2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Allow Congress To Disapprove Regulations
Made In A Presidents Final Year Via The Congressional Review Act En
Bloc. In November 2016, Fitzpatrick voted for legislation that would
have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "permit[ed] a new Congress
to use the procedures under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove
en bloc multiple regulations issued during the final year of a
president's term." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by
a vote of 238 to 184. The Senate took no substantive action on the
legislation. [House Vote 8,
1/4/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/4/17; Congressional Actions,
H.R.
5982]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Repeal Supreme Court Precedent That
Deferred To Agency Interpretation Of The Underlying Law As Part Of
Legislation That Made Significant Changes To Federal Rule-Making. In
January 2017, Fitzpatrick voted for legislation that altered the
procedure for federal rule-making. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"Passage of the bill that would modify the federal rule-making process,
including by codifying requirements for agencies to consider costs and
benefits of alternatives. The bill would create additional steps that
agencies would need to follow when planning 'major' rules with annual
costs of more than $100 million or 'high-impact' rules with annual
costs of more than $1 billion. For example, agencies would need to hold
an advanced-notice comment period prior to proposing such rules to
determine whether to continue the rule-making process. The measure would
postpone the effective dates of 'high impact' rules until any lawsuits
filed within 60 days of the rule's publication in the Federal Register
are resolved. It would effectively overturn two Supreme Court decisions
that require federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of
the underlying law or rule when considering legal challenges to rules.
It would also require agencies to evaluate the 'indirect' impacts of
proposed rules on small businesses." The vote was on passage. The House
passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 183. The Senate took no substantive
action on the legislation. [House Vote 45,
1/11/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/11/17; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
5]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Postpone Enactment Of Regulations With At
Least $1 Billion Of Impact Until All Legal Challenges Filed Within 60
Days Of Publication Are Resolved As Part Of Legislation That Made
Significant Changes To Federal Rule-Making. In January 2017,
Fitzpatrick voted for legislation that altered the procedure for federal
rule-making. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill
that would modify the federal rule-making process, including by
codifying requirements for agencies to consider costs and benefits of
alternatives. The bill would create additional steps that agencies would
need to follow when planning 'major' rules with annual costs of more
than $100 million or 'high-impact' rules with annual costs of more than
$1 billion. For example, agencies would need to hold an advanced-notice
comment period prior to proposing such rules to determine whether to
continue the rule-making process. The measure would postpone the
effective dates of 'high impact' rules until any lawsuits filed within
60 days of the rule's publication in the Federal Register are resolved.
It would effectively overturn two Supreme Court decisions that require
federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of the underlying
law or rule when considering legal challenges to rules. It would also
require agencies to evaluate the 'indirect' impacts of proposed rules on
small businesses." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by
a vote of 238 to 183. It is awaiting action in the Senate. [House Vote
45, 1/11/17;
Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/17;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
5]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee
Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Creating A "Regulatory
Budget." In October 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against a budget
resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly,
"provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It
would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1
trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at
$1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas
Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and
would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense
account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and
would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into
a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs,
such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was
an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC
budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555,
10/5/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
455;
Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res.
71]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Prohibit Agencies From Publically
Supporting Or Opposing Pending Regulations. In March 2017, Fitzpatrick
voted for the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017. According to
Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "require[d]
federal agencies to maintain and regularly update detailed online
databases of regulatory actions taken and pending before the agency.
Under the measure, an agency would [have] be[en] required to list
whether it is considering alternatives and whether it is accepting
comments. It would [have] explicitly prohibit[ed] agencies from
directly advocating support or opposition for pending regulatory actions
in public communications. As amended, the measure would [have]
require[d] an agency to list regulatory actions issued by the agency,
or any other agency, that would duplicate or overlap with the agency's
pending regulatory action." The vote was on passage. The House passed
the bill by a vote of 246 to 176. The Senate took no substantive action
on the legislation. [House Vote 126,
3/2/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 3/2/17; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
1004]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Create A Commission Tasked With Identifying
And Eliminating Government Regulations And Voted To Establish A System
Known As 'Cut-Go' Which Would Require Agencies To Repeal Regulations To
"Offset" New Rules. In March 2017, Fitzpatrick voted for legislation
known as the SCRIB Act. The legislation would have, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "establish[ed] a nine-member commission to
review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should
be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy. The
commission would identify those regulatory policies that should be
repealed immediately, and would set up a 'Cut-Go' system that would
require agencies to repeal existing rules to offset costs before issuing
a new rule. The measure, as amended, would require the commission to
review a rule or regulation's unfunded mandate, whether the rule or
regulation limits or prevents government agencies from adopting
technology to improve efficiency, and the rule or regulation's impact on
wage growth, when determining if the rule or regulation should be
repealed." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by
a vote of 240 to 185. The Senate took no substantive action on the
legislation. [House Vote 114,
3/1/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/7/16; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
998]
The Nine Member Commission Would Be Tasked With Locating
Regulations To Be Repealed Because Their Repeal Would Benefit The
Economy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the
bill that would establish a nine-member commission to review
existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be
repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy."
[Congressional Quarterly,
1/7/16]
Commissioners Would Be Appointed By The President And Confirmed By
The Senate; Eight Of Its Members Must Be From A List Given To The
President By Congressional Leadership From Both Sides Of The
Aisle. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The commission is to
be composed of nine members appointed by the president and confirmed
by the Senate. Under the measure, eight of those appointments must
be from lists of possible nominees submitted by the speaker and
minority leader of the House and the majority and minority leaders
of the Senate (two from each list). The president would select and
appoint the commission's chair, with this individual to be chosen
from among past administrators of OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Administrative Conference of the
United States or other individuals who have similar experience and
expertise in rule-making and regulatory reviews. All appointments
must be submitted to the Senate for confirmation within 180 days of
enactment, and the commission could not hold any votes until all
nine members of the commission are confirmed." [Congressional
Quarterly,
12/31/15]
Bill Opponents Claim That The Bill Does Not Address An Existing
Problem And Its 'Cut-Go' Procedure Would Hinder Agencies From
Properly Performing Their Statutory Responsibilities. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, including most Democrats, argue
that the bill is a solution in search of a problem since there
already exists an extensive framework for agencies to modify and
repeal past regulations. The bill's premise, they say, is based on
the false idea that federal agency rule-making somehow undermines
economic growth and job creation. [...] They say the bill's new
'cut-go' procedures are particularly egregious because they will
inhibit agencies from doing their most basic functions by
prohibiting a simple informal rule-making from taking place, even in
the case of an emergency of threat to public health, until the
agency offsets the costs of that new rule by repealing a rule
identified by the commission." [Congressional Quarterly,
12/31/15]
President Trump Has Called To Reduce Regulations. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "President Trump, meanwhile, has vowed to
reduce regulations and has taken executive actions to impose a
freeze on most pending regulations, as well as to require agencies
to repeal two regulations for every new rule that is proposed. All
agencies are required to set up a task force to identify outdated
and costly rules, as well as those that hinder job creation, with
those identified rules to be subject to possible repeal."
[Congressional Quarterly,
2/24/17]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Require The Commission Created By The SCRUB
Act, Which Would Require Agencies To Eliminate Old Rules In Order To
Create New Ones, To Consider Any Impact Of Public Health. In February
2017, Fitzpatrick voted for an amendment that would have, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the regulatory review commission,
in identifying which rules should be repealed, to consider the extent to
which repealing the rule would impact public health." The underlying
legislation, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish[ed]
a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and
identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing
costs on the U.S. economy. The commission would identify those
regulatory policies that should be repealed immediately, and would set
up a 'Cut-Go' system that would require agencies to repeal existing
rules to offset costs before issuing a new rule. The measure, as
amended, would require the commission to review a rule or regulation's
unfunded mandate, whether the rule or regulation limits or prevents
government agencies from adopting technology to improve efficiency, and
the rule or regulation's impact on wage growth, when determining if the
rule or regulation should be repealed." The vote was on the amendment.
The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 348 to 75. The House later
passed the SCRUB Act. The Senate took no substantive action on the
legislation. [House Vote 105,
2/28/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/28/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/7/16; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
46;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
998]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee
Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Implementing The REINS Act.
In October 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against a budget resolution that
would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9
trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the
budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10
years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for
fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations
funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate
funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would
assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block
grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social
Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be
included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House
GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of
139 to 281. [House Vote 555,
10/5/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
455;
Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res.
71]
2015: Fitzpatrick Voted For Legislation That Would Require
Congressional Approval For Executive Agencies' "Major Rules" Before
Their Implementation. In July 2015, Fitzpatrick voted for legislation
that required Congressional approval of executive agencies' proposals
categorized as "major rules." According to Congressional Quarterly, the
legislation would have required "Congress to approve all executive
agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their
implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process
for joint congressional resolutions of approval." The vote was on
passage of the legislation. The House approved the legislation 243 to
165. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House
Vote 23, 1/5/17;
Congressional Quarterly,
12/30/16; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
26]
"Major Rules" Were Defined By The Legislation As "Regulations With
An Annual Economic Impact Of More Than $100 Million." According
to the Congressional Quarterly, "The measure defines the term 'major
rule' as any rule that would have an annual economic effect greater
than $100 million; would cause a major increase in costs or prices;
or would have a significant adverse effect on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation or U.S. economic
competitiveness." [Congressional Quarterly,
12/30/16]
The Federal Government Issues 3,000 To 4,000 Rules A Year; About
82 Rules Annually Over The Past Five Years That Would Be Considered
Major Rules Under The REINS Act. According to Congressional
Quarterly, " Federal agencies issue 3,000 to 4,000 final rules each
year. Most of these are developed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Transportation, Homeland Security and Commerce
departments. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, on
average, 82 proposed major rules, as defined by the bill, have been
issued per year for the past six years." [Congressional Quarterly,
12/30/16]
Neil Siefring Via The Hill On Identical Legislation From 2015: The
Legislation Amended The Congressional Review Act (1996) Which Has
Been Largely Ineffective At Controlling Regulations From The
Executive Branch. According to the Hill, "The Judiciary
Committee's report on the bill explains that back in 1996, the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) was implemented as an attempt to get
control over the large number of regulations coming from the federal
government. But only one regulation has been undone using CRA, while
60,000 regulations have come into being. Major regulations accounted
for 1,000 of them." [The Hill,
7/28/15]
Neil Siefring Via The Hill On Identical Legislation From 2015: The
REINS Act Made The Executive Branch More Accountable To The
Legislative Branch And Saved Money. According to Neil Siefring via
The Hill, "Last week, the House passed legislation that could change
the way Washington works for the better. It will help give Congress
more oversight on spending, will make the executive branch more
accountable to the legislative branch, and could save a great deal
of money." [The Hill,
8/4/15]
Obama Administration On Identical 2015 Bill: Legislation Was
Unnecessary. According to the Hill, "The controversial regulatory
reform bill, which the House will vote on later this week, would
give Congress the final say over all major regulations. 'This
radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers between
the executive and legislative branches would delay, and in many
cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and executive of
duly-enacted laws,' the White House wrote. [...] The White House
said the REINS Act is unnecessary. 'This administration has already
taken numerous steps to reduce regulatory costs and to ensure that
all major regulations are designed to maximize net benefits to
society,' the White House wrote." [Hill,
7/27/15]
AFL-CIO On Identical 2015 Bill: REINS Act Would Threaten The
Safety Of Workers And The Public. According to a letter from the
Director of Government Affairs of the AFL-CIO to the House of
Representatives, "This is an extreme measure that would make it
virtually impossible for agencies to issue any meaningful rules,
threatening the health and safety of workers and the public. I urge
you to vote against this legislation. [...] The REINS Act would
cripple a regulatory process that already causes excessive delays in
the issuance of crucial worker and public protections. For example,
despite having unanimous support from industry and labor, the 2010
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's construction safety
standard on cranes and derricks took ten years to finalize. Under
REINS, Congressional inaction could simply kill such commonsense
rules. [... The REINS Act represents a grave threat to our
government's ability to protect workers and the public from harm."
[AFL-CIO,
7/27/15]
League Of Conservation Voters On Identical 2015 Bill: The REINS
Act Would Lead To More Premature Deaths, Illnesses, And Negative
Health Impacts Due To Polluters. According to the League of
Conservation Voters, "The REINS Act would delay or shut down the
implementation of vital public health and environmental safeguards,
which would mean more premature deaths, illnesses, and other health
impacts on the American people at the hands of polluters dumping
toxins into our air and water. The bill requires both houses of
Congress to affirmatively approve all significant new public
protections before they take effect. This is nothing more than a
tool for polluters to scuttle new health and environmental
safeguards." [League of Conservation Votes,
7/28/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged
Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual
Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 115th Congress
Scorecard]