Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 26

Should Congress Have More Power to Approve (or Reject) Major Regulations?

Argument in favor

Federal agencies have issued costly regulations without oversight from Congress or much engagement from the general public. This would allow both to reassert their voice in the regulatory process.

Jim's Opinion
···
01/04/2017
When a Government Agency issues a rule or regulation it effectively has the power of a LAW. According to the Constitution Congress is the only ones that has the power to make laws. Congress has given that power up years ago by letting the various Government Agencies do whatever they want without any oversite. The results is that these agencies, run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, particularly the EPA, BLM, HHS as well as the Departments of Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development have run wild pursuing and implementing all manner of their own agendas without any say by Congress or regards to what the American people want. Congress must stop this and start doing what they were sent to Washington to do and that is make laws. Those that maintain that Congress doesn't have the know how to effectively write laws that would be as good as the regulations issued by the bureaucrats may be right but the must be able, and want to, review them and say whether they will go into effect or not. Otherwise we effectively have a anarchy like the EU.
Like (69)
Follow
Share
Edward's Opinion
···
01/05/2017
This would be a good first step toward returning a voice to the people. Creating law under the guise of regulations is a clear end run around Congress and the Constitution. This would also be a nice shot across the bow of the Executive branch and its' overreach.
Like (26)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
03/25/2017
There are too many regulations, which have the force of law, being written by UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS! The power to pass laws rightfully belongs to our ELECTED SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, Congress, IOW. There's nothing stopping Congress from getting advice from the bureaucrats, if you're so concerned about their lack of expertise in certain areas.
Like (17)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The regulations that would have to be approved or rejected by Congress under this bill would be the most significant impact on the environment, the economy, and public health.

Gail's Opinion
···
01/04/2017
Congress does not have the expertise to meaningfully examine many of the highly technical aspects of federal regulations, expertise that is necessary to appropriately review regulations in the short time period allowed under proposed REINS legislation. This statutory proposal is effectively a veto, regardless of the amount of time, reasoning, and analysis undertaken by the agency, and regardless of public input received, and the "veto" takes effect after an unreasonbly short time period. Finally, the proposed REINS Act upends many years of balanced and shared power among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government...instead vesting power in the highly politicized environment of Congress where special interests often hold sway through donations and lobbying efforts... power that is unavailable to the PEOPLE of the U.S.
Like (571)
Follow
Share
Alis's Opinion
···
01/04/2017
In the years since 9/11, I have grown to distrust the House of Representatives & come to think if it as the major stumbling block to the promise of American democracy. The idea of giving the elected bozos even a nano-particle more power is abhorrent! Was it only yesterday they attempted to destroy the Office of Ethical Oversight? I rest my case!!! They cannot be trusted to do anything that benefits anyone but themselves & their wealthy cronies! *** PLUS: They are so clueless that they thought their personal popularity would override the general mood of hatred of Congress & support for the soon-to-be president's agenda of stopping the total obnoxiousness of Congress. In summation: they are too full of hubris to be given additional power! **And now Rep Chaffetz is off & running after the poor ethics guy when had the gall to question Trump's unethical behavior. Can the House of Representatives become more corrupt? An impediment to democracy as I've suspected.
Like (205)
Follow
Share
Isaiahb's Opinion
···
01/03/2017
This is a blatant attempt to cripple regulator Authority of the agencies in question.
Like (203)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
      Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
  • The house Passed January 6th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 237 Yea / 187 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on the Budget
      Committee on Rules
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
  • referral
    Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
  • referral
    Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 22 Reported to House. Both measures shall be considered as read, the previous questions shall be considered as ordered without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate. The rule makes in order a motion to recommit H.R. 26 with or without instructions.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 22.
  • action
    Both H. Res. 11 and H.R. 26 shall be considered as read, and the previous questions shall be considered as ordered without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate. The rule makes in order a motion to recommit on H.R. 26 with or without instructions.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 22 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Randy Hultgren to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 26.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Goodlatte amendment No. 1.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Messer amendment No. 2.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Messer amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Johnson (GA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Grijalva amendment No. 3.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Grijalva amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Grijalva demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Castor (FL) amendment No. 4.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Castor (FL) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Marino demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Cicilline amendment No. 5.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Cicilline amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Cicilline demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Conyers amendment No. 6.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Conyers amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Conyers demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Johnson (GA) amendment No. 7.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Johnson (GA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Johnson (GA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Johnson (GA) amendment No. 8.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Nadler amendment No. 9.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Nadler amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McNerney amendment No. 10.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the McNerney amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. McNerney demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment No. 11.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Scott (VA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 22, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the King (IA) amendment No. 12.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the King (IA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Johnson (GA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    Mr. Marino moved that the committee rise.
  • action
    On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
  • action
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 26 as unfinished business.
  • action
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • action
    The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
  • action
    UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was on adoption of amendments, which were debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 26.
  • action
    The House adopted the amendments en gross as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • action
    Mrs. Murphy (FL) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a new section to the bill that prohibits an insurance issuer from eliminating, weakening, or reducing health coverage benefits for dependents under the age of 26.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 190 - 235 (Roll no. 22).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 237 - 187 (Roll no. 23).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  • hearings
    Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 115-21.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
      Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
  • The house Passed January 6th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 237 Yea / 187 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on the Budget
      Committee on Rules
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    When a Government Agency issues a rule or regulation it effectively has the power of a LAW. According to the Constitution Congress is the only ones that has the power to make laws. Congress has given that power up years ago by letting the various Government Agencies do whatever they want without any oversite. The results is that these agencies, run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, particularly the EPA, BLM, HHS as well as the Departments of Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development have run wild pursuing and implementing all manner of their own agendas without any say by Congress or regards to what the American people want. Congress must stop this and start doing what they were sent to Washington to do and that is make laws. Those that maintain that Congress doesn't have the know how to effectively write laws that would be as good as the regulations issued by the bureaucrats may be right but the must be able, and want to, review them and say whether they will go into effect or not. Otherwise we effectively have a anarchy like the EU.
    Like (69)
    Follow
    Share
    Congress does not have the expertise to meaningfully examine many of the highly technical aspects of federal regulations, expertise that is necessary to appropriately review regulations in the short time period allowed under proposed REINS legislation. This statutory proposal is effectively a veto, regardless of the amount of time, reasoning, and analysis undertaken by the agency, and regardless of public input received, and the "veto" takes effect after an unreasonbly short time period. Finally, the proposed REINS Act upends many years of balanced and shared power among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government...instead vesting power in the highly politicized environment of Congress where special interests often hold sway through donations and lobbying efforts... power that is unavailable to the PEOPLE of the U.S.
    Like (571)
    Follow
    Share
    In the years since 9/11, I have grown to distrust the House of Representatives & come to think if it as the major stumbling block to the promise of American democracy. The idea of giving the elected bozos even a nano-particle more power is abhorrent! Was it only yesterday they attempted to destroy the Office of Ethical Oversight? I rest my case!!! They cannot be trusted to do anything that benefits anyone but themselves & their wealthy cronies! *** PLUS: They are so clueless that they thought their personal popularity would override the general mood of hatred of Congress & support for the soon-to-be president's agenda of stopping the total obnoxiousness of Congress. In summation: they are too full of hubris to be given additional power! **And now Rep Chaffetz is off & running after the poor ethics guy when had the gall to question Trump's unethical behavior. Can the House of Representatives become more corrupt? An impediment to democracy as I've suspected.
    Like (205)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a blatant attempt to cripple regulator Authority of the agencies in question.
    Like (203)
    Follow
    Share
    One of the primary purposes of having executive federal agencies is to de-politicize important, data-driven regulatory decisions that are relevant to and within the bounds of existing law. Voting to require congressional approval for such changes not only alters the chemistry of our checks and balances by weakening the executive branch, but also makes it likely that needed regulations will be whimsically neglected on partisan grounds as Congress attends to other business. I oppose this measure.
    Like (129)
    Follow
    Share
    Sounds to me like a huge attack on the constitutional separation of powers. Congress has plenty of powers of obstruction already. They do not need more.
    Like (86)
    Follow
    Share
    The republicans are not representing the wishes of the people of this country. This will be remembered in 2018!
    Like (68)
    Follow
    Share
    Federal agencies need a buffer from politics in order to accomplish their missions. Allowing Congress (which has the lowest trust and approval ratings of any branch of government) to interfere so directly with the work of federal agencies (currently under the executive branch of government) will negatively impact the balance of power and functionality of our democracy.
    Like (46)
    Follow
    Share
    The regulatory agencies are in place to apply expertise to the various problems and challenges. Congress gets a say in the appointment of responsible, competent regulators. From that point, their findigs should have priority.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    This act would shift the balance of power away from the Executive to the Legislative Branch. Congress should not be playing politics with every rule or regulation enacted by our Government Agencies. The passive-aggressive time expiration is a particularly spineless way of letting relevant rules simply whither on the vine. Vote No on this resolution.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    This would be a good first step toward returning a voice to the people. Creating law under the guise of regulations is a clear end run around Congress and the Constitution. This would also be a nice shot across the bow of the Executive branch and its' overreach.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    This act would essentially weaponize congressional inaction.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    There are too many regulations, which have the force of law, being written by UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS! The power to pass laws rightfully belongs to our ELECTED SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, Congress, IOW. There's nothing stopping Congress from getting advice from the bureaucrats, if you're so concerned about their lack of expertise in certain areas.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Federal agencies have the expertise needed to make critical decisions in a timely manner. Congress lacks the expertise to make these credible decisions. Federal regulations should not be a popularity contest. Leave slimy politics out of it.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    If a regulation created by unelected bureaucrats has the same authority to ruin lives and business as a Congressional law then it should require the same Congressional & Presidential approval.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Equal power no one should have more power than another
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Our Congress doesn't have enough study time devoted to these issues to make decisions about them.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Congressional approval of proposed new rules would be an important step toward holding both regulators and Congress accountable for the regulations imposed on the private sector. It is no panacea for the problems of excessive regulation. But, especially if combined with other steps, it would be a significant step forward.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    This is just awful. Another blatant attempt at crippling regulators. Congressional members do not have the expertise to decide these regulations and they will undoubtedly keep their donors in mind, and NOT the American people.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    I am not putting the environment, the economy, or public health into the hands of Congress, if there is one group in this country who does not understand what Americans actually want and need on these high profile issues it's Congress. Too much of government policy nowadays is based on profit lines from corporate lobbyists to Washington, with all our congressional representatives lining their pockets instead of caring one bit about the rest of us and what's right for us. I don't need Congress causing the next recession, a public health epidemic or an environmental disaster so they have leverage over other lawmakers. If Congress is smart they'll start reading some of these messages and listen to what their constituents actually want.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE