Advertisement

May 18, 2013

As Congress Tries to Wrest Control from Agencies, Questions on Safety and Health for Citizens

GOP assault on regulations could undermine air pollution protections

In the latest challenge to regulatory Washington, the Republican-led House on Wednesday passed the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act.” The legislation, also known as the REINS Act, would allow Congress to block the costliest regulations and add new hurdles for some of the more expansive environmental, health and workplace safety protections for citizens.

The REINS Act would send to Congress for a vote any “major rule” expected to have more than a $100 million annual economic effect, significantly increase costs or stifle productivity or innovation. The category could include proposed rules to strengthen protections from toxic air pollution that still plagues hundreds of communities across the country.

Though the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, it provides heightened visibility for an issue that repeatedly has surfaced on the campaign trail and in television advertising in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. Republicans, calling for a shift in oversight duties from unelected bureaucrats to elected legislators, say regulations come at a big cost to jobs and the economy. Democrats contend the move would undermine protections that ensure Americans safe food, water, air, workplaces and consumer products.  Only four Democrats sided with Republicans in Wednesday's 241-184 vote.

Republicans assert that the Obama administration has unleashed a torrent of regulations, creating uncertainty in the business community. But a recent examination of government data by Bloomberg found that, 33 months into his presidency, Obama had approved 5 percent fewer regulations than his predecessor, George W. Bush, during his first 33 months.

The proposed legislation alarms progressive groups who say it could subject crucial public protections to the whims of politicians who are easily influenced and sometimes have little understanding of the complexities involved in rulemaking.

The White House issued a statement Tuesday, threatening to veto the legislation and calling it “a radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers.”

As The Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News has reported, approval of regulations can be a drawn-out process. In setting rules to address almost 200 toxic air pollutants — a task assigned by Congress in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act — the Environmental Protection Agency has been “grossly delinquent,” a federal judge wrote in 2006.

Some of the agency’s proposed rules to address toxic air pollution also face legislation designed to delay or block implementation because of concern about economic effects.

Meanwhile, as iWatch News also has reportedenforcement of rules on the books is often weak or lagging. A once-secret EPA “watch list,” for example, includes serious or chronic offenders of the Clean Air Act that have not faced formal enforcement action — sometimes for years.

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Chris Hamby has a master’s degree in journalism with a concentration in investigative reporting from the University of Missouri, and he has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Richmond. In 2010 he completed a yearlong re-examination of a disputed murder case, supported in part by an investigative reporting fellowship. He has written about subjects such as politics and policy, the criminal justice system, and the environment for various print and online publications.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.