WASHINGTON — The House voted last week to put a brake on major federal regulations, part of a drive by Republicans to rein in what they consider onerous government rules.
Lawmakers voted 241-184 to require congressional approval of any federal regulations expected to significantly increase costs to businesses or have an annual impact on the economy of more than $100 million.
Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., who sponsored the REINS Act, said it would ensure that major rules match the intent of Congress. The title is an acronym for “Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny.”
“With greater accountability and transparency, regulatory agencies will have no choice but to write regulations that reflect the need for sensible standards and take into account the impact regulations have on American businesses and families,” Davis said.
Democrats argued the bill would block regulations needed to protect the environment and workers by establishing an impractical review process. Under the bill, they said, Congress would have had to approve 94 major rules in the 116 days they were in session in 2010.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
“Use your arithmetic skills, ladies and gentlemen. This bill would be unworkable, and it would be impossible for new regulations to be enacted. But then, maybe that’s the whole thrust of the matter,” said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.
All Republicans who were present voted for the bill, along with four Democrats. All other Democrats present voted against it.
Reps. Rick Crawford, R-Jonesboro, Tim Griffin, R-Little Rock, and Steve Womack, R-Rogers, voted for the bill. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, voted against it.
The bill was one of a number of anti-regulation proposals House Republicans promoted this year as needed reforms to encourage business investments and hiring.
House approves farm dust legislation
The House on Thursday approved legislation that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing any new regulations of “coarse particulate matter” — otherwise known as farm dust.
The entire Arkansas delegation voted for the bill, which passed 268-150. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, was one of only 33 Democrats to back it. No Republican opposed the bill.
Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Little Rock, said the bill is needed to protect farmers from the “regulatory whims of the EPA.”
“You can’t farm without creating a little dust, and the EPA’s consideration of a new standard shows an utter disregard for the impact such regulations would have on Arkansas’s agricultural community, which contributes over $17 billion to our state’s economy annually,” he said.
Opponents argued that legislation is not needed to block the EPA because the agency has said that it is not seeking to regulate farm dust.
The proposed bill, they said, would be harmful because it would also prevent EPA from regulating particulates produced by mining operations, refineries and other large industrial sources.
“Hiding behind this made up threat (to farmers), this bill inflicts very real harm because it also blocks EPA from setting standards for dirty soot that gets spewed out of massive mines and refineries,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.
Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky, argued that Congress needs to make it easier for the 2.2 million farms in the United States to thrive and not burden them with costly and unnecessary regulations.
Crawford said that the legislation would provide farmers and ranchers with important protections, which is why it has strong support from more than 185 organizations including the Arkansas Farm Bureau and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
The bill has no real chance of becoming law. Senate Democratic leaders have said they will not approve it, and President Barack Obama has said he would veto it.
House modernizes video privacy law
The House voted 303-116 to make it easier for Netflix and other video services to utilize Facebook and social media networks to promote what “friends” are watching.
The bill would amend a 1998 law designed to protect consumers from having their video rental history published.
Proponents said the updated legislation was narrowly crafted to preserve privacy protections while allowing consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite television shows or movies on social media in a simple way.
Opponents said that people are already able to share video preferences online. The legislation simply would relieve companies from the burden of protecting consumer records by allowing them to obtain one-time universal consent to disclose users’ viewing history, they said.
Crawford, Griffin, Ross and Womack voted for the bill.
Confirmation stalls
Senate Republicans blocked confirmation of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Democrats fell seven votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster of Cordray’s confirmation. The Senate vote was 53-45. Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown was the only Republican who voted to end the blockade.
Senate Republicans have vowed for months to block any nominee to head the bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, until the agency is restructured. They say it lacks the transparency and accountability of other regulatory agencies.
“Lack of accountability contributed in big ways to many of the problems that came to a head in the 2008 financial meltdown. It doesn’t make sense to try to fix things with more of the same and unchecked power,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Democrats argue that a bureau chief is needed to protect consumers from deceptive or predatory loan products in the financial marketplace. Without a director, the bureau is prohibited from overseeing “nonbank” institutions such as mortgage companies, payday lenders and credit bureaus.
“It’s shocking that despite the economic crash in our rearview mirror, Republicans would leave consumers without a watchdog to guard against greed of Wall Street,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., voted for Cordray. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., voted against him.
Standoff continues on payroll tax cut
The Senate once again hit an impasse on proposals to extend Social Security payroll tax cuts, a central part of President Barack Obama’s jobs strategy.
Most Democrats and some Republicans agreed the year-old tax break, which has saved families as much as $1,000, should not be allowed to expire as the economy sputters. But they disagree on how to pay for it.
Democrats proposed paying for the tax cut by applying a 1.9 percent tax surcharge on earnings above $1 million. Some Republicans preferred extending a freeze on federal worker pay and increasing Medicare premiums for millionaires.
Following the votes, leaders continued to negotiate the issue in hopes of coming up with a resolution by the time Congress adjourns for the holidays.
The Democrat plan failed 50-48. Pryor voted for it. Boozman voted against it.
The Republican plan failed 22-76. Pryor and Boozman voted against it.