the national defense authorization act. c-span's washington journal, join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> former lawmakers who served on the house intelligence committee discussed national security and bipartisanship with current committee members pier 1's live wednesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span three, c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org click c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our collection of c-span products, apparel, hooks, home to core and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan. every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.

>> helping democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, while the public thrives. get informed on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. to get the opinion that matters the most. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. st: the fight over prison biden student loan cancellation has left a vehicle on congress to rein in on this. bridget dooling joins us now. good morning to you. the act is a vehicle we are talking about here. can you explain where it came from and how it works? guest: absolutely.

the congressional review act is a statute that allows congress to undo or disapprove regulations that have recently been issued by the executive branch. it was enacted in 1996 and allows congress to overturn rules. i study rules because they are fascinating but i am the first to admit they are little invisible. if you think about the air we eathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, the safety of our cars, safety of our workplaces, all of that is covered by federal rules. the rules exist because congress told -- created agencies and then told them to write rules but sometimes congress needs to reassert its control on the backend after the agencies have written those rules and one of the ways they can do that is using the congressional review act. host: how did they define what a rule is? guest: that's a great question and a little controversial.

sometimes folks have different interpretations of what it means to be a rule. what you think would be obvious but it is not. when congress is unsure, they ask the government accountability office to issue a legal opinion to decisively say one way or the other whether something is a rule. that is the best we got because the definition can be a little ambiguous. host: so congress doesn't like rule the federal agency issued and they want to overturn it, what happens on capitol hill? guest: any legislator can introduce a resolution of disapproval and what is special about this is it has expedited procedures attached to it so it moves more quickly and easily through congress than ordinary legislation does. ordinary legislation can get bogged down in committee but resolutions of disapproval have a quicker way out of committee for example. they also cannot be filibustered in the senate which means a simple majority in the senate is

enough to pass a resolution of disapproval and they do not need to get the 60 votes like they do for ordinary legislation. host: so viewers might have been surprised that there was a vote on present bidens student loan plan and that is against his plan. this is the reason why that foot paying happens. -- happened? guest: that's right. the resolutions allow legislators to express their views and concerns with rules or actions the federal agencies have taken and they did take that vote last week. the president signaled clearly through different channels he will veto the resolution and i can be overcome potentially but they would need to overcome it with two thirds majority in the house and senate. it does not look at the moment like they have those margins. host: if they were able to get those margins, what happens to the federal agency and the rule?

how long does it take for this rule to be rescinded? what is the process? guest: the rule goes proof if i'm honest. the congressional review act tells us to act as though the rules never listed so you have to jump in a time machine and go back to a period before the rule existed and that is what happens, immediately and has immediate effect which is a little tricky with one that has already gone into effect. it is easier and more claim to do that when a rule has yet to go into effect which is often the case because congress only has a limited window to disapprove these things but for a rule like the one you mentioned, student loan forgiveness work, there, you have people whose loans have been forgiven, whose interest has been held, who have not been making payments on their loans and it is an interesting and tricky quandary and difficult quandary, particularly for

borrowers who may be wondering how it will affect me. as a practical matter, that's one is likely to be vetoed by the president, so i do not think it will come to that, but you are right to raise the question of how this works in practice because, for something like student debt forgiveness, it would lead to potentially dramatic consequences. host: the congressional review act is what we're talking about, the vehicle congress can use to rein in federal agencies. conversations the next one he minutes, if you have conned -- if you have questions about how works or the history, now would be a great time to call in. we are talking to a professor of ohio state university who has been deeply involved for long time. she is our guest and a great expert to talk to on her first appearance on the "washington journal" and glad to have you. phone numbers for viewers, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, and

independents, (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, bridget dooling. congress'success rate, it does not seem like it is accessible often. there has been 20 rules overturned total since the congressional review act w put into effectndne happened i the 107th congress in 2001 a 2002 and 16 rules overturned in 2017 to 2018, the 115 congress, and three in the 117th congress. explain why this does not seem to be that successful that often and what the heck was going on in the 115 congress. guest: to put those numbers into conch -- context, any given year, federal agencies issue several hundred rules, so when you think about the types of numbers you're talking about, 1, 3, 16, it is a very small portion of the total number of

rules that go out the door. the first time it was used was after the end of the clinton administration. there was a labor rule related to workplace safety and ergonomics that was disapproved by the next administration and that is a trend you will see in the data. the congressional review act tends to be used to disapprove rules right at the beginning of a new administration when the white house has changed control in terms of the parties in the white house. and that is because it is unlikely sitting presidents would disapprove his own rules. so because the resolution of disapproval have to go through the house and senate and make their way to the president's desk to be signed into law, it creates a dynamic where you are unlikely to see a regulation disapprove if the regulation was issued by the president who received the let -- resolution disapproval on his desk.

you are right, there was not much activity at all in terms of disapproval until the trump administration when the number of disapproval's and number of resolutions really spiked. we have seen three in the biden administration as well so far. what that story does not quite tell you is that all along, since 1996, legislators have been using the congressional review act to introduce these resolutions, even in situations where it is unlikely because of reasons i described that the president will sign them into law. why is that? what is it that legislators are doing. it looks like a useful tool for legislators and this is building on work i've done with daniel perez at the george washington regulatory study center. that work showed although it looks like the congressional review act is hardly used at all, because you mentioned only

20 times disapproval, it has been used several hundred times to introduce resolutions of disapproval. so we see legislators reaching for it as a messaging tool, a way to signal constituents that they hear them and hear their concerns. i think we will continue to see and have continued to see the tool used in that way in recent years and going forward. host: viewers might be wondering rather than a resolution of disapproval and vote in congress and doing this after the fact, why doesn't congress get a vote on say the major rules federal agencies are putting out there? a rule that has an economic impact of $100 million or more, why not have those go first in congress to see if they approve it or not and not give them the option of retroactively undoing rules that have already been complicated. guest: that proposal has been introduced into congress for

many years in a row, referred to as the reins act. that is exactly what you are describing where gives congress the option, it puts the ball and congresses core after an agency has written a rule and said do you want the agency to go forward, yes or no. the default would be no unless congress acts. so there we are talking about a larger number of regulations potentially that would be affected but now we're talking into the -- it's a good question how many but certainly less than probably 100 per year. with that question with that, as a practical -- practical matter, how much bandwidth does congress have to act on resolutions like that or approvals of regulations like that? compared to occasionally taking up a disapproval. so it flips the default and asks congress to take a much more active hand in the regulatory

process and -- process that they have been taking today. sometimes when people talk about the reins act, they feel he could gum up the works on non-controversial or rules were legislators do not have an issue. the way it is with the congressional review act, it leaves the ball in congress is court to act if they want to disapprove rather than asking them to affirmatively approve the regulation the agencies are issuing. host: it stands for regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act. we are talking with bridget dooling this morning, law professor at ohio state university, talking about the congressional review act, the effort by congress that they can put forth to try to rein in a federal agency. a couple callers for you, jason is in indiana, republican.

good morning, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, i am a first-time color. this is a fascinating topic rate i spent 35 years working in an industry that essentially was regulated entirely through the code of federal regulations. so i know some of it in more depth than i ever wanted to. question is this, is there a similar act let's say for other nonstatutory situations, so let's say the president issues an executive order and congress feels that he has overstepped into legislation, is there a similar way they can request disapproval or passage approval? guest: that's a great question. you remind me of an important

point, congress always had the ability to act or ordinary legislation. if the president issued an executive order and congress disagrees with a, they always have the opportunity to go through ordinary legislation or conduct oversight or express their displeasure through appropriation bills for example and withhold money so congress has lots of vehicles to express discontent with the executive branch. what is unusual about the congressional view act is congress spent, in this instance, they will give themselves cedro shortcuts to make it easier for them to do this kind of oversight, and that is limited to rules in this particular con -- context. so for executive orders, congress could have stepped in and issued a rebuke in the form of legislation or other means i described. host: dave in michigan, independent, you are next. you are on with bridget dooling. caller: good morning.

this is confusing to me. when they rule on something, for the incentives as far as our way of revenues -- revenue purposes, where is there data, the proof of what the costs are when they're trying to overrule or have amendments according to the new law they want to come in on. i don't want to just vote for the party, i want to be able to show approval of some kind of substantial data. i don't know if you can speak on that much but i would like to know how that works. guest: absolutely. that is a great question. when agencies issue rules, they are expected to make pretty

persuasive explanations for why they are doing that rule and that includes looking at things like the benefits and costs and other alternatives they consider for example. when congress steps in to disapprove a rule, they are not required to do that so they can exercise their judgment and when they issue the resolution of disapproval, it has a strict format to it. there is not a lot of opportunity for members of congress to say much in the resolution itself about why they're doing it. of course they have the opportunity to make statements and other speeches, everything from tweets to full on statements, so you might get glimpses of the rationale but it is rare for that to include anything like a complete cost-benefit analysis, the likes of which an agency would be expected to do when issuing the rule in the first place. host: on cost-benefit analysis and this comes up occasionally for environmental regulation that it seems it is easier to

calculate the cost, how much a new rule will cost the oil industry your gas industry and benefit of how do you calculate the benefit, financial benefit of an acre of land save door the incidence of cancer happening less. how you calculate benefits versus costs. -- cost? guest: it's a great question and one the executive branch has been working on for long time because what you described. it's harder to calculate things on the benefit side of the ledger. the most important thing i think folks should know about cost-benefit analysis is it is never -- i have done this for over 10 years in the federal government and it is not the case that you write out the costs on one cause and -- in one column and write out the benefits and one and see what is bigger, it is less exact science than that.

the goal of cost-benefit analysis is to get on paper what we know. sometimes we can quantify what we know and sometimes we cannot. when we cannot quantify things, particularly on the benefit side but also on the cost side, the most important thing about doing the cost-benefit analysis is the opportunity to express what those benefits and costs might be so we can think about them and think about how much they might be, we can put out to the public an explanation of what the government thinks the benefits and costs might be so the public has an opportunity to weigh in and say i think you understated outdoor overstated that. that is the best we can do sometimes particularly when things like human dignity and other things are on the line that are basically impossible to quantify. the government works hard to come up with ways to quantify things that are hard to quantify but as you can understand, there are certain things challenging

to put a number two that does not mean write them out in narrative form and explain what they are and hopefully make a full and transparent accounting to the public of the trade-off of government action. host: we have done the reins act, let's do another strangely named washington, d.c. thing. [laughter] what is oira? guest: it's where i used to work, the office of information and regulatory affairs. it is a small office in the executive office of the president and over ira --oira is best known for reviewing regulations. i spent over 10 years working in the government, working with agencies like the food and drug administration, department of labor, department of education, to work with them before the regulatory proposals go out the door to the public for consultation. host: the idea to avoid what we're talking about, congress stepping in and trying to pull

back some regulations after they go out the door? guest: that is part of it. you get to the point of a disapproval, it is a failure. agencies work hard on the rules. it certainly takes a month and may take them years. a represents hundreds of hours of their effort to try to do the best regulatory proposals they can. at the end of that, to have congress swoop in and disapprove it, it is something the agencies want to avoid. so oira review touches a number of topics, not just reviewing the congressional act disapproval but that review, the point is to make sure these rules are ready to go out in the public and agencies consider the trade-offs of other actions and they have done their best to expand to the public and to potential future judges down the line all the things they considered and different trade-offs associated with the

heart policy choices we ask agencies to make area host: a few minutes before the house comes in for the day and we go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage when they do. we are talking about the congressional review act. bridget dooling is our guest, law professor at ohio state university. she is on twitter if you want to give her a follow. this is jonathan in louisiana, independent. good morning. caller: how are you today? host: doing well. what is your comment or question? caller: on environmental regulatory behavior, some time ago in undergrad, i reviewed statements, clinton administration, the then interior secretary involved several involvements of hydroelectric dams and the application of dam removal and request for travel treaties and various other than for cost

analysis regarding environmental regulatory procedures. it was a really good statement and came over two parts for public review and congressional staff review so that by the time it was passed and accepted, and ready for implementation, congressional staffers and rules makers can get with the various department of agencies and they were so well involved and informed at every stage of the way that, by the time it was ready for implementation, had everyone been honest every step of the way, the congressional review act became unnecessary because it was there as a stopgap but unnecessary to be used to stop the them of mentation of removing the dams

and restoring the public parks and that. host: let me stop you there because we are running short on time. bridget dooling on the process he described. is that close to the way it works? guest: yeah, so there has been discussion on how much process is enough. it can be hard to figure out the balance because, for every round of procedure you add to an administrative action, it slows it down. when we are talking about important protections for example, you want to be careful not to put something there's so much process that it bogs down what could be a good result. on the other hand, it is important to consult the public, to get the richness of their views before an agency acts so it is a delicate balance, won many agencies struggle to find but it is important for viewers to know that federal agencies welcome the participation of the public in all regulatory proposals, so they are required by law to seek public comments

on proposed rules put in the government's use -- government newspaper called the federal register which rooms are some of your viewers look at every day but it is a great place to look at regulatory proposals, regulations.gov is another wonderful resource if you are curious about learning more about what the agencies are doing in the regulatory space in your comments are not only welcome but are needed to share information with the governments as they make difficult choices we have to make. host: i've never heard the federal register called the governments newspaper. we are waiting to see when the house comes in. we talked about the exec to branch, agencies making regulations, the legislative branch and congressional view act. has the judicial branch overweight in on the congressional review act? guest: the congressional review act as provision in it that limits what courts can do to

review it. there's only certain ways to get into court to look at issues related to congressional review act. if an agency fails to notify congress, which is required to do under the cra, failing to do that, courts have said that is not something they will weigh in on because the cra limits what courts can do but there is another provision we have not talked about called substantially the same which is if a regulation is disapproved, that means an agency is barred from issuing a rule that is substantially the same as the one disapproved and that makes sense because you would not want congress to disapprove something and how the agency turnaround and reissue it. there are questions about how narrow or broad the term is, what it actually prevents an agency from doing so there is potential that we will get more litigation on that now that we have more disapproval to work with. we don't have very much yet and it ends up being a phrase that

is pretty darn important when you are an agency trying to figure out what rule to issue areas host: we will have to end it there as congress is getting ready to come in for the day but perhaps more conversation for another day announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> it is extremely rare. but friends don't have to be. when you are connected, you are not alone. >> cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television service providers, ging you a front row seat to democracy. >> homeland security officials testified on the department's handling of a border security amid the end of a public health order that allowed the u.s. to turn away migrants