REINS ACT
Commentary as of September 27, 2015


This morning on Meet The Press Carly Fiorina strongly advocated passage of the REINS Act to put the approval of federal regulations in the hands of Congress. Not only do Republicans tend to hate regulations in general, but their right leaning stances could mean that a liberalizing regulation would be opposed “on principle.” Besides the matter of which regulations would be allowed under the act, it would remove the authority from the Executive, which means Congress can effectively tie the president’s hands. That is horrible, especially with Congress members like we have right now. I didn’t recognize the name of this act, but I knew that if Fiorina wanted it, I most probably didn’t, so I went to Google.

I was unable to find a nicely summarized and explained Wikipedia article, so I found some of the raw and highly political commentary instead. On Google, I found the following articles:

Questioning the Constitutionality of the REINS Act: Bill ...
blogs.law.columbia.edu/.../questioning-the-constitutionality-of-the-reins-...
Questioning the Constitutionality of the REINS Act: Bill Seeks to Restructure Federal Rulemaking Process. Posted on February 14th, 2011 by Greg Wannier.

Why the REINS Act is Unwise If Not Also Unconstitutional ...
www.regblog.org/.../why-the-reins-act-is-unwise-if-not-also-unconstituti...
May 3, 2011 - A proposed act would hinder needed regulations, thereby interfering with the executive branch's constitutional authority to execute the law.

The REINS Act and the Struggle to Control Agency ...
www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Siegel16.1.pdf
by JR Siegel - ‎Cited by 4 - ‎Related articles
Mar 28, 2013 - The tremendous significance of the REINS Act has led to fierce debate about both its constitutionality and its wisdom. This article explains that ...

The REINS Act: Unbridled Impediment to Regulation - SSRN
ssrn.com/abstract=2550870
Social Science Research Network
by RM Levin - ‎2015 - ‎Related articles
Jan 17, 2015 - The article also questions the constitutionality of the bill. Some authors contend that the REINS Act would be valid, because Congress does not ...

REINS Act Archives - The Volokh Conspiracy
volokh.com/tag/reins-act/
The Volokh Conspiracy
Apr 16, 2013 - Professor Siegel agrees with me that the REINS Act is constitutional, but thinks it would be a bad idea. In addition, the NYUJLPP has posted a ...

The Problem With The White House Threat To Veto ... - Forbes
www.forbes.com/.../the-problem-with-the-white-house-threat-to-v...
Forbes
Jul 28, 2015 - Called the REINS Act, or Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny, ... What is unprecedented in our constitutional republic is the ...

UPDATE: Three Reasons the REINS Act Must Be Stopped ...
www.foreffectivegov.org/three-reasons-reins-act-must-be-stopped-again
Jan 23, 2015 - If passed, the REINS Act would require congressional approval of all ... It is high time that Congress reins in the unconstitutional power of the ...

Would the REINS Act Rein In Federal Regulation?
www.cato.org/.../would-reins-act-rein-federal-regulation
Cato Institute
Jan 24, 2011 - REINS Act supporters hail the legislation as a needed check on federal ... tially unconstitutional attack on federal regulations that could.

Committee Reports - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - House ...
thomas.loc.gov › THOMAS Home › Committee Reports
THOMAS
A. ÌHistory of the Congressional Review Act and the Need for Reform .... Claeys testified that the REINS Act represented a constitutional means of providing for ...

The REINS Act - Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/REINSact
Americans all across the country support the REINS Act, because as the .... Tim Brown You do realize the REINS Act would be unconstitutional, don't you?





The REINS Act’s results in Congress


http://volokh.com/tag/reins-act/

Assessing the REINS Act
by Jonathan H. Adler on November 10, 2012
Administrative Law, Regulation

Among the regulatory reform proposals passed by the House of Representatives this year was the “REINS Act,” a proposal to require Congressional approval before major regulations could take effect. Supporters and opponents of this bill have presented the REINS Act as a deregulatory tool. The actual effect of the REINS Act is likely to be more modest, for reasons I explain in an article forthcoming in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (available on SSRN here). While I believe the REINS Act would significantly increase legislative accountability for regulatory policy, I doubt it would stop all that many regulatory initiatives, particularly those with significant public support.

Passage of the REINS Act has always been a long shot. Though it passed the House of Representatives, the Senate has shown little interest. This month’s election makes the REINS Act’s chance of becoming law even more remote, as the Democrats have increased their Senate majority and President Obama has said he would veto REINS were it to reach his desk. Debates over regulatory reform will continue nonetheless. So, for those interested, here’s the abstract of the paper SSRN.

Over the past several decades, the scope, reach and cost of federal regulations have increased dramatically, prompting bipartisan calls for regulatory reform. One such proposed reform is the Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). This proposal aims to restore political accountability to federal regulatory policy decisions by requiring both Houses of Congress to approve any proposed “major rule.” In effect, the REINS Act would limit the delegation of regulatory authority to federal agencies, and restore legislative control and accountability to Congress. This article seeks to assess the REINS Act and its likely effects on regulatory policy. It explains why constitutional objections to the proposal are unfounded


by Jonathan H. Adler on December 8, 2011 6:14 pm in Administrative Law, Regulation
Yesterday, the House passed the REINS Act on an almost exclusively party-line vote, 241-184. All the House Republicans voted for the bill, as did four Democrats. Thought the bill passed the House, it’s not about to be enacted into law. The Senate is unlikely to take up the bill and President Obama has promised to veto the REINS Act should it somehow reach his desk.

My posts on the REINS Act are indexed here. […]


by Jonathan H. Adler on December 7, 2011 8:52 am in Administrative Law, Regulation
Today the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the REINS Act, a bill to enhance political accountability over regulatory decisions. The bill has two essential features. First, it bars new “major” regulations (those anticipated to cost more than $100 million annually) from taking effect unless approved by both houses of Congress. Second, it creates an expedited review process that forces each house to vote on each major rule. So while requiring Congressional approval, REINS prevents members of Congress from ducking their responsibility to vote yay or nay.

REINS is a controversial bill, in part because it effectively limits the delegation of broad regulatory authority to federal agencies, but to read some critics, REINS would usher in an anti-regulatory armageddon. While I support the legislation, for reasons detailed in these posts (and summarized in this NRO piece), I recognize that there are reasonable arguments to be made on the other side. What’s so interesting watching this debate, however, is how many opponents refuse to make them, relying instead on inaccurate and fanciful characterizations of the bill. It’s telling when opponents of legislation are unable or unwilling to describe it accurately when making their case.

To take one example, US PIRG’s Ed Mierzwinski argues that the REINS Act would lead to unsafe toys on the market and emasculate the CPSC.

One bill, the REINS Act, would not only allow but require congressional meddling in the implementation of all public health and safety rules. A single member of Congress, at the behest of some powerful special interest or campaign contributor, could block the public database, block science-based lead standards for children’s products, block crib safety rules or any number of protections that provide a safer consumer marketplace.

The idea that REINS would allow a single member of Congress […]





https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s15

S. 15 (113th): Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013

Introduced:
Feb 26, 2013

113th Congress, 2013–2015
Status:
Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on February 26, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.
Sponsor:
Rand Paul
Rand Paul
Junior Senator from Kentucky
Republican
Text:
Bill Text
Read Text »
Last Updated: Feb 26, 2013
Length: 21 pages
See Instead:
H.R. 367 (same title)
Passed House — Aug 2, 2013

About the bill

Full Title
A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law.

Summary (CRS)
2/26/2013--Introduced.Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013 or the REINS Act - States that the purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for and transparency ... Read more >

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor.


History

FEB 7, 2011

Earlier Version — Introduced
This activity took place on a related bill, S. 299 (112th).
FEB 26, 2013

Introduced
This is the first step in the legislative process.
Read Text »
JAN 21, 2015

Reintroduced Bill — Introduced
This activity took place on a related bill, S. 226.
This is a Senate bill in the United States Congress (indicated by the “S.” in “S. 15”). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the President to become law.


Launched in 2004, GovTrack helps everyone learn about and track the activities of the United States Congress. This is a project of Civic Impulse, LLC. GovTrack.us is not a government website.

About the Site | Contact Us

You are encouraged to reuse any material on this site. GovTrack supports other Congress-tracking websites through our open data.






https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/regulation/news/2011/12/06/10790/5-terrible-no-good-very-bad-things-about-the-reins-act/

5 Terrible, No-Good, Very Bad Things About the REINS Act
Why Lawmakers Should Reject the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny” Act

This week the House will vote on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act, which would allow either chamber of Congress to refuse approval for rules of regulatory implementation, like those regulating air pollution, for entirely political reasons.

By Kristina Costa | Tuesday, December 6, 2011

The House is expected to vote this week on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act. In a landmark year for misguided, misinformed, and harmful legislation, REINS is a standout. It would require Congress to approve, via a joint resolution, any “economically significant” regulation (otherwise known as a major rule) issued by a federal agency—within 90 days.

REINS would turn a regulatory process currently driven by scientific expertise, industry input, and careful cost-benefit analysis into a political circus. While agencies are not immune from political influence, they must have legal justifications for the rules they promulgate, and those justifications must stand up in a court of law when challenged. But under REINS, either chamber of Congress—or even a single senator—could effectively overturn a law by refusing to approve critical rules of implementation for entirely political reasons.

Here’s what you need to know.


The REINS Act threatens our system of checks and balances

The REINS Act would undermine the system of checks and balances essential to our shared democracy. Under REINS not only would a law need to first pass both chambers of Congress and be signed into law by the president, but any major rules designed to implement that law would need to be approved by both chambers as well. That means that one chamber could effectively overturn a law by refusing to grant approval to essential rules of implementation. In this way, the REINS Act constitutes a radical and unprecedented move away from democratic governance.

Even more disturbing than the possibility that either the House or the Senate could unilaterally gut an existing law is the possibility that a single senator could do so. The REINS Act does not explicitly and clearly prohibit a filibuster in the Senate. So a conservative senator could single-handedly block a “major rule” that aims to limit harmful air emissions. Or a liberal senator with strong gun-control views could filibuster one of the several “major rules” issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service each year to govern the migratory bird-hunting season.

It seems unthinkable. But it’s possible under REINS.


Congress doesn’t have the expertise to evaluate the implementation of every bill it passes

Writing regulations requires detailed technical, economic, and legal knowledge. Whether a regulation is enacted or not shouldn’t be contingent on the opinions of 535 elected officials who lack expertise in the relevant scientific, technological, and economic matters. Major rules are frequently revised based on input from lengthy public comment periods and often-contentious lawsuits. And, while Congress boasts 24 members with medical degrees, an astronaut, an NFL quarterback, and a tugboat captain, there aren’t very many scientists (three), engineers (six), or economists (zero) currently serving terms in the nation’s legislature.


Congress doesn’t have the time to evaluate the implementation of every bill it passes

There are thousands of bills and resolutions introduced each year in Congress, and the House and Senate take hundreds of recorded votes. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, there were about 100 “major” regulations finalized in 2010. The REINS Act ostensibly limits debate to 10 hours for each joint resolution of approval. That would add up to an extra 1000 hours of debate each year. Even if Congress were in session for all 52 weeks of the year—and they are not—an extra 1000 hours would tack nearly 20 hours of floor time onto each week. That’s not just impractical, it’s impossible.


The REINS Act confuses economic costs with economic effects

A “major” or “economically significant” regulation is one that has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. Economic effects are not limited to the costs of implementing something: they can be the result of net benefits, or the transfer of funds from the government to citizens, or an expected increase in consumer spending. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examines all of the 100 “major rules” finalized in 2010. In their analysis, some federal agriculture subsidies were categorized as “major rules.” So were Medicare and Medicaid payments, fees for passports, and the Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund. All of these rules would require a round of Congressional approval under REINS.


Finally, Congress already has the power to oversee and overturn regulations

Judging by the rhetoric of REINS supporters, you’d think Congress has its hands tied when it comes to regulatory oversight. That’s far from true. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 has allowed Congress to review new federal regulations and pass joint resolutions to overrule them. Several such resolutions have passed either chamber of Congress, and, in 2001, both chambers voted to overturn ergonomics standards issued by Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Hard as it may be to recall, regulations do more than set conservatives off wailing “job-killer!” around the echo chamber. Your car has seatbelts because of government regulation. Your peanut butter is safe to eat because of government regulation. More rivers and lakes are clean, more children are asthma-free, and prescription medications must be proven safe and effective before being given to patients because of regulation. This week’s vote and the months-long conservative onslaught against cost-effective consumer protections is nothing more than political theater. And it’s long past time for the curtain to come down on this particular revue.

Kristina Costa is a Special Assistant at the Center for American Progress.
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Liz Bartolomeo (poverty, health care)
202.481.8151 or lbartolomeo@americanprogress.org
Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or tcaiazza@americanprogress.org
Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education)
202.478.6331 or apreiss@americanprogress.org
Print: Tanya Arditi (immigration, Progress 2050, race issues, demographics, criminal justice, Legal Progress)
202.741.6258 or tarditi@americanprogress.org
Print: Chelsea Kiene (women's issues, TalkPoverty.org, faith)
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org
Print: Elise Shulman (oceans)
202.796.9705 or eshulman@americanprogress.org
Print: Benton Strong (Center for American Progress Action Fund)
202.481.8142 or bstrong@americanprogress.org
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Jennifer Molina
202.796.9706 or jmolina@americanprogress.org
TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or rrosen@americanprogress.org
Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org





http://truthhugger.com/2011/12/07/the-reins-act-h-r-10/

The REINS Act – H.R. 10 Threatens Checks and Balances
by bosskitty
DECEMBER 7, 2011

House of Representatives Passed the bill that Undermines Crucial Safeguards for American Families!


The REINS Act (H.R. 10) was voted on Wednesday, December 7. This bill will cause massive delays in the rulemaking process, makes it far more difficult for agencies to protect us.

The REINS Act now moves to the Senate, where it is sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). More information on the bill is available at http://www.ombwatch.org/reinsact – Please call your Senator and urge him or her to strengthen, not weaken, our system of public protections.

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

About the REINS Act:

The REINS Act would force each new major regulation to go through a congressional approval process, subjecting it to political infighting, special interest influence, and legislative gridlock. If either house of Congress fails to approve the major rule in a narrow 70-day window, the rule will be killed.
The bill would delay and possibly undo critical safeguards that protect our civil rights, environment, food, children’s toys, workplaces, health care, and economy.
The bill empowers corporate lobbyists and their allies in Congress to ignore science and focus on politicking when it comes to the development of our public protections.

The REINS Act requires any regulatory rule with an impact of $100 million or more on the economy to be subject to approval of the House and Senate within 70 legislative days before taking effect. If Congress were to fail to act on the proposal, with a few exceptions, the rule could not be brought up again until the next Congress.

After Congress passes a law, federal agencies are charged with implementing the law often with a series of more detailed regulations. The Administrative Procedures Act allows interested parties and the public to participate in a detailed fashion in the the rulemaking process. The REINS Act is widely viewed as a way to kill or delay public health, safety or environmental regulations. It would “allow a single member of Congress, at the behest of some powerful special interest or campaign contributor, [to] block science-based lead standards for children’s products, block crib safety rules or any number of protections that provide a safer consumer marketplace,” according to consumer advocate Ed Mierswinski of U.S. PIRG (the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups).

According to Representative Connolly, the REINS Act represents the “171st attack” on public health and the environment in this Congress. The REINS Act was already voted down in the Senate earlier this month as part of the so-called “Republican Jobs Bill.”

Would shifting regulatory power to Congress usher in a lobbying bonanza?

Republicans are trying to shift regulatory power from the executive branch to Congress in a bill that’s expected to pass the House today. The REINS Act would send any “major rule” that’s estimated to cost the economy more than $100 million to Congress — or have adverse effects on consumers, the business climate and individual industries — for an up-or-down vote. If Congress doesn’t approve the regulation in 70 days, it won’t take effect. The bill is dead-on-arrival in the Senate, but it underscores some of the GOP’s biggest anti-regulatory talking points.

That said, the REINS Act essentially leaves it to the executive branch to decide which regulations to send to Congress. Under the bill, officials from the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Office of Management and Budget are supposed to determine which regulations are subject to a congressional vote, based on their cost to the economy and adverse impact on consumers and the industry. And there isn’t broad-based consensus about how to measure this impact.

Koch Brothers’ “Christmas Present” Up for House Vote

This is another example of the GOP trying to rearrange the power structure in the United States of America. They are determined to impose a twisted interpretation of the United States Constitution. When we don’t pay attention, and when the mainstream media is bought off from alerting the public, we end up railroaded. RAILROADED! Submitted by Rebekah Wilce on December 1, 2011 – 8:52am



The U.S. House of Representatives votes soon on a series of deregulatory bills that, according to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), “threaten vital health, environmental, safety and financial regulations.”

“We Want Big Biz Ruining Our Lives” (Source: Joe Mohr)Voting is expected on the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010) and the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527) on December 1, and on The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (H.R. 10) next week.


Thanks to the arrogant manipulation of the Kock Brother’s, John Birch Society, elitist, bigoted mindset, the GOP, is extorted to rearrange the power structure in the United States of America. The GOP is determined to impose a twisted interpretation of the United States Constitution. This is the agenda of Brothers Koch. Why are they still privately owned? Because they cannot survive ethical scrutiny! When we don’t pay attention, and when the mainstream media is bought off from alerting the public, we end up railroaded. RAILROADED!

We have seen the power of big business morph this country into their greedy playground. Corporate America has bought every idea we are exposed to. They want to control our behavior. They want to control our pocket books. They want to control the ethnicity and religion of this country to serve their greedy ambitions. The corporate media complies with the corporate mission to disseminate half truths and shape the emotions of each and every one of us. Corporate media is tasked to control the wants and needs of the general public, because it wants the money it has paid for our services BACK. Everything they pay us, they want back … with interest.


Thank you to: CleverFool.com

Koch Brothers Wealth: Buy When There’s Blood In The Streets

According to Forbes, The Koch Brothers’ wealth has reportedly grown an outrageous $15 billion over the last year and half. Here’s Truth-Out.org with some more on that:

Their combined wealth of $50 billion is exceeded only by the Microsoft founder’s $59 billion fortune. Buoyed by aggressive speculative trading on volatile energy markets, the Koch brothers accumulated $15 billion in wealth since March 2010, a 43 percent increase.

Economy? What economy? Fuck the economy!

The Koch Brothers (Charles and David) are seemingly immune to any sort of economic downfall, primarily in fact, because it seems they feast on human suffering more than Paris Hilton feasts on penis… and boy, is there a lot of that suffering going on in the streets right now…

My letter to Lloyd Doggett: (too late, it passed, hopefully the Senate has more sense) Thankfully Doggett voted NO!

HR 10 tears apart the original checks and balances placed in the US Constitution. HR 10 impedes Government Agencies from enacting pertinent rules and regulations that effect all of us. Because Congress relies on their overworked staff and greedy lobbyists to make their decisions, Americans are being hi-jacked once again by big business interests. Who else can afford to tell a congressman whether or not a regulation will effect their profit margin? Lobbyists are industry specific and do not represent my best interests. Lobbyists represent the best interests of corporations, who only weigh the consequences of regulations on their pocket book.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 901(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 10 RECORDED VOTE 7-Dec-2011 5:30 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law
AYES NOES PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 237 4
DEMOCRATIC 4 184 4
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 241 184 8




PLEASE PARDON THE OCCASIONAL ROUGH LANGUAGE IN THE ABOVE READER COMMENTS. ABOUT THE REINS ACT, LIKE I SAID, IF FIORINA LIKES IT, I DON’T! She also repeatedly and instantly sidestepped questions on Meet The Press today about where she actually got the reference to an aborted fetus “moving on a tabletop” while someone off camera discussed how to save its brain for sale. I don’t believe fetuses of that age can kick their legs yet.

See "http://wcfcourier.com/ap/commentary/fiorina-s-planned-parenthood-dare-based-on-fake-video/article_a37ff0f3-59e7-57f4-bad1-e3e56b599b0c.html, “Fiorina’s Planned Parenthood dare based on fake video,” Martin Schram, September 27, 2015" for a hard-hitting and eye opening article. Schram is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.