Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/23/2010 12:12:05 PM PDT by jazusamo
The REINS Act would require every major rule proposed by federal agencies to be approved by a joint resolution passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president before it could take effect.
(CNSNews.com) – Senate Republicans on Wednesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for major regulations issued by federal agencies.
"We must put a stop to the reckless and costly anti-free market regulations that are destroying jobs,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who sponsored the bill.
The REINS Act is intended to restore accountability. It would require every major rule proposed by federal agencies to be approved by a joint resolution passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president before it could take effect. (REINS stands for Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny.)
“When the Obama administration hasn’t been able to ram their anti-job polices through Congress, they’ve empowered unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to force them through using regulations,” DeMint said. “From the ongoing attempts to control the environment and the Internet to the forthcoming barrage of regulations facing the health care and financial industry, it’s no wonder that consumer costs are rising and businesses are reluctant to invest and grow.”
A “major rule” is defined as any rule that is projected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; is expected to cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; or would have “significant adverse effects on the economy.”
Co-sponsors of the REINS Act include Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Ensign (R-Nev.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), John Thune (R-S.D.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
And Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), who has introduced a similar bill in the House, said the REINS Act “is an immediate step we could take to improve the checks and balances of our government.”
Republicans supporting the bill point to a recent report by the Small Business Administration, which said the annual cost of federal regulations in the U.S. increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2009. According to that report, if every U.S. household had paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008.
Further, a Heritage Foundation study showed that the Code of Federal Regulations – a compendium of all existing federal rules – hit a record 163,333 pages in 2009, an increase of 22,000 pages since the beginning of the decade.
Republicans are particularly alarmed by a recent EPA rule establishing a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting program for sources that emit more than 25,000 tons a year. (See earlier story)
They also warn that the new health care law gives federal agencies wide latitude to implement the “reform” through regulations. At least 40 provisions in the health care law either require, permit or contemplate federal rulemaking.
Sen. Sessions called it a “dereliction of Congressional duty” to allow the Executive Branch to fill in important details of legislation after it is passed – “and it is an executive overreach to use the rulemaking process to circumvent the will of the people,” he said. Sessions said the problem is exacerbated by the trend of appointing unelected czars that are not subject to Senate confirmation or the scrutiny of Congressional oversight.
Sen. Enzi said people in his state of Wyoming “live in fear of what the EPA, Forest Service, BLM or other agencies will do next that could harm their recreation or their business.” He said non-elected bureaucrats should not have that kind of power.
“This administration has seen fit to govern through burdensome regulations with little accountability to the American people,” Sen. Ensign said. “These job-killing regulations are nothing more than hidden taxes that threaten our already shaky economic situation even more. Our legislation will make the President and his agencies accountable to the people of this country by requiring Congressional approval of major regulations and will ensure that this heavy-handed rule over the American people is effectively reined in. Innovation in this country faces a very real threat unless Congress acts to stop this.”
This is badly needed.
Jim DeMint Ping!
sounds good, wonder if agencies will be required to disclose what their money is spent on..i.e. over a half million a year to teach african men to wash their tools after having sex... hillarys stove give away program.. we waste so much of my money on foreign stuff. and they hate us any way...
Congress already has this power. It just needs to cut the funds off. Problem solved.
What, the legislature wants to legislate?
Did they discover a dusty copy of the Constitution under the seat or something?
/s
Tougher or not, that’s what should be done.
I’m not that comfortable with this idea. We have separation of powers for a reason, and although such legislation would have a favorable outcome in putting limits on the damage Obama can do, I shudder to imagine its use against the next conservative president by a legislature where the liberals are in the majority. And I really don’t believe that scenario could never happen again.
Giving the Executive Branch full authority to pursue endeavors it deems necessary is essential. UNEQUIVOCALLY FUNDING THEM IS NOT.
If you would read the bills you vote on, you would have seen this coming.
Ijits!
How bout we take those reins and strangle the EPA with them. Then we can bury the body in a secluded spot.
Amen to that!
Yep, cutting off the funds is probably the way to go, now if they’d just do it.
The legislature has to approve every regulation written to support state law before it can go into effect. The process has worked for at least four administrations that I know of.
Once approved, the legislature can not “un-approve” without changing the law.
The constitution gives the power to pass laws to congress and gives the president the power to enforce them. Without congressional approval all regulations are constitutionally suspect.
Not just a resolution. It should go to a full House and Senate recorded vote with filibuster possible in the Senate.
Any fool could have predicted that as soon as an out of control president with no regard for the law or the Constitution was elected, he would use regulations to destroy the country.
What we really need is a constitutional amendment that FORCES Congress to approve ALL regulations from all agencies that affect everything except internal workings of the department.
And then to eliminate about 80% of the worthless departments.
Congress must stop allowing the executive AND judicial branches to make laws. All legislative Powers are the domain of CONGRESS.
A “major rule” is defined as any rule that is projected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; is expected to cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; or would have “significant adverse effects on the economy.”
There is always more than one opinion, more than one argument and more than one side on the “effects” of any legislation.
In order to NOT be caught in those issues, to NOT have to argue about them to determine if the rule had to be followed or not, the language should be changed from: “would have “significant adverse effects on the economy” to “would have “significant effects on the economy”.
Our “class warfare” opponents could easily argue that a piece of legislation may have an “adverse” effect on the economy as it relates to a certain class of consumers, even though in terms of the GDP is was net positive.
Also, in my view, it is not simply for such “adverse” affects alone that the regulators need to be reined in.
They need to be reined in on principal. They represent a denial of our right to law by representative government, by one-time transfers of the power exercised by those rights, Congress, to agencies empowered to put the cart before the horse - they can act and unless Congress steps in, they are free to act. Congress should have to step in EVERY TIME and nothing should happen if they don’t; making any attempts at “regulation” advisory, for Congress to debate and consider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.