Congress buries Obama’s public lands rule

3/7/17 – By David Freddoso

The Senate today passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to strike down what’s known as “BLM 2.0” — a last-minute Obama administration rule on how the Bureau of Land Management gathers input and makes planning decisions about public land use.

Of all the CRA actions in Congress so far, this seems like the least discussed and the worst explained — well, maybe not as badly explained as the rule they repealed taking away gun rights from disabled people, but almost.

This rule was a very big deal out West, where most federal land is located. Its critics included Western state and local governments and local stakeholders affected by BLM decisions. The effect of the rule was not so much to increase public input into BLM decisions, as some have framed it, as to place input from people in D.C., New York or Miami on par with that of local authorities and of the people who live near or use the land and actually have to live with the decisions that are made.

Another sticking point: The rule’s prioritization of “social and environmental change” in land use decisions. This is a novelty. BLM’s statutory mandate is a lot simpler: “sustained yield,” and “multiple use,” described by the agency itself on its website as follows:

The BLM’s multiple-use mission, set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, mandates that we manage public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide array of natural, cultural, and historical resources…

This is one of many late Obama-era rules and regulations that Congress and President Trump have been working to undo using the Congressional Review Act.

One particularly amusing reaction to this CRA action in Congress helps illustrate the importance and the underestimated power of the CRA. It was given to Reuters by an environmental activist, and it echoes many Democratic lawmakers’ comments during the recent flurry of CRA activity:

Some conservation groups said using the CRA to revoke the measure was a “knee-jerk” and unnecessary measure, and that the land planning rule could have been revised by the BLM.

“I struggle to understand why they would waste their time trying to strike down this rule and why not let the administration fix the rule,” said Phil Hanceford of the Wilderness Society.

I can tell you why they used the CRA. When Congress invokes the CRA, it means that no future administration can issue this rule or any like it, until and unless Congress passes a new law. The Congressional Review Act kills bad rules dead.

   
Washington Examiner

Photo credit: AP

CRA: The "Regulatory Game Changer" That Could Wipe Out 8 Years Of Obama Regs In An Hour

After a pompous, liberal agenda was crammed down the throats of the American people during his first two years in office, President Obama suffered staggering losses in Congress for the next six years that cost Democrats control of both houses.  But, heavy Democrat losses, courtesy of an electorate that vehemently rejected a far-left agenda, didn"t stop Obama from continuing to push through countless new rules and regulations from the White House all while pushing his authority to the brink of every Constitutional boundary known to man. 

Of course, the problem with "legislating from the White House" is that all those rules and regulations can be undone by the next administration.  And, as Kimberley Strassel points out in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece today, a little know tool within the Congressional Review Act could allow Republicans to wipe out 8 full years of Obama"s liberal agenda, with a simple majority vote, all while preventing similar rules from every being recreated by future administrations.

Todd Gaziano on Wednesday stepped into a meeting of free-market attorneys, think tankers and Republican congressional staff to unveil a big idea. By the time he stepped out, he had reset Washington’s regulatory battle lines.

These days Mr. Gaziano is a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation. But in 1996 he was counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh. He was intimately involved in drafting and passing a bill Mr. McIntosh sponsored: the Congressional Review Act. No one knows the law better.

Everyone right now is talking about the CRA, which gives Congress the ability, with simple majorities, to overrule regulations from the executive branch. Republicans are eager to use the law, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week unveiled the first five Obama rules that his chamber intends to nix.

So, here"s how it works:

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

Here’s how it works: It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.

But, it gets even better:

There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Think the Obama administration’s controversial guidance on transgender bathrooms in schools or on Title IX and campus sexual assault. It is highly unlikely agencies submitted reports to lawmakers on these actions.

“If they haven’t reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged,” says Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Larkin, also at Wednesday’s meeting, told me challenges could be leveled against any rule or guidance back to 1996, when the CRA was passed.

The best part? Once Congress overrides a rule, agencies cannot reissue it in “substantially the same form” unless specifically authorized by future legislation. The CRA can keep bad regs and guidance off the books even in future Democratic administrations—a far safer approach than if the Mr. Trump simply rescinded them.

As Strassel points out: "The entire point of the CRA was to help legislators rein in administrations that ignored statutes and the will of Congress. Few White House occupants ever showed more contempt for the law and lawmakers than Mr. Obama. Republicans if anything should take pride in using a duly passed statue to dispose of his wayward regulatory regime. It’d be a fitting and just end to Mr. Obama’s abuse of authority—and one of the better investments of time this Congress could ever make."

CRA: The “regulatory game changer” that could wipe out 8 years of Obama regs in an hour

After a pompous, liberal agenda was crammed down the throats of the American people during his first two years in office, President Obama suffered staggering losses in Congress for the next six years that cost Democrats control of both houses.

But, heavy Democrat losses, courtesy of an electorate that vehemently rejected a far-left agenda, didn’t stop Obama from continuing to push through countless new rules and regulations from the White House all while pushing his authority to the brink of every Constitutional boundary known to man.

Of course, the problem with “legislating from the White House” is that all those rules and regulations can be undone by the next administration.  And, as Kimberley Strassel points out in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece today, a little know tool within the Congressional Review Act could allow Republicans to wipe out 8 full years of Obama’s liberal agenda, with a simple majority vote, all while preventing similar rules from every being recreated by future administrations.

Todd Gaziano on Wednesday stepped into a meeting of free-market attorneys, think tankers and Republican congressional staff to unveil a big idea. By the time he stepped out, he had reset Washington’s regulatory battle lines.

These days Mr. Gaziano is a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation. But in 1996 he was counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh. He was intimately involved in drafting and passing a bill Mr. McIntosh sponsored: the Congressional Review Act. No one knows the law better.

Everyone right now is talking about the CRA, which gives Congress the ability, with simple majorities, to overrule regulations from the executive branch. Republicans are eager to use the law, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week unveiled the first five Obama rules that his chamber intends to nix.

So, here’s how it works:

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

Here’s how it works: It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.

But, it gets even better:

There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Think the Obama administration’s controversial guidance on transgender bathrooms in schools or on Title IX and campus sexual assault. It is highly unlikely agencies submitted reports to lawmakers on these actions.

“If they haven’t reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged,” says Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Larkin, also at Wednesday’s meeting, told me challenges could be leveled against any rule or guidance back to 1996, when the CRA was passed.

The best part? Once Congress overrides a rule, agencies cannot reissue it in “substantially the same form” unless specifically authorized by future legislation. The CRA can keep bad regs and guidance off the books even in future Democratic administrations—a far safer approach than if the Mr. Trump simply rescinded them.

As Strassel points out: “The entire point of the CRA was to help legislators rein in administrations that ignored statutes and the will of Congress. Few White House occupants ever showed more contempt for the law and lawmakers than Mr. Obama. Republicans if anything should take pride in using a duly passed statue to dispose of his wayward regulatory regime. It’d be a fitting and just end to Mr. Obama’s abuse of authority—and one of the better investments of time this Congress could ever make.”

Via ZeroHedge

Featured Image: DonkeyHotey/Fickr

Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.

House Passes Bill To Undo Months Of Obama Regulations With Just One Vote

The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday giving Congress the power to kill so-called "midnight rules", months of recently enacted Obama administration regulations with just one vote, as Republicans charged ahead on their campaign to strip down federal regulations.

If passed by the Senate and signed by President-elect Donald Trump, the legislation would amend the Congressional Review Act to allow lawmakers to bundle together multiple rules and overturn them en masse with a joint resolution of disapproval. The White House has already threatened to veto the bill if it were to make it to President Obama"s desk before he leaves office.

"Because outgoing administrations are no longer accountable to the voters, they are much more prone to issue midnight regulations that fly in the face of the electoral mandate the voters just gave the new, incoming administration," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte before the vote. "Waves of midnight rules can also be very hard for Congress or a new administration to check adequately."

It was the second time the Republican-dominated chamber took up legislation blocking "midnight rules," those rolled out at the close of a president"s term. However, the previous bill, introduced in November, had faced a certain veto from President Barack Obama, a Democrat. On its second day back in session, the House passed the bill on a vote of 238 to 184.

Under a law known as the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the right to review regulations for a certain period of time after they are issued. That means any federal regulation approved since May could be voided by the Republican-led Congress once President-elect Donald Trump moves into the White House and can sign off on their disapproval.

It would take just a simple majority of both chambers to reverse a rule, giving Senate Democrats little power to block a vote with a filibuster. Called a shotgun approach for a reason as disapproving each regulation separately could span days, Republicans would like to simply vote once to end a variety of new rules on energy, the environment, transportation, banking, finance, education and media ownership.

With Obamacare already being dismantled, the adverse impact on what"s left of Obama"s legacy could be dire. As Reuters adds, many Wall Street regulations inspired by the 2007-09 financial crisis have only recently taken final form or are on the cusp of completion, putting them in the disapproval line of fire. That includes two pending rules on payday lending and mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts - both of which have raised Republican ire.

Cutting down regulation was a near-constant theme in Republican political campaigns last year, and is part of House Speaker Paul Ryan"s "Better Way" agenda. The House is also expected to consider soon legislation that would require a congressional vote of approval for any new regulation.