Federal - S 21

Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act

Introduced

January 4, 2017

Description

President Obama enacted a raft of radical regulations in the waning weeks of his presidency. This bill would expand the Congressional Review Act to empower Congress to determine approval or disapproval of such regulations, either separately or in a group. Passed House 1/5/17 by recorded vote: 237 - 187 (Roll no. 23).

Our Position

Support

Commentary

Reining in regulations to reflect the will of the People is essential to checking the power of a president determined to act unilaterally.

Original Sponsor 1

Co-Sponsors 38

Latest Actions See More/Less

  • Oct. 17, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 1

    Toomey, (R-Pa.)
  • Oct. 16, 2017 — Reported to the Senate amended by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. S Rept 115-169Congressional Record p. S6403

  • June 20, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 1

    Strange, (R-Ala.)
  • June 12, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 1

    Rubio, (R-Fla.)
  • May 17, 2017 — Full committee consideration and markup held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    May 17, 2017 — Committee Vote: Executive Branch Regulations — Vote to Report

    Modify the federal rule-making process by preventing all "major rules" from being implemented unless Congress enacts legislation approving them.

    Specifically, it would amend the Congressional Review Act (PL 104-121) to require Congress to approve executive agency regulatory proposals that are deemed to be "major rules," rather than just giving Congress an opportunity to disapprove those proposed rules and regulations, as is currently the case under the CRA.

    The measure would create expedited procedures for House and Senate consideration of congressional resolutions of approval, which would not be subject to amendment. Under the measure, "major rules" that would require congressional approval to be implemented generally would be those having an annual economic impact greater than $100 million. Proposed rules determined to be non-major would not need congressional approval to be implemented, but Congress could move to disapprove such rules using existing CRA disapproval procedures.

    Regulatory proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee would be exempt from the bill's requirements.

    The bill would require that when proposing a rule, federal agencies submit a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office that includes a summary of the rule proposal, a determination of whether the rule is major or non-major and a cost-benefit analysis, the estimated aggregate economic effects of the proposal, a list of other regulatory actions that may be taken in conjunction with the proposal and any associated economic effects, and the proposed effective date of the rule.

    The measure would define the term "major rule" as any rule that would have an annual economic effect greater than $100 million and that threshold for major rules also would be indexed for inflation; would cause a major increase in costs or prices; or would have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or U.S. economic competitiveness.

    Any regulatory proposals meeting that definition could not go into effect unless Congress enacted a joint resolution of approval.

    If a resolution is not enacted into law by the end of 70 legislative or session days, the rule would not be considered approved and could not take effect. It would bar lawmakers from reconsidering a major rule that was not approved during the same Congress.

    The measure also would permit certain rules relating to hunting, fishing or camping and certain non-major rules to take effect without congressional approval.

    Modify the federal rule-making process by preventing all "major rules" from being implemented unless Congress enacts legislation approving them.

    Specifically, it would amend the Congressional Review Act (PL 104-121) to require Congress to approve executive agency regulatory proposals that are deemed to be "major rules," rather than just giving Congress an opportunity to disapprove those proposed rules and regulations, as is currently the case under the CRA.

    The measure would create expedited procedures for House and Senate consideration of congressional resolutions of approval, which would not be subject to amendment. Under the measure, "major rules" that would require congressional approval to be implemented generally would be those having an annual economic impact greater than $100 million. Proposed rules determined to be non-major would not need congressional approval to be implemented, but Congress could move to disapprove such rules using existing CRA disapproval procedures.

    Regulatory proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee would be exempt from the bill's requirements.

    The bill would require that when proposing a rule, federal agencies submit a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office that includes a summary of the rule proposal, a determination of whether the rule is major or non-major and a cost-benefit analysis, the estimated aggregate economic effects of the proposal, a list of other regulatory actions that may be taken in conjunction with the proposal and any associated economic effects, and the proposed effective date of the rule.

    The measure would define the term "major rule" as any rule that would have an annual economic effect greater than $100 million and that threshold for major rules also would be indexed for inflation; would cause a major increase in costs or prices; or would have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or U.S. economic competitiveness.

    Any regulatory proposals meeting that definition could not go into effect unless Congress enacted a joint resolution of approval.

    If a resolution is not enacted into law by the end of 70 legislative or session days, the rule would not be considered approved and could not take effect. It would bar lawmakers from reconsidering a major rule that was not approved during the same Congress.

    The measure also would permit certain rules relating to hunting, fishing or camping and certain non-major rules to take effect without congressional approval.

    Ordered reported favorably to the full Senate 8-7.
  • March 15, 2017Consideration and markup deferred by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

  • Feb. 17, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 1

    Isakson, (R-Ga.)
    (In the legislative day that began on Feb. 16, 2017.)
  • Feb. 7, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 1

    Kennedy, John (R-La.)
    (In the legislative day that began on Feb. 6, 2017.)
  • Jan. 24, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 3

    Flake, (R-Ariz.)Perdue, (R-Ga.)Portman, (R-Ohio)
  • Jan. 12, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 1

    Risch, (R-Idaho)
  • Jan. 5, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 2

    Cornyn, (R-Texas)Wicker, (R-Miss.)
  • Jan. 4, 2017 — Original cosponsor(s): 27

    Barrasso, (R-Wyo.)Enzi, (R-Wyo.)McCain, (R-Ariz.)
    Blunt, (R-Mo.)Ernst, (R-Iowa)Moran, Jerry (R-Kan.)
    Boozman, (R-Ark.)Fischer, (R-Neb.)Roberts, (R-Kan.)
    Capito, (R-W.Va.)Gardner, (R-Colo.)Rounds, (R-S.D.)
    Cassidy, (R-La.)Grassley, (R-Iowa)Sasse, (R-Neb.)
    Cotton, (R-Ark.)Heller, (R-Nev.)Scott, T. (R-S.C.)
    Crapo, (R-Idaho)Inhofe, (R-Okla.)Sullivan, (R-Alaska)
    Cruz, (R-Texas)Johnson, R. (R-Wis.)Thune, (R-S.D.)
    Daines, (R-Mont.)Lee, M. (R-Utah)Young, T. (R-Ind.)
  • Jan. 4, 2017 — Read twice and referred to: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.Congressional Record p. S59

Copyright 2017 by the Christian Medical Association Twitter: @Freedom2Care Web Facebook Blog Faith Steps book