House Republicans are willing to take on a pretty big chore in their quest to demonize regulations. The House Rules Committee will consider on Tuesday a resolution that would require most of the major House committees to review and evaluate all regulations written under the laws in their respective jurisdictions. So, for example, the House Energy and Commerce committee would have to review all rules written under the Clean Air Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, and numerous others.

On its face, this resolution could be viewed as a good thing. If House members and committee staffs are forced to look at every regulation on the books, they may come to two realizations. First, that regulations are often detailed and complicated, and Congress is wise to delegate to agencies the day-to-day responsibilities of implementing federal law. This realization might give pause to supporters of the REINS Act, which would require Congress to review and approve or disapprove all major rules. Second, that many regulations are necessary and beneficial. Take, for example, FDA’s new standard to prevent salmonella contamination in eggs, which the agency says will prevent 79,000 illnesses and 30 deaths every year at a cost to industry of less than one cent per dozen eggs.

Of course, House Republicans are not interested in coming to these realizations. What the resolution would do is put a veneer of legitimacy over a blatantly political and industry-friendly process in which lobbyists and their Congressional allies identify rules they object to and plan attacks on them. The resolution would allow those anti-regulatory folks to claim that they are operating with some sort of uniform methodology. In short, House Republicans want to make their regulatory hit lists look like sound policy.

To curb both the appearance and reality of impropriety, the House should add transparency provisions to the resolution. At the very least, the resolution should instruct House committees to make public, on their websites, the list of rules they have identified and the criteria used for evaluating them. Ideally, committees would also disclose any communications, both incoming and outgoing, with outside individuals, groups, or businesses during the development of these lists.

The resolution should also be revised to more accurately reflect the benefits of regulation. Currently, the criteria upon which regulations are to be judged read like a list of talking points for the market-obsessed: investment, competitiveness, credit and capital, and so on.

While those factors are undoubtedly important, they are not the reason most regulations are written. Rather, regulatory goals often include improved health, environmental preservation, or national security. The Clean Air Act actually forbids EPA scientists from considering economic factors when setting pollution levels. (Costs are considered when it comes time for plants to employ technology to curb emissions.)

But the resolution thumbs its nose at public interests, making no mention of values like environment and health or safety and security.