Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/67

Last Updated: January 25, 2026

Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review

HR. 67, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$66,000 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Executive Office of the President of the United States" section, p. 81-83 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 18.

May 20, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

HR 67, the Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act, is a bill that aims to improve the review process of existing federal regulations. As a self-serving billionaire, my primary concern is how this bill will impact my wealth and influence.

**New Regulations:** The bill creates new guidelines for agencies to conduct retrospective reviews of their regulations using technology, including algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence. This could lead to more efficient identification of outdated or redundant regulations, which may benefit industries that are heavily regulated.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The bill's impact will be felt across various sectors, particularly those with complex regulatory environments, such as finance, healthcare, and energy. Companies operating in these spaces may see a reduction in compliance costs if outdated regulations are repealed or modified.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* Agencies must submit reports on the progress of making regulations available in machine-readable format within 180 days. * The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must issue guidance on using technology for retrospective reviews within 18 months. * Agencies must submit plans for implementing this guidance within 2 years.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** There are no explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties outlined in the bill. However, agencies may face scrutiny from Congress if they fail to comply with the new guidelines.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The bill's focus on using technology for retrospective reviews could lead to cost savings for both government agencies and regulated industries. * Streamlining regulations could also stimulate innovation and economic growth in sectors that are currently hindered by outdated rules. * However, the bill may also create new compliance burdens for companies that must adapt to changing regulatory environments.

From my perspective, this bill presents a moderate opportunity for consolidation and deregulation. While it does not directly address specific industries or regulations, its focus on using technology to improve the review process could lead to more efficient and effective regulation. I will continue to monitor the progress of this bill and assess its potential impact on my business interests.

**Projection:** Based on my analysis, I estimate that this bill could result in a 5-10% reduction in compliance costs for regulated industries over the next 3-5 years, translating to billions of dollars in savings. However, this projection is subject to change as the bill's implementation and impact become clearer.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,000

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J

2 transactions

$6,600

BENSON, LEE

2 transactions

$6,600

COOLEY, WILLIAM

2 transactions

$6,600

ZIMDAHL, NORMA

2 transactions

$6,600

MCCLEVE, LONNIE

1 transaction

$3,300

FAUST, ANNE R

1 transaction

$3,300

BROPHY, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

LONDEN, PRISCILLA

1 transaction

$3,300

ALLEN, GWYNDA S

1 transaction

$3,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

FUNDERBURK, AL

1 transaction

$3,300

MORRIS, MARY A

1 transaction

$3,300

NORD, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

COWLES, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

LOPEZ, HUMBERTO S.

1 transaction

$3,300

PECK, JOHN JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

ID: C001132

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Sep 16, 2024

STALLINGS, KYLE MR.

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$10,000

Oct 14, 2024

HILL, VERNON

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$7,318

Jul 11, 2024

STALLINGS, KYLE MR.

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MIRELES, OMAR

HSL PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

ADAMS, MICHAEL A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

ADAMS, MICHAEL A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H. MR. II

ISLAND DOCTORS • FOUNDER/CEO

IndividualST. AUGUSTINE, FL

$6,600

Apr 4, 2023

KEMMERER, KAREN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

Apr 6, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 50 nodes and 23 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $82,600

Top Donors - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b) mentions using technology, including algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence, to conduct retrospective reviews of existing regulations, which could benefit the AI & Cloud Infrastructure industry.
+Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.70
The use of technology and AI in regulatory reviews, as mentioned in Section 2(b), could benefit big tech platforms that provide such services or solutions.
+Commercial Banksconfidence 0.60
Simplified regulatory reviews might reduce compliance costs for commercial banks, making it easier for them to operate.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

AI & Cloud Infrastructure$500
from 1 contribution
- KISH, DIRK$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 81-83AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 67’s focus on modernizing retrospective regulatory review, using technology to identify obsolete rules, and strengthening OMB/OIRA oversight directly supports Project 2025’s goals of reinvigorating OIRA review, reducing regulatory burdens, and adopting tech-driven efficiency measures across the executive branch."

Key themes:regulatory reviewOMB/OIRA oversightreducing regulatory burdentechnology-driven efficiencytransparency

— 49 — Executive Office of the President of the United States money. As a function of its leadership role, it is critical in interagency discussions on a wide range of technology issues. The office thus is an important part of the President’s efforts to modernize, strengthen, and set technology-adoption policy for the executive branch. MIAO. Building on the example and work of the Trump Administration, Presi- dent Biden established this office to centralize, carry out, and further develop the federal government’s Buy-American and other Made-in-America commitments. Its work ought to be continued and further strengthened. Regulatory and Information Policy. OMB’s OIRA plays an enormous and vital role in reining in the regulatory state and ensuring that regulations achieve important benefits while imposing minimal burdens on Americans. The President should maintain Executive Order (EO) 12866,4 the foundation of OIRA’s review of regulatory actions. The Administration should likewise maintain the recent extension of those standards to regulatory actions of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.5 Regulatory analysis and OIRA review should also be required of the historically “independent” agencies as the Office of Legal Counsel has found is legally permissible.6 If the current Administration proceeds with its declared intent to modify aspects of EO 12866 or review OMB Circular A-4,7 the related document that provides the foundation for cost-benefit analysis, the next President should imme- diately begin to undo those changes and develop a rigorous, data-driven approach that will result in the least burdensome rules possible. The next President should also revive the directive in Executive Order 138918 that significant guidance doc- uments also must pass through OIRA review. Because OIRA review often leads to fewer regulatory burdens, more regulatory benefits, and better coordination of regulatory policy, funding for OIRA tends to pay large dividends. Yet over the years, funding for OIRA has diminished. This trend should be reversed. The budget should also include sufficient full-time equiv- alent (FTE) employees to form regulatory advance teams that would consult with agencies on cost-benefit analysis and good regulatory practices at the beginning of the rulemaking process for the most important regulations. These teams would help agencies take cost-benefit analysis into account from the beginning of their rulemaking efforts, which in turn would result in higher-quality regulations and a swifter eventual OIRA review. To preserve the integrity of OIRA review, the staff who consult at the beginning of a rulemaking should not handle its eventual review. The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed by President Trump that were designed to make the regulatory process more just, efficient, and transparent. Executive Orders 13771,9 13777,10 13891,11 13892,12 13893,13 13924 Section 6,14 13979,15 and 1398016 should be revived (with modifica- tions as needed). Executive Order 1313217 on federalism should be strengthened so that state regulatory and fiscal operations are not commandeered by the federal — 50 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise government through so-called cooperative federalism programs. Additionally, the President should revise and sign an updated version of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 1263018 on federal takings. The next President should strengthen implementation of the Information Qual- ity Act,19 robustly use the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act,20 carefully enforce the Privacy Act,21 and ensure the sound execution of OIRA’s statistical and other information policy functions. Regulatory cooperation agreements can also promote the further adoption of good regulatory practices, which improve market conditions for America and her allies. OIRA should also work with other components of OMB to revise and apply OMB’s uniform Guidance for Grants and Agreements22 and ensure that federal contract and grant guidelines satisfy EO 12866 and other centralized standards as appropriate. But executive reforms and actions, while vital, are not enough: Congress also must act. The next President should work with Congress to pass significant reg- ulatory policy and process reforms, which could go a long way toward reining in the administrative state. Excellent examples of such legislation include the Reg- ulatory Accountability Act,23 SMART Act,24 GOOD Act,25 Early Participation in Regulations Act,26 Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act,27 and REINS Act.28 Finally, the next President should work with Congress to maximize the utility of the Congressional Review Act (CRA),29 which allows Congress to undo midnight regulatory actions (including those disguised as “guidance”) on an accelerated timeline. To leverage the CRA’s power to the maximum extent, Congress and the President should enact the Midnight Rules Relief Act,30 which would help to ensure that multiple regulatory actions could be packaged and voted on at the same time. Immediate and robust use of the CRA would allow the President to focus his rulemaking resources on major new regulatory reforms rather than devoting months or years to undoing the final rulemakings of the Biden Administration. Legislative Clearance and Coordination. OMB plays a critical role in ensur- ing that the executive branch is aligned on legislative proposals and language, agency testimonies, and other communications with Congress. The Director should use these authorities to enforce policy and message consistency aggressively and promote the effective engagement of the executive branch in legislative processes. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC) The National Security Council (NSC) was established by statute to support the President in developing and implementing national security policy by coordinating across relevant departments and agencies, integrating authorities and resources toward common ends, and objectively assessing progress toward established goals. Led by the National Security Advisor (NSA), the NSC staff will be success- ful in implementing the President’s national security goals only if it is made up

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 81-83AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 67’s focus on modernizing retrospective regulatory review through machine-readable formats, technology use, and OMB guidance aligns closely with Project 2025’s emphasis on streamlining regulation, reducing burdens, enhancing OIRA oversight, and promoting efficient, transparent regulatory processes via executive branch offices."

Key themes:regulatory burden reductiontechnology-enabled reviewOMB guidancetransparency and efficiencystreamlining regulatory processes

— 48 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). l The Office of Performance and Personnel Management (OPPM). l The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM). l The Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer (OFCIO). l The Made in America Office (MIAO), which was added by the Biden Administration and is not a Senate-confirmed slot. Each of these offices has responsibilities and authorities that a President can use to help drive policy across the government. It is vital that the Director and his political staff, not the careerists, drive these offices in pursuit of the President’s actual priorities and not let them set their own agenda based on the wishes of the sprawling “good government” management community in and outside of govern- ment. Many Directors do not properly prioritize the management portfolio, leaving it to the Deputy for Management, but such neglect creates purposeless bureaucracy that impedes a President’s agenda—an “M Train to Nowhere.” OFPP. This office plays a critical role in leading the development of new policies and regulations concerning federal contracting and procurement. Through the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which is generally chaired by the OFPP Administrator, OFPP helps the Director to set a wide range of policies for all of those who contract with the executive branch. In the past, those governmentwide contracting rules have played a key role in helping to implement the President’s policy agenda. This office should be engaged early and often in OMB’s effort to drive policy, including by obtaining transparency about entities that are awarded federal contracts and grants and by using government contracts to push back against woke policies in corporate America. OPPM. Through this office, the Director helps federal agencies to establish their performance goals and performance review processes. OPPM also works with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish and manage personnel policies and practices across the federal government. The Director should instruct OPPM to establish annual performance goals and review processes for agencies that reflect the President’s agenda. OPPM should also be part of the President’s strategy to set and enforce sensible policies and practices for the federal workforce. OFFM. This office helps the Director to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in fed- eral programs—for example, through the Do Not Pay program. It should be part of efforts to save precious taxpayer resources. OFCIO. This office guides the federal government’s use and adoption of Inter- net-based technologies to improve government operations and save taxpayer — 49 — Executive Office of the President of the United States money. As a function of its leadership role, it is critical in interagency discussions on a wide range of technology issues. The office thus is an important part of the President’s efforts to modernize, strengthen, and set technology-adoption policy for the executive branch. MIAO. Building on the example and work of the Trump Administration, Presi- dent Biden established this office to centralize, carry out, and further develop the federal government’s Buy-American and other Made-in-America commitments. Its work ought to be continued and further strengthened. Regulatory and Information Policy. OMB’s OIRA plays an enormous and vital role in reining in the regulatory state and ensuring that regulations achieve important benefits while imposing minimal burdens on Americans. The President should maintain Executive Order (EO) 12866,4 the foundation of OIRA’s review of regulatory actions. The Administration should likewise maintain the recent extension of those standards to regulatory actions of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.5 Regulatory analysis and OIRA review should also be required of the historically “independent” agencies as the Office of Legal Counsel has found is legally permissible.6 If the current Administration proceeds with its declared intent to modify aspects of EO 12866 or review OMB Circular A-4,7 the related document that provides the foundation for cost-benefit analysis, the next President should imme- diately begin to undo those changes and develop a rigorous, data-driven approach that will result in the least burdensome rules possible. The next President should also revive the directive in Executive Order 138918 that significant guidance doc- uments also must pass through OIRA review. Because OIRA review often leads to fewer regulatory burdens, more regulatory benefits, and better coordination of regulatory policy, funding for OIRA tends to pay large dividends. Yet over the years, funding for OIRA has diminished. This trend should be reversed. The budget should also include sufficient full-time equiv- alent (FTE) employees to form regulatory advance teams that would consult with agencies on cost-benefit analysis and good regulatory practices at the beginning of the rulemaking process for the most important regulations. These teams would help agencies take cost-benefit analysis into account from the beginning of their rulemaking efforts, which in turn would result in higher-quality regulations and a swifter eventual OIRA review. To preserve the integrity of OIRA review, the staff who consult at the beginning of a rulemaking should not handle its eventual review. The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed by President Trump that were designed to make the regulatory process more just, efficient, and transparent. Executive Orders 13771,9 13777,10 13891,11 13892,12 13893,13 13924 Section 6,14 13979,15 and 1398016 should be revived (with modifica- tions as needed). Executive Order 1313217 on federalism should be strengthened so that state regulatory and fiscal operations are not commandeered by the federal

Small Business Administration

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 783-785AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 67 and the Project 2025 SBA section aim to reduce regulatory burdens and improve regulatory efficiency through technology and transparency, but HR 67 focuses on generic retrospective review across all agencies rather than the SBA-specific advocacy and reform measures outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:regulatory efficiencytechnology useburden reductiontransparencyretrospective review

— 751 — Small Business Administration implement relevant initiatives to reach small businesses. Programs would be nonduplicative and implemented on a first-come, first-served basis. l A modern, revamped, and streamlined SBA that better utilizes current technology and platforms for operations, for reporting, and in its programs to reach, service, and engage small businesses. l An Office of Advocacy that is strengthened by a renewed mandate and additional resources to protect against overregulation along with a research agenda that includes measuring the total cost that federal regulation imposes on small businesses. Accountability and Managerial Practice. The SBA lacks accountability and managerial practices to measure the effectiveness, success, and integrity of its various programs. As a future Administration evaluates agency structure and the particulars of how the SBA is spending appropriated funds, it should immediately require actions and procedures to compel a culture of accountability and perfor- mance. Specifically: l Require performance metrics and internal procedures to safeguard taxpayer dollars and program integrity. As noted in an October 2022 IG report, failure to adopt procedures that would reliably capture data and information for various programs, coupled with significant challenges and weaknesses regarding IT investments, systems development, and security controls, presents significant risks to program integrity and increased risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.34 Addressing these shortcomings and risks should be a priority challenge and action item for the next Administration. As underscored by the Inspector General in his introduction to the report, “Pandemic response has, in many instances, magnified the challenging systemic issues in SBA’s mission-related work.”35 l Review all internal government watchdog recommendations and require that SBA management implement or address outstanding and ongoing OIG and GAO recommendations within a specified time frame (ideally within 90 days of a recommendation) and on an ongoing basis. Strengthening the Office of Advocacy. The SBA Office of Advocacy (Advo- cacy) is “an independent office” within the SBA.36 It accounts for about one one-thousandth of SBA spending and 0.75 percent of SBA personnel. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, both under its current authority and with suggested — 752 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reforms, the Office of Advocacy could be a powerful weapon against the adminis- trative state’s regulatory extremism. l Amend the RFA so that all agencies are required to provide a copy of any proposed rule (other than bona fide emergency rules) along with initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Office of Advocacy at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking is submitted for publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy would submit comments to agencies within 30 days, and each agency would have to consider these comments, make changes in the proposed rule based on those comments, or explain in a revised regulatory flexibility analysis why it chose not to change the proposed rule. The Office of Advocacy’s pre-proposing comments would be published on the agencies’ and its own websites. RFA economic analysis should be expanded to include indirect costs along with direct costs. In addition, the next Administration should require other agencies to seek Advocacy’s input. Currently, other agencies deny Advocacy the ability to enforce their duty to consider the effect of regulations on small entities by construing their regulations as not having significant economic impact, which would otherwise serve as a trigger for Advocacy’s input. Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input and permit new rules to apply to small businesses only with Advocacy signoff under specified criteria. l Increase the Office of Advocacy’s budget by at least 50 percent ($4.6 million). This would allow Advocacy to hire approximately 25 attorneys, economists, and scientists and enhance its role in the regulatory process. l Explicitly direct federal agencies to comply with the RFA. This would be similar to the approach adopted by President Trump in his January and February 2017 executive orders directing agencies to relieve the cost and burden of regulation on business.37 Advocacy should organize regional roundtables, onsite small-business visits, and an online platform to hear directly from small businesses and entities as it did from June 2017 through September 2018.38 This activity produced 26 letters to federal agencies and highlighted specific regulations that need reform and how Congress had addressed the most burdensome rules through the Congressional Review Act.39

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 872-874AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 67 and the Project 2025 financial regulatory agenda aim to reduce regulatory burdens and increase accountability through modernization and oversight, but HR 67 does not specifically target the CFPB or repeal Dodd‑Frank provisions central to the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:regulatory efficiencytransparencyburden reductiontechnology‑driven reviewoversight

— 839 — Financial Regulatory Agencies On February 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari.51 The Court should issue its final decision by 2024. The CFPB is a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency.52 It is unconstitutional. Congress should abolish the CFPB and reverse Dodd–Frank Section 1061, thus returning the consumer protection function of the CFPB to banking regulators53 and the Federal Trade Commission. Provided the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit holding in Community Financial Ser- vices Association of America, the next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency—pull down its prior rules, regulations and guidance, return its staff to their prior agencies and its building to the General Services Administration. Until this can be accomplished, however, Congress should: l Ensure that any civil penalty funds not used to recompense wronged consumers go to the Department of the Treasury. The funds should not be retained by the Bureau to be dispensed at the pleasure of the Director— potentially to political actors. Moreover, the CFPB should not have a financial incentive to impose penalties. l Repeal Dodd–Frank Section 1071. This section, which relates to small- business data collection, imposes requirements on financial institutions’ lending to small firms, raises costs, and limits small businesses’ access to capital.54 l Require that no CFPB funds are spent on enforcement actions that are not based on a rulemaking that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act.55 l Require that respondents in administrative actions be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in an administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.56 l Specify the nature of “deceptive, unfair, and abusive” practices to define the scope of the CFPB mission more precisely. — 840 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5480, Securities Act of 1933, Public Law No. 73-22, 73rd Congress, May 27, 1933, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg74.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 2. H.R. 9323, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Public Law No. 73-291, 73rd Congress, June 6, 1934, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg881a.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 3. Mark T. Uyeda, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation,” November 17, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks- cato-summit-financial-regulation-111722 (accessed February 20, 2023); Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,” December 7, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-remarks-american-enterprise-institute-120722 (accessed February 20, 2023); comment letter from David R. Burton to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Re: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [File No. S7-10-2; Release No. 33-11042; RIN 3235-AM87],” June 17, 2022, https://www. sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131980-302443.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 4. Size would probably be measured best by public float or the number of beneficial owners. 5. See David R. Burton, “Securities Disclosure Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3178, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3178.pdf; David R. Burton, “Offering and Disclosure Reform,” Chapter 11 in Reframing Financial Regulation: Enhancing Stability and Protecting Consumers, ed. Hester Peirce and Benjamin Klutsey (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016), pp. 277–315, https://www.mercatus.org/research/books/reframing-financial-regulation (accessed February 20, 2023); Andrew N. Vollmer, “Investor-Friendly Securities Reform to Increase Economic Growth,” Securities Regulation & Law Report, Bloomberg BNA, Vol. 49, June 5, 2017. 6. See, for example, David R. Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3378, January 30, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ BG3378.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Testimony on Workforce Management Disclosures and Other SEC Issues,” submitted to the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 6, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/115227/witnesses/HHRG-117-BA16-Wstate-VollmerA-20221208.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Reforming FINRA,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3181, February 1, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3181.pdf; Hester Peirce, “The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: Not Self-Regulation After All,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/financial-industry-regulatory- authority-not-self-regulation-after-all (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Transparency and Accountability at the SEC and at FINRA,” Chapter 11 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, ed. Norbert J. Michel, (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2017) https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/11_ProsperityUnleashed_Chapter11.pdf. 7. Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, U.S. Code Title 5—Appendix, Reorganization Plans, http://uscode.house. gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf114&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed February 20, 2023). 8. The board or commission should evaluate the regulatory functions of the National Securities Exchanges, Registered Securities Future Product Exchanges, Registered Clearing Agencies (such as the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC)), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This board or commission should have a broad composition and permit minority reports. 9. Boyden Gray & Associates, Comments Submitted on Behalf of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment Concerning the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity, Amendment No. 1, File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-081, April 6, 2021 https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8639478-230941.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Nasdaq’s Proposed Board-Diversity Rule Is Immoral and Has No Basis in Economics,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3591, March 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/BG3591_0.pdf. The SEC is contemplating at least two rules that can be expected to require differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. See Executive Office of the President, Office

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 467-469AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 67 proposes a government-wide effort to modernize retrospective regulatory review through machine-readable formats and technology-driven assessments, which could indirectly support EPA's goal of more efficient chemical and pesticide evaluations. However, the bill does not address the specific EPA reforms outlined in Project 2025, such as TSCA timelines, pesticide data standards, or ESA considerations, resulting only a weak thematic connection."

Key themes:regulatory reviewefficiencytechnology usetransparencyburden reduction

— 434 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that new chemical evaluations are conducted in a timely manner, consistent with statutory requirements, to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. l For new chemicals, reset the program to ensure that reviews are completed on a timeline that is consistent with the statute. This includes revising the regulations governing the reviews of new chemicals. l Ensure that risk evaluations and risk management rules presume that workplaces are following all OSHA requirements, including requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE). l Apply real-world use of chemicals when assessing conditions of use for risk evaluations. l Transition the Safer Choice program to the private sector. l Right-size the TSCA fee’s rule so that it is consistent with the tasks that the agency is actually completing within the timelines of the statute and is not covering the costs of EPA inefficiency or overreach. l Revise existing policies to address the requirements of the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the TSCA.41 l Develop a framework rule for risk management approaches that will be used under TSCA for existing chemicals. Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPP (Pesticides) l OPP should rely on Department of Agriculture and state usage data that reflect actual pesticide use in registration reviews and Endangered Species Act (ESA)42 analyses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service should rely on similar data in their ESA analyses. l OPP has rigorous testing requirements that registrants must meet before pesticides are allowed on the market. However, when pesticides undergo registration review every 15 years, EPA relies on publicly available data with differing levels of quality and transparency. Data standards are needed to ensure that information relied on by EPA is made available to the agency at a similar level as the original testing data conducted by registrants to ensure that EPA can conduct a robust review and analysis of the data. — 435 — Environmental Protection Agency l ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides. In order to meet ESA obligations, pesticide uses are severely restricted, leaving growers with limited tools for crop protection. l New policies are needed to ensure that other program offices (such as ORD, OW, and OLEM) will defer to OPP on toxicity issues. OPP has rigorous testing requirements for pesticide ingredients and products to ensure before they go to market that their use will not harm human health and the environment. Assessments by other offices are redundant. l While individual pesticide registrations are considered adjudications and not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with a 1993 OMB guidance, when pesticide tolerances and registrations are withdrawn by the agency (as opposed to being withdrawn voluntarily by registrants), these actions should undergo coordinated interagency review managed by OMB. Budget The Biden Administration has expanded the scope and breadth of regulatory actions with respect to OPPT and OPP, but both programs continue to maintain that resources are insufficient. OPPT (chemicals) suffers from a lack of leadership and an inability to complete the most basic requirements efficiently and in a timely fashion. While EPA has asked for more resources, including higher industry fees, it is not clear that it has the capacity to use additional dollars efficiently. With regard to OPP (pesticides), pesticide manufacturers feel that the program is underfunded and would like its budget to be increased so that pesticide actions can be reviewed more quickly. Manufacturers are also willing to pay higher fees to the fee-based portion of the program. However, grower groups have been dis- appointed by EPA’s actions and have significant concerns about EPA’s ability to conduct science-based risk assessments and take risk management actions that appropriately balance benefits and risks as required by FIFRA. Guardrails and third-party audits should be part of any funding increases through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)43 or other mechanisms. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) AND RELATED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES While much of this work has not been authorized by law, EPA conducts a wide variety of intramural and extramural research, development, regulatory science,

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Biggs, Andy

Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act

119/hr/6732

Monitor Accountability Act

119/hr/8365

TRUE Accountability Act

119/hr/8466

Back to All Bills