Week 3 – Congressional Testimony Regarding the Impacts of Executive Orders on Public Agencies
Instructions
Senior executives in the federal government are often called upon to provide congressional testimonies to different committees in the U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate depending on the nature of the congressional inquiry. Senior officials within the executive branch of government must stay ready to brief Congress and the American people on all matters within their respective agencies. Briefings are prepared by agency personnel and senior executives are given talking points on major issues and success stories within the agency.
As the senior advisor to the U.S. Attorney General, write a paper that prepares the Attorney General to brief Congress on matters pertaining to the heroin and opioid crises. Be sure your paper addresses the following:
Define the impacts of the heroin and opioid crises on the U.S. population.
Explain actions taken by the U.S. Department of Justice to curtail these challenges.
Identify steps the general public can take to help mitigate some of these challenges.
Critique Justice Department policies and strategies for dealing with these challenges and offer recommendations for improvement.
Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages.
References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly resources.
Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.
Dudley, S. E., & Mannix, B. F. (2018). Improving Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis. Journal of Law & Politics, 34(1), 1–20
Short, J. L. (2018). The trouble with counting: Cutting through the rhetoric of red tape cutting. Minnesota Law Review, 103(1), 93–149
Trend #1: Where Are U.S. Economic Policies Taking The World? (2018). Trends Magazine, (188), 1–9
U.S. Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/opioidawareness/resources
Warber, A. L., Ouyang, Y., & Waterman, R. W. (2018). Landmark executive orders: Presidential leadership through unilateral action
Week 3 – Congressional Testimony Regarding the Impacts of Executive Orders on Public Agencies
Instructions
Senior executives in the federal government are often called upon to provide congressional testimonies to different committees in the U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate depending on the nature of the congressional inquiry. Senior officials within the executive branch of government must stay ready to brief Congress and the American people on all matters within their respective agencies. Briefings are prepared by agency personnel and senior executives are given talking points on major issues and success stories within the agency.
As the senior advisor to the U.S. Attorney General, write a paper that prepares the Attorney General to brief Congress on matters pertaining to the heroin and opioid crises. Be sure your paper addresses the following:
Define the impacts of the heroin and opioid crises on the U.S. population.
Explain actions taken by the U.S. Department of Justice to curtail these challenges.
Identify steps the general public can take to help mitigate some of these challenges.
Critique Justice Department policies and strategies for dealing with these challenges and offer recommendations for improvement.
Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages.
References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly resources.
Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.
Dudley, S. E., & Mannix, B. F. (2018). Improving Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis. Journal of Law & Politics, 34(1), 1–20
Short, J. L. (2018). The trouble with counting: Cutting through the rhetoric of red tape cutting. Minnesota Law Review, 103(1), 93–149
Trend #1: Where Are U.S. Economic Policies Taking The World? (2018). Trends Magazine, (188), 1–9
U.S. Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/opioidawareness/resources
Warber, A. L., Ouyang, Y., & Waterman, R. W. (2018). Landmark executive orders: Presidential leadership through unilateral action
3/22/22, 4:15 PM PUB-7019 v1: Public Policy Administration (5264028831) – PUB-7019 v1: Public Policy Administration (5264028831)
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/229563/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 1/3
Week 3
PUB-7019 v1: Public Policy Administration (5264028831)
Applying and Implementing Executive Orders
Executive orders are direct presidential instructions that are usually aimed at addressing a
particular problem or set of problems within the executive branch of the U.S. government
and are submitted to the federal registry. Executive orders are presidential mandates
directed at particular agencies to implement certain functions and they are normally
limited in time and scope.
U.S. Presidents usually institute executive orders after either failure to obtain
congressional consensus such as when President Barack Obama introduced the 2012
immigration policy, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) when Congress failed
to pass the DREAM Act. Other types of executive actions are sometimes put in place for
agency-specific activities such as when President Trump issues a presidential
memorandum, the Lobbyist Ban that prevented individuals who become lobbyist from
lobbying agencies they previously worked at for a 5-year period.
There are times when Congress, special interest groups, and other organizations disagree
with the president’s executive orders and challenges are made through the courts at the
federal level. Depending on the severity of the challenges and language in the policy, the
matter might be settled in lower level courts and sometimes the issues are taken up by
the U.S. Supreme Court. While the courts may not directly create policies, decisions made
by the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, are considered policies because the
rulings either support or overturn the current policies. When these policies are
overturned, that changes the landscape of that particular issue within society.
References:
Be sure to review this week’s resources carefully. You are expected to apply the
information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.
83.33 % 5 of 6 topics complete
javascript:void(0);
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/home/229563
3/22/22, 4:15 PM PUB-7019 v1: Public Policy Administration (5264028831) – PUB-7019 v1: Public Policy Administration (5264028831)
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/229563/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 2/3
Books and Resources for this Week
Dudley, S. E., & Mannix, B. F. (2018).
Improving Regulatory Benefit-Cost
Analysis. Journal of Law & Politics,
34(1), 1–20.
Link
Short, J. L. (2018). The trouble with
counting: Cutting through the rhetoric
of red tape cutting. Minnesota Law
Review, 103(1), 93–149.
Link
Trend #1: Where Are U.S. Economic
Policies Taking The World? (2018).
Trends Magazine, (188), 1–9.
Link
U.S. Department of Justice
Link
Warber, A. L., Ouyang, Y., & Waterman,
R. W. (2018). Landmark executive
orders: Presidential leadership t
Landmark Executive Orders: Presidential
Leadership Through Unilateral Action
ADAM L. WARBER, YU OUYANG, and RICHARD W. WATERMAN
Scholars focusing on landmark congressional legislation have not categorized executive orders as
similar to legislation passed by Congress, although they have the same legal standing. It is clear that
some executive orders have a greater impact than others and thus observers view them as being of greater
importance. Ronald Reagan used executive orders to alter the manner in which agencies established regu-
lations, creating a process of administrative central clearance that delegated considerable power to the
Office of Management and Budget over the agency regulatory process. Truman used an executive order to
desegregate the military. In this article, we examine those orders that are of a level of importance com-
mensurate with landmark legislation, and, using expert scholarly opinion, we discuss and analyze orders
that meet these criteria.
Keywords: executive orders, presidential leadership, unilateral presidency
There shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services
without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.
—Harry S. Truman, Executive Order 9981
The Secretary of State shall establish as an agency in the Department of State which shall
be known as the Peace Corps.
—John F. Kennedy, Executive Order 10924
Just as presidents seek fundamental change through landmark legislation, presi-
dents long have employed executive orders to adopt major policy change. Not all execu-
tive orders are alike, in terms of substance or importance, and while a vast literature on
executive orders exists, much of it focuses on narrow questions such as whether presidents
issue more orders during periods of divided government or ideological polarization (see,
e.g., Deering and Maltzman 1999; Howell 2003; Mayer 2001; Warber 2006). While
Adam L. Warber is a professor of political science at Clemson University. His research focuses on
the administrative presidency and the unilateral powers of the president. Yu Ouyang is an assistant
professor of political science at Purdue University Northwest. His research focuses on the unilateral
presidency and quantitative methods. Richard W. Waterman is a professor of political science at
the University of Kentucky. His research focuses on the unilateral presidency, presidential appoint-
ments, and the politics of the bureaucracy. AUTHORS’ NOTE: We thank the anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments and feedback and those presidency scholars that provided us with valuable
information about the classification of landmark executive orders.
Presidential Studies Quarterly
Vol. 48, No. 1, March 2018, 110–126
110
DOI: 10.1111/psq.12434
VC 2017 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress
these are certainly important questions, the substance of executive orders has received far
less scholarly attention. As the two executive orders re
1
IMPROVING REGULATORY BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
Susan E. Dudley & Brian F. Mannix
¨
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, benefit-cost analysis may be the
worst tool for policymaking, except for all the others that have been tried.1
If regulatory interventions in market transactions are to have any hope
of achieving desired outcomes, they must be based on an understanding of
the tradeoffs associated with alternative actions. Every president since
Jimmy Carter has recognized this and required regulatory agencies to
analyze the benefits and costs of proposed regulations before they are
issued. Across developed countries, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is the
principal public policy tool for laying out available information in a way
that allows policy makers to make balanced, efficient regulatory decisions
in the face of limited resources. However, BCA has limitations. Despite
numerous advances in the field, a number of significant problems have
arisen that challenge its legitimate use in informing and evaluating public
policy decisions.
The barriers to improving BCA are both institutional and technical.
Among the institutional factors constraining the sound application of BCA
in regulatory matters are that (1) legislation is often either silent on its use,
or explicitly prohibits it; (2) BCA is conducted by regulatory agencies who
use it to advocate for, rather than objectively analyze, proposed new
regulations; (3) efforts to counteract agencies’ parochial perspective have
not been as effective as they could be; and (4) incentives for ex post
evaluation of ex ante estimates of the benefits and costs of regulatory
actions are lacking.
Technical barriers stem from the way agencies conduct regulatory BCA,
which tends to systematically bias the results. In particular, (1) analysts
often start with a presumption that economic markets are fragile and prone
to failure, but that their regulatory solutions will work exactly as planned,
and that private decision makers are subject to cognitive biases that
regulators somehow do not exhibit; (2) they identify co-benefits without
¨ Susan E. Dudley is director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center;
she served as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from
2007-2009. Brian F. Mannix is a research professor in the George Washington Regulatory Studies
Center; he served as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Associate Administrator for Policy,
Economics and Innovation from 2005 to 2009. This article was prepared for the Journal of Law &
Politics symposium, Reining in the Administrative State, on October 21, 2016.
1 444 Parl. Deb. HC (5th ser.) (1947) col. 206–07 (UK).
Journal of Law & Politics [Vol. XXXIV:1 2
searching for corresponding co-costs; (3) they apply risk assessment
methods that are fundamentally incompatible with BCA; and (4)
retro
Article
The Trouble w ith Counting: Cutting
Through the R hetoric o f Red Tape C utting
Jodi L. Shortt
“You know that I am called the Count
Because I really love to count
I could sit and count all day
Sometimes I get carried away
I count slowly, slowly, slowly getting faster
Once I’ve started counting it’s really hard to stop
Faster, faster. It is so exciting!
I could count forever, count until I drop.”
Sesame Street – The Count’s Counting Song Lyrics | Metro
Lyrics
INTRODUCTION
On January 30, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed Ex
ecutive Order (EO) 13,771, “Reducing Regulation and Control
ling Regulatory Costs. To promote deregulatory goals, EO
13,771 requires administrative agencies to repeal two regula
tions for every one they propose or issue, leading many to refer
to it as the 2-for-l * 1 Order. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has published detailed guidance instructing
agencies how to implement this Executive Order, which con
strains their ability to promulgate new regulations under their
t Professor of Law, Honorable Roger J. Traynor Chair, UC Hastings Col
lege of the Law. For insightful comments and discussions, I am grateful to Scott
Dodson, Jared Ellias, Dan Farber, Erik Gerding, Sarah Light, Dave Owen, Zach
1 rice, Dont Reiss, Reuel Schiller, David Zaring, and participants in the Dereg
ulatory Frontiers Conference at UC Hastings College of the Law. I am deeply
indebted to Tiffanie Ellis for her heroic research assistance. Copyright © 2018
by Jodi L. Short.
1. This Article will use either 2-for-l, the Order, or EO 13,771 to refer to
Executive Order 13,771 that President Trump signed on January 30 2017 re
quiring regulation counting.
93
94 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [103:93
statutory m andates.2 While many com m entators have derided
EO 13,771 as silly and irrational,3 it would be a m istake to dis
miss 2-for-l as a one-off political stunt. In fact, the idea m otivat
ing the Order emerges from a larger intellectual project arguing
th a t economic growth is being ham pered by the “sheer quantity
of regulation[s] .”4 In a string of studies,5 researchers have a t
tem pted to establish this relationship by counting regulations
2. Of f ic e o f M g m t. & Bu d g e t , E x e c . Of f ic e o f t h e P r e s id e n t , OMB
M e m o . N o . M-17-21, Gu id a n c e Im p l e m e n t in g E x ec u tiv e Or d er 13,771, Ti
tled “R ed u c in g R eg u la tio n and Co n tr o l lin g R egulatory Co sts” (2017)
[h erein after OMB GUIDANCE] (explaining policy reg a rd in g rep ealin g two ex ist
in g reg u latio n s w henever a n agency p ro m u lg ates one new regulation).
3 See, e.g., C aroline Cecot & M ichael Liverm ore, The One-In, Two-Out
Executive Order Is a Zero, 166 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 1, 11 (2017) (questioning
th e ra tio n a lity of th e O rd er’s m ethodology for d ereg u latin g in lig h t of th e OMB’s
s trin g e n t co unting req u irem en ts, w hich could slow
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.