Two views of H.R. 427, “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015”

blindRep. 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:

Federal Regulations 

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.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr427r_20150727.pdf

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Environmental, Political, President, Reed's Views and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Two views of H.R. 427, “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015”

  1. Anne says:

    A blatant (and undoubtedly unconstitutional) attempt at a power grab by the legislative branch.

    • whungerford says:

      The authors of H.R. 427 thought to protect themselves from judicial review of Congressional action with this provision:

      “(a) No determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.”

  2. Barbara Griffin says:

    Very bad piece of legislation. Congress just won’t stop trying to take control and leading this country to ruin.

  3. Deb Meeker says:

    Who if anyone, is Tom Reed – but a ” federal bureaucrat [who] continuously attempts to infringe upon individual rights”? Reed appears to rail against himself. Reed continuously seeks to infringe on the rights of low wage workers ( minimum wage increase) and women ( health and family planning issues), against improvement for those without health insurance (some 50 votes against the ACA), and the rights for Americans to demand a cleaner environment – in order that he help a few of his buddies. One has to wonder who Reed’s “many concerned citizens” are.

    Rep. Capuano clearly outlines how this legislation would become an easy way for Tom Reed and his party to create chaos without a means for remedy.

    • whungerford says:

      Reed’s argument is:

      • 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.

      These claims are likely all false. There is scant logical connection between them. Yet they effectively mislead the reader to accept that “big” government is bad and Reed’s bill is worthwhile. Must we give him or his staff credit for mastering political double talk? How could this question be reframed to advantage?

      • Deb Meeker says:

        I would like Tom Reed to be pressed to explain how the three issues I mentioned above are not “big government” over-reaching into private lives. As Tom Reed admits he’s not educated on the economy, nor in any medical or environmental fields, he continues to speechify. Using his self-professed religious biases, Tom Reed demands (with his rhetoric and votes) women and LGBT Americans should practice the tenets of *his* religion. Is that Constitutional? Tom Reed insists that untaxed and unshared corporate profits are the backbone of saving the American economy. Is that rational? Tom Reed also would expand government to make disagreeing constituents pay for an unrealized profit for a few gas lease speculators. All the while insisting the working poor are excluded from the dining room table – without benefit of health insurance when ill. Is that patriotic?
        His is not double talk – his rhetoric is impervious egotism flapping it’s jowls. And, he is allowed to continue this charade because so many believe they ‘won’t be heard anyway’.

      • K. Pattison says:

        BIG GOV’t IS BAD!!! I am intelligent and educated!!! I do NOT need the gov’t to THINK FOR ME…. OR to ‘give me a damned cell phone or a free ride to college!!!! I am damned tired of paying taxes for people to sit on their asses at home, produce more children into unwed situations, and stand in line in front of me at the grocery store and brag about all the ‘STEAK’ they are buying for their backyard party with FOOD STAMPS!! People need to get off of Welfare and WORK!!!! BIG GOV’T has taught the slummers to slum and skim from the hard working and educated middle class!!! I DO NOT OWE my tax dollars to people who make WELFARE A JOB CAREER…..NOR do I owe my VOTE to a politician who makes Washington a CAREER! TERM LIMITS and WELFARE TIME LIMITS WITH A REQUIRED DRUG TEST TO GET THEIR CHECKS!!! IF THEY ARE DRUG FREE, THEN THEY GET A SHORT TIME TO GET EMPLOYEED OR ELSE THEY CAN GO HUNGRY!! BY GOD, HUNGER can be a HUGE MOTIVATOR for WORK!!!!!
        LET BIG BUSINESS PUT AMERICA BACK TO WORK!! BUT FIRST, PASS LEGISLATION THAT STOPS FOREIGN INVESTORS FROM PURCHASING AND THEN DISMANTLING OUR AMERICAN CORPORATIONS. CAN ANYONE NAME A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL ON WELFARE THAT HAS BOOSTED THE U.S. ECONOMY BY……..growing a business and adding respectable wages including…..HEALTH BENEFITS, PENSION, STOCK OPTIONS, RETIREMENT and COMPANY BONUSES as a BENEFIT to an AMERICAN’S FUTURE??? The answer is HELL NO!!!! ONLY ECONOMICALLY SOLID ‘AMERICAN OWNED’ CORPORATIONS CAN TAKE CARE OF OUR ECONOMY!! THE ONLY DAMNED THING BIG GOV’T DOES IS TAKE FROM THOSE OF US “THAT DO WORK…….AND GIVE TO THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO WORK”!!!!! AND, OUR GOV’T IS SENDING OUR JOBS OUT THE BACK DOOR BY ALLOWING FOREIGNERS…NOT TO INVEST, BUT TO BUY OUR ASSETS!!!!!
        AGAIN WELFARE LIMITS WITH DRUG TESTS TO GET YOUR CHECK OR GO HUNGRY!!!! AND, TERM LIMITS FOR POLITICIANS!!!!!!
        STOP SELLING OFF AMERICAN CORPORATIONS TO FOREIGNERS LIKE the BRAZILIANS AND 3G CORP!!! WARREN BUFFET SUPPORTS 3G….and he is a damned traitor to EVERY AMERICAN CORPORATION EMPLOYEE!!!!!
        DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!!!!!!! BEFORE YOU FIRE BACK AT ME…DO YOUR DAMNED HOMEWORK AND FIND OUT HOW MANY CORPORATIONS ARE BEING FORCED TO SELL OR JUST BOUGHT OUT BY 3G….BURGER KING, HEINZE, BUDWEISER, etc!!! ALL LOST JOBS by the 10s of thousands…..AND THEY ARE HAULING MORE MONEY OUT OF OUR BORDERS THEN YOU CAN DREAM OF IN YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE!!!!
        BIG GOV’T, OVER REACHING……..YES!!!!!! SELLING OUT AMERICA FOR EACH OF YEA POLITICIAN BOLSTERING THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN!!!!
        BEFORE YOU FRICKING LIBERALS BLAST ME……..GIVE AWAY YOUR “OWN” WEALTH AND TAKE A JOB IN A CLASSROOM AS A TEACHER FOR TEACHERS WAGES!!!!!! Then come back in 20 years to this site and share your beliefs!!

  4. josephurban says:

    Mr Reed should have learned in elementary school the following. The US government has 3 branches. The legislative writes the laws. The executive carries out the laws. The judicial determines whether or not the laws are constitutional. Any attempt to overturn judicial review or the powers of the executive branch are unconstitutional. Just as it would be unconstitutional for the executive to write laws. Or the judicial to execute the laws. The boy is very confused.

  5. Jonas Fliger says:

    The use of social media on Capitol Hill has been transformative in communicating the views and activites of the Judiciary Committee and gauging public interest. Visit this page to join the conversation online and access the latest videos, pictures, interviews, webcasts, and more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s