Rep. Reed (R-NY) and Rep. Capuano (D-MA) write about H.R. 427, “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015.” Reading what they wrote, one might not realize they are writing about the same bill. Here is Rep. Reed’s explanation:
From the District to DC: Reining in the Executive Branch
As we travel the district, we have heard from many constituents who are concerned with the size of the federal government. We have seen federal bureaucrats continuously attempt to infringe upon individual rights while increasing the size of government.
This overreach by Washington D.C. bureaucrats is alarming and we must protect the American taxpayer from these intrusions.
This legislation promotes job creation while protecting taxpayers from intrusive federal regulations. With the U.S. national debt currently at a staggering 18 trillion dollars, we must change the borrow and spend culture of Washington for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
I was proud to co-sponsor and vote in favor of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015 when it passed the House on Tuesday. This legislation ensures Congress has final oversight and approval over any major regulation created by an executive agency that would have more than a $100 million effect on the economy.
Rep. Reed seems to believe that the Obama Administration is wrong in so much that it does, that it ought to be hamstrung by any means possible. Does Reed even know that Americans generally favor regulations which protect health, safety, and the environment? Reed’s statement contains an interesting aside seemingly unrelated to H.R. 427.
With the U.S. national debt currently at a staggering 18 trillion dollars, we must change the borrow and spend culture of Washington for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
I wish I could understand why Tom Reed thinks a “Slumdog Millionaire” society, with a few very rich and most very poor, would be good for children and grandchildren.
Here is Rep. Capuano’s explanation:
On Tuesday the House considered H.R. 427, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015. This legislation is nothing more than an effort to limit federal oversight of food, water, financial products, drugs and much more. Similar legislation has passed the House in two previous Congresses but gone no further. H.R. 427 imposes severe restrictions on the rulemaking process of every federal agency. It requires both the House and the Senate to approve every major rule issued by a federal agency within 70 legislative days. If either legislative body fails to take action, the rule is not approved and cannot be brought up again until the next Congress convenes. This legislation is designed specifically to delay the implementation of agency rules. The Administration has already said H.R. 427 would be vetoed.
Rep. Reed voted AYE and Rep. Capuano voted NO. H.R. 427 passed 243-165; every Republican voted AYE, almost every Democrat voted NO. This isn’t surprising, since at least Rep. Reed and Rep. Capuano had entirely different perspectives on the purpose of the legislation.
Here, in brief, is the Obama Administration’s view:
The Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective, and tailored to further statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015, which would impose an unprecedented requirement that a joint resolution of approval be enacted by the Congress before any major rule of an Executive Branch agency could have force or effect. This radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches would delay and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion.
One can’t help wonder what view a Republican Administration would have of this bill? I believe H.R. 427 only applies to new rules–any administration could rescind regulations without review.