HB 19-13: Congressional Review of Regulations Act (Failed)

[YE]

CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF REGULATIONS ACT

SECTION I: NAME
This Act shall be referred to as the Congressional Review of Regulations Act

SECTION II. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW
a. Before a rule may take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall publish in the Federal Register a list of information on which the rule is based, including data, scientific and economic studies, and cost-benefit analyses, and identify how the public can access such information online, and shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing:
   1. a copy of the rule;
   2. a concise general statement relating to the rule;
   3. a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor rule, including an explanation of the classification;
   4. a list of any other related regulatory actions intended to implement the same statutory provision or regulatory objective as well as the individual and aggregate economic effects of those actions; and
   5. the proposed effective date of the rule.
b. On the date of the submission of the report under subparagraph a., the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to each House of Congress “(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule, if any, including an analysis of any jobs added or lost, differentiating between public and private sector jobs to review and certify to Congress;
c. A major rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph a. shall take effect upon enactment of a joint resolution of approval by both houses of Congress and only then, with the following exceptions:
   1. Rules that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.
   2. Rules that are necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency;
   3. Rules that are necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
   4. Rules that are necessary for national security;
   5. Rules that are issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement;
   6. Any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping; or
d. A nonmajor rule shall take effect as otherwise provided by existing federal law unless upon enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval by both houses of Congress.
e. For purposes of this section, the term ‘joint resolution’ means only a joint resolution addressing a report classifying a rule as major and decided upon a vote of aye or nay on the rule as submitted by the federal agency.
 
SECTION III: DEFINITIONS
a. For purposes of this law:
   1. The term ‘major rule’ means any rule, including an interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in:
      A. an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for inflation;
      B. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
      C. significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
   2. The term ‘nonmajor rule’ means any rule that is not a major rule.
   3. The term ‘rule’ has the meaning given such term in the Administrative Procedures Act.

SECTION IV: TIME
a. This act shall take effect ninety (90) days after the date this act is ratified.

Sponsor: Tea Party Hater
Debate must last at least 72 hours.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So this is a heavily slimmed down/watered down version of the REINS Act. What this does is restore the lawmaking process to lawmakers by requiring stupendously expensive regs (exceeding $100 Million a year) to also be voted on by Congress, since afterall that's what they are elected for.

[fhtagn]

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost on page 2.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

[fhtagn]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

Care to elaborate on why you feel this is an "unnecessary limitation"?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

Care to elaborate on why you feel this is an "unnecessary limitation"?

Implies distrust in Griffin and his cabinet, which only create the best regulations for the people.

[fhtagn]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

Care to elaborate on why you feel this is an "unnecessary limitation"?

Implies distrust in Griffin and his cabinet, which only create the best regulations for the people.

So basically you can't think of any legitimate points. Good to know.

[YE]

This doesn't seem as playable as it is on the surface since little regs are often not touched by the executive, but on the other hand, it hypothetically could enhance debate, so I find this harmless to mildly beneficial.

[fhtagn]

Agreeing with YE's point in that this is beneficial because it could enhance debate. It's a fact that Congress isn't debating enough (as evidenced by this thread), and anything that could potentially bring more of it in is a good thing.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

Care to elaborate on why you feel this is an "unnecessary limitation"?

Implies distrust in Griffin and his cabinet, which only create the best regulations for the people.

I've wanted to push the REINS Act for like a year.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

Care to elaborate on why you feel this is an "unnecessary limitation"?

Implies distrust in Griffin and his cabinet, which only create the best regulations for the people.

I've wanted to push the REINS Act for like a year.

I'm simply saying the act is unnecessary in this new era of long-term labor dominance, whose executives do not need this type of oversight.

[fhtagn]

Opposed to this unnecessary limitation on Griffin's power

Care to elaborate on why you feel this is an "unnecessary limitation"?

Implies distrust in Griffin and his cabinet, which only create the best regulations for the people.

I've wanted to push the REINS Act for like a year.

I'm simply saying the act is unnecessary in this new era of long-term labor dominance, whose executives do not need this type of oversight.

So once again you have no legitimate argument. Good to know.

[YE]

Can Wulfric become more arrogant regarding Labor domination that he thinks is guaranteed?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can Wulfric become more arrogant regarding Labor domination that he thinks is guaranteed?

Lol. By his argument we can repeal all conflict of interest laws.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

What's going on with this?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Also, this bill is unnecessary and has no real benefits.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motion to Table.

Let's not waste this slot further on a bill the Senate probably won't pass and that Griffin definitely wouldn't sign.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Also, this bill is unnecessary and has no real benefits.

The benefit is restoring legislative power to the legislative branch. That bureaucrats can impose crimes without legislative approval is a big contributor to overcriminalization.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the motion to table.

People provided legitimate arguments for why this is a good thing, and Wulfric can't even be bothered to provide a decent argument for why he opposes this (sorry, your arrogance when it comes to a party that doesn't even like you doesn't count).

[YE]

Not in support of tabling this.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In real life, this bill has only been considered with the intent to eliminate administrative regulations set by an unfriendly administration. Even when Republicans gave it a roll call vote in 2017, the intention was that it would only be intended to remove Obama-era regulations, and would never actually be used to remove Trump-era regulations. This is because for the majority to remove even a single regulation of a favorable administration, or indeed, even to seriously entertain doing so, represents fundamental distrust and effectively allows the minority to take undue control of the government and its activities.

Further, we are wasting our time and the slot by considering this, as I see no reason to believe Griffin would sign it into law. Therefore I urge that the bill be tabled.

[Mr. Reactionary]

In real life, this bill has only been considered with the intent to eliminate administrative regulations set by an unfriendly administration. Even when Republicans gave it a roll call vote in 2017, the intention was that it would only be intended to remove Obama-era regulations, and would never actually be used to remove Trump-era regulations. This is because for the majority to remove even a single regulation of a favorable administration, or indeed, even to seriously entertain doing so, represents fundamental distrust and effectively allows the minority to take undue control of the government and its activities.

Further, we are wasting our time and the slot by considering this, as I see no reason to believe Griffin would sign it into law. Therefore I urge that the bill be tabled.

I would support this against Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc ... as someone who is involved in administrative law, this is just a commonsense proposal. No reason to impute real life partisanship to in game policies, Mr. Fake persona.

[JGibson]

I second Wulfric's request to table.

[YE]

A vote to table is now open.

[YE]

Nay