What has been happening for decades is that the Congress passes a bill, often a giant one, which authorizes the Executive Branch to do this and that, but, usually in a very generic way. It’s not targeted. Not specific. Like how Obamacare authorized the IRS and HHS to come up with how long people can go without insurance before being fined, but, things are so nebulous that the Exec can create things out of thin air. Like how HHS created the contraception rule. There are zero mentions of contraception in the Ocare bill. Where did that come from?
The Exec keeps creating rules and rules and rules, often using tiny, unrelated language from bills. What to do about that?
Little-Noticed Part of GOP Bill Could ‘Make It Impossible to Regulate’
Government agencies have proposed dozens of major regulations so far this year. One specifies the kinds of operating cords that can be used on custom window coverings, and another would effectively require carmakers to transition two-thirds of all new passenger cars to electric technology.
Under a little-noticed provision in a House bill that passed this month, all of those regulations would need to come before Congress for a vote before they could go into effect.
“It may seem like it’s in the weeds, but it really affects all of us,” said Susan Dudley, the director of the regulatory studies center at George Washington University, who was the top regulatory official in the George W. Bush administration.
She was one of several leading experts unaware that the bill contained this provision.
The Republican legislation, which is not expected to become law in its current form, has mostly attracted attention for its part in the debate about raising the country’s borrowing limit and for its proposals to reduce federal deficits over the next decade. But its effort to reshape the federal regulatory process could arguably have a deeper impact on the future functioning of government.
That’s the way it should be. No regulations unless specifically authorized by the duly elected Legislative Branch. Operating cords? Based on what law? Where did they come up with this? It’s usually regulatory over-reach and/or bureaucrats just doing things for the sake of doing things.
While Congress passes laws every year, federal agencies tend to roll out many, many more regulations. Those long, often technical rules help business understand how the government works, by setting standards for allowable pollution, establishing how much doctors and hospitals will be paid for medical care, and explaining what numerous technical or vague terms and processes in legislation really mean. The process of rule-making often takes years and requires a period of public comment before a regulation becomes final.
Rules should stem from specific, detailed legislation, not because bureaucrats want to institute their agenda.
Regulations are not apolitical. As Congress has become more polarized and gridlocked, presidents have become more aggressive about enacting major policies through them. Barack Obama tried to use rule-making to limit carbon emissions from power plants. Donald Trump used rule-making to deny green cards to immigrants who had used certain social benefit programs. And President Joe Biden is hoping to use regulation to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans.
Trump at least had the benefit of law being on his side, and it not significantly affecting US citizens.
But many major regulations make fewer headlines, and most rely on technical expertise by federal agencies that Congress would be hard-pressed to replicate. This year’s list includes one updating technical standards for mammography equipment and one clarifying when a gun’s features mean it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. A recent payment rule for Medicare Advantage changed the formula meant to pay private insurers for covering customers with vascular disease, based on a detailed review of medical data.
I blame Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, for failing to pass detailed bills. They should seek out expertise prior to crafting the bill, not say “eh, I have a vague idea, someone will make it detailed.”
The legislation would require Congress to approve each of those actions before they go into effect, under a fast-tracked legislative process that would force up-or-down votes on the rules without any possibility of amendment. Any major rule that failed to pass both houses of Congress could not be proposed again for at least a year. Current law allows Congress to upend a regulation it does not like, but the process requires majority votes by both houses of Congress, and a signature by the president, meaning nearly all regulations go into effect.
All this is also a clarion call to reduce the power of the federal government back to the States and The People, where it belongs. Democrats are very upset that a law would force checks and balances, so they wouldn’t be able to run roughshod over the people.
Should Congress be made to vote on every regulation? Congress authorizes an agency comprised of experts to make regulations that can be challenged in court.
Congress can pass bills tightening the regulation-making abilities of the agencies; of course that could require a filibuster proof majority or (shudder) even compromise.
Neither party seems to put country first.
No, just 90% of them. The “experts” know just about zero, judging from the last decade or so.
Good. The so-called “experts” have shown themselves to be mostly incompetent over the last decade or so.