There 1,300 separate federal organizations that are a part of America’s national government. These entities have a more direct and personal impact on the daily lives of the citizenry than any elected official, court, or legislative body, through the rules and regulations they adopt.
There is a growing concern that regulations from these agencies have created an alternative and largely unaccountable system of governance, with an expense factor that is harming the national economy.
While the issue of adverse regulatory impact has been a flashpoint for decades, the increase of current and proposed federal agency activity and major rules or regulations related to them has brought a new emphasis on what many believe to be a roadblock to economic recovery and a rejection of the American ideal of participatory government.
A Newsmax article quotes Douglas Holz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum noting that “It would be difficult for anyone to pretend that this isn’t a high water mark in terms of regulation,” Holz-Eakin describes the Obama years as an “incredibly intense period of regulation.”
According to the Congressional Research Service’s May report on “counting rgulations,” the number of final rules published each year is generally in the range of 2,500-4,500. During President Obama’s first term, an average of 3,262 final rules were enacted, of which a yearly average of 82 were considered “major.” In contrast, a yearly average of 62 “major” rules under President George W. Bush’s administration were enacted.
A Factcheck report which used some data supplied by the Heritage Foundation, found that:
“In its 2011 report to Congress, the [Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] OIRA reported that the estimated cost of federal regulations under Obama from Jan. 20, 2009, (when he took office) to the end of the 2010 fiscal year was somewhere between $8 billion and $16.5. During the same initial stretch under Bush, the estimated cost of new regulations was between $1.3 billion and $3.4 billion. OIRA inflation-adjusted all figures to 2001 dollars. … it is clear that the cost of new regulations issued in the first six years of Bush’s administration – ranging from a midpoint of $1.3 billion in 2002 to a midpoint of nearly $5 billion in 2005 – was far below the average of $7 billion a year under Obama…
“By Heritage’s count – including the regulations from independent and executive agencies – the Bush administration issued regulations that cost about $60 billion over 8 years. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has imposed new major regulations with reported costs of about $40 billion in just over two years. Even with a handful of rules that reduced regulatory costs by $1.5 billion, that still leaves a net increase of more than $38 billion… That translates to a much higher average, per year cost of regulations under Obama..”
During the past four years, oppressive-and frequently incorrect-actions by departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency have become an increasing problem.
According to a July report by the Congressional Research Service on EPA regulations:
“Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. The House conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress, and approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Similar action may occur in the 113th. Particular attention is being paid to the Clean Air Act, under which EPA has moved forward with the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and also addressed emissions of conventional pollutants from a number of industries; congressional scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA.”
Americans are used to (but not content with) the vast numbers of rules and regulations, and related explanatory documents, in some agencies. The Internal Revenue Code is approximately 11,000 pages long, according to Politifact.
Obamacare has about 10,535 pages. (The cost to the public, according to theAmerican Action Forum, of exchange-related regulations will be over $5.3 billion and 16 million hours of paperwork.) “According to administration data, the listed paperwork burden of the exchanges exceeds 16.6 million hours, $558 million in direct costs, and 40 new forms. Examining the regulatory impact analyses from exchange regulations, the total cost to states and private entities approaches $5.3 billion. Including all current requirements under Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency imposes 645 million hours of paperwork, $35.3 billion in costs, and 4,116 federal forms.”
Moving up swiftly in terms of numerous and onerous regulations is the Environmental Protection Agency. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
“The past 40 years have seen significant declines in the copper mining, steel, textile, furniture, coal mining and forest products industries. While a variety of factors have played a role in the decline of these industries, a common thread running through all of them has been the role of regulatory mandates and costs. Even when regulations are not the primary cause of change, regulations imposed on an industry can provide the tipping point that leads to plant closures and adverse economic impacts that otherwise might have been avoided or cushioned over time. While EPA continues to issue regulations to protect the environment, it must also be forthcoming and provide Congress and the American people with methodologically complete estimates of the impact its regulations may have on jobs and communities.”
Regulations based on the Dodd-Frank financial reform law have also been cited as a key added burden.
Laws are passed in public, with coverage in the media and public debate. But frequently, regulations structuring how those laws are enforced are adopted with minimal public oversight. Even worse, on occasion, they go beyond the law and impose restrictions that supporters of the legislation upon which they are based never intended. Individuals can find themselves subject to fines or even imprisonment based on harsh rules that, aside from obscure mentions in the Federal Register, are implemented beyond the scrutiny of everyone except bureaucrats and lobbyists.
America’s moribund economy, burdened by debt that has skyrocketed from 38% of gross domestic product in 2007 to nearly 75% today, has caused unemployment to soar from 6.7 million to 23 million in that same period of time.
The uncertainty and overregulation imposed on the private sector during the past four years has been a major cause of this. Reps. Greg Walden (R-Or)
and Fred Upton (R-MI) recently noted in a published article that “…costly regulations put business in a state of paralysis, and keep them from investing and hiring workers. The result is mediocre job growth and a stagnant economy.”
Reports are numerous that job creators are greatly hindered in their efforts by the rising regulatory tide. A Western Free Press article cited a number of examples:
“Government Seems to continually increase the number and complexity of the regulations governing small businesses, restricting their ability to grow and prosper,” according to Andrew F. Puzder CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs 70,000.
“Tremendous volatility and uncertainty created by our regulatory system [is] costing American jobs,” notes Robert A. Luoto, president of the Cross & Crown logging Company.
The Economist examined the impact of regulations on commonplace activities. Its report provided salient examples, including:
“Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minute of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year, the number of federally mandates categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water skis.”
America, at one time a leader in free enterprise, now ranks only 10th on the global Index of Economic Freedom compiled by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all ranked higher.
The $70 billion in increased regulatory burdens over the past four and one-half years, the result of 131 major new regulations, is a central reason why America continues to lag behind those other free markets. This includes a $23.5 billion increase in 2012 alone. (Adam White, writing in the Weekly Standard, also stressed that these costs do not include “lost opportunity” expenses for blocked activity such as the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The heavy burden of increased regulatory control had been steadily rising before President Obama’s dramatic increases. In 2007, President Bush signedExecutive Order 13422, which required federal agencies to submit any proposed new policy guidance to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Bush’s rule demanded that federal agencies demonstrate that there was a “market failure” that justified government action.
President Obama, in response to widespread public outcry, also issued an executive order requiring a government wide review of outdated regulations, but little action has resulted, and, in fact, the regulatory burden has actually increased. Part of the reason for its ineffectiveness is that it basically examined only past regulations, essentially those from prior administrations, and has no impact on what many have called the “tsunami” of new and onerous rules emplaced by the federal government under the current White House.
According to Thomas Donohue, President of the United States Chamber of Commerce:
• The average regulatory cost for each employee of a small business exceeds $10,000 per year;
• Businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% higher than larger business of up to 500 employees;
• The number of costliest rules (generally those with a $100 million annual economic impact) has increased by more than 60 percent in just the decade from 2002-2012, from 136 economically significant rules listed in the government’s regulatory agenda to 224 rules;
• The total number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, which lists all regulations, has more than doubled since 1975.
Americans are concerned not only with the increased cost and number of new regulations, but the manner in which they are imposed. As noted by the U.S. Chamber, new rules “are imposed through a system that operates without effective checks or balances, or accountability. Currently, nearly all major regulations go into effect without our elected representatives in Congress ever voting on them.
“The process has lost all balance as Congress has yielded power to the federal agencies without proper accountability, and without taking responsibility for what agencies are doing…
“What’s more, agencies are often not transparent. Unaccountable agencies rarely have to justify decisions they make that harm the livelihoods of millions of Americans because the process does not allow for effective judicial or other independent review of major rules.
“Agencies can do this because they do not have to prove their assertions are based on sound fact, science, or economics. Rather all the agency must do is point to anything in the agency record that rationally supports their assertion, and the courts give the agency deference over the public in deciding the validity of the rule…”
The problem is accelerating, notes Donohue. The Obamacare legislation, 2,400 pages long, created 159 new panels, commissions, regulatory bodies and agencies. It follows on the heels of the 2,319 page Dodd-Frank Act, which calls for 400 new rules throughout 20 agencies.
The use of the regulatory process to enforce goals, often extreme, that could not succeed in a public Congressional vote has led to a significant upheaval in the energy sector.
As reported in a prior NEW YORK ANALYSIS report, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) have noted that the “EPA is doubling down on its economically destructive plan to essentially end the construction of new coal-fired power plants in America…The consequences will be more job losses and a weaker economy. These stringent standards will actually discourage investment and the development of innovative new technologies that can help us meet the world’s future energy and environmental challenges….In the year President Obama took office there were over 18,600 employed in the coal industry in my state. But as of September 2013, the number of persons employed at Kentucky coal mines is only 13,000… And the picture is getting worse instead of better.”
“Federal Regulatory Agencies have become the unelected fourth branch of government”
–Frank Scaturro, former Counsel for the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Dr. James Sagner, who has extensively reviewed and written about the nation’s overregulation issue, believes that U.S. businesses face a “worldwide economic crisis” due to the federal government’s “outdated, unrealistic, and crippling” regulations. According to Dr. Sagner, the practice has led to an exodus of employment out of America. The effects permeate American society in numerous ways. He advises that the only viable and timely solution is the elimination of regulations that prevent U.S. enterprises from competing on a level playing field with our foreign competitors.
A Competitive Enterprise Institute study by Clyde Wayne Crews (originally published in Forbes) notes that jobs are lost when regulation pushes manufacturing offshore.
“Regulations that make it more expensive to create output that could have otherwise been created with less input must impact either existing jobs somewhere in the economy, or job creation and growth down the line…Policymakers should address regulation’s distributional effects and recognize that worker dislocation and other consequences are costs that some outside regulator imposed who needs to be held accountable…
“It would be nice to regularly double GDP again, the way the U.S. now doubles spending and regulation. Clarifying why high unemployment exists in the first place, and its possible linkage to the vast body of federal regulation and the rulemaking process, is needed.
“A recent Gallup Poll noted that small businesses put government regulation at the top of a list of complaints. In a global economy, understanding regulatory costs and their job impacts is even more urgent. … People need jobs to not be poor; policymakers owe a duty of examining job impacts of their economic interventions before they impose them.”
In testimony last March before Congress, senior researcher James Gattuso summarized the issue:
“Federal spending is only one part of the burden imposed on Americans by the federal government. Regulations impose hundreds of billions, or even trillions, of dollars in additional costs. These burdens not only increase the prices for consumers, but keep enterprises from growing and jobs from being created.
“During the past four years, the regulatory burdens placed on the American people and economy have grown at a breathtaking rate. During President Obama’s first four years in office, over 130 major rules increasing regulatory burdens (roughly defined as those costing $100 million or more each year) were adopted by agencies, imposing some $70 billion in new annual costs according to preliminary calculations based on agency estimates. By comparison, about 50 such rules, with about $15 billion in new annual costs, were imposed during George W. Bush’s first term…
“And more regulation is on the way. According to the latest Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, 131 new major regulations are already in the pipeline. That compares to 90 in process when President Obama took office and only 56 in the spring of 2011…
“Under present practice, Congress gets to take credit for enacting popular but vague legislation but then can plausibly deny responsibility for the costly regulations that result. Thus, for example, the FCC is charged with furthering the “public interest,” the EPA with regulating “pollutants,” and the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency with limiting “abusive” financial practices without a clear indication of what those terms mean. This allows Congress to stand on the sidelines, ready to take credit or to denounce the agencies’ actions, rather than take responsibility itself…
“The result is power without accountability… Regulators have their own interested agendas. And political considerations, shockingly, do influence the process. Spend an hour in front of most any agency and watch the lobbyists flow in and out if you doubt that…Moreover, most regulatory decision-making requires more than scientific expertise. It involves value judgments as to what burdens will be placed on the American people for what benefit. Such decisions properly involve Congress…”
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF OVERREGULATION
The growing economic impact of overregulation has become a hot topic for observers of America’s increasing financial woes. The Economist publication opined:
“America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.”
The problem appears to hit small businesses particularly hard.
According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses,
“Small businesses play a critical role in our nation’s economy, and they are being rightfully recognized as Small Business Week continues into its fourth day today. But the onslaught of new federal regulations, one of the biggest obstacles to our nation’s biggest job creators, shows no sign of letting up.
“Small businesses pay disproportionately to comply with federal regulations…[The] average cost borne by small businesses is $10,585 per employee – 36 percent more than the compliance cost for larger firms. It shows environmental regulations are especially burdensome on small firms, costing a whopping 364 percent more for small firms than large ones.
“More small businesses say government regulations are the top problem facing their business. … 20 percent of small-business owners said “government regulations and red tape” was the single most important problem facing their business last month. That issue received the greatest response, ahead of poor sales and taxes.
“While small-business owners understand the necessity for some government regulation to ensure clean and available natural resources and safety, the flow of costly new regulations being proposed today is excessive. According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs there are over 4,000 new federal regulations in the pipeline. Pending major regulations – those costing the economy $100 million or more – have increased 60 percent since 2005.
“More small-business owners are calling for a more sensible regulatory process. This includes more feedback from small businesses built into the regulatory process and government enforcement that aides compliance rather than punishing with fines…
“One of the most immediate and impactful actions that the Administration could take to help small business would be to implement sensible reforms to the regulatory process. That could give instant relief to small businesses uncertain about the looming wave of federal regulations and the punitive enforcement that is sure to follow.”
In response to pleas from small businesses, the bipartisan Regulatory Flexibility Act of 2013 has been progressing through Congress. Although a law had been passed in 1980 providing for common-sense flexibility, it has, according to many, been frequently ignored.
The 2013 amendment to that law would require that the 1980 measure be followed more closely. It mandates federal bureacracies to consider all regulatory effects and side effects, and requires federal agencies to set up small business review panels.
While the issue of Obamacare’s regulatory impact is frequently debated, the current and potential impact of the Environmental Protection Agency’s water regulations have not received quite the same level of attention in the national press, despite its extraordinary potential impact on property rights.
Some have maintained that the EPA is conducting a “war on the states” due to its regulatory overreach in water regulation.
A 2011 minority report by the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the EPA’s water regulations notes that “These rules carry with them significant unfunded mandates that will cost state and local governments tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. Importantly, these new rules are not the outcome of legislation or rigorous scientific findings, but a direct result of a number of lawsuits with environmentalists. The agreements to regulate often did not include any meaningful opportunity for input from state and local entities.”
According to the Capital Research Center,
“Congress intended the Environ¬mental Protection Agency to work closely with state and local officials-those nearest to the people. But since 2009, the Environ-mental Protection Agency has waged war on the states. In an end-run around the Constitution, the EPA has collaborated with environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to implement policies that have little to do with protecting the environment….
“Under both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, the EPA has the authority to ‘disapprove’a state’s strategy to meet na¬tional environmental goals. A regulatory disapproval is no small matter. State offi¬cials spend countless hours and tax dollars crafting implementation plans to comply with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. The EPA effectively throws this work out the window when it issues a regulatory disapproval.
“Since President Obama took office, the number of regulatory disapprovals has skyrocketed. The EPA issued 44 disapprov¬als during President Clinton’s second term, 42 during President George W. Bush’s first term, and 12 during Bush’s second term. But during President Obama’s first term, the EPA issued an unprecedented 95 disap¬provals.
“Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has authority to regulate “navigable waters” of the United States. Although it would seem simple to define “navigable waters”-and thereby define the limits of the EPA’s power-in practice it has proven conten-tious. Indeed, the Supreme Court has twice checked the federal government’s interpre¬tation as being too broad, in 2001 and 2006 …
“In 2011, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which co-administers a sec¬tion of the Clean Water Act, sought com¬ment on a new interpretation of “navigable waters” that would reflect the Supreme Court’s decision inRapanos limiting the federal government’s definition of its own powers. Remarkably, given that the new interpretation should have bowed to the Su¬preme Court by restricting federal powers, the EPA went in exactly the opposite direc¬tion, significantly expanding the agency’s authority.
“The EPA, along with the Corps, simply refused to acknowledge that the Supreme Court had narrowed its authority. Indeed, they admitted that they were expanding that authority, “that under this proposed guidance the number of waters identified as protected by the Clean Water Act will increase compared to current practice.
“That’s an understatement: In practice, the 2011 interpretation would extend federal jurisdiction to virtually every drop of mois¬ture in America.
“The key to the EPA’s expanded reach is an aggregate “watershed” analysis that will de¬termine whether isolated waters have a “sig¬nificant nexus” to navigable waters and are therefore subject to federal jurisdiction. The test is so amorphous that every ditch, vernal pond, mudflat, sand flat, and slough could easily fall under the EPA’s jurisdiction. The agency’s interpretation is so expansive that it expressly refuses to exclude swimming pools and ornamental ponds, saying that these water features are only “generally exempt” from federal regulations…”
EPA Expands its Reach Through Definitions
According to 40 CFR 230.3(s) The term “waters of the United States” means:
1. 1. “All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
2. 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
3. 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(I) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii)(From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(II) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
1. 4. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
2. 5. The territorial sea;
3. 6. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.”
Republicans have called the EPA’s regulations a “massive power grab.”
The Obama Administration has been a study in contrasts between words and deeds on the topic of overregulation. It has arguably enacted more onerous and invasive regulations than any prior administration, and it has done so in manner openly defiant of traditional procedures.
However, it has clearly recognized the harmful effects on the economy, and it has sought to address its own practices. On January of 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” ordering each agency:
“to take into account ‘among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations.’ Executive Order 13563 emphasizes that some ‘sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping,’ and it directs agencies to promote “coordination, simplification, and harmonization.’ Executive Order 13563 also states that to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall ‘propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.’
“Executive Order 13563 directs that regulations ‘shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation,’ including an ‘open exchange of information and perspectives.’ Public participation can and should be used to evaluate the cumulative effects of regulations, for example through active engagement with affected stakeholders well before the issuance of notices of proposed rulemaking. The President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has emphasized the need for a smart and efficient regulatory system and has drawn particular attention to the cumulative effects of regulation. Cumulative burdens can create special challenges for small businesses and startups.
“Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies should take active steps to take account of the cumulative effects of new and existing rules and to identify opportunities to harmonize and streamline multiple rules. The goals of this effort should be to simplify requirements on the public and private sectors; to ensure against unjustified, redundant, or excessive requirements; and ultimately to increase the net benefits of regulations. …
“Where appropriate and feasible, agencies should consider cumulative effects and opportunities for regulatory harmonization as part of their analysis of particular rules, and should carefully assess the appropriate content and timing of rules in light of those effects and opportunities. Consideration of cumulative effects and of opportunities to reduce burdens and to increase net benefits should be part of the assessment of costs and benefits, consistent with the requirement of Executive Order 13563 that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies must ‘select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits.” Agencies should avoid unintentional burdens that could result from an exclusive focus on the most recent regulatory activities. As noted, the cumulative effects on small businesses and start-ups deserve particular attention.”
In response to the heavy imposition of significant new regulations from the Executive Branch over the past 4 ½ years, H.R. 367, the “Regulations From the Executive Branch in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013” has been introduced.
According to the official summary of the bill,
“H.R. 367 alters the treatment of major regulations under the Congressional Review Act, while preserving the existing congressional disapproval process under the Act for non-major rules. Specifically, H.R. 367 requires Congress to pass and the President to sign a joint resolution of approval before a new major regulation issued by a federal agency may take effect. For non-major rules, H.R. 367 continues the current process of allowing the rule to take effect unless Congress passes and the President signs a resolution of disapproval.
“For all new regulations-both major and non-major-the promulgating agency must submit to Congress and the Comptroller General a report generally containing the regulation, its classification as major or non-major, other related regulatory actions and their individual and aggregate economic impact, and the proposed effective date of the rule. Copies of the report must be provided to all congressional committees of jurisdiction. On the same day, the promulgating agency also must provide other relevant material, including a cost-benefit analysis of the rule. For major rules, the Comptroller General must, within 15 days of receiving the initial report, provide to the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report assessing the agency’s compliance with procedural steps required by H.R. 367 and an assessment of whether the major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on private-sector activity.
“For major regulations, H.R. 367 establishes specific time constraints within which a joint resolution of approval must be introduced, considered by the relevant committees of jurisdiction, and brought before the full House and Senate for a vote. Generally, H.R. 367 prevents major regulations from taking effect unless Congress passes and the President signs a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days of the initial report received by Congress. H.R. 367 limits the permissible contents in a joint resolution of approval for a major regulation.
“H.R. 367 provides a presidential exception, allowing a major rule to take effect for a 90-day period if the President issues an executive order saying the rule is needed because of an imminent threat to health or safety; to enforce a criminal law; for national security; or for international trade. The President must provide written notice to Congress if he uses the exception.
“When a non-major rule is promulgated, H.R. 367 provides that each congressional body has 60 legislative days to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval. H.R. 367 specifies the permissible contents of the joint resolution of disapproval for a non-major regulation. Non-major rules take effect after the report is submitted to Congress, unless a joint resolution of disapproval is passed by each house and signed by the President.”
The President has vowed to veto the matter if it passes Congress.
The very concept of participatory government, the foundation of the American Republic, is threatened by the number of new regulations, the scope of activities they cover, and the manner in which they are enacted.