Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House balks at Bush order for new powers
AP on Yahoo ^ | 7/3/07 | Jim Abrams - ap

Posted on 07/03/2007 12:47:32 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - President Bush is giving an obscure White House office new powers this month over a wide range of regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

Bush's order would require regulators to show that private markets had failed to address a targeted problem before they went after it themselves. The House voted last week to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on the order.

Officially known as Executive Order 13422, Bush signed the directive in January and it is to take effect July 24. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how federal regulations are written.

The House vote came on an amendment to a bill that funds the White House next year. The bill goes to the Senate when Congress returns next week from a Fourth of July holiday.

Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., who teamed with Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., in offering the amendment, said it "stops this president or any president from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws that protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy and on and on."

The administration contends Bush's order merely strengthens a similar 1993 directive issued by President Clinton giving the White House budget office oversight of federal agency rulemaking.

Andrea Wuebker, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, which manages the White House regulatory affairs office, said the order, along with an OMB good guidance bulletin, "will help increase the quality, accountability and transparency of agency guidance documents. We strongly oppose this amendment."

Bush's executive order:

_Requires agencies to identify "market failures," where the private sector fell short in dealing with a problem, as a factor in proposing a rule. The White House regulatory affairs office is given authority to assess those conclusions.

_States that no rulemaking can go forward without the approval of an agency's Regulatory Policy Office to be headed by a presidential appointee.

_Directs each agency to provide an estimate of costs and benefits of regulations.

_Requires agencies to inform the White House regulatory affairs office of proposed significant guidance documents on complying with rules. Critics say this will create a new bottleneck delaying the issuance of guidelines needed to comply with federal regulations.

"This can only further delay implementing health, safety and environmental protections," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a private watchdog group that joined numerous labor and good-government groups, including the AFL-CIO, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in opposing Bush's order.

Democrats portrayed Bush's order as another example — similar to carrying out warrantless wiretaps or firing federal prosecutors — where the administration has tried to expand its powers while keeping Congress and the public in the dark.

Miller, who heads the House Science oversight subcommittee, tried unsuccessfully in at a hearing in April to persuade the White House regulatory affairs office's former acting administrator, Steven Aitken, to reveal what private groups might have been involved in rewriting the Clinton-era order.

Aitken stressed that the Clinton order also used market failure as a criteria in advancing new rules and directed agencies to appoint regulatory policy officers, many of whom were political appointees.

He was backed up at the hearing by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

"The pattern is that we are challenging the president's authority hoping to find a mistake and then making a lot of political hay about it," Rohrabacher said.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, in an analysis last February, said the new language appears to elevate market failure to greater prominence as a rulemaking rationale. It said the new OIRA oversight over significant guidance documents "may represent a major expansion of the office's (and therefore the president's) influence."

The new requirement that the policy officer be a political appointee "strengthens the relationship of the agency policy officers with the president," the researchers said.

They also noted that President Reagan made the White House regulatory affairs office the central clearinghouse for substantive rulemaking, reviewing 2,000 to 3,000 proposed regulations per year. With Clinton's 1993 order, the White House review of proposed regulations dropped to between 500 to 700 a year, the researchers said.

"OIRA has quietly grown into the most powerful regulatory agency in Washington," Miller's subcommittee said in a report in April.

Bill Kovacs, vice president for regulatory affairs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the White House regulatory affairs office now has about 35 people to keep track of the 4,000 rules federal agencies issue every year.

"It's only reasonable that you have some way of monitoring what your agencies are doing," Kovacs said, adding that the White House needs to assert control over the process.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: balks; bush; house; order; powers

1 posted on 07/03/2007 12:47:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

The House bill is HR 2829.

On the Net:

Text of Jan. 18 Executive Order 13422: http:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders


2 posted on 07/03/2007 12:49:27 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... For want of a few good men, a once great nation was lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I’m so unhappy with Bush that I personally don’t want him to have any additional powers. I’m afraid he’d use them somehow to grant a blanket amnesty. That’s what happens when you betray people. They will never trust you again.


3 posted on 07/03/2007 12:52:04 PM PDT by NRA2BFree ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Have a HaPPY and Safe 4th
and watch out for these nutcases.

Members of the activist group Code Pink take part in a demonstration in front of
the White House in Washington, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, to protest President Bush
commuting of the prison sentence of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby.
(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

4 posted on 07/03/2007 12:52:49 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... For want of a few good men, a once great nation was lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

bump.


5 posted on 07/03/2007 12:53:30 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

It is the executive branch of the government, the president is in charge of the executive branch. It is not a ‘new’ grab for power, but maintaining the assertion that should have been there in the first place.


6 posted on 07/03/2007 12:53:34 PM PDT by kingu (No, I don't use sarcasm tags - it confuses people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: NormsRevenge
""This can only further delay implementing health, safety and environmental protections," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a private watchdog group that joined numerous labor and good-government groups, including the AFL-CIO, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in opposing Bush's order. "

When I see these groups FOR anything I immediately cheer for the other side and I haven't been wrong yet.

8 posted on 07/03/2007 12:55:49 PM PDT by Abathar (Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

Bush’s order would require regulators to show that private markets had failed to address a targeted problem before they went after it themselves


Bush has found his voice on something besides immigration. I don’t have a problem with this ...............


9 posted on 07/03/2007 12:57:43 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

This sounds like a good thing to me - assert some control over regulatory agencies and also make them justify proposed new rules. Plus, if Loretta Sanchez and the AFL-CIO are opposed, its probably be a good thing to support.


10 posted on 07/03/2007 12:57:54 PM PDT by jrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
I must admit that was my thought as well. What would he do unchecked? Well, we know what he would have done with shamnesty. And he didn’t care if you and I and 70%+ of the American people didn’t want it either.

Doesn’t look like this would give that kind of power but I’m pretty cautious right now.

I really hate feeling that way, but he's put the screws to Americans, and I don't trust him. I'm just not ready to give that man any more power.

The Lost Treaty, The Prosperity, Peace and Security Treaty with Mexico and Canada, and a lot more dangerous things for Americans are on his radar and I just don't trust him to do the right thing for Americans. IF I had my way, I'd make him step down because he's a globalist. THAT plus giving the UN control and amnesty are the things he's determined to pass through whether we like it or not. He's just like his daddy, and we all know he swore an oath of allegiance to the UN!

11 posted on 07/03/2007 1:11:36 PM PDT by NRA2BFree ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: NormsRevenge

President Bush is giving an obscure White House office new powers this month over a wide range of regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

Uh, yeah, sorry, this jerk deserves LESS power NOT MORE!

and based on his performance, L’il bush and all who follow him need a whole lot more oversight, not less.


13 posted on 07/03/2007 1:16:16 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
Bush’s order would require regulators to show that private markets had failed to address a targeted problem before they went after it themselves.

Except that we caught the government training companies how to to get around having to use American companies in favor of world markets. THAT is how much he cares about American companies.

Bush has found his voice on something besides immigration. I don’t have a problem with this ...............

I'm sorry. I do. We cannot afford to trust this man. He could sell us out and into poverty with his globalist agenda! Everyone, everywhere comes before Americans do! I've had enough!

14 posted on 07/03/2007 1:16:25 PM PDT by NRA2BFree ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Seems pretty clear shamnesty is the poison pill they want Americans to swallow prior to SPP / NAU.

That plus he refuses to pardon the two border patrol agents who are sitting in federal prison, and yet he commutes Libby's sentence and he will grant him a full pardon before he leaves office. IF he can find a way to grant shamnesty through an EO, he'd do it today! Americans have NO reason to trust him.

15 posted on 07/03/2007 1:21:31 PM PDT by NRA2BFree ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

“I’m so unhappy with Bush that I personally don’t want him to have any additional powers.”

Bump

Bump

Bump!!!


16 posted on 07/03/2007 1:28:01 PM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: kingu
Thank god, a sane Freeper is left at this site.
18 posted on 07/03/2007 1:33:42 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
I’m so unhappy with Bush that I personally don’t want him to have any additional powers.

These aren't additional powers. This is merely the president attempting to reign in and provide oversight for parts of the executive branch that are creating rules (interpretations and implementations of the law) on their own rather than following the policies of the president.

The entrenched bureaucracy in the government is notably liberal and likely to increase it's own influence and power if not kept in check. This prevents groups such as the EPA from advancing a liberal agenda without providing a cost-benefit analysis and showing that market forces aren't handling to problem.

Therefore the Democrats are strongly opposed to it. It creates a stronger precedence for providing solid justifications for regulations rather than simply advancing their agenda.

19 posted on 07/03/2007 2:11:18 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Seems pretty clear shamnesty is the poison pill they want Americans to swallow prior to SPP / NAU.

They actually were slipping a lot of NAU-friendly provisions into the "immigration" bill.

20 posted on 07/03/2007 5:25:38 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE

BUMP!


21 posted on 07/03/2007 5:27:05 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: NRA2BFree

You prefer that power remain in the hands of Nancy Pelosi?


23 posted on 07/05/2007 7:00:24 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson