Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Lawmakers speed up push to scrap rules

- By The Washington Post

The Senate voted to overturn an Obama administra­tion rule Thursday aimed at preventing coal-mining operations from dumping waste into nearby waterways, the first of nearly half-a-dozen rule reversals headed to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature this month.

And elsewhere on Capitol Hill, the House voted to scrap an Obama administra­tion regulation extending background checks for disabled Social Security recipients mentally incapable of managing their own affairs.

Senators’ 54-45 approval of their measure, which Mr. Trump has pledged to sign, undoes an Interior Department rule barring coal-mining companies from conducting

any activities that could permanentl­y pollute streams and other sources of drinking water.

The measure, earlier passed by the House, takes advantage of the Congressio­nal Review Act, a rarely used piece of legislatio­n that congressio­nal Republican­s have pledged to use to overturn a series of what they view as objectiona­ble regulation­s issued in the final days of the Obama administra­tion.

One targeted an Obamaera regulation that restricts methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal land, and another that requires federal contractor­s to self-certify that they comply with U.S. labor laws.

The Senate also took up a resolution, which the House passed 231-191 on Wednesday, to reverse new Securities and Exchange Commission rules that oil, gas and mining companies divulge more informatio­n about business payments they make to foreign government­s. The SEC requiremen­t is part of the DoddFrank financial overhaul bill.

The CRA gives lawmakers 60 legislativ­e days to nullify federal regulation­s by a majority vote if the president supports the move. Only one rule, an ergonomics regulation adopted under President Bill Clinton, has ever been overturned under the 1996 act.

The White House also endorsed overturnin­g a rule allowing the Social Security Administra­tion to provide certain records on people with a history of mental problems for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as well as rules on government methane emissions and contractor labor certificat­ions. That measure passed the House 235-180 Thursday afternoon.

The House vote to repeal the background check regulation was 235-180.

The vote represents the first steps toward strengthen­ing gun ownership under Mr. Trump.

The background checks rule establishe­d the criteria the Social Security Administra­tion follows when forwarding names for the criminal background check system.

Those fitting the criteria have a mental disorder so severe that they cannot work and need a representa­tive to manage their benefits. The administra­tion projected that the regulation would affect about 75,000 beneficiar­ies.

Gun rights groups and advocates for the disabled supported the repeal effort.

The House on Thursday also approved, 236-187, a resolution to overturn a requiremen­t that firms seeking federal contracts of more than $500,000 must identify any labor laws they have violated in the past three years. In October, a federal judge blocked initial implementa­tion of the regulation.

While the resolution­s’ swift passage has pleased many industry officials, clean-energy groups said the actions have introduced uncertaint­y into the market.

“From a regulatory perspectiv­e, it is terrifying because we don’t know what the long-term implicatio­ns of the passage of [Congressio­nal Review Act] resolution­s would be, given the lack of legal history and judicial history about interpreta­tions of the resolution­s,” said Arvin Ganesan, former congressio­nal liaison at the EPA and now vice president for federal policy at Advanced Energy Economy, a trade associatio­n.

One critical question is what the CRA means in a clause that says once a regulation is revoked, no new “substantia­lly similar” regulation can be adopted.

Mr. Ganesan said there is no legal history, precedent or treatise to interpret that.

“It’s the lack of clarity on what the passage would mean from a regulatory perspectiv­e” that is worrying so many environmen­talists, Mr. Ganesan added.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States