CONYERS Floor Statement In Opposition To The So-Called "Regulatory Accountability Act 2017

OPENING STATEMENT

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the “Regulatory Accountability Act.”

           

Under the guise of improving the regulatory process, H.R. 5 will, in truth, undermine that process and jeopardize the ability of government agencies to safeguard public health and safety, the environment, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections. 

The ways in which this legislation accomplishes this result are almost too numerous to list here, but I will mention a few. 

For example, title I of the bill would impose more than 70 new analytical requirements that will add years to the rulemaking process. 

Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate the ability of regulated entities -- such as well-funded corporate interests -- to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose. 

And, it would function as a “super mandate,” overriding critical laws that Congress specifically intended to prohibit agencies from considering costs when American lives are at stake. 

Additionally, the bill creates numerous procedural hurdles in the rulemaking process, further endangering American lives through years of delay and increasing the likelihood of regulatory capture. 

For example, H.R. 5 dramatically expands the use of formal rulemaking, a time- and resource-intensive process, requiring formal trial-like hearings for certain rules.

Formal rulemaking has long been roundly rejected for good cause as being excessively costly and ill-suited for complex policy issues. 

The Administrative Section of the American Bar Association noted that “these provisions run directly contrary to a virtual consensus in the administrative law community that the Administrative Procedure Act formal rulemaking procedure is obsolete.” 

I am also concerned that H.R. 5 would impose an arbitrary one-size-fits-all 6-month delay on virtually every new rule.

Specifically, title V of the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming effective until the information required by the bill has been available online for 6 months, with only limited exception. 

Clearly, H.R. 5 fails to take into account a vast array of time-sensitive rules ranging from the mundane -- such as the frequent U.S. Coast Guard bridge closings regulations -- to those that protect public health and safety, such as forthcoming updates to the Lead and Copper Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce lead in public drinking water.

Finally, title II of H.R. 5 would eliminate judicial deference to agencies and require federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis.

The unfortunate result of this requirement is that the bill would empower a generalist court to override the determinations of agency experts, regardless of the judge’s technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter.

By eliminating any deference to agencies, H.R. 5 would force agencies to adopt even moredetailed factual records and explanations, which would further delay the finalization of critical life-saving regulatory protections.

The Supreme Court has recognized that federal courts simply lack the subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench.

It is ironic that those who have long decried “judicial activism” now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking.

These are just a few of the many serious concerns presented by H.R. 5 and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.

CLOSING REMARKS

I oppose H.R. 5 because it is based on the faulty premise that environmental and public safety protections kill jobs, result in economically stifling costs, and promote uncertainty.

This bill would not create a single job.  During the series of hearings and markups held on this anti-regulatory legislation in previous congresses, not one shred of evidence emerged indicating that this bill would create jobs.

To the contrary, the Majority’s own witness, Christopher DeMuth, appearing on behalf of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, debunked this argument, stating that focusing on jobs “can lead to confusion in regulatory debates” and that the employment effects of regulatory protections “are indeterminate.”

In sharp contrast to the misguided approach of H.R. 5, regulatory protections that ensure the safety of American-made products unquestionably foster job creation and protect the competitiveness of our businesses in the global marketplace. 

This explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this dangerous legislation, including:

·                     Americans for Financial Reform

·                     The American Lung Association

·                     Consumers Union

·                     The Humane Society of the United States

·                     The League of Conservation Voters

·                     Public Citizen

·                     The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

·                     Earthjustice

·                     The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

·                     The American Public Health Association

·                     The Environmental Defense Action Fund

·                     The Center for American Progress, and

·                     The Trust for America’s Health.

The American people deserve better than H.R. 5. 

We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity.

           

We need sensible regulations that protect American families from economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.

We need workplace safety protections that ensure hardworking Americans who go to work each day without having to risk their lives as a result of hazardous work environments.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5 does nothing to advance any of these critical goals. 

I must therefore oppose H.R. 5 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement In Opposition To REINS Act

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) submitted the following statement for the Congressional Record in opposition to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 (REINS Act):

Dean of the U.S. House
'of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 26, the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017,” otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take effect.

Simply put, H.R. 26 would impose unworkable deadlines for the enactment of a major rule under procedures that could charitably be referred to as convoluted.

Under this bill, the House may only consider a resolution for a major rule on the second and fourth Thursday of each month.  Keep in mind that typically 80 major rules are promulgated annually.  Yet, there may be as little as just 15 days available to consider such measures based on the Majority’s legislative calendar for the current year. 

Furthermore, Congress may only consider such resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This process would constructively end rulemaking as we know it.

           

Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle say we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation -- is because they claim regulations stifle economic growth.

           

For example, they point to the outgoing Administration and say that regulations promulgated during its tenure have hurt our Nation’s economy.

           

What they fail to tell the American people is that it was the Republican George Bush Administration’s economic policies that caused the Great Recession.

           

Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our Nation’s economy.

           

It led to millions of home foreclosures and devastated neighborhoods across America.  In fact, it nearly caused a global economic meltdown. 

           

Nevertheless, as a consequence of strong regulatory policies implemented by President Obama through such measures as the Dodd-Frank Act, our Nation has recovered to a point where the unemployment has been cut nearly in half to less than 5%.

           

Yet, the REINS Act would reverse these gains by empowering Congress to control and override the rulemaking process, even in the absence of any substantive expertise.

More than 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and administrative law have warned in connection with substantively identical legislation considered in the last Congress, that without this expertise, any congressional disapproval is more likely to reflect the political power of special interests.

           

Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of article I of the Constitution.

           

As a leading expert on administrative law states:  “The reality is that the act is intended to enable a single House of Congress to control the implementation of the laws through the rulemaking process. Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of separation of powers, under which the Constitution entrusts the writing of the laws to the legislative branch and the implementation of the laws to the executive branch.''

           

The REINS Act will further encourage corporate giants to hold our country hostage through a deregulatory, profits-first agenda and facilitate a political influence process rivaling the destructive industrial monopolies from the past century.

           

In sum, H.R. 26, like the “Midnight Rules Relief Act” we considered yesterday on the House floor, is yet another blatant gift to big business to weaken the critical regulatory protections that ensure the safety of the air we breathe, the cars we drive, the toys we give our children, and the food we eat. 

               

Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived bill and I reserve the balance of my time.

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Chair, we need real solutions for real problems. 

           

In stark contrast, however, the REINS Act attempts to address a non-existent problem with a very dangerous solution. 

           

We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity.

           

We need sensible regulations that protect American families from economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.

           

We need workplace safety regulations that ensure hardworking Americans who go to work each day are protected from hazardous work environments.

           

We need strong regulations that protect the safety of the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. 

           

Unfortunately, H.R. 26 does nothing to advance those critical goals. 

This explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this legislation, including:

·         Americans for Financial Reform

·         The American Lung Association

·         Consumers Union

·         The Humane Society of the United States

·         The League of Conservation Voters

·         Public Citizen

·         The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

·         Earthjustice

·         The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

·         The American Public Health Association

·         The Environmental Defense Action Fund

·         The Center for American Progress, and

The Trust for America’s Health.

I therefor urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 26 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS House Floor Statement In Opposition To H.R. 21, The So-Called “Midnight Rules Relief Act"

LEGISLATION WOULD EMPOWER CONGRESS TO ROLL BACK MORE THAN 6 MONTHS OF CRITICAL PROTECTIONS

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 21, the so-called Rules Relief Act of 2017.”

This sweeping measure would empower Congress to undo virtually every regulation submitted to Congress since mid-June of last year through the end of 2016.

The bill accomplishes this end by authorizing Congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution thereby depriving Members to consider the merits of each individual regulation.

H.R. 21 presents numerous concerns.

To begin with, this bill would provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block critical, life-saving regulations.

Long before regulations are submitted to Congress, agencies often take many years to ensure that these rules are carefully vetted through a deliberative process based on extensive analysis, public notice, and comment. 

As one recognized administrative law expert has observed, much of modern rulemaking involves a “very detailed analysis of legal, factual, and policy issues, many of them highly technical. This work is better suited to the subject matter specialists in the respective agencies.”

Yet, H.R. 21 would effectively force Congress to rely on industry input when presented with an up-or-down vote on a long list of complicated and often highly technical rules.

David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council warns that this would result in special interests descending on “Congress with even greater fervor than is currently the case.”

I am also concerned that H.R. 21 is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that rules finalized during the final year of a President’s term are somehow rushed or improperly vetted.

The nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States, for example, conducted an extensive study in 2012. 

It concluded that “a dispassionate look at midnight rules issued by past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the November election.”

The Conference also reported that many of these rules involved purely routine matters initiated before the Presidential transition period or as the result of deadlines outside the agency’s control, such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines.

Indeed, so-called midnight rules often take longer to promulgate than other rules.

For example, Public Citizen reports that rules adopted during a presidential transition period were typically proposed 3.6 years prior to their adoption, while other rules adopted in non-transition periods took nearly 2.8 years to complete.

The Center for Progressive Reform likewise concludes that concerns about midnight rulemaking are overstated, stating that “there simply is no reason to believe that a rule released at the end of an administration is worse than those that are released at any other point.”

Perhaps this is because Congress already has the tools to vacate an unreasonable rule under current law—the Congressional Review Act.

Lastly, as with the many other anti-regulatory bills we considered in the last congress, this legislation completely ignores the benefits of regulation and is premised on the unsubstantiated belief that regulations undermine employment or economic growth.

This also explains why H.R. 21 is opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

           

As the Obama Administration stated in connection with its veto threat of an identical version of this bill considered last November, the legislation “would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.”

If we care about clean water and air, if we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rejecting this legislation and I reserve the balance of my time. 

CLOSING FLOOR STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 21, THE SO-CALLED “MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT”

With so many other pressing issues for the Congress to act on, it is a disservice to the American people that we, as one of our first legislative actions in the 115^th Congress, take up H.R. 21, a bill that has far-ranging consequences in the absence of any deliberative process.

Even though just yesterday more than 50 new Members of the House were sworn in and even though there was not a single legislative hearing on this bill in the last Congress, the Majority has chosen to rush this bill literally on the second day of this new Congress.

And, as further insult to all Members, this bill is being considered under a closed rule, depriving our colleagues of any opportunity to offer amendments.

But, most importantly, this bill jeopardizes public health and safety because it will further empower special interests that prioritize profits over lives to derail regulations they just do not like. 

So, in closing, I must oppose H.R. 21, a bill that is utterly unnecessary, unwarranted, and ill-conceived.

I yield back balance of my time.  

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The First Flavor Of The Trump Administration

Well, well, well, what do we have here besides a new president?

A new administration!

It looks like the ACLU has formally taken the reins (REINS, pun intended) and has made the first public declaration that the Trump Presidency is about to be congressionally challenged through the legal network, public and private.

Well, well, well, it is about damn time.

What we have here is a foreshadowing of what is about to come in the form of law and policy.

Never before have the powers vested in the Congress been, well, how can I say, "bifurcated" (pun, intended) to let loose the checks and balances doctrine and the "old school, iconic, legal geniuses" who have been salivating in the shadows of time, to put on the greatest show in the history of this great nation, to "challenge the constitutionality of the Executive Office", ya know, like, um, well, Executive Orders, and um, ya know, the other stuff ya keep saying POTUS could not do.

But think of all these jobs, high tech, legal jobs, which shall be created.

For another historic milestone, the practice areas of constitutional and civil rights law, there will be opportunity to actually make a living, which means they will start actually teaching this in law school, because what is out there at the curriculum sucks.   I am including political science, also.

Then, there will be all the databases that are being created, ya know, like, um, the "Registered-BLM-Gay-Jewish-Muslim-Nazi-Mass-Pacifist-Database"?

See, while the congressional majority is busy putting together a Bill to fund this "Registered-BLM-Gay-Jewish-Muslim-Nazi-Mass-Pacifist--Database", it will have to legally battle it, first.

Now, I am not going to specify, but the public sector will come strong, hence, this public declaration, below.

Then, let us just say if the majority will be able to find, let alone build a legal team, because, um, ya know, some of the top law firms have a history of dropping those pesky congressional lawsuits about those Executive Orders constitutionality stuff, I would, being quite pragmatic, say that, just on this "Registered-BLM-Gay-Jewish-Muslim-Nazi-Mass-Deportation-Database" funding component, oh, and the current condition of SCOTUS lacking a Justice, it may take about a year for the case just to hit for orals.

OYEZ, baby, oh, yes.

Main stream media will have the opportunity to make amends with all the horrifically filtered, asymmetrically constructed 2016 campaign coverage.

This is my public declaration, in which it is my pray that The Congress call upon these fraudfeasors, to testify at hearings, on the pattern and practice of manipulating the public record for the sole purpose of personal inurement, through the stripping of the right to vote.

The Wikileaks Podesta files contains a neat lil' list of all the anchors who need to be called in front of Congress about how their play-play distorted the historic record.

See, what public may not know is that everything the media puts out, ya %0.000000000000000000001 error rating, ya know, they were all into those sampling biased polls which would have garnered a political science graduate program grade of  ridicule and expulsion, well, ya know, is copyright, ya know, registered with the U.S. Library of Congress, ya know, that lil franking, © , federal seal which represents a constitutional agreement that, yup, "it's mine and I made money off that crap", and you idiots actually voted because of it.

Even the idiots in the Congress followed the "advice and counsel" of main stream media.

Not only was the historic, public record manipulated, but also was the honor of those who have served elected office.

Remember, the political majority, well, actually it was mostly Trump,  made sure to let the entire world know that the media was biased.

So, not only was the media biased, it is alleged it violated constitutional law in the suppression of free speech, which is another whole other legal argument.

More jobs in the legal communities of constitutional and civil rights law will be generated, based upon the proposed Trump Administrative policies introduced..

Yes, the election was rigged and .must be properly, pro forma, of course, as previously announced by President Trump, in the proper jurisdictions, <=== notice the plurality of the "s" (pun intended), of The Congress and The Court.

The DNC Sucks and we all know why thanks to Guccifer 2.0. and the NSA, and all the other foreign nationals who moving, quiet quickly towards global, economic peace via this election.

Now, look at all the possible legal and technical jobs to be created in the realms of intellectual property, which will be created through the proposed polices of the Trump Administration,

#DrainTheSwamp

Gotta keep the public record constitutional through those checks and balance, ya know, you guys asked for through the last two terms of the Obama Administration.

People like consistency and drama, ya know.

Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why the FBI Director, James Comey, did not recommend any legal action pertaining to the Hillary Clinton, well, ya know, let us just call it a situation we are waiting to play out, because some staffers, appointed, in the FBI may have been on her proverbial payroll, which may mean that, once again, the historic record has been historically manipulated by providing fraudulent advice for the purposes of political and person inurement for the Clintons.

Leave my FBI Director Jimmy Comey, ALONE!!!

Just replace Brittany Spears' name with James Comey. 

' He is a human!!  He has been through so  much!!  We were just another Clinton victim

of lies that made us lie, again,  into the public, historic record, to promulgate  recommendations for  no indictments, even though there are multi-jursdictional, concurrent investigations on how and why Hillary lied to us.  Leave Jimmy alone!!!!  

(I love my #Superfans)

All I am saying is that it looks like we are about to have a whole lot of fun witnessing the ultimate epic battle between the political majority and SCOTUS, or .as I have to call it, "the battle of wits", where the rules are strictly: F.R.C.P,;  U.S.C, and other such codes and statutes.

No Bibles, allowed.

Remember, SCOTUS is short one Justice, which means any legislation and/or policy promoting the political agenda outlined in the ACLU public declaration to litigate, will make the highest court in the land, the one where the majority down right refused to confirm the SCOTUS appointment, docket constipated, oh, and the court's agenda, too, that ain't nothin' gonna be done in relation to the subsequent proposed policies and the Trump Administration, that nothing will probably get down during the 4-year term.

Ya know, like ya did the Obama Administration.

Tit for Tat.  That is called game theory.  My lust.  My mission.

So, to celebrate the glorious coronation of United States President Donald J. Trump, let the legal games commence!!!

#DrainTheSwamp

#TakeThemOut

#Time2AuditGod

The Trump Memos: The ACLU's Constitutional Analysis of the Public Statements and Policy Proposals of Donald... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."

 "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." 

Sun Tzu, "The Art of War".

Here is a deliciously preserved recipe for a five- course congressional legal challenge to Executive actions.

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. BILLS... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

BTW, I would have put hyperlinks in, but very few actually click, so, you can just search at the top right using keywords.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

With One Last Effort to Dismantle Health, Safety, & Environmental Protections, House Republicans Jet for August Vacation

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 232 to 183 to pass H.R. 367, the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.” After passage of the legislation, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Without question, the ‘REINS Act’ will have dangerous consequences for all Americans, chiefly by creating an unworkable approval process for regulations that will make it nearly impossible for new safeguards go into effect. With everything from health and safety protections for working families to rules ensuring clean air and water, this legislation would undermine these essential regulations,” said Conyers.

“This incredibly flawed legislation would require Congress, under impossible deadlines, to consider and pass exceedingly complex and technical regulatory safeguards before they could take effect. As a result, the bill would significantly delay critical rulemaking at best, or bring it to a complete halt at worst. This means that proposed regulatory safeguards pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, the Vaccines for Children Program, the Federal student loan programs, and the Veteran’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program – amongst many other vital programs – would all be jeopardized.

“In just the last few months, we have seen the Supreme Court gut the heart of the Voting Rights Act, we have learned of the National Security Agency’s blanket surveillance of the American public, and we have a level of unemployment that remains stubbornly high. Yet, rather than work in a bipartisan fashion to address these issues of overwhelming concern to the American people, House Republicans have opted to pursue an ideologically driven assault against regulations that safeguard our health, safety, and environment. As we head back to our districts for the month of August, I hope that my Republican colleagues use this time to reconsider their agenda, and put the needs of the American people first.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Boehner Seeks to Curb Obama’s Rules Power

The Child Welfare Industry strongly supports federal deregulation as it would not be in the best interests on the pharmaceutical industry.  The cild protective industry has been unregulated since as one of its theoretical revenue-maximization scheme. 

Children and families would be treated with more compassion under a mafia rule than what is now currently established and legislatively proposed.  Human trafficking is an unregulated component of the Social Security Administration.

It's like that, and that's the way it is...

iThe U.S. House today approved the second in a series of bills to limit the president’s authority to regulate business, a move Republicans called necessary for job creation and Democrats labeled a political power grab.

Children and parents would probably be treated with more dignity 

House Speaker John Boehner, who said the package is a top priority, will face difficulty winning final passage of the legislation, which the White House has threatened to veto. Still, Republicans said the votes would highlight the issue of government’s role in regulating business, which they have made a major campaign issue.

Today’s 253-167 vote would force agencies to adopt the least-expensive version of a regulation. Next week, the House will consider a measure taking away President Barack Obama’s authority -- and that of future presidents -- to issue major rules. Congress would have to approve them first.

“The ‘get government off our backs’ message is red meat for the Republican base,” Larry Sabato, director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, said in an interview. To moderate voters, he said, “it’s not a full meal. Most people favor at least some regulations. ‘Do you want arsenic in your fruit juice?’ is a great Democratic retort.”

Fewer Regulations

The House voted yesterday, 263-159, to require regulatory agencies to calculate the small-business impact of new rules.

The series of regulatory bills fits with Republicans’ 2010 “Pledge to America” campaign document. Similar reforms appeared in presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America,” which helped him become the first Republican House speaker in 40 years.

The package’s centerpiece legislation, scheduled to be voted on next week, is called the Regulations in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS Act. It would require Congress to sign off on every agency rule with an annual cost of $100 million or more on business. Now, Congress must vote to block the president from issuing regulations.

The bill “provides a long-term solution to stopping job- crushing regulations by creating a process to responsibly evaluate whether or not regulations that have a significant economic impact are necessary,” Boehner said in an e-mailed statement yesterday.

The White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement Nov. 29 it would recommend a presidential veto if it passes both houses of Congress.

Obama’s Regulation Record

The administration works “very aggressively to ensure that we take the necessary action to protect our air and water and that we also issue regulations and reform regulations in a way that makes them as efficient as possible,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said at a briefing yesterday.

Recent reports have questioned the extent to which the administration is regulating business.

Obama has weakened proposed rules at a greater rate than his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, according to a study released Nov. 29 by the Center for Progressive Reform.

Obama had imposed fewer regulations on business than Bush through the first 33 months of their tenures, while the cost of those rules had been higher under Obama, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Regulations ‘Save Lives’

Democrats warned of the consequences of loosening the regulatory environment too much.

“The trio of public safety-killing legislation would make it harder to control and make safe our products that we count on,” Representative John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said on the floor yesterday. “Regulations don’t kill jobs, they save lives.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t focused on bringing the package to the floor for a vote, Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat, said in an e-mail.

Even if eventually defeated, the House bills on regulation will emerge in the 2012 presidential race because they capture the conservative theme of getting government out of business, Noah Sachs, an associate law professor at the University of Richmond, said in an interview.

“Each presidential candidate will be put on the spot and forced to take a stand,” Sachs said.

Should Republicans capture the White House and Senate while keeping the House, “I would expect regulatory reform to be one of the first things to pass,” he said.

‘Regulators Gone Wild’

Presidential candidates Representative Michelle Bachmann and Representative Ron Paul have signed on as co-sponsors to the REINS Act. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney endorsed it in his Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, released Sept. 6.

Regardless of the political party controlling the executive branch, REINS is necessary to stop “regulators gone wild,” Representative Geoff Davis, a Kentucky Republican and lead sponsor of the bill, said yesterday in an interview.

Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers back regulatory reform.

“Manufacturers of all sizes are impacted by harmful and unnecessary regulations, but small businesses are disproportionately affected,” President and CEO Jay Timmons said in a statement yesterday.

The measure “truly would kick-start our economy,” Representative Rick Berg, a North Dakota Republican who co- sponsored the bill, said in an interview yesterday.

Uncertainty for Business

“Regulatory uncertainty -- there’s not a business that exists that doesn’t think about that,” Berg said. “The goal is to have businesses make decisions based on supply and demand, not out of concern about regulatory and tax burdens.”

REINS and the other two bills “are aimed at bringing the regulatory system to a halt by tying agencies up in knots,” Rick Melberth, regulatory policy director of OMB Watch, a liberal advocacy organization in Washington, said in an interview. He said the bills “usurp” presidential power.

The legislation passed today is H.R. 3010. The bill passed yesterday is H.R. 527. The measure being considered next week is H.R. 10.