Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

GOP bill would increase congressional powers

Posted by on Dec. 7, 2011 at 5:57 PM
  • 13 Replies

GOP bill would increase congressional powers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican lawmakers, who call manyfederal regulations "job killers," want to shift the power to approve or reject such rules from the administration to Congress.

Legislation expanding Congress' role in setting regulations was on track for approval Wednesday by the Republican-run House. The bill has little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senateand gaining President Barack Obama's signature to become law.

Democrats contend Republicans would use the authority to jeopardize Americans' health care, workplace and food safety, and protection from defective products, among other things.

Republicans say the shift from unelected regulators to elected lawmakers is needed to kill the most costly regulations — those with an economic impact of more than $100 million. Republicans say the expense would prevent the hiring of more workers.

"The American people today have been hit by an onslaught of unnecessary federal regulations," said Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican who heads the Judiciary Committee. "From the Obama administration's health care mandate to the increase of burdens on small businesses, government regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation."

"Baloney," said Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn. "There isn't a fact in there."

"The mother of all anti-regulatory bills," said opponent Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked why a Congress with a 9 percent approval rating in some polls should be entrusted with these new powers.

The chief Republican sponsor of the bill, Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky, complained that the administration was using regulations "as an end run around Congress" to obtain what it can't get from the GOP-run House. He said the bill would include a provision that the Senate could not use a filibuster to prevent a vote on a regulation.

Just last week, Republicans passed another bill that also took aim at regulators across the government. Republicans said that measure would force regulators to follow presidential directives that have been ignored, including seeking lower-cost alternatives.

Neither bill has much of a chance in the Senate, where the Democratic majority decides which bills can be placed on the agenda. Regardless, the White House budget office said that if either bill ever reached Obama's desk, senior advisers would recommend a veto.

The White House said the bill before Congress on Wednesday "would throw all major regulations into a monthslong limbo." While Republicans insist the bill would help businesses by giving them cost savings to create jobs, the White House said the legislation would be "impeding business investment that is vital to economic growth."

The bill is aimed at the most expensive proposals called "major rules" — those likely to cost or have an impact of more than $100 million. For instance, proposed environmental rules would usually fall into that category.

Currently, major rules take effect unless Congress passes, and the president signs, a joint resolution disapproving the proposals.

Under the Republican bill, if Congress doesn't approve a major rule within 70 session days, the rule could not take effect. All Republicans would have to do to kill a rule in the current Congress is fail to bring it up for a vote in the House, which they control.

Besides the $100 million economic impact figure, the bill would apply to proposals that could lead to a major increase in costs or prices or that potentially would have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or competitiveness.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance of consumer, small business, labor, environmental and other groups, said the bill would:

—Undermine the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

—Delay consumer product safety rules affecting toys, cribs and thousands of other consumer products.

—Make it more difficult for the Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of food and prescription drugs.

—Delay rules for Americans with disabilities.

—Endanger workers employed in mines, factories and other workplaces where on-the-job hazards exist.

Republicans title the bill Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, or the REINS Act.


Check out the groups above

by on Dec. 7, 2011 at 5:57 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
29again
by Gold Member on Dec. 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Well, if the Senate would at least LOOK at a few of the many many bills the House has already sent over, maybe something could be done to help get the jobs going again.....  I don't know what is in all of the bills, I just know that the House has sent over at least 20 bills that the Senate (Harry Reid) won't even consider.  And I feel that is just wrong.  It seems to  me that the Senate doesn't really care about creating jobs, "let's just tax the ba$****s, then we'll have more money and won't need the jobs" appears to be the line of thinking.

Friday
by Platinum Member on Dec. 7, 2011 at 7:20 PM
2 moms liked this

 I can gree with a need to review and streamline regulations but I can't think of anyone I trust to do it. Everyone I can think of has their fingers in the pie somehow. I sure don't trust any group that thinks a corporation is equal to a person.

Not sure how to solve this problem but I'm not buying this line about regs and taxes being the sole problem. People blame Obama and I won't say he's not part of the problem but we were losing jobs before he became president. I really believe that many corps wouldn't come back unless we were willing to work for dollars a day with no employee, consumer or environmental protections. We need to find a middle ground I just don't trust anyone in the govt to find or implement it.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

-Eilish-
by Johnson 2012 on Dec. 7, 2011 at 8:22 PM

NO, No, no!!! The Congress doesn't need anymore powers - in fact, they need to focus on what their supposed to do, and relinquish the power they have illegally taken from the people. I don't care what party wants to increase the power, the answer is NO!!!!

2hotTaco
by on Dec. 7, 2011 at 8:30 PM

So bigger government? Wasn't the GOP for smaller government just yesterday?

QuinnMae
by on Dec. 7, 2011 at 8:40 PM

GOP knew that this wouldn't even make it to the Senate floor.  They are wasting time.  This is nothing new, both sides do it.

ETA:  to clarify this ^^^ isn't me accepting the tactic as okay.  It's just what they do.    Also, I think it shouldn't go through.  Even if there are a few good things in the bill, the good is heavily outweighed by the bad.  You know, just like pretty much most other bills that go through.

-Eilish-
by Johnson 2012 on Dec. 7, 2011 at 8:46 PM


Quoting 2hotTaco:

So bigger government? Wasn't the GOP for smaller government just yesterday?

The neo-cons are for big government.

The left is for war

Peanutx3
by Silver Member on Dec. 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Bad GOP. It is stuff like this that is causing voters to run the other way.
grlygrlz2
by on Dec. 8, 2011 at 1:11 AM
2 moms liked this

From the Article:  Republican lawmakers, who call manyfederal regulations "job killers," want to shift the power to approve or reject such rules from the administration to Congress

Well, considering the Administration (and Pres. Admin) has ZERO accountability, checks and balances, voting, etc..  I think Presidential Administrations have over reached their Czars, Committees, powers...  At least with Congressional Approval~ it has to go through both sides of the aisle and the House AND Senate.

jewjewbee
by on Dec. 8, 2011 at 8:21 AM
1 mom liked this

They should have waited unitl a super majority was reached in both corridors and a R pres was in office. No strategery there.

QuinnMae
by on Dec. 8, 2011 at 9:24 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting jewjewbee:

They should have waited unitl a super majority was reached in both corridors and a R pres was in office. No strategery there.

Worked for the other side of the aisle, no matter how much people want to deny it.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)