•      "[H.R. 357] will add unnecessary ambiguity and considerable delay in the creation, promulgation,

and implementation of critical new public health and safety safeguards, financial reforms, and

worker protections – making industry even less accountable to the public. These consequences

are particularly objectionable because the bill purports to ‘solve’ a problem that does not

actually exist. Rather than advance good government reform, this bill demonizes our public

protection agencies and promotes a harmful anti-regulatory narrative… Under the Constitution’s appointments clause, agency rulemakings are authorized by ‘principal’ officers who are Senate confirmed, and in practice, this often occurs through necessary delegation. Currently, senior agency appointees sometimes delegate the routine task of signing a rulemaking to subordinates as an efficiency measure. Senior agency appointees ratify the signing of the rulemaking after the fact to comply with this clause. Given the expense and legal consequences involved, no agency would ever issue a rule without

authorization from a relevant agency leader. At best, this bill would serve to create needless bureaucratic hurdles for agency officials, rather than correct any real problem of public accountability. Source: Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

•      "Federal agencies should have delegated authority to ensure regulations keep the American public

healthy and safe. Government regulations foster job growth and ensure that workplaces are

healthy, safe, and accountable. Federal agencies, in conducting rulemaking, are simply

implementing programs and regulatory systems that were already approved by Congress and

signed into law. Involving Congress in the details of these processes will result in paralysis, the

politicization of rulemaking, and poorer outcomes for the health, safety, and wellbeing of the

American public. Source: American Federation of Government Employees