Congressional Review Act Can Effectively End The Obama Carter's Second Term

Newly inaugurated 45th President of the United States signs his first executive order in the Oval Office of the White House. Image Credit: Getty Images (2017) 

Congressional Review Act Can Effectively End The Obama Carter's Second Term

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is an oversight tool that Congress may use to repeal or prevent a regulation issued by a federal agency from taking effect. The CRA was included in the “Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996” and allows Congress to review, and to cancel by majority rule, new federal regulations issued by federal agencies.

The Bitter Clingers - Cartoon by Ben Garrison

This excerpted and edited from Bloomberg Government -

How to use the Congressional Review Act to undo regulatory actions
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP - Kevin O'Neill, Dana Weekes, Sara Garofalo Linder & Roxana Boyd - January 26, 2017

With a Republican sweep of Congress and the executive branch, there will be a concerted effort this year to reform and restrain the current regulatory state. The Trump Administration and Republican Congress have a number of options to repeal regulations issued by the Obama Administration, with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) being one vehicle for affirmatively undoing some of the regulatory actions of the last six months.

The CRA is an oversight tool that Congress may use to repeal or prevent a regulation issued by a federal agency from taking effect. The 1996 law grants Congress: (1) proper notification of new agency regulations; and (2) the authority to use a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a rule that may not meet the congressional intent. Under the CRA, a joint resolution of disapproval can only repeal an interim final rule or final rule in its entirety, as it does not necessarily apply to draft regulations, and Congress cannot use it to reform parts of a rule.

Congress has only successfully overturned one rule under the CRA since its enactment in 1996, the final rule on ergonomics standards issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Clinton Administration.
----
5 things you need to know about the CRA:

1. As Congress has only repealed a rule under the CRA once before, more than 15 years ago, there are many unknown questions, including procedural questions and how a federal agency can engage on the issue following a repeal of the rule.

2. For rules issued by the Obama Administration on or after January 3, 2017, Congress has 60 legislative days from when the agency publishes each rule in the Federal Register or when Congress receives the rule report, whichever date is later, to use the CRA to repeal the regulation.

3. For a rule issued by the Obama Administration from June 13, 2016 (the parliamentarian in each chamber will set the actual date) through January 2, 2017, Congress has 60 legislative days starting from January 31 in the House and January 24 in the Senate to use the CRA to repeal the regulation.

4. Any use of the CRA cannot be filibustered in the Senate, which disadvantages those Democrats looking to challenge Republican efforts to restrain the current regulatory state.

5. Repealing a rule under the CRA likely foreclosures opportunities for a federal agency to reengage on the matter through a rulemaking for at least the next four years.
[Reference Here]

Interestingly, during President Obama's first two years in office, Congress did not use the CRA to repeal any Bush Administration final rules, despite the Democratic control of Congress.

President Donald J. Trump give his inauguration address with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looking on. Image Credit Getty Images (2017)

This excerpted and edited from Washington Examiner -

Obscure rule about to take center stage in regulation rollbacks
By SUSAN FERRECHIO (@SUSANFERRECHIO) - 1/23/17 12:01 AM

Republicans this month will invoke the rarely used Congressional Review Act to extinguish some of the Obama administration's more recent regulations they believe will damage the economy.
----
The GOP controls the majorities in both chambers and President Trump is eager to sign the legislation undoing the regulations, which affect the environment, education and jobs.
----
"There is only a rare set of circumstances in which you can use it," Rutgers University professor Stuart Shapiro, a public policy expert, told the Washington Examiner.

Republicans have for years talked of undoing Obama administration regulations through legislation, but the CRA gives them an easier route in the Senate by allowing Republicans to avert the 60-vote filibuster. The CRA can be applied only to regulations issued within 60 legislative days.

"We are going to do that very quickly," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said of using the CRA during a recent interview on the Hugh Hewitt show.

House Republicans announced that beginning on Jan. 30, they will move to reverse four recently announced regulations using the CRA and will target other regulations in the weeks ahead.

At the top of the GOP's list is the Stream Protection Rule announced by the Obama administration in December. The rule is aimed at curbing environmental damage from coal mines. It boosts requirements for mining companies to monitor streams and more strictly defines "material damage" to waterways located beyond the mining footprint.

Critics, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said the rule constitutes regulatory overreach and will hurt the coal industry.

"This costly regulation, along with others that are already having a devastating impact, are part of the administration's plan to demolish these coal communities right now and long after the president has left office," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.
----
The House will also take on long-unpopular federal interference in education with a vote to eradicate a bevy of new federal rules that GOP lawmakers believe interfere and in some cases bypass the recently passed bipartisan law overhauling the unpopular No Child Left Behind Act.

Finally, the House will vote under the CRA to undo the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council's final rule, which critics call the "blacklisting order." The rule was finalized in August and establishes a long list of new record-keeping, reporting and compliance requirements that could be used to bar contractors from winning federal contracts. The rule was temporarily blocked in a Texas federal court.

"You're going to see in February, the first two weeks, a lot of those regulations that were in the last 60 legislative days start moving to be repealed," Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said on the Hugh Hewitt show. "Because people don't quite realize, since the November election to Jan. 5, this administration, Obama's, has authored 145 new regulations, they've enacted more than $16 billion on us just since the election."
[Reference Here]

Then candidate Donald Trump in an info-graphic from Facebook posting in 2016 before the November 8th election.

This excerpted and edited from Powerline -

REVIEW THIS
POSTED ON JANUARY 27, 2017 BY SCOTT JOHNSON

Kim Strassel delivers today’s good news in her Wall Street Journal column “A GOP regulatory game changer” (accessible here via Google). She introduces the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Todd Gaziano to explain the mechanics of the rarely used (and almost always unsuccessful) Congressional Review Act of 1996 to undo executive agency regulations. (The text of the Congressional Review Act is accessible here.)

As a staffer to Rep> David McIntosh at the time, Gaziano was “intimately involved” in drafting the law. According to Strassel, “No one knows the law better.” Here’s the beauty part:

The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be used only against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days. That gets Republicans back to June, teeing up 180 rules or so for override. Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

How does it work? Kim alludes here to 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A) & § 802(b)(2)(A) & (B). With a little help from Gaziano, she explicates the text:

It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.

Let me pause here to ask Steve Hayward to tune in:

There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a[n] expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Think the Obama administration’s controversial guidance on transgender bathrooms in schools or on Title IX and campus sexual assault. It is highly unlikely agencies submitted reports to lawmakers on these actions.

“If they haven’t reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged,” says Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Larkin, also at Wednesday’s meeting, told me challenges could be leveled against any rule or guidance back to 1996, when the CRA was passed.

The best part? Once Congress overrides a rule, agencies cannot reissue it in “substantially the same form” unless specifically authorized by future legislation. The CRA can keep bad regs and guidance off the books even in future Democratic administrations—a far safer approach than if the Mr. Trump simply rescinded them.

It sounds too good to be true. Nevertheless, to quote Lyndon Johnson as he undertook the vast expansion of the edifice of the administrative state: “Let us begin.” Roll away the administrative stone!
[Reference Here]

Key point on what can actually be placed on the chopping block of the Congressional Review Act ... ANY RULE/REGULATION that has not been reported to Congress within the prescribed 60 days can be challenged in this procedure going back to when the CRA was put in place ... 1996!


TAGS: Hugh Hewitt, Congressional Review Act, CRA, 1996, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, Powerline, Washington Examiner, The Fourth Way, Donald J. Trump, Carter's Second Term

Paul Ryan's Path To Solvency

Now, there are certainly different types of goals: long-term, short-term, financial, physical, personal, family, educational, artistic, religious, health, etc. A country without a budget/goal is like a ship without a rudder. Image Credit: Weider Fitness

Paul Ryan's Path To Solvency

Today, the American Enterprise Institute has released a plan put forth by Wisconsin Congressman, Paul Ryan, by which our country could become prosperous and solvent through making the economic purpose of our federal government be right-sized and focused on its key reasons for existence.

This plan was issued as a response to the expansion of federal government in everyday life (through both the 43rd Presidency of George Bush and doubled-down upon during the 44th Presidency of Barack Obama) ... and most recently, the latest budget released last month by the Obama Administration.

Forget the fact that our Democrat Political Party controlled Senate, run by Nevada Senator Harry Reid, which has the responsibility to draft, pass and implement a budget, has seen fit to not pass or operate from a formal budget in over 1,000 days (blowing the lid off of spending controls). Basically, this abandonment of responsibility and public trust leaves our ship of state operating without a rudder.

So, what is the best path forward?

Image Credit: Paul Ryan via AEI

This excerpted and edited from the American Enterprise Institute -

Paul Ryan’s new budget offers a path to prosperity and solvency
By James Pethokoukis - AEI - March 20, 2012, 10:00 am

Barack Obama doesn’t have a long-term, debt-reduction plan. Paul Ryan does. So under the Geithner formulation, Ryan wins by default.

But the latest version of Ryan’s Path to Prosperity, released today, does far more than defeat a rival who’s decided to forfeit the field. It presents a bold and sweeping solution to America’s twin problems: too much debt and too little economic growth.

– By 2022, under the Ryan Path, debt as a share of GDP would be 62.3% vs. a projected 73.2% in 2012. Under the Obama budget debt as a share of GDP would be 76.3% in 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over that period, the Ryan Path would spend $5.3 trillion less than the Obama budget by, in large part, axing Obamacare and block-granting welfare programs — including Medicaid — to the states.

– Longer term, the differences between the Ryan Path and the Obama budget are even starker. By 2030, debt-to-GDP would be 53% under Ryan, 128% under Obama. By 2040, debt-to-GDP would be 38% under Ryan, 194% under Obama. By 2050, debt-to-GDP would be 10% under Ryan, over 200% under Obama – assuming that under the Obama scenario, the economy hasn’t collapsed.

How does Ryan do it? Medicare reform is at the heart of the Path to Prosperity. Where Obamacare relies on unelected bureaucrats to keep costs down, the Ryan path uses competition. Under Ryan’s revised “premium support” plan – essentially the Wyden-Ryan proposal — seniors beginning in 2023 could use their Medicare dollars to choose from a menu of private plans, along with Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service system. Every year there would be a competitive bidding process among all plans to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution that seniors would use to purchase coverage. (The benefits in the private plans would have to be as least as good as Medicare.) The second least-expensive approved plan or Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the benchmark that determines the premium support amount.

Seniors who prefer pricier plans would have to pay the difference between the premium subsidy and the monthly premium. Seniors who choose a less expensive plan could pocket the difference. As a backup — and so CBO could score the plan — per capita costs could not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5%.

The Ryan Path reforms the tax code by creating a two-rate system — 25% and 10% — for individuals, while lowering the corporate rate to 25% and moving to a territorial system. Now because of CBO budget rules, the Ryan Path assumes tax reform doesn’t boost growth, though it almost assuredly would. So when you factor in faster growth, Ryan’s budget numbers look even better. By contrast, Obama would take the top income tax and dividend tax rates to 45%, capital gains to 24%. Talk about austerity.

The Ryan Path isn’t perfect. It takes a pass on Social Security reform and fails to specify what tax breaks would be scaled back or eliminated. But even with those flaws, the Ryan Path presents a vivid contrast with the Obama budget. One leads to prosperity and solvency, the other leads to a debt crisis — with the likely response being massive tax increases and healthcare rationing by Washington – and decline.

As Ryan puts it: ”The choice of two futures presented in this budget is premised on the wisdom of the American people to build a prosperous future for themselves and for generations of Americans to come.
[Reference Here]

It is time to think about the economic future of our country and recognize the serious consequence of continuing along the path our leaders insist on taking our country over these last 11 plus years. Our country demands economic direction through strong leadership and a change to a federal government that is right-sized and focused on results versus intention in its outsized foreign-financed debt/spending agenda experienced here during the 44th Presidency of Barack Obama ... Carter's Second Term.


** Article first published as Paul Ryan's Path To Solvency on Technorati **