tv Washington Journal Sam Batkins Discusses the Trump Administration and... CSPAN February 6, 2017 8:34am-9:05am EST
>> tonight on the communicators, gary shapiro talks about the major technology issues facing congress and the administration. mr. shapiro talks about the latest innovative products he found at the consumer electronic show held in las vegas, last. he is interviewed by technology reporter for bloomberg bna. -- it is theet benefit of being connected and getting information and data, making a life better and safer, increasing food production as well as transportation and health care. is not about entertainment. -- it is not just about entertainment. >> watch the communicators on c-span2. c-span, where history unfolds daily.
in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by americans table -- cable television companies and is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: our guest now, first-time guest, sam batkins, director of regulatory policy at the american action forum. first off, what is the aaf? what do you do? guest: the american action forum was founded in 2009 by former cbo director -- and i handle regulatory policy through the forum, which ranges in everything from agriculture policy to environmental energy policy to transportation policy and everything in between. we have a variety of issue areas and we handle telik communication, health care, tax and fiscal policy, but immensely gamut. >> where does the money -- host:
where does the money come from? guest: that is a good question. i am not directly involved in fundraising. americanactionfor run.org is the place to go. explain what you have seen and heard from the trump administration over these two weeks about federal rulemaking. guest: people have been talking about the regulatory budget, a way to manage regulatory output much in the same way that we manage taxes and spending in washington. the idea dates back to jimmy carter's administration. we got the regulatory budget in the form of an executive order from president trump, just last week. this executive order mandates that agencies identified at rules fore code to every regulation.
they impose the idea is that we have zero new net cost for regulation. host: how does it work, for new one in, two must go? ,ow exactly would that work because not everybody understands it or they think it is more sloganeering than anything else. guest: it has some international comparisons. the u.k., canada, australia, they all have reforms to the regulatory budget. this one, you would not have repeal two rules before implementing a new one. law,is subject to existing but there is a court order or statutory mandate and agencies have to prioritize that, first. if it agency wishes to seek a new measure, have to identify of these two others that would be modified. it would most likely in the
modified or amended because the agency itself cannot repeal a previous statutory mandate. it is certainly bold, but not unprecedented. robert weissman writes about this executive order and says he -- says it will result in immediate and lasting damage to our government's ability to save lives, protect the environment and keep consumers safe. change ourdamentally government's role from one of protecting the public to protecting corporate profits and will lead to a dangerous new era of corporate self-regulation. guest: i think the jury is still out on the results. tohink anyone who is going sort of trash a majority also has to explain the relative success of similar budgets in other countries. there is in the assumption that if the epa wants to issue new
standards for a matter, that they are going to have to somehow repeal the clean water rule. or repeal ozone standards. that is not going to happen. epa is not going to save a we can't enforce the clean air act anyme because we have to do some new rule under the clean water act. they will do these, concurrently. host: you have written a piece here about the obama tallystration, regulatory -- how do you calculate the cost of a regulation? guest: all of these are cap by agencies, themselves. when it agency proposes or finalizes a significant new rulemaking, they will engage in a benefit cost analysis of the rulemaking. we take those analyses and then it is a matter of arithmetic and adding them up between agencies and years. host: tell us more about what you are writing.
guest: this was a recap of the obama administration's total regulatory tally. what we found one surprise to many viewers. the environmental protection agency was number one on the list in terms of regulatory cost it followed closely somewhat by the department of energy, which had close to $190 billion in regulatory cost. that isone energy -- one agency we feel like fall -- flies under the radar. number three was the department of health and human services which makes sense to a lot of folks because it was very busy implementing the affordable care act. host: let's get some viewers to weigh in. robert from new york, republican. you are talking about canada and foreign countries, but the united states gave $40
billion to israel's government use ourcontinues to technology to spy and other services. what are you doing to curtail israel from continuing to steal technology and use it against foreign countries? guest: it is not an issue we cover, directly. this is an issue that is regulated by the department of defense and the department of treasury. terms of how that manifests itself in the regulatory world, it is not something we deal with on a daily basis. host: marilyn in ohio. caller: i don't even know how to start. trump said he was going to bring back america's greatness. alln see on the newspapers over the world, america is not
so great. our president has put our country down. every republican that has come on this radio, this morning or tv has put this country down. use our words to against us. when they say america is in great, they will repeat every word that these republicans have broadcasted, worldwide. host: let me jump in. anything specifically about the topic at hand? we are talking about federal rulemaking and regulations. actions of the president, so far. caller: the banking and the financial ceos that brought this country down have been put in office. host: ok. mr. batkins. guest: as you mentioned, sort of the banking sector and financial
institutions, if you'd is ago, it was on friday, president trump signed an executive order to agencies regarding. frank and the consumer financial protection bureau and what is known as fiduciary rulemaking. health care repeal them replace has gotten a lot of headlines, but the undercard in the regulatory reform discussion might also be reform of. frank and the ultimate fate of the consumer financial protection bureau. host: the dodd frank bill. gop gets ready to roll back the financial overhaul. the executive order came out first, congress is looking to act and they make the point that the chairman of the house financial services committee is working on a package. we may see more details, this week according to this piece in the wall street journal. you also write about the current administration. you have a number you wrote.
regulatory freeze halt 181 billion in pending rules. day one, inauguration right across the street. staffent trump's chief of writes a memo to all agencies acting a regulatory freeze. the memos almost for made him to what rahm emanuel signed in 2009. what that it is said if you have a rule pending at the white house, a look back and we want to review it. that is readyrule for official publication, send it back. if you have a rule that was officially published, consider pulling it back. for president obama's regular tory freeze, we did not have a major new rulemaking leave the white house until march. ,n terms of what we can expect
major new rules, i think march or april are probably safe bets. host: each administration does it the same way at the beginning? guest: most of them. there are some differences in the beginning. the last two transitions have been from republican to democrat and democrat to republican. both outgoing and ministrations have been area busy proposing and publishing final rulemaking to cement their let -- regulatory agenda. given the huge surplus of roles at the tail end of the administration, the incoming a administration wants to get a handle on what is going out and what can we look on now that is tentative and what is recently final that we might be able to revise or amend. host: new jersey, barry, independent caller. caller:. good morning -- good morning. 2012, the senate and the
thee unanimously approved fda safety and innovation act. that authorize the fda to charge fees to the freight their backlog of admissions. because they have this backlog, every generic drug manufacturer has to pay to have their competition approved. rather than assigned taxes to support the federal agency, they authorize the agency to charge these fees to generic drug manufacturers. in 2012, the fee was $74,000. if you made one generic drug, you paid $74,000. if you made 1000 generic drugs, you paid $74,000. $278,000 fore is one generic drug and $250,000 for 1000. you can see where the small guy is getting squeezed out.
noticed this throughout the realtor real landscape. you mentioned the upfront fixed cost. those are the same even if you look at financial regulations, as well. there was a report about the state in favor of small theseity banks in the upfront costs are most partisan on -- are most burdensome on the smaller banks. sometimes regulations can have that regressive effect and make it more difficult for smaller businesses to compete. host: david, democratic caller. caller: just kind of an academic comment. a what if the ci believe there exists in our culture a kind of agical thinking that there is direct relationship between the sheer volume of regulations in any area of life and the safety that we all gain from it.
if i have 300 regulations in i'm particular aspect, twice as safe as if i had 150 regulations. it is a kind of magical thinking, and i don't think it is true. i don't think you are safer if you have 1000 regulations then if youhave 500 -- than have 500. i thank you for letting me express this. i agree and those in the regulatory world would agree as well. often the magnitude of regulations matters. one single rule can be as impactful as 10 or 20. enforcement matters as well because there are some regulations that are not enforced nearly estrogen we as others. got athe two out, one in
critique from a professor of that harvard. let me read about what he wrote and get your response. he writes a former government colleague of mine illustrated how this works against sensible regulation. if an agency wants to issue a rule expected to have $1 million and regulatory cost but is expected to have been its of $1 billion, the agency could not issue that regulation was a degrees to get rid of the lease two regulations with at least $1 million in total cost. the net benefits of the rule being issued or the role being eliminated do not matter because the annual report shows the virtually all rules issued in the last 10 to 15 years have greater benefits than costs, and eliminating an existing one will reduce that benefit. guest: i think the focus is on elimination like whole regulatory programs are going to go out of the way as a result of the one in, to out -- two out.
i don't think that will be in practice. a truck driver -- truck drivers had to file reports when they went from cincinnati to cleveland, even if nothing happened. it was called a no defect report. the department of transportation realized if you travel from one place to another and nothing happens, you should not spend time and money filling out these forms. the form still exist, but you are no longer -- you know longer have to file them. it does not change the standard, but the administration said it could save more than 40 million hours of paperwork and roughly $1 billion a year. to me, that is sort of a win-win for the economy and regulation, overall. that standard has not changed. it is still in law, it is just how the reporting and recordkeeping is. host: california, republican line. caller: i love c-span, by the way.
regulation,y about i am concerned about it because i know it has driven so many businesses from california. it is horrible. i think we need to give the president a chance, and i can see that there is a concentrated effort to undermine him, especially in the media. the media's unbelievable. they have people hyped up and calling him hit lower and everything. the point that i really want to i understand what he is trying to do with the role he signed. it is going to take more time to deal with the agencies, they are so large and they will not want to give up their power with the regulations. all the people employed there are going to fight tooth and nail.
andas a war on his hands the people out here, we see him fighting for us and what he did what he met with the trade and he stopped tpp, we see he is fighting for us. i thank god for trump because he is protecting the people. i thank you for your time at c-span. host: any response? guest: the caller mentioned the time it would take to perform these modernization efforts and it is going to take time. that the lastunt seven presidents have issued executive orders on regulatory reform and modernization and here we are still talking about it. when you consider that it took all three branches to construct what we have now, congress delegating its power, the executive implementing new rules and the courts throwing
deference to the agencies, is going to take the three branches acting in concert again to reform the system. hi kirsten rick allen writes for the first time in years, legislative and executive branches are on the same page, we must scale back rules and rigs. here is someone on twitter, donna westbrook writing i can see getting rid of duplicative rules and laws, but this one for two seems somewhat childish. more reaction from the hill. newly elected congressman from maryland, many regulations save lives and protect the environment and this executive order endangers the public. think one of the hopeful aspects, regardless of political affiliation the this is going to mandate is a robust retrospective or review of our current regulations. there is a lot we don't know
about the regulatory world because a lot of these impacts are sort of hidden. we don't know the full accounting of regulatory benefits and costs since the 1930's. we don't know which regulations are duplicate. we have some idea, but it is my hope that this executive order would prompt a new research into regulation and into retrospective review so we can get a sense of what regulations might impose more cost or and generate tremendous benefit, going forward. host: our next caller is independent. caller: i love c-span, by the way, but one thing that i really wanted to ask a question about was as we talk about commonsense regulations that can be overturned, that can cause growth in our economy, one
really is that we need to take a look at the war on drugs because we already know that the war on has caused a horrible upset in south america, when it comes to cartels and drug wars which push people out of their homes and neighborhoods and causes them to flee to the united states. if we legalize a lot of the drugs and then we control it, ourselves, sort of like what we did with alcohol, it would change a lot. starting to are legalize marijuana, a lot of pot growers down south stopped growing it because they cannot match our quality or quantity and it is just easier for us to get it, here. sounds people, it horrible, like those kinds of regulation changes, but back when cocaine was legal, and put in products, we did not have issues with cartels because we were doing it ourselves. it was regulated.
me, i think the change of certain things would get rid of issues and jails with drug populations, people who using drugs, you can use that money to help people who are using because you will not stop people from using drugs because life is just one of the things that makes people want to use drugs. people are going to abuse things and you have to use common sense when implementing it. if we could take a look at that regulation, we could clear up a lot of issues, as well as immigration and the jail population being too high. i wanted to know if they are looking at it, at all. we mentioned how unending past rules can take some time and this is one effort that is going to take a joint effort from state and local governments. the federal government has a say, ultimately in drugs,
especially across state lines and the states, we have a few experiments on that front, but this is going to be one issue where we are not going to get much of a resolution. host: bill is calling from florida, the public and. -- republican. caller: that young lady from california, thank god i did not think people thought like that in california. for people who don't think history repeats itself, i would bring back the early 1800s. coming to america and democracy in america and talked about the amount of excessive regulation in his home country of france or they had almost 3200 various rules on how to bake bread. societyg he did say was will develop a new type of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules
through which the most original minds cannot penetrate. it is not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes and stupefied as the people until each nation is reduced to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. that was written in 1830. it is interesting how these things repeat themselves. have a good day. the color is right, we have a fairly robust network of rules and regulations and the international component is important in terms of the oecd ranking and the ease of doing business the u.s. does not rank all that well compared to other industrialized neighbors and i'm sure that was a thought when trump signed his executive order. active.e house was very what do you see in their efforts and how is it likely to turn out, based on the setup?
i think they past five measures, last week, all of those will eventually be signed by the president. of the an important part method they are using, the congressional review act, to repeal these rules. a few hours in the house and senate, and it does not require 60 votes in the senate, just 51. you could easily see up to 15 perhaps 20 that eventually get repealed. they have until june to finish their reviews. host: tomorrow i think is when they start working on all of this, again. you can watch more of the action here on c-span. we have time for one last call. john from tennessee, democrat. caller: i have a question for the speaker.
about the truck drivers having to fill out those reports. to consider,has why was the regulation put in, and the first place? what are they doing with the data? you cannot just cut out rules. a and say, well, it's not eing used. >> thank you, john. >> i think one reason they put in the first place was to have more data about these trips hat don't have any effect on health and safety at all. they went back and said repealing this one part would have an adverse effect on
our people l of safe? the safety of every single member of our state department of where ardless posted is not just a priority for me. value.ore it will become a core value of department. >> it's not even trading liberty for security. we're getting no additional security. this is all about being cruel to uslims because it's good politics to some people. >> an entire headline talking about how we're pulling out the chairman of the joint chiefs. it's wrong. it's insulting. it's just -- the politics to some idea of calling pathetic. sm is >> british prime minister theresa may on immigration
policy. the policy all, on that president trump has introduced, this government is clear that, that policy is wrong. national security advisor michael flynn on iran at a white house briefing. severely nt trump has criticized the various agreements reached between iran, as obama administration, well as the united nations as being weak. we're officially putting iran on notice. debates the humer supreme court nominee process. cannot gain inee he 60 votes, cannot garner bipartisan support of some significance, then the answer is not to change the rules. is to change the nominee. >>
>>. >> the gentleman is out of order. > chairman, i think we need to come down here a little bit. > all c-span programs are available at c-span.org either on our home page or by searching the video library. now in our monday segment about your money we're going to talk about the cost of building border wall with mexico. joining us from new york city danielle ivory, a reporter with the new york times. recent line to your piece goes one certainty of trump's wall, big money. an earlier attempt tried cameras and radar and ran over