How many regulatory commissions are there

Bureaucratic Expansion Governmental concern with social issues took an even greater leap during the Depression years. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal brought a vast expansion in federal government programs and agencies as the nation struggled toward economic recovery. Another expansionary period took place in the 's and early 's as a result of the consumer, health and safety, and environmental movements.

The Environmental Protection Agency was created by an executive reorganization plan in that pulled together 15 components from five departments and agencies. With the creation of these regulatory agencies came an acceleration of regulatory activity.

However, by the late 's this trend slowed. The regulatory process itself came under sharp attack. Complaints became commonplace about "interference in the marketplace," "red tape," "big government," and "faceless, nameless bureaucrats.

Influence of Congress and the White House It was becoming increasingly clear that power in federal decision-making was shifting away from elected officials and toward government agencies. Subsequently, policy makers began to push back against what they perceived to be a swelling tide of regulatory bureaucracy. Congress passed a number of laws with the intention of exerting control over federal agencies.

These laws include the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the Congressional Review Act which affords Congress an expedited process for nullifying federal regulations. The White House led the charge in attempting to create a system in which agencies operate under the scrutiny and control of elected officials. Starting in , presidents began issuing executive edicts as a means to achieve that end.

The edicts often took the form of executive orders many of which focused on providing the White House some opportunity to review federal regulations during their development. Nixon introduced the idea of a White House regulatory review process.

The memo required agencies to submit summaries of proposed regulations as well as alternatives considered. In , President Gerald Ford introduced cost-benefit analysis as a tool agency officials would be required to use in developing significant regulations. In , President Jimmy Carter strengthened aspects of White House regulatory review and further defined certain issues germane to the process. President Ronald Reagan went further in exerting White House control over the rulemaking process than any other president.

In addition to tightening White House control and adding additional requirements of agencies, a executive order marked a shift in the White House's tone regarding federal regulations. Executive Order , stating its intent "to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations," reflected the administration's deregulatory viewpoint. In , Reagan issued Executive Order requiring agencies to develop a detailed regulatory plan in order to assure OMB forthcoming regulations were consistent with White House priorities.

In , President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order which combined and revised the two Reagan era orders to be consistent with the regulatory views of the Clinton administration. Much like the Reagan executive orders before it, E. The Clinton order allowed the White House to continue to exert substantial control over agency proceedings.

In , President George W. Bush made significant amendments to E. The amendments allowed the White House to further manage the activities of federal agencies by including agency guidance documents interpretive memos, guidelines, policy statements, etc. The changes to the regulatory process, in effect as of late July , continue the trend over several presidential administrations of exerting more control in the executive branch over agency rulemaking.

Elsewhere in the background section Feedback: RegResources foreffectivegov. A Brief History of Administrative Government. Basic Overview A. What is a federal regulation? What is regulatory policy? Basic Theory of Administrative Government. The Players in Rulemaking A. No one can even say with certainty anymore how many federal agencies exist; yet they make most of the law now rather than our elected Congress. And their drive to protect turf is quite high.

That's something worth remembering as the Donald Trump administration proceeds with its " Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch ," set to be incorporated into the upcoming fiscal year federal budget proposal. For example, there's a twice-yearly publication called the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

The Agenda compiles agency regulatory plans and actions in the federal pipeline, and it listed 61 agencies in the Fall edition. That count can vary slightly from report to report.

But as we'll see, its tally is on the low side. The Trump delay may or may not be attributable to the reorganization effort, and to the prominent executive order requiring the elimination of at least two rules for every new agency rule created.

Both would clearly affect agency priorities and reporting, regardless of their resistance. Notably with respect to the number of agencies, the Administrative Conference of the United States -- which lists agencies in the appendix of its most recent Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies -- had the following to say :.

For example, FOIA. This appears to be on the conservative end of the range of possible agency definitions. The United States Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and components of the executive departments. An even more inclusive listing comes from USA.

That's right: There is "no authoritative list of government agencies. It had been in December The table nearby summarizes these and other tallies.

If no one knows definitively how many agencies, components and commissions exist by whose decrees we must abide, that means we similarly do not know how many employees let alone contractors work for the government.

The job of reforming the executive branch is an extremely complex one, and the agencies are fighting it and will fight it, with support from dominant media. This entrenchment and collaboration appears to account for some of what is meant by the "swamp.

Even when we isolate a given agency, it may be hard to tell exactly what is and is not a binding rule or regulation. Since the federal government is so extensive, issuing a formal rule may not even be necessary to achieve bureaucratic ends since agencies can issue "guidance" instead. That calls out for a concerted, sustained response.