that have gone deeper than they ever have before to look more carefully at benefits and costs . Ted not regulatory budgets Agency Budgets. Your concern is that benefits and costs somehow have not been appropriately analyzed that yet you are cutting back on the budgets at agencies. We have not heard complaints that people lack staff to do analysis required. That is something to look at, it people raise the issue but i have not heard the complaint. Did you go . Sorry. [laughter] and i wanted to ask if your discouragement of guidance and letters extends to the treasury and irs per tax law . Would you rather see them come out with regulations no matter how long it takes rather than a notice or a letter . Ms. Rao it is hard to answer that question in the abstract. It depends on the issue. We are not opposed to guidance that is truly guidance, but exploiting regulatory requirements oftentimes guidance can be helpful because it gives people and businesses notice of what an agency believes laws or regulations mean. There is a role for guidance. It depends on the context. Interesting, there is a gray area. Your approach to guidance, clearly there is something we should not go through regulatory process to clarify. Who determines what who should determine what side of the line and irs guidance falls on . Allrao an agency first of but under the executive order significant items documents come through a review. If there is a guidance document imposing significant cost, economically or otherwise, significant from a policy perspective we should be taking a look at that. We might push back if it is an area we think of course it is the agency in the first instance that needs to make the call. Ted we have time for a couple more. Lets go back. Yes. Thank you, this is to followup on the last question about the tax law. Have you coordinated with treasury or irs as far as what you want them to shy away from terms of issuing guidance . Ms. Rao in terms of our we coordinating with them . The president issued an executive order that is requiring us to revisit the memoranda of understanding undern oira and treasury which we review the rules and that is ongoing. We are in discussions about that. Ted the gentleman there . I am the chief, economist at catalyst. I used to be a regulatory economist. From myion is this years of experience, industry gets nowhere with the regard for a petition for rulemaking when it came to a deregulatory action. Could you address or discuss the fact that Industry Associations can now develop rulemaking for deregulatory actions and has oira developed new guidelines for these petitions for rulemaking . Ms. Rao as an administration, we have been seeking regulatory ideas from the public in a variety of ways. Agencies have been encouraging Public Comments. We welcome petitions for deregulatory rulemaking. There have been a number of comments submitted, for deregulatory ideas. We would like to engage with the public and with companies and individuals on their Regulatory Reform ideas. We absolutely encourage that and have done that in a variety of ways. Ted in the light blue shirt toward the back of the aisle . Thank you. Could you talk more about retrospective review . Specifically, apart from the twoforone requirement, what oira could do to encourage agencies do not just look back at rules a number of years after they have been passed but to think about retrospective review from the outset or the planning of the rule . Ted we will just take a couple more and close with that. Move up here. Ms. Rao i would like to hear more about themarch ruling clean power act, that you would only be looking at cost and benefits to mysticall domestically and not at all internationally. Beenu think benefits have overstated in the past im curious what other justifications for only considering u. S. Cost and benefits when in fact when it comes to global warming, this is something that impacts the entire world very heavily. Im thinking especially in terms of rising sea levels, which would certainly affect thanadesh a whole lot more florida in the u. S. Benefit in terms of longer growing seasons but what about drought throughout africa and latin america . Ted one more over here. We will close with that. Three is enough to remember. Trumpis snyder, president how did cutting levels, you decide the number of pages was reasonable . Will you be able to meet the target in four years . Ted there are more questions but we are running out of time. The question on retrospective analysis, the Clean Power Plan, domestic versus global and cutting the regulations to 1960s levels of pages. Not by changing the font. [laughter] ms. Rao pretty small already. Howretrospective review, can we encourage . When a rule is put into place, there is an anticipated cost and benefit. See, what wereo the actual costs and benefits of the rule . That has been proposed is to build retrospective review into the rule itself. Every rule has a provision that requires review. That is one possibility. I think everyone agrees retrospective review is good policy. Givesk a two for one, teeth to it. If you find it cost savings you need to look at rules and assess which ones are not working and generate cost savings that way. , wereo reviews giving teeth to that. As for the clean plan, those were concerns raised. The president s executive order looked at domestic effects of co2 emissions and the administration is working to implement how that is being done. The final question . Ted 20,000 pages. Over or under . Ms. Rao the president did mention that, to get those levels you would have to have statutory reform. The growth from 1962 tod requires to today statute so you have to work with congress to get back to those levels. Ted my apologies to those of you who had questions and we did not have time to answer. Thank you for being your today. [applause] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] announcer the Associated Press reported this morning the u. S. Economy growing at a solid rate 2. 6 . There was a big rebound in Home Construction according to the economic numbers, economists are looking for better growth this year. Propelled by the 1. 5 trillion tax cut the president pushed through congress. The Trump Administration contends its economic programs of tax cuts, deregulation and tougher enforcement of trade to sustainift growth rates of 3 or better in coming years. Thiscoverage coming up afternoon, the attorney general Jeff Sessions will be in norfolk, virginia to discuss National Security issues and immigration priorities of the administration. That is live beginning at 1 30 p. M. Eastern. George bush, former president ial ondidate, is part of a form educational choice at 2 00 eastern on cspan. Where are you from . The moment itself, i described at the time and i still describe it as a bizarre moment. It was a surprise when he called me over, you are in the oval office, he says, who are you . You dont have an option. Announcer sunday night on q a, a former journalist, katrina perry, talks about covering President Trump for the irish media during and after the election season. As threethe swamp, words is incredibly provocative. Notion thathat washington dc was built on a swamp, the horrible people that live there and replacing it with better people. Whether something, voters believed him or not or that he could fulfill that are not, they were prepared to take a chance. Announcer sunday night at 8 00 eastern on q a. Announcer the hill reporting on president rump os. Mps speech in dav they wrote at an impromptu News Conference there was audible booing when the president criticized fake news. Here are the