Congress has by statute occasionally required that certain agency actions be subject to Congressional approval or disapproval before they became effective. Several proposals have now been advanced which would apply this procedure to all substantive rules issued pursuant to the notice-and-comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. § 553 (which are not subject to 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 and 557). These proposals typically would provide that if either house of Congress disapproved a proposed rule within a specified period, such as 60 days, it would not take effect.
The Conference believes that this kind of legislative veto would not further the ability of Congress to direct agency policy; moreover, it would bring about undesirable changes in the rulemaking process and in relationships among the agencies, Congress, and the courts.
1. Agencies. Legislative veto proposals contemplate postponing the effective date of most agency rules for two months beyond the present statutory period of thirty days that must elapse between their publication in the Federal Register and their taking effect. This additional period is prescribed so that Congress may have opportunity to exercise the power of review. The volume of existing agency rulemaking and the technical or noncontroversial nature of many rules suggest, however, that few proposed rules would in fact receive specific Congressional attention. Nevertheless the operation of the great mass of rules, whether or not actually considered by Congress, would be postponed without corresponding benefit and often with unfortunate public consequences. In instances when Congress did undertake review, it would risk engaging in piecemeal examination of particular rules, in isolation from an agency’s program as a whole, and without benefit of the experience and specialized knowledge that had shaped the elements of that program. Of great concern is the possibility that Congressional review of administrative agencies’ rules would significantly diminish the importance of the procedures now prescribed by law to assure public participation in rulemaking. Rules that survive active legislative review are likely to be based upon negotiations with Congressional units rather than upon the information, expression of opinion, research materials, and background experience that shaped the agency’s policy.
2. Congress. Legislative review of substantive rules would increase the workload of Congress substantially. Review of complex, technical rules would be difficult, time consuming, and often impracticable. Yet, in the belief that each agency’s work product would have to undergo later scrutiny by Congress or its committee staffs, Congress might be more ready even than at present to delegate power in broad terms and to avoid specificity and precision in formulating legislative policies that guide agency discretion. Piecemeal review, moreover, might create a misleading impression that Congress has endorsed by implication whatever it has not explicitly disapproved. Were that impression to become widespread, Congress might be deemed to have accepted a responsibility of unforeseen dimensions.
3. Courts. A procedure for Congressional review of agency rules may also imply legislative ratification of rules not disapproved by Congress. If legislative approval is inferred from inaction by Congress under the proposed procedure, then the scope of judicial review may be reduced without provision of an adequate substitute. Existing constraints on agency rulemaking discretion would therefore be lessened in a manner not intended by Congress.
The objectives of a generic requirement of legislative review of administrative rules can be realized by careful delineations of basic Congressional policy, by particularized statutes addressed to specific issues, and by Congressional hearings focused on review of agency policy rather than on details. Careful attention to appointments and appropriations constitutes a further effective means of maintaining Congressional oversight of agencies’ use of delegated power.
The Conference urges that Congress should not, in general legislation or as a routine practice, provide for prior submission of agency rules for Congressional review and possible veto.
42 FR 54251 (October 5, 1977)
4 ACUS 63
Note: This recommendation has become moot as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).