More

House Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules

Boehner

Posted: 12/07/11 05:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- A bill that would give the controlling party of either chamber of Congress veto power over any major new regulation passed the House of Representatives Wednesday.

The measure, dubbed the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny -- or REINS -- Act, would require Congress to sign off on any new rule estimated to cost more than $100 million. It passed 241 to 184, with a handful of Democrats crossing the aisle.

The REINS Act is only the latest of a slew of bills aimed at peeling back regulations, which House Republicans have pushed for in the name of cutting red tape and freeing up businesses. The GOP sees the regulations as overbearing rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats.

"Who do the regulators answer to? No one," said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in debate on the House floor.

"When the regulators go to work everyday, like most people go to work, their work assignment's a little different," Poe said. "In my opinion, they sit around a big oak table, sipping their lattes. They have out their iPads and their computers, and they decide, 'Who shall we regulate today?' And they write a regulation and send it out to the masses and make us deal with the cost to that."

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.), argued that if Congress can stop rules in their tracks, businesses will flourish.

"Poll after poll of small business owners, of medium-sized business owners -- they will show you and tell you that major regulations are holding back their expansion and the ability of them to hire more workers," Quayle said.

The bill would effectively give either chamber a veto on a regulation because leaders could simply not put it on the calendar for a vote, and the rule would expire after 70 congressional working days.

The Senate is unlikely to pass the measure.

Opponents of the bill argue that there is actually no evidence that regulation is a drag on the economy. Although REINS advocates frequently point to an estimate that regulations cost business more than $1 trillion a year, opponents point to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office that found the benefits of regulations often outweigh their costs by spurring economic activity.

Environmental advocates have been especially alarmed about the REINS Act because many environmental regulations fall into the "major" category, with their impact often exceeding $100 million in cost. They fear the measure is simply a way to let the Tea Party and special interests shoot down any new rule to protect the air and water.

The Act's opponents also note that it's ironic the GOP legislative attempt comes during an administration that has promoted fewer regulations that the previous one, and that the regulations Congress wants to block stem from laws passed by Congress itself.

Democrats cast the entire exercise as a partisan distraction from attempts to do something about the economy, including extending a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits that run out at the end of the year.

"Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat -- please to put a dollar in the workers' hand," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "I urge my colleagues to vote no on this REINS Act, and to get to work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the American people."

"Only then will we increase demand in our economy, create jobs, promote economic growth and put money into the pockets of 160 million Americans," Pelosi said. "Think of the difference that will make instead of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth is not in furtherance of job creation."

Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- A bill that would give the controlling party of either chamber of Congress veto power over any major new regulation passed the House of Representatives Wednesday. The measure, dubbed ...
WASHINGTON -- A bill that would give the controlling party of either chamber of Congress veto power over any major new regulation passed the House of Representatives Wednesday. The measure, dubbed ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12,635
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (325 total)
  1 of 8  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
johndpieper 07:14 PM on 12/07/2011
REINS will go down and will not be signed into law. Neither branch of congress can grant itself this kind of power. there is no Constitutional power granting it. This is more time and money wasting by the right so they remove any doubt in anyone's head that everything they are doing proves they are cry babies worse than any nursery, daycare, or nanny has ever seen. If it wasn't such a terrible waste of time  Read More...
photo
David N Taiwan
67 YO American in Taiwan
04:09 AM on 12/31/2011
I wonder who will veto this bill, should it come across his desk.
photo
cheo
better a bleeding heart than none at all
03:55 AM on 12/31/2011
"Poe said. "In my opinion, they sit around a big oak table, sipping their lattes [...] and they decide, 'Who shall we regulate today?'"

What an absurd statement. I think a much more accurate one is "In my opinion, Republican lawmakers walk around a bunch of oak benches, sucking their thumbs, and they decide, 'what shall we obstruct today?'
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
07:09 AM on 12/31/2011
HI cheo, I am responding to your post to me here, so that you should be able to find it. I have the same problem you have -- I am thorough, but not usually brief.

Certainly the Founders were aware of parties (or what they would probably have called "factions") -- as former British subjects, they would certainly have been aware of the party system as it evolved in Britain -- the Tories and the Whigs. (And the early climate between these two was as brutal as the relations between the parties in the US today -- if not worse.)

For that reason, in part, the Founders did not want factionalism, they thought it a negative force, and they were all too aware of the divisions which could occur between regions of the new nation.

One of the things they did in trying to craft a new nation was to look at past governments which were republics or democracies, and find the causes which made them collapse, and try to build in safeguards to prevent that.

That is why they came up with the division of government and a system of checks and balances. I think if they foresaw division, that it would come between the branches, not from partisan politics. (That may have been naive of them, but that was their focus). They also excluded most people from voting, or even electing directly Senators and Presidents.

Their HOPE was that reasonable men would come together, debate the merits of each issue, and come to a decision which was best for the nation. The common good was the goal, not partisan politics.

Washington is probably the only President elected who was not a member of a political party, He deeply disliked partisan division, and in his farewell address (by which time the first parties were emerging -- Federalists and Republicans (ancestors of today's Democratic Party). These factions actually emerged from his own cabinet, with Hamilton and his vision for the nation's future being the beginnings of the Federalist Party, and Jefferson, who was alarmed by many of Hamilton's ideas, and thus began opposing them in what would soon be known as the Republican Party.

The only real evidence I can give for this view is that there is absolutely no mention of parties in the Constitution itself. None whatsoever. It is important to remember that those members of the Convention in 1787 ALL recognized that there needed to be changes to the Federal Government, because the system they had was not working.

ctd.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
07:12 AM on 12/31/2011
p2

The key word to describe the Convention was compromise. The main divisions within the Convention itself were between large states and small states, and how they would be represented in the new government. (This is how we wound up with two chambers of Congress, one based on population, and one where every state, large or small, has an equal vote.)

It is also important to remember that a key founder -- Thomas Jefferson, was not present at the Convention, at that time he was our ambassador to France. So he really had no say until the resulting document was made public. (Remember, the Convention operated in secrecy). And there were those who were opposed to the new document (including Samuel Adams) who feared that the Federal Government would be too strong; they were deemed "Anti-Federalists" but in reality they only existed for the duration of the ratification debate.

Jefferson pledged his support -- but only on condition that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution immediately after it came into force. (which is what happened.)

But the history indicates that the first real parties coalesced behind two of the leading members of Washington's Cabinet -- Hamilton and Jefferson, who had very different visions of the nation's future.

But Washington was VERY much opposed to the idea of parties, warned about the dangers of them in his farewell address.

It was something that was not really planned or even anticipated, for the parties did not come into existence immediately, they gradually evolved into what we know today as political parties.

Remember, it wasn't until the election of 1800 that the nation, for the first time, had a peaceful transition of power from one party to the other. What probably made that easier is that John Adams, though usually considered a Federalist, was not too fond of the idea of factions either, and he really did not like Hamilton, (who was the de facto leader of the Federalists).

Apparently Adams, who had a mini-fued with Jefferson at the time  and Jefferson was his Vice-President (the two later reconciled, and corresponded frequently until they died within hours of each other on July 4, 1826 -- the 50th Anniversary of the nation. Adams last words were "Jefferson lives" (or something along that line) -- not realizing that Jefferson had died just a few hours before).

ctd.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OCCUPYHERALD
Live, Love, Laugh,share, grow.
05:38 PM on 02/18/2012
minifude: with mini cannon and if it was available Mini-gun!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HeliosOne
02:57 PM on 12/29/2011
They already have the power to do this. All regulations are based on underlying legislation passed by Congress. They can already pass laws modifying how they are enforced, but yes.. they can be vetoed by the President. Unilaterally vetoing the executive's power is not constitutional.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
04:41 PM on 12/29/2011
Congress passing a law then preventing the government from either enforcing the law or explaining how to comply with the law seems like it will eventually run afoul of the US Constitution. There is a prescription in the US Constitution for how Congress passes laws. By blocking laws by other mechanisms besides passing legislation seems like it will be unconstitutional.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HeliosOne
05:20 PM on 12/29/2011
They could deny funding, but that can still be vetoed
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
09:10 AM on 12/29/2011
so glad the Republican Congress has such a great handle on that whole seperation of powers thing...not!
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
04:43 PM on 12/29/2011
Ironically, one of the issues that prompted the call for a new US Constitution was that Congress was getting bogged down in overseeing the day to day operations of the government so they created the executive branch headed by the President in order to free Congress from exactly the activity that this law gets them involved in.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoireLion
1st 505thParachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne
08:56 AM on 12/29/2011
Notice how some people are moderated until they have basically no comments posted.
If your comments dont fit certain parameters of political thought they get moderated until they no longer exist.
Huffpost is getting annoyingly corporate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoireLion
1st 505thParachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne
08:46 AM on 12/29/2011
I realized when George Bush was re-elected that either there are 63million US voters just not paying attention to anything!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RED BONE
NDN to the Bone
06:20 AM on 12/29/2011
VETO it Barak.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
04:44 PM on 12/29/2011
It will not be considered in the Senate, where cooler heads prevail.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RED BONE
NDN to the Bone
05:18 PM on 12/29/2011
Probably not, but the separations of the branches of government were designed to prevent on branch for taking all the power to istself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shelbyanne
the unseen eye is watching you
01:33 AM on 12/29/2011
The power hungry house republicans wants us working for slave wages in squalid conditions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Douglas Hamilton
01:19 AM on 12/29/2011
It still has to go to the Senate to be passed. Even if it does pass both Houses has a vote to pass a regulation or to veto it. This in its self would put all regulations on the table to see. That's a good idea because we really don't know who is making up the regulations and if any of them are constructive or not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoireLion
1st 505thParachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne
09:17 AM on 12/29/2011
As if the Senate will pass it. Complete wate of Congressional time and resources on a bill- that has no chance of passage- its political masturbation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoireLion
1st 505thParachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne
09:17 AM on 12/29/2011
Seems my ability to edit my own posts has not been "greyed out' but disappeared entirely... Really huffington post?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edward Goodwin
What is the sound of one micro-bio clapping?
11:46 PM on 12/28/2011
"Poll after poll of small business owners, of medium-sized business owners -- they will show you and tell you that major regulations are holding back their expansion and the ability of them to hire more workers," Quayle said."

No, Mr Quayle. What poll after poll shows is what small and medium sized business want is access to cash. The banks that you voted to bail out took the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and buried them in their vaults. 800 Billion to be exact.

Money that was supposed to be LOANED to small and medium sized businesses. It wasn't, that Mr Quayle, is THE BIGGEST STUMBLING BLOCK to hiring today. The economy is improving and the lack of access to capital, not government regulations, are what's holding us back.

More evidence, as if we needed any, that Republicans don't give a s&%t about ANYTHING except attacking what they don't like and keeping their Wall Street pay-masters happy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoireLion
1st 505thParachute Infantry Regiment 82nd Airborne
09:19 AM on 12/29/2011
Anyones listening to Dan Quayle about ANYTHING substantive- gimme a lotta breaks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Minnehaha
Ohio Buckeye
10:37 PM on 12/28/2011
These Einstein's don't realize that if this bill became a law it would hit them in the backside in the future! Thank God for a Democratic Senate! They have no respect for the constitution apparently!
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
04:50 PM on 12/29/2011
I think the Senate should pass it just for the entertainment value of the House attempting to review the regulations created to implement the laws that they created. Basically it would require an organization the size of the government in order to review the regulations and policies of the government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redsoxpagan
10:27 PM on 12/28/2011
Yeah, getting rid of regulations worked sooooo well for the financial sector.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
04:53 PM on 12/29/2011
All we have to do is look at the success of other countries that have eliminated regulations. One country that is a good example with no central government or regulatory enforcement is Somalia. The CIA estimates an annual GDP growth of 2.5%. Of course the major industry in Somalia is piracy and kidnapping.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lastshot54
Huh?
08:57 PM on 12/28/2011
First we should get rid of all regulations. They incumber businesses who want to do right by the masses. Then we should get rid of all laws that are intended to protect the masses. Laws that prohibit robbery, murder, rape, etc... These laws inhibit man from intrinsically evolving into the flawless being that the lord intended us to be. At that point when the rules are gone, America will in fact become a utopia. Who's with me????
09:27 PM on 12/28/2011
Count me in.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RED BONE
NDN to the Bone
06:22 AM on 12/29/2011
Funny, but the problem is that the majority of right wing and some left wing nuts who would think that that is actually a good idea.
09:20 AM on 12/29/2011
I'm still laughing at abolishing all laws but you're right. Right wingers would love this idea and then they can rewrite the constitution and avoid all of the lies they're fond of telling.
08:46 PM on 12/28/2011
Okay. Here WE go again. Let's remember that the military AND their families EARN the salaries and benefits they have by protecting us, fighting for the freedom of all Americans, even nitwits who defend
Socialist ideas.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redsoxpagan
10:26 PM on 12/28/2011
Nice continuation of the myth, but there hasn't been an instance of our military "fighting for our freedoms" since Japan surrender in 1945. Fighting for our empire yes, fighting for our freedom, no.
photo
JohnHopwood2
Why do I feel like I'm in a hand basket?
03:27 AM on 12/29/2011
Right on
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
04:59 PM on 12/29/2011
The military fight to maintain the current government not to protect actual citizens. If another country were to invade and occupy the US the only thing that would change is the elimination of the US form of government. Ironically, some of the Republican candidates are suggesting both the elimination of the government and an increase in military spending to keep other countries from eliminating the government.
kittycarumba
What we think we become
08:06 PM on 12/28/2011
Here we go again. Let's see how many very sound asleep american's will let more of their supposedly beloved constitution get chipped chipped away. Silly sleeping Americans of which I am one. Seems the Patriot Act is still holding strong. Please all you haters tec., spa me your indignation. Obviously you idn't see what just happened in Alabama due to anti anything that doesn't look American laws.