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

[Case_Closed]

• Tweet

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

The measure, dubbed the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny -- or REINS -- Act, would require Congress to sign off on any new rule estimated to cost more than $100 million. It passed 241 to 184, with a handful of Democrats crossing the aisle.

The REINS Act is only the latest of a slew of bills aimed at peeling back regulations, which House Republicans have pushed for in the name of cutting red tape and freeing up businesses. The GOP sees the regulations as overbearing rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats.

"Who do the regulators answer to? No one," said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in debate on the House floor.

"When the regulators go to work everyday, like most people go to work, their work assignment's a little different," Poe said. "In my opinion, they sit around a big oak table, sipping their lattes. They have out their iPads and their computers, and they decide, 'Who shall we regulate today?' And they write a regulation and send it out to the masses and make us deal with the cost to that."

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.), argued that if Congress can stop rules in their tracks, businesses will flourish.

"Poll after poll of small business owners, of medium-sized business owners -- they will show you and tell you that major regulations are holding back their expansion and the ability of them to hire more workers," Quayle said.

The bill would effectively give either chamber a veto on a regulation because leaders could simply not put it on the calendar for a vote, and the rule would expire after 70 congressional working days.

The Senate is unlikely to pass the measure.

Opponents of the bill argue that there is actually no evidence that regulation is a drag on the economy. Although REINS advocates frequently point to an estimate that regulations cost business more than $1 trillion a year, opponents point to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office that found the benefits of regulations often outweigh their costs by spurring economic activity.

Environmental advocates have been especially alarmed about the REINS Act because many environmental regulations fall into the "major" category, with their impact often exceeding $100 million in cost. They fear the measure is simply a way to let the Tea Party and special interests shoot down any new rule to protect the air and water.

The Act's opponents also note that it's ironic the GOP legislative attempt comes during an administration that has promoted fewer regulations that the previous one, and that the regulations Congress wants to block stem from laws passed by Congress itself.

Democrats cast the entire exercise as a partisan distraction from attempts to do something about the economy, including extending a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits that run out at the end of the year.

"Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat -- please to put a dollar in the workers' hand," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "I urge my colleagues to vote no on this REINS Act, and to get to work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the American people."

"Only then will we increase demand in our economy, create jobs, promote economic growth and put money into the pockets of 160 million Americans," Pelosi said. "Think of the difference that will make instead of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth is not in furtherance of job creation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/house-passes-bill-to-grant-congress-veto-power_n_1135030.html

[ivanm]

Yeh, the goose is getting fat, so that socialist wants to eat it.  No more golden eggs.

[IM2]

Unconstitutional.

[dustup]

Unconstitutional.

....under which article???

[Case_Closed]

....under which article???

He wouldn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence if it crept up behind him and made wild angry monkey sex to his tender anus.

[dustup]

December 07, 2011 Roll call number 901 in the House
Question On Passage: H R 10 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: 241 (Democrat: 4; Republican: 237)
Nays: 184 (Democrat: 184; Republican: 0)
Abstained: 8 (Democrat: 4; Republican: 4)
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
Percentage of 'aye' votes: 55%

Breakdown here: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/901

Thanks to Democrats..........Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]Aye,  Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Aye, Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]Abstain, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]Abstain, Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22] Abstain, Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Aye, Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8] Abstain, Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]Aye, for voting for H R 10! 

 
 

[dustup]

Flip Flopper Obama: WILL NOT VETO DETENTION BILL

Mac Slavo
shtfplan.com
Thursday, December 15, 2011

This evening the U.S. House of Representatives passed, with overwhelming support, the National Defense Authorization Act in a 283-to-136 vote.

You’ll note that at the time the legislation was being debated President Obama assured Americans that he would never sign the bill if it came to his desk.

The bill, which allows for the indefinite detainment of those, including American citizens, suspected of engaging in or supporting terrorist activity has not changed in any meaningful way over the last few weeks. This, of course, leaves inquiring minds questioning why the President would have so abruptly reversed his position:

Less than a month after he threatened to veto terrifying legislation that would cease constitutional rights as we know it, Obama has revoked his warning and plans to authorize a bill allowing indefinite detention and torture of Americans.

After passing in the House of Representatives earlier this year, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 went before the US Senate last week, where it was met with overwhelming approval. In the days before,the Obama administration issued a policy statement on November 17 saying explicitly that the president would veto the bill, as it would challenge “the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.”

Opposition from the White House seemed all but rampant until RT revealed earlier this week that Senator Carl Levin told lawmakers that the legislation was altered because “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that those last minute changes yielded legislation that would “not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people,” and therefore “the president’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”

Originally the White House said that the administration objected to matters in the bill that applied to detainees. Under the act, Americans could be arrested and held indefinitely in military-run prisons and tortured without charges ever being brought forth, essentially making Guantanamo Bay a threat for every American citizen.

Source: RT

On December 5th, ahead of Congressional voting, Senator Rand Paul warned that the new legislation would allow the government to detain American citizens under terrorism laws without evidence, charge or trial. Specifically, Paul cited the government’s own broad definitions and characterizations for domestic terrorism or suspicious activity as involving those who, among other things, own guns, ammunition or store food.

Preppers Who Have Guns, Ammunition, 7 Days of Food Can Be Considered a Potential Terrorist

 

Bill Cosponsor John McCain (under questioning from Rand Paul) argues that detention (as defined by the National Defense Authorization Act) of anyone who is deemed a threat to the national security of the United States of America is appropriate:

Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. McCain speak on Detainees on Senate Floor - 11/29/11	Small | Large

 

The very fact that this bill was ever penned and allowed to get as far as it has gotten in our Constitutional Republic is cause for concern. A glimmer of hope existed for a few weeks when the President claimed he would veto it if it came to his desk. As has been the case throughout this administration’s term, however, our hope was for naught. Someone, somewhere needs this legislation to pass. To what end we can only speculate.

[IM2]

No one cares what Rand Paul thinks and McCain the Panamainian has been mad since he got his ass whipped in the last election.

You guys supported the Patriot Act and Bushs detaining people for indefinite periods at Guantanamo, so shut up.

[dustup]

No one cares what Rand Paul thinks and McCain the Panamainian has been mad since he got his ass whipped in the last election.

You guys supported the Patriot Act and Bushs detaining people for indefinite periods at Guantanamo, so shut up.

.....I never supported it......I was against it from its inception......but Obama sure supports it!!! 

[IM2]

You still think Obama is a Kenyan dusty. That's how far off you are.

[dustup]

You still think Obama is a Kenyan dusty. That's how far off you are.

.....I never said Obama was a Kenyan.....it is you that allude to that .......I said he wasn't qualified to be POTUS ........case in point America's current state of affairs.......