U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–452 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–207 

NOMINATION OF HOWARD A. SHELANSKI 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF HOWARD A. SHELANSKI, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Professional Staff Member 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Senior Counsel 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

JAMES P. GELFAND, Minority Counsel 

TRINA D. SHIFFMAN, Chief Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 4 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 12 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 29 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 

Howard A. Shelanski, to be Administrator, Office of Regulatory Affairs, U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 33 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 55 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 58 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 78 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF HOWARD A. SHELANSKI, 

TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

JUNE 12, 2013 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Levin, Coburn, Johnson, and Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. Well, good morning, everyone. The hearing 

will come to order. 

Today, we welcome the President’s nominee for the position of 

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), an important job, and we are happy to be able to welcome 

you today, and we are happy that your family is here and especially want to welcome your parents, welcome your son, Isaac, and 

all these other folks that have joined you. It is a pretty good turnout. 

It is always encouraging to me when you have a lot of people sitting out behind you for a confirmation hearing and not many people sitting up here, because when you have a lot of people sitting 

up here, it is not always a good sign. We are not always here to 

warmly welcome you. 

Today, we meet to consider the nomination of Howard Shelanski, 

President Obama’s choice to serve as Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs. This is an important office 

within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It has been 

without a Senate-confirmed leader since, I think, last August, when 

Cass Sunstein left us for other parts. 

I am pleased the President has nominated someone who is, I 

think, highly qualified. I intend to work with my colleagues on this 

Committee, certainly with Dr. Coburn, to complete our review and 

report the nomination for action by the full Senate as soon as we 

can. 

Although OIRA is not well known outside of Washington, it has 

a very important role across the government and in our daily lives. 

Congress passes laws that draw lines between what is acceptable 
2 

and unacceptable in our society, whether it is to protect our public 

health, the economy, or the natural environment. But we in Congress cannot cover every situation in the legislation we pass, so we 

leave many of the particulars to the regulatory process, as you 

know. 

For many years, Presidents have asked OIRA to help oversee and 

coordinate our regulatory process and review the most important 

proposed rules. Americans are impacted by the decisions and actions of OIRA every time we take a drink of water or go to the 

bank. Although some people think we need to choose between regulation and having a robust growing economy, I disagree. I believe 

that Federal regulations should only be issued when there is a real 

need, when they are cost effective, and when they make sense. 

When these conditions are satisfied, Federal regulations serve an 

essential purpose in protecting our environment, our health, our 

safety, consumers, and our financial system. 

For example, by advocating a common sense, cost effective approach to our Nation’s environment and energy challenges, we can 

reduce harmful pollutants, lead healthier lives, lower our energy 

costs, and help put Americans to work manufacturing new products. 

OIRA has also been tasked with coordinating agencies’ reviews 

of their existing regulations in order to explore whether any should 

be modified or streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make 

the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome. 

That is something that Cass was very much involved in, as you 

know. 

Furthermore, OIRA, together with the Office of E-Government 

and OMB as a whole, has important responsibilities in managing 

the government’s immense information resources. The OIRA Administrator also has responsibility for implementing the Privacy 

Act of 1974, which governs the collection, maintenance, use, and 

the dissemination of information about individuals maintained by 

several Federal agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Social Security Administration (SSA), the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS), and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). The head of OIRA thus has a number of critical roles in terms of determining how our citizens will interact 

with our government. 

I am pleased the President has presented us with a nominee 

with the training and the experience to take on these important 

challenges. Mr. Shelanski has earned both a law degree and a 

Ph.D. in economics from the University of California-Berkeley. His 

combined training and expertise in law and economics should be 

especially valuable in a role of leading OIRA and helping to ensure 

that our Federal regulatory programs both conform to law and 

achieve the best practical results for the American people. 

Mr. Shelanski comes well prepared to take on the challenges of 

this position from his extensive government service, first as Senior 

Economist for President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, 

then as Chief Economist at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and more recently as Manager within the Federal 

Trade Commission’s Bureau of Economics, which he has headed for 

about a year now. 
3 

While not serving in the government, Mr. Shelanski has also had 

a distinguished career in academia, first as a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, his alma mater, and later at the 

Georgetown University Law Center. And as another indication of 

both Mr. Shelanski’s intellect and breadth of experience, he began 

his legal career clerking for, among others, Supreme Court Justice 

Scalia. 

Not surprisingly, Mr. Shelanski has earned a reputation among 

those he has worked with of not only being smart, but also being 

articulate, highly collegial, qualities of character that would serve 

him well here in the Senate but will also serve him well at a place 

like OIRA, the heart of government. 

My recommendation to my colleagues on this Committee is that 

we listen to him, ask him a bunch of questions, and if we like him, 

support his nomination and promptly report him to the full Senate. 

Mr. Shelanski, we welcome you before this Committee and look 

forward to your testimony. 

And I think I am supposed to introduce you, but let me just yield 

first to Dr. Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this 

hearing. We have an excellent candidate before us. I have a statement for the record that I would like to have be submitted, and I 

just want to followup on a couple of things you said. 

One of the things Senator Carper said is common sense. Where 

do you get that? How do you develop it? You do not unless you 

have had a broad base of experience, and so my worry at OIRA is 

that the intent is good, the heart, the compassion is right, but the 

background reference for having knowledge on how regulations will 

truly impact an industry, an area, or whatever is missing. And 

your experience is great to a limited extent. 

So I guess my worry, for anybody in that position, is how do you 

develop the context of getting that common sense brought forth as 

you look at regulations? I do not care which Administration it has 

been. We have lacked that, in my opinion. 

And so one of the things I hope to work with our nominee on, 

and our head of OIRA, is how do you develop a process where you 

get great input so that you add to your already breadth of knowledge the expertise, and I am not talking about from the agency or 

the comments, but a cadre of people that you can rely on that will 

give you that extra bit of insight, because, really, OIRA, in terms 

of the economics out there, $1.8 trillion is the cost of our regulation 

right now, $1.8 trillion. If you break it down, that is $14,678 per 

family in this country, and most of it is well intended, but a lot of 

it has a ton of unintended consequences. 

So my real goal with you, Howard, is to develop the kind of relationship so that when you are fulfilling your job, that you actually 

can bring in to give context on the areas where you really do not 

have any experience and you do not have anybody around you with 

experience so that you can see it in the whole, not to bias it in a 

conservative, liberal, or moderate way, but just really based on 

what a cogent, well thinking person of experience would do to accomplish both the goal but also do the least harm. And, you know, 
4 

most people in business, in the economy out there, you are their 

last hope to not burden more than the $1.8 trillion, not add more 

to the economy that does not buy us something substantive to it. 

I have looked at your qualifications. There is no question you are 

there. And I welcome you to the Committee and will have limited 

questions, but I hope to develop the relationship and just give you 

the admonition from my gray hair to you is I have been in business, I have been in medicine, I have been in government, and I 

still rely on a lot of people who have a whole heck of a lot more 

experience in a lot of other areas besides my staff to help me make 

judgments. And that is the one key area that I hope we can get 

to at OIRA so that we are making the best decision for the country 

as a whole. 

So I thank you for being here and look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. 

I just want to followup on one thing that Dr. Coburn said, and 

that is the common sense thing. You can look at a person’s resume 

and it tells you a lot about their education, about the work that 

they have done, but it does not tell you necessarily about the values that are imparted to us growing up by our families. And I 

think it is wonderful that your parents are here today. 

But I remember, Tom, something that—my father was a Chief 

Petty Officer in the Navy, World War II, tough as nails, and he 

was always saying to my sister and me growing up, if a job is 

worth doing, it is worth doing well. We would have chores to do 

and did not do them very well. He was always saying, if a job is 

worth doing, it is worth doing well. He said it a million times. And 

out of all that, I took away the idea of doing things well, to focus 

on excellence in everything we do, and one of the things we do in 

this Committee is we really work on the culture in the Federal 

Government to try to get better results from less money and how 

can we do things better. 

The other thing my dad always said to my sister and me, when 

we would pull some boneheaded stunt he would always say, just 

use some common sense. He said it a lot. He did not say it so nicely. But he must have said it a million times. And one of the things, 

when I left home to go off to be a Navy rising midshipman at Ohio 

State and then in the Navy, I thought a lot about common sense. 

I still do. 

And so that is not something that shows up on my resume, probably not yours, as well. We will ask your Mom and Dad later if you 

have any and they can tell us. Hopefully, they will say yes. 

Senator Johnson, normally, I would not call on you to make remarks, but you are a good man, you are here, and just if you would 

like to make some brief comments, that would be fine. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pipe in 

on basically two points. 

Senator Coburn certainly talked about unintended consequences, 

and I know at OIRA, one of your missions is certainly doing a costbenefit analysis. I have not found in my short time here that the 

Federal Government is particularly good at measuring the intended 
5 

results of what they are trying to accomplish, so they are not even 

really concerned, or they certainly do not consider the unintended 

consequences of some of these regulations. I think it would be enormously helpful if the OIRA would start paying attention to and at 

least try and consider the unintended consequences of a lot of these 

rules and regulations. 

And I think the last point—I do not think anybody has mentioned this one yet—is the law of diminishing returns. I think we 

see that all the time. Again, I agree with Senator Coburn. These 

regulations are well intended. I think all of government is well intended. But as we continue to throw more and more government 

at problems, you do reach that point of diminishing returns, and 

I think that is also something that OIRA could really be taking a 

look at, is each layer of these regulations. 

I mean, I will throw one out there: Ozone regulation. We get it 

down to 75 parts per million. I guess there must be an Office of 

Ozone Regulation in EPA and they must be sitting around their office going, well, now what do we do? I am afraid the reaction is, 

let us knock it down to 65 parts per million at a cost of maybe a 

trillion dollars, and I do not know what the benefit of that would 

be. 

So I think you really need to take a look at unintended consequences and the law of diminishing returns as you are doing 

your analysis, should you be confirmed for this position. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Howard Shelanski has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered prehearing questions submitted by 

our Committee, had his financial statements reviewed by the Office 

of Government Ethics, and without objection, this information will 

be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and are available for public inspection 

in the Committee’s office. Hearing no objection. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so I am going to ask you, 

Mr. Shelanski, if you would please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. I do. 

Chairman CARPER. Very well. Please be seated. 

You may proceed with your statement. Feel free to introduce 

your family, any friends that you have here with you today, and 

then we will jump into the questions. But welcome. We are glad 

that you are here and happy that your family is here, too. 

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD A. SHELANSKI, NOMINATED TO BE 

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper, Dr. Coburn, and Members of the Committee, for welcoming me today. It is an honor to be considered by this Committee 
6 

as the President’s nominee to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

I would like to start off this morning by thanking my family for 

their support in taking on this challenge. I am glad to have Nicole 

Soulanille and our son, Isaac Shelanski, and my parents, Vivien 

and Michael Shelanski, who this week are celebrating their 50th 

wedding anniversary, here with me today. 

I also want to thank the Members of the Committee and their 

staffs for meeting with me over the last few weeks. I appreciate the 

time many of you took from your busy schedules and thank you for 

sharing your insights and views as I prepared for this hearing. For 

those of you I have not yet had the opportunity to meet, I look forward to doing so in the future. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and maintaining 

open communications. I would welcome your perspectives on the 

matters of concern to OIRA. 

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs plays an essential role in developing and overseeing the implementation of governmentwide policies on regulation, information collection, information quality, statistical standards, scientific evidence, and privacy. 

I am humbled by my nomination to lead such an important organization. 

I would like to begin by speaking briefly about my background 

and about the training and experience that have helped me to prepare for the job of OIRA Administrator, should I be confirmed. 

I have a Ph.D. in economics and a law degree and have spent my 

career combining both disciplines. I joined the faculty of Georgetown University Law School in 2011 after having previously been 

a professor at the University of California at Berkeley since 1997. 

At Berkeley, I also served 3 years as Associate Dean of the law 

school and was Co-Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and 

Technology. 

Most of my teaching and research have focused on regulation, 

particularly in the telecommunications sector, and on antitrust policy. In this work, I have had the opportunity to analyze complex 

issues and their effects upon society, ranging from the virtues of 

switching to a less rule-based model of telecommunications regulation to how antitrust enforcement can better accommodate and promote technological innovation. 

I have also served in several government positions. Currently, I 

am the Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Economics, where I previously served as Deputy Director from 2009 to 

2011. Other government positions I have held include Chief Economist at the Federal Communications Commission and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisors. In these roles, I successfully worked with other agencies, the Congress, and the public 

in an effort to serve the American people. 

I have also practiced law, focusing on regulatory and antitrust 

matters. And at the start of my career, I spent time in the Judicial 

Branch of government as a law clerk to judges appointed by Presidents of both parties. I had the honor of clerking for the late Judge 

Louis Pollak, for Judge Stephen Williams, and for Justice Antonin 

Scalia. 
7 

From my past experience in government and from having worked 

for judges across the ideological spectrum, I learned the importance 

of relying on sound evidence and rigorous analysis to make decisions and of developing good working relationships with people of 

varying viewpoints and backgrounds to achieve collective goals. 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would draw from my own experiences and rely on the expertise and insights of career staff at OIRA 

and the agencies, others in the Administration, the Congress, and 

public participants in the regulatory process to fulfill OIRA’s mandates. I believe that public involvement and transparency in regulation is critically important as we tackle the complex issues that 

our country faces today. 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would look forward to working 

with this Committee and the Congress on these important matters. 

Thank you for your time this morning, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thanks for that statement. 

As you may know, we start our questioning by asking the same 

three questions of all of our nominees, and I will just run through 

these and if you would respond, I would be grateful. We would be 

grateful. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. No, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. No. 2: Do you know of anything, 

personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from 

fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. No, I do not. 

Chairman CARPER. And finally, do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Yes, Chairman Carper, I do. 

Chairman CARPER. Before we get into the questions, if your Mom 

and Dad were at the witness table, I would ask them what is the 

secret for being married 50 years. It is a question, whenever I talk 

to people who have been married 50, 60, or 70 years, I love asking, 

what is the secret. I get some hilarious answers and I get some 

really poignant ones, as well. 

A couple of weeks ago, I met a couple who had been married 54 

years and I said to the wife standing next to her husband, I said, 

what is the secret for being married 54 years, and she said, ‘‘He 

will tell you he can either be right or he can be happy, but he cannot be both.’’ [Laughter.] 

The best answer I ever heard in all these years I have been asking people, the best answer I have ever heard is the two Cs, not 

Coburn and Carper, but the two Cs, communicate and compromise. 

As it turns out, that is not only the secret for a long lasting union 

between two people, it is also the secret for a vibrant democracy. 

We have a couple of guys up here, I hope the three of us are pretty 

good at the two Cs, and you will probably need to be pretty good 

at them, as well. 
8 

Let me get more serious, if I can. But let us just talk about priorities if you are confirmed, and I hope you will be. But if you are 

confirmed, what might be some of your top few priorities, please? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Chairman Carper. Should I be confirmed at OIRA Administrator, my top priorities would really be 

three. First, I would like to ensure that regulatory review at OIRA 

occurs in as timely a manner as possible, that the quality of review 

remains high, and that timeliness and the notice to regulated parties and to the public of what the regulatory regime will be will become finalized as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

Second, I would view it as a very high priority to form good and 

respectful working relationships with the agency heads, with Members of Congress, with others in government, and, indeed, with 

public stakeholders so that should I be confirmed as Administrator 

of OIRA, I will have the trust and positive working relationships 

that are essential to accomplish OIRA’s objectives. 

Third, I think it is extremely important to continue the good 

work that OIRA and the Administration have already been working on to further retrospective review of regulations and of our administrative system. I think it is extremely important to ensure 

that even as we move forward as a country with new regulations, 

achieving new objectives or furthering old objectives, that we look 

back at regulations on the books to ensure that there are no longer 

burdens in place that are not achieving their objectives. 

Chairman CARPER. That was something that Cass Sunstein was 

asked by the President to do, and by most people’s judgment, he 

and OIRA did a pretty good job at that. But what I think you are 

saying is this should be an ongoing process, not just something we 

do every 5, 10, or 15 years, but do on an ongoing basis. Is that 

what you are saying? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. I look forward, Chairman Carper, should I be 

confirmed, in learning more about how the retrospective review 

process has, in fact, been implemented in the agencies and what 

OIRA can do to further institutionalize and enable this valuable 

function. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Well, that is good. Good to hear that. 

What is your understanding of the Obama Administration’s goals 

in the area of regulation? How would those goals relate to your 

work, if confirmed? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you. I think the Obama Administration’s 

goals for regulation involve ensuring that Americans are protected 

in their health, their workplaces, their safety and welfare, and in 

the environment in which they live. But I think it is important to 

ensure that regulation takes place consistently with the paramount 

importance of job creation, economic growth, and ensuring that our 

country’s prosperity continues along with achieving these vital protections for Americans. 

Chairman CARPER. Talk to us about the, I do not know if ‘‘conflict’’ is the right word or ‘‘tension,’’ between a cleaner environment 

and economic growth. That is something I suspect you had a 

chance, given your other jobs, to think about. Just talk to us about 

the tension that exists between trying to continue to clean up our 

environment, whether it is air, water, whatever, and to at the same 

time foster stronger economic growth. 
9 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you. I think it is important that the agencies be able to carry out their statutory mandates and their objectives of ensuring a sound environment. But it is also necessary to 

ensure that, with all regulations, that where costs and benefits can 

both be taken into account, that these objectives are not achieved 

at any higher cost than is absolutely necessary. 

There was some discussion earlier in your opening statements 

about common sense. I could not agree more with the remarks that 

I heard. A common sense balance between achieving regulatory objectives and recognizing the very real costs that those regulations 

might impose is, I think, essential to the regulatory policy of this 

and other Administrations and to the kind of regulatory review 

that OIRA engages in. 

Chairman CARPER. I think when I showed up in college in undergraduate or graduate school, I never saw a course listed for common sense. It is not the sort of thing you can sign up for and either 

audit or get a grade in. But just talk to us about your own life 

growing up and how you might have picked up some common sense 

along the way. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Well, I think I need to give a lot of credit to the 

people sitting behind me to my left here. I think I had a lot of the 

same lessons that you described that you had growing up, Senator 

Carper. I was given the independence to make mistakes, but I was 

also reminded to ask questions about whether what I was doing 

made sense, to question myself on why I was taking the steps I 

was taking. I think the opportunity to grow up, to make mistakes, 

to chart my own course with a steady hand behind me helped me 

to develop some common sense. 

And in my work life, having to balance different perspectives, 

having to manage a substantial size staff, and in private law practice, understanding the real burdens that the legal process or the 

regulations that real companies were facing, or clients that I 

served, helped me to develop what I would call a common sense 

perspective and a balanced perspective. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Good. Thanks. I am going to stop 

here for now. Dr. Coburn stepped out of the room, and when he 

comes back, we will recognize him, but Senator Johnson—— 

Senator JOHNSON. So it is my turn. Some day, Mr. Chairman, I 

want you listing all those secrets for 50 years of marriage. And, by 

the way, congratulations to both of you. 

Chairman CARPER. Let me tell you another good one. This guy 

said to me, it had been 47 years and I said, where did you guys 

get married? and he said, ‘‘We got married in Las Vegas.’’ I said, 

where, and he said, ‘‘One of those Chapels of Love.’’ I said, you are 

kidding. Somebody got married there and stayed married for 47 

years? He said, ‘‘Yes.’’ and I said, what is the secret? He said, 

‘‘When you know you are wrong, admit it. When you know you are 

right, let it go.’’ [Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, it looks like you have the basis of a 

book. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Shelanski, the preparation materials that I have show that 

when we started actually keeping track of the number of rules the 

Federal Government has issued since 1976, we are up to 182,000 

rules. As you approach this position, I mean, where would you even 
10 

start? How would you go about prioritizing your actions in trying 

to get your arms around this regulatory burden, as Dr. Coburn 

talked about, $1.8 trillion? I mean, as we are all wrestling with 

how do we get economic growth, what might be causing a sluggish 

economy, I certainly look at that $1.8 trillion regulatory burden— 

I come from a manufacturing background—to understand how 

harmful it can be. I realize there are benefits. There is also real 

harm. Where do you start? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Well, thank you, Senator Johnson. First of all, 

I think it is very important for the agencies and for OIRA, to the 

extent that it plays a role reviewing agency regulation, to listen 

carefully and to hear what the different stakeholders have to say. 

There are high costs to regulation, but I think there is only so 

much one can learn from looking at the cost side. The question is 

always whether the benefits that the regulations achieve are justified by those costs. 

In terms of where to start on the long list of regulations that are 

on the books and thinking about those rules, for example, in the 

process of retrospective review, I think that the prioritization and 

the approach would, in the first sense, be the primary responsibility of the relevant agency head. They are the ones who know 

best how the rules they have on the books fit with new rules they 

are putting in place and the whole body of rules that they have in 

achieving the objectives of their departments. 

But I think OIRA can help suggest methods for retrospective review, and one of the things I would look forward to doing, should 

I be confirmed as Administrator, is learning more about what role 

OIRA can play cooperatively with the agencies to get them to look 

at that body of regulation and—to the extent possible, while preserving the benefits that regulation brings—reducing its costs. 

Senator JOHNSON. You used the word ‘‘listen,’’ and I am sure in 

my excellent prepared material here from my staff, I am sure the 

statistic is in here. I do not have it at my hand. But, I think, over 

the years, we have actually reduced the number of instances where 

businesses are actually given the opportunity to comment on regulations. Would you be committed to make sure that businesses and 

affected stakeholders on any regulation are given that opportunity 

to comment on the proposed rules and regulations? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Johnson. I share your viewpoint that transparency and the opportunity for the public to have 

notice and to comment on rulemaking procedures is extremely important, and the public, of course, includes all stakeholders, including businesses small and large. And it would be a priority of mine, 

should I be confirmed as Administrator, to ensure that insofar as 

possible, that opportunity was preserved and public participation 

took place. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I really want to encourage that, because 

it is extremely important. As Dr. Coburn was saying, we all have 

limited information, limited experience, and the people affected by 

regulations—certainly, I have come to realize that as a United 

States Senator to listen to the businesses coming in. I mean, I have 

no idea of the number of ways the Federal Government is harming 

businesses. Businesses do know that, so it is extremely important, 

not only to businesses, but, again, any stakeholder, that they are 
11 

listened to very carefully before we go forward with regulations, 

and where we do not have all the input, maybe delay the implementation of those regulations. 

You talked earlier about retrospective reviews. I have proposed 

things like a Sunset Committee, whose only mandate would be to 

reduce—identify and actually eliminate laws that are harmful or 

no longer useful. The same with regulations and rules. We have 

had proposals for types of commissions to take a look at that, something like a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. 

We have had a hearing on a one in/one out rule like they had in 

Britain. I would tend more toward one in and about 10 out. Can 

you just comment on what of those approaches you might find interesting, that you might support? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. I think that I would look forward to understanding what specific proposals were on the table and to working 

with you and others in Congress in understanding what the concerns are and how various proposals might address those. So without commenting on any particular proposal that might be out 

there, I think this is an important area for the OIRA Administrator 

to focus on, to understand, and should I be that person, I would 

look forward to working with you and others on the Committee to 

understand your concerns and to make progress on these issues. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you just speak a little bit to the point 

that both Dr. Coburn and I made in our opening statements, just 

about unintended consequences and how do you view those, how 

would you try and identify and quantify the unintended consequences of regulations. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you. Unintended consequences are critically important because regulation is often a very predictive exercise. And so it is important insofar as possible to think in advance 

about what the possible outcomes of regulation are and to think 

about what might be the possibility for unintended consequences 

that could be costly. So I think this would be an important thing 

to come out in the notice and comment period and in the agency 

rulemaking process, but I also think that retrospective review can 

play a very important role here. One of the valuable things that 

retrospective review could accomplish would be to identify rules 

that are having consequences other than those that were intended 

and might be having costs that are much higher than were anticipated. 

Senator JOHNSON. How do you view your relationship between 

OIRA and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)? We had 

Gene Dodaro here, and when we were talking about sequestration, 

for example, I asked Mr. Dodaro how many of the agencies are actually taking a look at all the good work that the GAO is doing in 

terms of duplication, and unfortunately, the answer was they do 

not look at it. How would you plan on interacting with all the good 

work, all the good information that GAO has actually produced in 

terms of trying to make the Federal Government more efficient? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. The GAO performs very important functions and 

adds a lot of value through the work that it does, and should I become OIRA Administrator, I would welcome the opportunity to 

work closely with GAO, and to the extent that they are producing 

valuable things that can help improve the regulatory process, I 
12 

want to help those reports and those studies and the other functions that GAO is involved in have the broadest effect possible. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Shelanski and Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

We have been joined by Senator Levin, one of the two strongest 

Detroit Tigers fans that you will find on Capitol Hill—— 

Senator LEVIN. Second strongest, the Chairman being the strongest. 

Chairman CARPER. They had a good night last night. Max 

Scherzer goes nine-and-oh. That is pretty good. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes, they won three-to-two. 

Chairman CARPER. And on the softball side, we have these softball teams here. Most Senate offices have softball teams. Last 

night, we played Senator Coons, my colleague from Delaware. We 

are the Fighting Blue Hens in Delaware and the name of his team 

is the Angry Hens, and when they left, they lost 34 to 18, so they 

were really angry. [Laughter.] 

Senator LEVIN. Is this softball or football? 

Chairman CARPER. It sounded like football, but it was softball. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to you, 

Mr. Shelanski. 

My first question has to do with the delays in rules coming out 

of OIRA. We have now a situation where delays of agencies are 

chronic. They fundamentally undermine the agencies’ abilities to 

effectively execute the responsibilities that those agencies have. 

Under the Executive Order (E.O.) Number 12866, which is in effect, OIRA has 90 days to review a draft of a proposed or final rule. 

There is one 30-day extension that is available. As of May 14, 87 

rules had been under review for more than 90 days. Fifty-one had 

been under review for more than a year. What is your plan to 

change that situation? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Levin, because I absolutely 

share the concern that you have just raised about timeliness. Not 

yet having been at OMB or in OIRA, I cannot comment on what 

might have led to extended review of any particular rule or what 

might have led to the number of rules that are under an extended 

review period. But I recognize that Executive Order 12866 establishes the initial 90-day review process and it would be one of my 

highest priorities, should I be confirmed as Administrator, to try to 

improve the timeliness and the notice and certainty that lends to 

the regulatory environment. 

Senator LEVIN. Do you agree with the OMB Director Burwell 

that there is a long tradition and unique role of independent agencies and that the importance of their continued independence cannot be exaggerated? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Senator Levin, I currently work at an independent agency. In fact, it is the second independent agency that 

I have worked at in my career. And I certainly value and recognize 

the importance of that independence. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I would look forward to understanding the concerns regarding administrative agencies that various Members of the Com-
13 

1Mr. Shelanski response to Senator Levin’s question appears in the Appendix on page 88. 

mittee have and to working with you and your office on those concerns. 

Senator LEVIN. And you are talking about independent agencies? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Yes, sir, I am. 

Senator LEVIN. The Administration has expressed its opposition 

to being directed to pass judgment on the quality of the independent agencies’ cost-benefit analyses. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. I look forward to understanding more about 

what might lie behind efforts to give the Administration that authority to review independent agencies. It is something that I think 

I would have a better ability to comment on after some experience 

with the OIRA review process. But coming as I do now from an 

independent agency, I very firmly value that independence and the 

variety of approaches that emerge from the independence that 

those agencies have. 

Senator LEVIN. If you have any additional thoughts about the response to that question in the next week or so, will you give us an 

expansion for the record?1

Mr. SHELANSKI. Yes, Senator Levin. 

Senator LEVIN. Cass Sunstein, during his confirmation hearing 

before this Committee, said that, quote, ‘‘Cost-benefit analysis is a 

tool meant to inform decisions. It should not be used to place regulatory decisions in an arithmetic straightjacket,’’ close quote. Do 

you agree with that? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Yes, sir, I agree with Cass Sunstein’s remarks 

in that regard. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, and thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Senator Levin. 

Going back to the backlog that we talked about, and you said it 

would be one of your top priorities, I am reminded of a meeting I 

had early in my time in the Senate. I think I had been in the Senate a couple of years. I had been working on Clean Air legislation 

and multi-pollutant legislation and had a number of utility Chief 

Executive Officers (CEOs) in to see me and my staff. We were talking about the legislation we were trying to do, whether legislation 

was appropriate, whether we should rely on regulations. 

Anyway, at the end of about a 1-hour meeting, one of the utility 

CEOs—I forget where he was from, he was from someplace down 

south, sort of a curmudgeonly old guy, and he said to me, ‘‘Look, 

Senator, here is what you should do. You should tell us what the 

rules are going to be, give us a little flexibility, a reasonable 

amount of time, and get out of the way.’’ That is really what he 

said. ‘‘Tell us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable 

amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way.’’ I thought 

that was pretty good advice for us and might be pretty good advice 

for you as you lead OIRA. 

Dr. Coburn is back. I am going to go make a phone call and will 

be right back. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I want to spend a minute with you 

talking about reviewing certain—there is a regulation called the 

Renewable Fuel Standards. It is a pretty controversial thing. But 
14 

what is getting ready to happen in our country is all our refiners 

are going to go broke because mileage is going up. We have now 

seen fuel credits become a market-traded item. So what we are 

going to see is two refineries in Oklahoma close within a year, year 

and a half, because they cannot afford to buy the Renewable Fuel 

Credits. 

So we have a regulation out there that is actually going to kill 

our ability to provide gasoline to the country, even with an ethanol 

blend, but yet we are going to lose thousands and thousands and 

thousands of jobs because we have not adjusted that or given a 

waiver to it and we have allowed a market, because they see a 

shortage of those credits now, to bid the price up. 

So, for example, we have two refineries in Oklahoma that will close within a year, because they are losing $20, $30 million a year 

now, not on processing gasoline, on buying Renewable Fuel Credits 

because they are just refiners. They are not fully integrated down 

to where they have a retail thing. So what is going to happen is 

we are going to be losing jobs, losing refineries, which we have not 

built a new refinery in this country in years, and these are small 

refineries, but yet they employ a lot of people and have a great job, 

and then we are going to end up with a higher price. 

Now, some in the pro-environmental community would love to 

see that, but what are we going to supply transportation with in 

this country when we run the refineries out of business? We do not 

have an electric vehicle. You are still going to use some type of carbon-based fuel. But the disjointment of having this standard without adjusting it, because we have issued regulations that now the 

marketplace, because there is a shortage, has bid up the price way 

high and we have not adjusted that to blow the bottom out of it. 

So that is the kind of thing I am worried about, the things that 

we have a regulation and we are not looking at, we are not re-looking at it—— 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And we have had hearings in the House this 

last week. There are going to be hearings in the Senate. But the 

fact is, all it would take is tomorrow to gut that speculation based 

on a government-created problem that is going to kill jobs. It would 

take one adjustment to that regulation by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all that would go away, and it will not 

make any difference in the long term in terms of our environmental consequences because we are still going to have ethanol 

blended into our fuel. But yet we have created a regulation that 

creates a problem that is going to eliminate jobs. Any thoughts 

about that? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Senator Coburn, I think you raise an issue that 

is a vitally important one. One of the things that OIRA is charged 

with doing under the Executive Order is to ensure that the regulations that are brought to it for review have looked carefully, where 

permissible under the statute, at the costs and benefits, and where 

alternative approaches and regulatory flexibility can play a role in 

reducing those burdens without overly compromising the benefits 

and the objectives. Those are things that, under the Executive 

Order, are to be taken into account and that OIRA is charged with 

ensuring have been adequately taken into account. 
15 

Senator COBURN. Well, there is a good one for you to look at as 

soon as you get confirmed. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Will you commit to ensuring that significant 

policy and guidance documents undergo interagency review as directed by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, including interagency review, 

before documents are released to the public? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Senator Coburn, it is my view that substance 

rather than labels should dictate OIRA’s review. And where there 

is something that is labeled a guidance document or Frequently 

Asked Questions or whatever that document might be labeled, even 

if it is not labeled a regulation, should it impose burdens and have 

regulatory effect, I believe that is an appropriate area for OIRA to 

play a role. 

Senator COBURN. So you will demand that it has the interagency 

reviews before we shoot that stuff out there? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I will 

look at how OIRA handles things like guidance documents and will 

look to ensure that where those guidance documents create regulatory burdens, they go through the same kinds of processes that 

regulations would go through—cost-benefit analysis, other types of 

review that OIRA does, and ensuring that there is not conflict, tension, or duplication with other agencies through the interagency review process. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Will you ensure that the agencies follow 

the minimal standards described in the OMB Bulletin for peer review when developing and finalizing influential scientific information that will be used to support rulemakings? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. Clearly, OIRA has a cooperative role, and scientific determinations, regulatory priorities, 

issues like that are, in the first and main instance, the province of 

the agency heads. Under the Executive Orders, OIRA does play a 

role in ensuring that the agencies have observed prior proper process and that the evidence they have relied on is sound and meets 

applicable data quality standards. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I would continue that review work. 

Senator COBURN. So OMB has issued guidance on rulemaking, 

that it should go under peer review, and what I am wanting you 

to say is, yes, you will make sure it goes under peer review. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. I will make sure that the OMB and Executive 

Order rules are followed to the best of my ability, should I be confirmed. 

Senator COBURN. OK. The President reaffirmed the principle of 

sound regulations with Executive Order 13563. Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, and safety, and our environment, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. How do we strike that balance? That is 

your job. I mean, he put it in a nutshell. The question is, how do 

you do that? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Yes. So that is, I think, at the heart of what the 

Executive Order is aimed to achieve, and in the first order, through 

the rulemaking processes that the agencies undertake, these are 

principles that the agencies are directed to follow and that OIRA 

in its review of the agency regulations will try to ensure. 
16 

I think that the way that this gets implemented in practice is 

through a number of functions that OIRA undertakes. The first is 

the cost-benefit analysis, where legally permissible, and OIRA will 

ensure that has been done as well as possible. 

Second, through ensuring that regulatory flexibility and regulatory alternatives have been properly considered, to the extent 

that they are consistent with the statutory objectives. 

And, finally, through the retrospective review process, by further 

institutionalizing and fostering that practice to make sure there 

are not undue burdens. 

Senator COBURN. OK. In an ideal world, we would pass laws. The 

agencies would endeavor to implement the legislation, looking at 

congressional intent, by promulgating regulations based on the authority given to them. The problem is, we do not live in an ideal 

world. So as the Administrator of OIRA, how will you handle regulations that seem to rise not out of new statutory authority, but out 

of preferences at agencies? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. I think it is always important for the agency 

heads to be able to set their priorities consistent with the statute. 

Certainly, were I to be confirmed as Administrator of OIRA, I 

would look forward to working with the relevant agencies and with 

the staff at OMB to understanding what kind of legal review is relevant to the OIRA analysis and to ensuring certainly that the laws 

and regulation related to regulatory process to which the agencies 

are bound have been observed. 

Senator COBURN. I will submit the rest of my questions for the 

record. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. We have been joined by Senator 

Portman. I will just say to Isaac—Isaac, your Dad has been nominated for this job in the Office of Management and Budget and 

there are a number of senior positions there, but the person who 

runs it is the Director of OMB. Currently, it is a woman named 

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who is brand new but we think she is 

going to be really good. 

I am going to say 8 years or so ago, President George W. Bush 

nominated a Congressman from Ohio named Rob Portman to be 

the OMB Director and later Trade Representative, and he did well 

enough at those jobs that the people of his State let him be a Senator. So now he has the privilege of serving here with Tom Coburn 

and I, Ron Johnson, Carl Levin and others. 

But he brings a lot of value to this Committee and to the Senate. 

He would probably be a good guy to go to for some advice, if you 

are lucky enough to get confirmed. Rob. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having the hearing. You and Senator Coburn have been focused on 

these issues long before you were Chair and Ranking Member and 

it is an important responsibility. 

I would say to your son who is here, your Dad has been nominated for the most important job in Washington that nobody has 

ever heard of, and you have probably found that when you talked 

to your classmates about it. They are, like, ‘‘What? Oh-what?’’ 

[Laughter.] 
17 

But it is a really important job. So to Professor Shelanski, thank 

you for your willingness to step up and be considered for this job. 

In my view, again, it is a job that is much more important than 

most people realize because it affects the economy in very fundamental ways. It affects all of us as citizens. The job is to ensure 

there is a really rigorous cost-benefit analysis applied and that we 

use the least burdensome alternatives and to bring as many agencies as possible into that, and a number of us are working, including the Chair and Ranking Member, on trying to ensure that independent agencies are brought into more discipline in terms of the 

cost-benefit analysis, as well. But even on existing Executive 

Branch agencies, there is much more work to be done. 

Sometimes, the OIRA role is viewed as very technical, and I 

agree that it is, but ultimately, it is about ensuring that these big 

rules do have a positive rather than negative impact on our economy and that they do derive benefits. 

Let me get into a couple of questions, if I could. One is about regulatory burden generally. The White House has repeatedly stated 

it is working hard to, and I quote, ‘‘minimize regulatory burdens 

and avoid unjustified regulatory costs.’’ That has certainly been a 

common refrain, going back to the Reagan Administration, for 

OIRA. But I would say on a real measure of regulatory output, 

which would be economically significant rules—those are rules, as 

you know, with over $100 million of impact on the economy—if you 

look at President Obama’s first term, he was significantly more aggressive with regard to, again, economically significant rules than 

any predecessor since we have kept records. 

In fact, according to the Administration’s own estimates, the cost 

of rules issued in 2012 alone exceeded the costs of all rules in the 

entire first terms of Presidents Bush and Clinton combined. So 

2012 alone, major rules had more impact than the entire first term 

of President Bush and President Clinton combined. 

So I would start by asking a very simple question. Can we do 

better than that? And if confirmed, can you improve on that record 

in terms of minimizing the burden of regulations on our economy? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Portman. Should 

I be confirmed as Administrator, it would be one of my highest priorities to ensure that OIRA fully conducted the kinds of cost-benefit 

analysis that the Executive Orders refer to, and where permissible 

under the statute, to ensure that regulations are no more burdensome than essential to achieve their benefits. And it would be my 

hope that through that process, regulatory burdens could be reduced. 

Senator PORTMAN. My second question would be about the lookbacks. As you know, back in January 2011, the White House announced they were going to do a look-back. I strongly supported 

that. I think it is a good idea. It is a house-cleaning exercise. I 

would say it is required by law and has been since 1981. 

But I have also followed the results. Out of roughly 90 rule 

changes undertaken so far as part of this regulatory look-back, the 

estimated compliance cost savings is $3.3 billion, and that is according to analysis by the American Action Forum of Agency Data 

that was published in the Federal Register. That is a lot, and that 

is good. 
18 

1Mr. Shelanski response to Senator Portman’s question appears in the Appendix on page 88. 

However, if you put that figure in context, it is less encouraging. 

According to this data, last year alone, one year, the Administration finalized new regulations with costs of $236 billion, again, 

based on numbers reported by the agencies themselves. So last 

year alone, we added more than 70 times the reported cost savings 

from all of the regulatory look-back. 

The same report, by the way, said that even if you look at those 

90 rules undertaken by agencies as part of regulatory look-back, 

the new costs imposed totaled $11 billion. In other words, the costs 

of regulations attributed to look-back actually exceeded the cost 

savings by nearly $8 billion. I do not think that is eliminating red 

tape. 

These estimates are based, by the way, on timeframes provided 

by the agencies themselves. Some of the costs are annualized, some 

for a 5- or 10-year period, and that has not been standardized. We 

do need more uniform cost reporting standards, in my view, to be 

able to really understand an apples-to-apples comparison. 

Anyway, you had said in your prehearing questions you intended 

to emphasize this important effort of retrospective review. How do 

you plan to encourage agencies to focus more on making sure existing regulations are working and paring back those that are unnecessary? I think this area is one where we could really benefit from 

more transparency. Again, would you be willing to commit to clearly report and track on reginfo.gov the actual results of the regulatory look-back initiative, proposed and the final, including quantified cost savings from it and maybe a regulatory look-back dashboard that tracks annualized savings so, again, we can have a comparison on an annual basis? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Senator Portman, we come from a common viewpoint on the importance of retrospective review and trying to reduce the costs of regulation. And should I be confirmed as Administrator, a very high priority for me would be developing working relationships with the agency heads and working closely with the 

staffs of OIRA and the agencies to understand how the regulatory 

look-back could be further institutionalized, and I would be very interested in understanding ways that the progress of the regulatory 

look-back and of retrospective review could be better tracked and 

understood for you and for the public. 

Senator PORTMAN. And, specifically, would you be willing to commit to track on reginfo.gov the results of the look-back so there is 

more transparency? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I would 

commit to looking into what the possibilities are for using 

reginfo.gov in relation to the retrospective review process. It is 

something that I will need to learn more about. 

Senator PORTMAN. All right. If you have further thoughts on that 

prior to your confirmation,1 though, we would appreciate hearing 

from you, if you do not mind looking into that further, because I 

do think that would be very helpful to those of us trying to figure 

out whether it is working or not. 
19 

Do you believe that regulatory cost-benefit analysis with review 

by OIRA is important, and if so, do you think independent agencies 

ought to be brought under the cost-benefit analysis? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Portman. I think the question of independent agencies is a very important one. I would start 

by saying that I think cost-benefit analysis is an extremely important, valuable tool that could be used by any entity that is engaged 

in regulation. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I would look 

forward to understanding better and working with you and other 

Members of the Committee on the specific concerns involving independent agencies and what the, indeed, costs and benefits of bringing independent agencies under OIRA types of mandates would be. 

Senator PORTMAN. Would you be willing to commit today to work 

with those of us in Congress who are proposing legislation in this 

area to try to improve the economic analysis by independent agencies? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. One of my priorities, should I be confirmed as 

Administrator, would be to have open communication with you in 

Congress and would always be available to discuss matters of concern to you and OIRA. 

Senator PORTMAN. One thing, and my time is ending here and 

I appreciate the Chairman giving me a little extra, but the legislation that this Committee is looking at extends requirements to 

independent agencies as the President has proposed, but it makes 

clear that OIRA would not have the power to stop or do the return 

of regulations in that they are independent agencies. So transparency and public scrutiny would be the main source of accountability to ensure that independent agencies comply. Just so you understand, that is the legislation that we are putting forward. We 

think it is consistent with what the President has proposed in his 

Executive Order and certainly what he has said publicly. Increasingly, again, so many of these major rules are coming from independent agencies, it seems to us that makes sense to include them 

within a basic cost-benefit analysis and least burdensome alternative. 

Thank you, Professor, and I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Portman, thanks for all those different hats you have worn and especially for wearing this one with 

us today. 

Senator PORTMAN. You have got it. 

Chairman CARPER. A couple more questions, if I could. In some 

instances, there is robust science, as you know, identifying a public 

health need for a regulation, but it is difficult to quantify the benefits in economic terms. I mentioned earlier my comments with 

those utility CEOs about air emissions, and one of the emissions 

that we discussed that day was mercury emissions from coal-fired 

utility plants. The science is very clear that mercury pollution impairs children’s brain development and we need to act to clean it 

up and we have to a good extent. But it is difficult to quantify the 

long-term economic benefits of healthier, smarter kids, like your 

son. 
20 

Let me just ask you if you believe that OIRA should give deference to the regulatory agency in a case like this when the health 

benefits are clear, but the economic data not so clear. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Chairman Carper. This is, obviously, 

a central question. I do not believe that it is the role of OIRA, or, 

should I be confirmed, the OIRA Administrator, to substitute its 

judgment about science and regulatory priorities for those of the 

expert agency staff and the agency heads. I do believe that it is the 

job of OIRA to ask hard questions and to make sure that the evidence relied on is sound and meets applicable standards. 

With regard to the cost-benefit analysis itself, as I stated before 

in response to a question from Senator Levin, cost-benefit analysis 

is critical. As much as can be quantified in the analysis of a regulation should be quantified. But there are certainly some things that 

cannot be quantified. Indeed, sometimes the major cost or the 

major benefit of a regulation may be not easily quantifiable, yet it 

may be the major effect. And in those cases, I think that the regulatory review needs to recognize those effects, explain what can be 

quantified and what cannot, and where the judgment of the benefits is based on sound science, sound analysis, it should pass review. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. I am going to ask a related question, and you have already answered it in part, but I am 

going to ask it anyway. Maybe you can add something to what you 

have said. 

As you know, some agencies have been directed by Congress to 

ignore economic impacts. One such example is Congress’ direction 

to EPA under the Clean Air Act to establish air pollution health 

standards. We call them the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In your earlier answers to the Committee, I think you stated 

that in such situations, you believe that—and this is a quote—‘‘the 

statute requires a different way of making regulatory decisions. 

OIRA would adhere to those criteria when reviewing rules,’’ close 

quote. Could you just explain just a bit more your answer, and do 

you believe that OIRA should give deference to an agency in these 

circumstances? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you. That quote, I believe, is a quote. It 

certainly should be. It sounds like it certainly is exactly my view, 

that should I be confirmed as Administrator, I and OIRA would follow the law in terms of the applicable analysis. 

Of course, OIRA review is not limited to cost-benefit analysis. 

There are other parts of review. There is the interagency review 

process to ensure that a rule is not duplicative, to ensure that a 

rule is not in conflict with another agency’s rule. So there would 

still be grounds for OIRA review and a role in the process for the 

office even if cost-benefit analysis as applied to other kinds of rules 

might be a lesser part of that. 

I would also add that ensuring that data quality, peer review, 

and other applicable standards have been met would be part of the 

OIRA review process. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thank you. Let us talk a little bit about 

information management and privacy. I want to focus for a minute 

or two on the responsibilities of the OIRA Administrator with regards to information. 
21 

Federal agencies are producing, as you know, collecting, and storing more information than ever before. This deluge of information 

allows agencies to better meet their missions in many respects, but 

also comes with significant costs and challenges. What do you see 

as the biggest challenges that agencies face in managing the vast 

amounts of information they now have? And, if confirmed, what 

would be your priorities in helping agencies to manage their information? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Chairman Carper, I think that the ‘‘I’’ in OIRA 

is vitally important. We have been talking a lot this morning about 

regulation, but should I be confirmed as Administrator, the ‘‘I’’ will 

certainly receive its full measure of attention because of what you 

just said. 

Agencies across the Federal Government are wrestling with a variety of challenges and issues related to data. Those would include 

how to balance making data available in usable form to the public 

with privacy considerations and needs for confidentiality where 

those apply. Indeed, in my current role at the Federal Trade Commission, we often deal with challenges in cases that we review, 

mergers that we might review, investigations we undertake, on 

how to ensure parties that sensitive data that they are handing 

over to the agency will be protected. But at the same time, there 

is the balance of deciding what information can and should be released to the public so that the enforcement process is as transparent as possible, and what information can and should be shared 

with other agencies that may have an interest in the process. 

These are the kinds of challenges that government agencies face, 

and should I be confirmed as Administrator, I would look forward 

to working with the Director of OMB and other agencies in the 

intergovernmental process that is contemplated under the Privacy 

Act for balancing sound privacy policy with public transparency 

and making data available insofar as possible to the American public. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thank you. I will stop there for now. I 

have a couple more questions I want to ask, but let me yield back 

to Senator Portman, if he has some more questions, and then I will 

close it down. Thank you. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just follow on. My ears perked up when you were talking 

about information, and I do think that we can do better. As you 

know, for nearly three decades now, OIRA Directors and OMB Directors of both parties have published their plans for new regulations. They do so twice a year, and it is an incredibly important opportunity for citizens to see what is coming up and prepare for it. 

That transparency measure, by the way, is required under President Clinton’s Executive Order and also by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, so both by E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

And it calls for a publication of a regulatory agenda in the spring 

and one in the fall and it lets people know what is in the pipeline, 

which, I think, is incredibly important, including knowing what the 

potential compliance costs might be on small business. 

As its title suggests, the spring regulatory agenda is typically 

published in the spring. That is April or May. The fall is usually 

October or November. Last year, the spring agenda was never re-
22 

leased. There was no spring agenda, and it was the first time in 

decades, to my knowledge. I wrote two letters to the President 

about this, never heard back. I did not even get the courtesy of a 

response. Instead, during the election year, the regulatory agenda 

was released, but not in the spring, not in the fall, but in the winter, after the election, on Friday, December 22, a day when people 

were concerned about other things, like the holidays. 

In your briefing for this hearing, have you learned why OMB decided to skip the spring regulatory agenda and push back the fall 

regulatory agenda? Does this represent a policy change? Are we 

seeing less transparency from an Administration that has claimed 

that it is the most transparent in history? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Portman. I share your concerns with transparency and the need to publish the regulatory 

agenda. In my preparation for these hearings, being outside of 

OMB, I have not learned about why one agenda was not published 

and about the timing of other agendas. 

But I can much more easily answer your other question, about 

a policy change. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I think 

it is vitally important that Americans, businesses, those who would 

benefit from regulation, and those who would bear its costs, have 

notice of what is in the regulatory pipeline. It will be among my 

highest priorities to ensure that the regulatory agenda is published 

insofar as possible twice a year and in a timely fashion. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. I would just make the point, again, it is 

required by law. It is required by Executive Order. And insofar as 

possible is better than saying we are going to do what we did last 

year, but what this Committee, I think, would like is a commitment that you will, in fact, follow the law, and in the spring publish an agenda and in the fall publish an agenda. If you are prepared to make that commitment today, that would be very helpful 

to me and, I know, other Members of this Committee. If not, then 

I would ask you to think a little about this prior to your confirmation vote and give us an answer. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Portman. Should I be confirmed as Administrator, I look forward to understanding the legal 

obligations with regard to the regulatory agenda and to following 

the law on the regulatory agenda and would look forward to working with you and others on the Committee, hearing your concerns 

if there are concerns that those legal obligations are not being lived 

up to. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Let me ask you, have you ever worked with 

Sylvia Burwell, the OMB Director? How do you know her? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Chairman Carper, I have not yet had the opportunity to work with her. We had a brief meeting some time ago. 

We ran into each other in the hallway the other day and had a 

wonderful chat and she gave me a hearty ‘‘good luck’’ shout out this 

morning as I was leaving the building. [Laughter.] 

She strikes me as very impressive and I look forward to working 

with her. 

Chairman CARPER. I once called Erskine Bowles, who is an old 

friend, when she was nominated by the President for this job and 

I said, Erskine, what can you tell me about Sylvia Burwell? He 
23 

said, ‘‘You mean Sylvia Mathews Burwell?’’ I said, yes. And he 

said, ‘‘I have known a lot of people who have good interpersonal 

skills, who are just really good at working with people.’’ He said, 

‘‘She is really exceptional.’’ He said, ‘‘I have known a lot of smart 

people, a lot of really bright people in my life, and,’’ he said, ‘‘she 

is scary smart. And,’’ he said, ‘‘I have known people who are good 

at getting things done. You give them a job, they get it done. And,’’ 

he said, ‘‘she is the best.’’ 

She was his deputy when he was Chief of Staff to President Clinton, and later, she was the Deputy OMB Director for, I think, the 

last 2 years of the Clinton Administration. But, he said, ‘‘I have 

known people good at one of those three things.’’ He said, ‘‘I have 

never known anybody who was as good at all three.’’ 

So we are encouraged that the President has nominated her. We 

got her confirmed 96 to zip and we are working on getting a deputy 

in there now. I think we have hotlined it. I do not know if Senator 

Portman is aware of that. I think we hotlined Brian Deese’s name 

yesterday or the day before and we hope to get him cleared, as 

well. 

Let me ask another question or two and then we will call it 

quits. But as Administrator of OIRA, you would play a significant 

role, as you may know, in the protection of personal privacy by the 

Federal Government and oversee numerous regulations that protect the privacy rights of millions of Americans. I believe that more 

can be done to protect personal information. I hope that privacy 

protection will be a priority of OIRA under your leadership. 

Let me just ask, as OIRA Administrator, how would you approach the challenge of privacy and how would you balance the 

need to protect personal information with the need to ensure government transparency? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, this 

is one of the most important balances that I think a lot of Federal 

agencies are facing today. As I mentioned before, I think that balancing privacy, data security, and public access and transparency 

is quite important. I would look forward to working with Director 

Burwell and others in the government in the formulation of privacy 

under the Privacy Act, and it would certainly be, should I be confirmed as Administrator, a very high area of policy priority for me, 

given how vital it is for Americans both to have access to government data so they understand what their government is doing, but 

also to be confident that in submitting data to their government, 

that which should be kept private is kept private. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. OIRA also plays a role in coordinating and overseeing policies and practices across agencies that 

allow greater public access to information. What will be your priority in fulfilling these functions of the office, and generally, what 

role do you believe OIRA should play in promoting greater transparency governmentwide and what approaches would you take to 

improve government transparency? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Chairman Carper, I would look forward to working with the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) of the different 

agencies, and with the Chief Technology Officer in the Administration, to try to ensure that when the public seeks access to information and to data, as, for example, they can do from their home com-
24 

puter with the work of OIRA and other agencies, that they obtain 

data that is clear, understandable, and in usable form, to the extent possible. There is still a lot of coordination and progress to be 

made in this area and it is an area in which I would look forward 

to working with others in the relevant agencies and with the Director of OMB and the CIO Council to make progress on. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Two more and we are done. 

In your answers to prehearing policy questions from our Committee, you said you would seek to have a collaborative and a consultative relationship with the agencies, including informal consultation with agencies earlier in the rulemaking process when it 

would be useful. I commend you for that. What will you do, if confirmed, to ensure that OIRA is taking the appropriate role during 

these early consultations with agencies and to ensure transparency 

prior to formal review? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Chairman Carper. One of the things 

that I look forward to understanding and learning more about, 

should I be confirmed as Administrator, is exactly how interactions 

with the agencies work and where and when it might be appropriate for informal and early review to take place. But what I mean 

by that is where informal and early review would make the regulatory process more efficient and would be of benefit to the agencies. 

It is not, in my view, and should I be confirmed as Administrator 

would not be my view, a place for the OIRA Administrator to put 

the OIRA Administrator’s policy preferences and agenda in the 

place of those of the agency heads. So I think it is extremely important that kind of consultation and review be, as I said, collaborative and be something that is desired by and found to be helpful 

by the agency heads, and is not a vehicle for supplanting agency 

policy priorities. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. The E-Government Act required the development of a system for finding, for viewing, and for commenting 

on Federal regulations. The goal was not just transparency, but to 

also give individual citizens the opportunity to easily comment on 

proposed regulations that would affect their own daily lives. What 

are your thoughts, if you have some, on regulations.gov, and what 

will you do as OIRA Administrator—what would you do as OIRA 

Administrator to enhance the ability of citizens to view and to actually comment on regulations? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you, Chairman Carper. Through 

reginfo.gov and through regulations.gov, there is a lot of opportunity for every American to learn a lot about the regulatory process, what is in the pipeline, and what is going on. I look forward, 

should I be confirmed as Administrator, to ensuring that these systems remain as useful and as helpful to Americans as possible because I agree completely that American citizens must be able to 

comment on regulations, both those who would benefit and those 

who would bear the costs. 

I would add that, in a similar vein, under Executive Order 

12866, anybody can request meetings with OIRA in order to express their views, and again to make clear that means anybody on 

all sides of the debates, and that is another vehicle through which 

transparency can be brought into the review process. 
25 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Portman, anything else you would 

like to bring to the table? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. Thanks so much for being here. 

As you go forward, if you are confirmed, and I hope you will be, 

I would urge you to take advantage of his counsel from time to 

time. He will not steer you wrong, at least not too often, so—— 

Mr. SHELANSKI. It would be an honor. 

Chairman CARPER. The last thing I want to ask you, this is just 

sort of an informal question, but when you think about this job and 

you think about the kind of not just qualifications on a resume but 

think of the kind of qualities that we should look for—personal attributes and leadership skills that we ought to look for, the President should look for and we should look for, for someone who is 

going to be serving in this post—what might be some of those? 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Well, I will tell you, I think one of the most important things is the ability to lead a staff and to work well with 

a variety of constituencies. There is a lot of analytic work and a 

lot of technical work that goes into what OIRA does. But this is a 

hard job and it is a small office that tries to do a lot. And the way 

that a small office does a lot is when there is good leadership and 

the leadership has the confidence of the staff so the staff feels that 

their incredibly hard work is going toward a productive direction. 

And it is very important that those who are affected by and part 

of the process feel like the process is one that is working well, and 

when they are told something, it is the truth and that they can 

have confidence in who is running that process, because without 

that, there are slowdowns, there is reservation, there is circumvention of the process. And OIRA has to coordinate so many moving 

parts, I think that there is a risk that the machine could simply 

break down. 

So as important as it is that the Administrator of OIRA has the 

analytic skills to be sure that review is being undertaken according 

to high quality standards, I think it is also important to make sure 

that they will be able to build the relationships and manage the 

office and those offices’ relationships in a way that it will be successful in its many missions. 

Chairman CARPER. I just want to say on a personal note, Senator 

Portman and I have, in our personal lives, we have children. They 

are a little bit older than your son, but we love being dads and are 

looking forward to Sunday, Father’s Day. You have a young son 

here who is, what, 14? Is that what you said? Tell us a little bit 

about him. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Well, he is a remarkable kid, but I guess most 

dads would say that. We talked about common sense. For a 14- 

year-old, I think he is doing pretty well on the common sense front. 

But he is a smart kid, a lot smarter than I am. Were he a little 

older, I think he would certainly be in this seat instead of me. And 

when I talk about a kid who gets along with folks and can build 

those kinds of relationships that get people moving in the same direction, he is that kid. And he is a heck of a good athlete, a lot better than I ever was. 

Chairman CARPER. What sports? 
26 

Mr. SHELANSKI. What sports? Well, he is mostly a competitive 

fencer—— 

Chairman CARPER. Whoa. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. And he is a pretty darn good soccer player. 

Chairman CARPER. No kidding. You do not meet many competitive fencers these days. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. You do not want to try to steal anything off of 

his plate. [Laughter.] 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Well, I just want to say, Isaac, 

thanks for your willingness to share your Dad with us. Nicole, 

thank you for your willingness to share him with the people of our 

country. And to Mom and Dad, thank you for raising him, educating him, and imparting in him some of the values that we have 

talked about here today. 

The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow—that 

will be June 13, at 12 p.m.—for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

If there is nothing else to be said, and hearing nothing else, we 

are going to adjourn this hearing. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SHELANSKI. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(27) 

A P P E N D I X 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

Æ