Republicans Push Plan to Undercut Public Health, Safety, and Environmental Safeguards

Republicans are proposing a halt to all new major regulations unless they are first subject to the rules and procedures of Congress and passed by a vote.

This rollback-by-roll-call proposal is part of Republicans’ “Pledge to America” legislative agenda, unveiled today “at a news conference at a hardware store and lumberyard in Sterling, Va.,” according to The New York Times. (It’s ironic that Republicans chose a lumberyard to launch their plan to deconstruct government.)

A bill to implement the proposal, which would require Congress to approve all economically significant regulations (those anticipated to have costs or benefits exceeding $100 million per year) before they can take effect, was introduced in the Senate yesterday. A similar bill was introduced in the House in October 2009.

Here are the major reasons, as I see them, why the idea to require Congressional approval of economically significant regulations is a dud:

  • It would delay public protections. Taking into account the time Congress wastes with infighting, political bickering, frequent recesses, and four-day weekends – not to mention the actual consideration and debate of bills, however rare – it is unlikely both the House and the Senate will find time to approve economically significant rules, several of which agencies issue every month.
  • It would delay even non-economically significant rules. Though it does not appear, under the current House bill, that the economic significance determination would be judicially reviewable, it is plausible to think that lawmakers or industry representatives unhappy with a rule that has been deemed to have an economic impact less than $100 million could find ways to challenge agencies or persuade them to change their designation, thereby forcing those rules into Congress’s hands. This would only further politicize the notoriously controversial, and often inaccurate, cost-benefit analyses agencies are required to perform.
  • It’s redundant. Congress already approves economically significant rules when it writes laws. Consider a pending economically significant FDA regulation for warning labels on cigarette packages. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which Congress passed just last year, requires FDA to write the warning-label rule. The Republican plan would require another vote. That’s exactly the kind of inefficient government procedure that most Americans cringe at.
  • It would cause injury, illness, and death. Think that’s hyperbolic? So-called economically significant rules are often the most protective of workers, consumers, and the environment. Consider this EPA proposal to limit smog and soot emissions, or this recent OSHA regulation meant to protect crane and derrick workers. Even a few weeks or months tacked onto the rulemaking process delays protection. This is, of course, the most serious consequence of the Republicans’ plan. 

Stay tuned, or visit your local lumberyard, for more.

back to Blog