REINS Act - The Most Dangerous Bill You've Never Heard of Just Passed the House

[Jimbo101]

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/the-most-dangerous-bill-you-ve-never-heard-of-just-passed-the-house

Last, week, under the cover of a media bliss-out except among Koch funded right-wing channels, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would effectively repeal future standard setting under every important environmental, public health, consumer protection, labor standards, occupational safety and civil rights law on the books.

The bill, called the REINS Act, requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency—say a new toxic chemical standard required by the recently enacted Chemical Safety Act, or a new consumer protection rule about some innovative but untested kind of food additive—must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.

As one example, the REINS Act would totally neuter the new Chemical Safety Act, just passed by the Republican Congress last year. The act requires U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and set standards for 10 widely abused chemicals in the next six months alone. The act passed only because in exchange, states gave up much of their power to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals; without that incentive, the Tea Party will certainly act to prevent EPA from restricting the use of these chemicals. But the states only agreed to give up in exchange for the promise that EPA would act. But the REINS act neuters this promise. Even if the House Republican caucus was willing in theory to consider such rules, there is simply no way Congress could add 10-40 new pieces of legislation to its work load in the chemical safety area alone. In fact, the House also just passed legislation to allow it to REPEAL all of President Obama's regulatory acts in the last eight months of his term in office with one vote. Why? Because House members said there was not time for individual votes on each rule—exactly the requirement they just established for new rules.

Worse, Congress totally lacks the technical competence to review these kinds of complex rules. Do we really want members of Congress deciding whether a chemical can safely be used in food packaging? Or the proper procedures for approving new drugs as safe and effective? Or setting the allowable safety standard for heavy metals in drinking water?

[MBS]

1. Good God. n/t

[Doreen]

2. Do you find it as odd as I do that

they are taking any regulations to protect our health while at the same time making health care harder if not impossible to get? They ARE trying to kill us.

[global1]

3. Thinning The Herd....n t

[Jacob Boehme]

13. Yes, thinning to make way for their family.

[GliderGuider]

9. Yes, today's Republicans are a murderous party.

It's not just that they don't care if you die early, they are trying to make sure you do. At the very least it's negligent homicide.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Are they trying to kill us? I think so.

[Girard442]

4. Republicans must be Westworld's androids.

They clearly don't plan on doing any breathing, drinking, or eating.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

6. In their gated enclaves, all will be safe.

They just don't give a shit what happens to those on the outside.

[elmac]

10. they will be safe

as long as the militarized police and military have their back.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

26. Don't they always?

Half of those bastards don't pay the taxes to support such services, and even those who do get a great deal more value than most from those services.

[Achilleaze]

5. Wow

just freaking wow - the Republicans are truly Diabolical, Inc.

[Ohioblue22]

7. but hillary had (but actually didnt) had an email in the wrong place

good thing we avoided that mess huh?

[cry baby]

8. knr

[Javaman]

11. oh yay...now we can have a Love Canal in every neighborhood. lovely. nt

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

[Liberalynn]

14. Will it pass the Senate?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. This should pretty easy to Filibuster in the Senate. Waaay too extreme

Republicans can be bound to it as well- and I don't think that future Republican Presidents would like a Democratic Congress having this power. I don't *think* that Republicans can pass this via Reconciliation, can they?

[Liberalynn]

25. One article that I have read since did say Dems would most likely

filibuster. I am not sure about Reconciliation.

[Locrian]

15. this goes beyond greed

hell, even the dr. evils of the world had more concern for the future.
this is some sort of psychological death wish disease

[tclambert]

17. The Rains of Castamere Act?

[stopwastingmymoney]

19. I would think all of this would be an unconstitutional power grab by Congress

Enforcement is the purview of the Executive Branch

But as the article says:

"Progressives may be counting on the fact that the Senate has previously refused to pass the bill and that it's broad over-reaching will doom it. But these are not ordinary times and past behavior is far from reliable in predicting today's politics"

I'm going to send this to Norman Goldman next, I'll update if he responds

[Amishman]

24. The question is where does the line between enforcement end and reinvention begin?

We do need more definition on what can and can't be done through rules changes by agencies, especially with Trump taking power. It's all to easy for the president to tell the EPA, ATF, or other body that they need to put out a rule revision that rule X is now interpreted as meaning X + Y.

This isn't what we needed though. Too far.

[lindysalsagal]

21. Delaying by 70 days is easy. Sounds like a reasonable amount of time, but

that's a walk in the park.

[rtracey]

22. well

Well, what the fuck did we think when the vote count for this election was in the shitter. Who is to blame?, all of us. Did we choose the right candidate? did we get the vote out? did the DNC do their job? were there too many voting for the Green and Libertarian parties?, did our elected officials NOT do their jobs over the hacking and Russian influencing?

So now 2 branches, soon to be all sections when a conservative wack job become a Justice, are in control by the right winged group of heretics. Don't act shocked and violated when they do stupid shit, because we did it to ourselves.

[hibbing]

23. How many Democrats voted for it?

Gosh, would think it would be easier to find this information, the House site is really convoluted and have to click around all over the place. If I'm looking at it right, only 2 Democrats voted for it. Oh well, both parties will get together pretty quickly to pass even more tax cuts for the ruling class, that will be some serious bipartisanship!


Peace