The U.S. House passed yet another bill designed to prevent new federal government rules yesterday. This legislation one was so extreme that only four Democrats voted with Republicans to support it.
The concept behind H.R. 10, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, is to “require Congress to approve all major federal regulations with an effect of $100 million or more.” As Felicia Sonmez reported for the Washington Post, the REINS Act would substantially change the process for enacting new executive branch rules:
Under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress already has the power to override proposed regulations by passing a joint “resolution of disapproval.” But such a resolution faces the hurdle of having to be signed into law by the president, who would likely veto any move to do away with a regulation proposed by his or her own administration. The president’s veto can be overriden by Congress, but that, of course, takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
Congress has only successfully wielded its power under the Congressional Review Act once before, in 2001, when it voted to do away with a Department of Labor ergonomics regulation.
The REINS Act would change the process so that major regulations would be contingent on congressional approval — if a majority in each chamber does not vote “yes,” the regulation is not enacted.
So, instead of putting the burden on opponents of new rules to block them by Congressional vote, the burden would be on supporters of new rules to get them through both chambers of Congress. You could say goodbye to any new health, safety, labor or environmental regulations. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called the REINS Act “the mother of all anti-regulatory bills.”
H.R. 10 passed by a 241 to 184 vote (roll call), with no Republican votes against and just four Democratic votes for the bill. That is remarkable, considering that most GOP anti-regulation efforts draw at least 15 to 20 Blue Dog supporters. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) both supported the REINS Act and opposed every amendment Democrats proposed to weaken the legislation. Conversely, Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against the bill’s final passage and for all of the Democratic amendments, as well as the motion to recommit the bill with instructions.
Pete Kasperowicz summarized the five defeated Democratic amendments for The Hill:
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), to exempt any rule that the Office of Management and Budget says would lead to job creation. Rejected 187-236.
Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), to require cost/benefit analyses to be included with reports to Congress. Rejected 183-238.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), to exempt rules relating to food safety, workplace safety, air quality, consumer product safety or water quality. Rejected 177-246.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), to exempt all rules issued b the Department of Homeland Security. Rejected 177-242.
Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), to exempt rules relating to veterans. Rejected 183-240.
Republicans claim to be penny-pinchers with taxpayer dollars, yet they don’t even want to require a cost-benefit analysis before blocking new federal government rules.
I haven’t seen any public comments about the REINS Act from members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation, but I’ll update this post if those become available.
In other news from the U.S. House, Loebsack was assigned to serve on the conference committee that will work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the defense authorization bill covering the 2012 fiscal year. In a press release, Loebsack promised to help produce “a strong bill that will give the support necessary for our National Guard troops, military families and the Rock Island Arsenal.” Loebsack serves on the House Armed Services Committee. The new second Congressional district, where he will seek re-election in 2012, includes Scott County, and the Rock Island Arsenal is a major employer in the Quad Cities Area.