CRS INSIGHT
Agency Final Rules Submitted After May 16, 2016, May
Be Subject to Disapproval in 2017 Under the
Congressional Review Act
February 4, 2016 (IN10437)
|
Related Authors
Christopher M. Davis
Richard S. Beth
|
Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process (cmdavis@crs.loc.gov, 7-0656)
Richard S. Beth, Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process (rbeth@crs.loc.gov, 7-8667)
With a change in the occupancy of the White House
With a change of presidential administrations taking place in
2017January, some in Congress are paying renewed
attention to a parliamentary mechanism that might enable
athe new Congress and
the new President to overturn agency final
rules of the Obama Administration issued after
mid-May 2016.
early June 2016.
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. §§801-808), enacted as part of the
104th104th Congress's (1995-1996) "Contract
with America," established a special parliamentary mechanism whereby Congress can disapprove a final rule
promulgated by a federal agency. While Congress has considered several CRA joint resolutions of disapproval since
1996, the CRA mechanism has successfully overturned only one agency final rule: a 2000 Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) rule related to workplace ergonomics standards.
Perhaps the most widely cited reason why the CRA has overturned only one agency rule in 20 years is the de facto
supermajority vote required to enact a CRA resolution of disapproval. While all of the congressional votes related to a
CRA disapproval resolution are simple majority votes, the way the mechanism is structured all but assures that a veto
override—requiring a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress—will be necessary to enact the disapproval
resolution. This is because a President is most likely to veto a joint resolution that attempts to strike down a rule
proposed by his
or her own Administration. For example, in the
114th114th Congress (2015-2016), President Barack Obama
has vetoed
four five CRA disapproval resolutions presented to him by Congress.
Some argue that the inauguration of a new
The inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President in 2017 may present a finite window during which the
congressional-executive dynamics described above may be different and the CRA disapproval mechanism might be
used more successfully. This is because under the terms of the act, there is a brief period at the beginning of a new
Administration during which rules issued toward the end of the previous Administration are eligible for CRA
disapproval. Such late-issued agency rules are sometimes called
""midnight rules
."." This is exactly the situation that led
to the only successful use of the CRA mentioned above, where newly inaugurated President George W. Bush signed a
CRA disapproval resolution invalidating the OSHA ergonomics rule issued by the Clinton Administration. Such
circumstances could repeat in 2017 if
the nation elects a President and Congress that opposePresident Trump opposes some late-issued final rules
of the Obama Administration.
Here is how such a scenario might play out. The CRA establishes several time periods during which Congress might
review and act to disapprove a final rule, including these:
An "initiation" period, which begins on the date a final rule is submitted to Congress and lasts for 60 days
thereafter (excluding days on which either house is in recess), during which joint resolutions disapproving the
agency rule can be introduced by any Member of either chamber.
A "discharge" period, which begins the day after a final rule is submitted to Congress and is published in the
Federal Register and lasts for 20 calendar days
thereafter. After the conclusion of this period, a petition signed by
30 Senators can be filed to discharge a Senate committee from the further consideration of a CRA joint resolution
of disapproval.
A "Senate action" period, which begins on the date a final rule is submitted to Congress and is published in the
Federal Register and lasts for 60 days on which the Senate is in session
thereafter, during which a disapproval
resolution can be considered in the Senate under "fast track" parliamentary procedures that permit a simple
majority of that chamber to reach a final vote on the resolution.
Section 801(d) of the CRA provides that, if a final rule is submitted to Congress either less than 60 days of session in
the Senate or less than 60 legislative days in the House of Representatives before Congress adjourns a session sine die
,
, a new period for congressional review of that rule becomes available in the next session of Congress. (Legislative days
in the House are normally equal to its days of session.) For this purpose, the rule is treated as if it had been submitted to
Congress and published in the Federal Register on the
15th15th legislative day (House) or session day (Senate) of the new
session for purposes of calculating the time periods described above.
Said another way, final rules submitted to Congress
earlier thanprior to both the
60th60th day of Senate session and the
60th60th House
legislative day before the day of the adjournment will not be subject to the additional periods for review in the
following congressional session. Rules submitted on or after the
60th60th day before sine die adjournment in at least one
chamber will be subject to the renewed periods for congressional review. These "reset" provisions are applied in the
same same way regardless of whether the session in question is the first or second session of a Congress
and, but for the reasons discussed above, they have particular
significance in the second session of a Congress that corresponds with an outgoing presidential Administration
for the
reasons discussed above. These provisions ensure that an Administration cannot deny Congress the full periods for
review and action contemplated by the CRA simply by submitting a final rule to Congress shortly before it adjourns for
the year.
The projected second-session meeting schedules of the
House and SenateHouse and Senate issued by each chamber's majority leader may
be used to estimate the date in 2016 after which final rules submitted to Congress will be subject to the renewed review
periods in 2017 described above.
The estimated start of the reset period for all rules was determined by counting back from the projected sine die
adjournment in the respective chambers—60 days of session in the Senate and 60 legislative days in the House—then
taking the earlier of the two dates.
Under this calculation,
it appears that agency final rules submitted to Congress
after May 16on or after June 13, 2016, will be subject to renewed review
periods in 2017 by a new President and a new Congress.
If the chambers deviate from the schedule projected by the party leaders, these estimates will necessarily change. Also,
CRS day count estimates are unofficial and non-binding. The House and Senate Parliamentarians are the sole definitive
periods in 2017 by President Trump and the 115th Congress. CRS had previously estimated that a sine die adjournment of December 16, 2016, would result in a CRA reset date in the House of June 2. Since CRS made that estimate, however, it appears that the House has decided to hold periodic pro forma sessions until January 3, 2017, the constitutional day of meeting of the 115th Congress. If the House follows the schedule announced for these pro forma sessions, it appears that the CRA reset date in the House corresponding to this adjournment date will be June 13, 2016.
If the chambers deviate from this expected schedule for the remainder of 2016, this estimate will necessarily change. Also, CRS day count estimates are unofficial and nonbinding. The House and Senate Parliamentarians are the sole definitive arbiters of the operation of the CRA mechanism and should be consulted if a formal opinion is desired. For more on the
Congressional Review Act, see CRS Report RL34633, Congressional Review Act: Disapproval of Rules in a
Subsequent Session of Congress
; and CRS Report R43992, The Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions
.
.