Regulatory: Zeroing Out Regulations
House Republicans could render health care and financial reform laws and EPA rules regulating Green House Gas emissions ineffective.
December 07, 2010 at 07:00 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
House Republicans have announced that they will try to block implementation of parts of the new health care and financial reform laws adopted in 2010 and EPA rules regulating Green House Gas (GHG) emissions that become effective in January. How could they hope to succeed when they control only one body of Congress and the President would veto any legislation that sought to repeal these measures? The answer is that the new Republican majority will try to pass laws “zeroing out” the appropriations necessary for the agencies to develop or enforce the rules required to implement these measures. These legislative battles are likely to be a major focus of federal regulatory activity in 2011.
“Zeroing out” is a term developed by federal budget experts to describe a situation in which a new law explicitly precludes an agency from expending appropriated funds to implement a law that Congress previously had enacted. A typical “zeroing out” provision might state that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the agency shall expend no funds appropriated by Congress” to take a specific action. The Snail Darter decision, TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), established that subsequent passage of legislation explicitly denying appropriations to carry out a defined function can neutralize a substantive law previously passed by Congress and deprive it of any practical effect. The law remains on the books, however, and springs back to life if Congress fails in any future year to zero out the agency's appropriations for that purpose.
The President could block a freestanding effort to defund implementation of these laws or to overturn parts of a new statute or to reject a rule that is an Administration priority, and the Republicans do not have the votes to override a veto. How could they hope to succeed? The answer is by packaging the “zeroing out” language as one provision in an omnibus spending law that provides funding for critical government functions. For example, in the mid-1980s, a Democratic House majority successfully zeroed out funding for Reagan Administration efforts to overthrow the Nicaraguan Contras by insisting on inclusion of a defunding measure in bills that provided appropriations for national defense priorities, such as new technologies the President sought to confront the Soviet military. The White House ultimately calculated that the political embarrassment and adverse policy consequences of a bill that funded its most important policy priorities would be so great that the President would have to swallow hard and sign the bill.
House Republican leaders are analyzing President Obama's policy priorities to determine which policy initiatives he might be willing to trade off against funding for higher priorities. They also will seek to identify “must pass” funding legislation to which zeroing out provisions could be attached, such as a supplemental appropriations bill to fund a shooting war.
One potential target for zeroing out is the EPA rule limiting GHG emissions from large industrial facilities. For example, the House majority might pass an urgent spending measure that zeros out funding for those measures and try to pressure Democratic senators in coal-producing States who face reelection in 2012 into supporting defunding. In response, the Administration could seek to solidify opposition in the Senate through policy arguments and appeals to the Democratic caucus to preserve the President's political authority. Such a contest could serve as an early test whether a Republican defunding strategy could succeed or whether federal agencies will have the ability to develop and implement their regulatory programs for the remainder of the President's tenure.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable.
Read John Cooney's previous column.
House Republicans have announced that they will try to block implementation of parts of the new health care and financial reform laws adopted in 2010 and EPA rules regulating Green House Gas (GHG) emissions that become effective in January. How could they hope to succeed when they control only one body of Congress and the President would veto any legislation that sought to repeal these measures? The answer is that the new Republican majority will try to pass laws “zeroing out” the appropriations necessary for the agencies to develop or enforce the rules required to implement these measures. These legislative battles are likely to be a major focus of federal regulatory activity in 2011.
“Zeroing out” is a term developed by federal budget experts to describe a situation in which a new law explicitly precludes an agency from expending appropriated funds to implement a law that Congress previously had enacted. A typical “zeroing out” provision might state that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the agency shall expend no funds appropriated by Congress” to take a specific action.
The President could block a freestanding effort to defund implementation of these laws or to overturn parts of a new statute or to reject a rule that is an Administration priority, and the Republicans do not have the votes to override a veto. How could they hope to succeed? The answer is by packaging the “zeroing out” language as one provision in an omnibus spending law that provides funding for critical government functions. For example, in the mid-1980s, a Democratic House majority successfully zeroed out funding for Reagan Administration efforts to overthrow the Nicaraguan Contras by insisting on inclusion of a defunding measure in bills that provided appropriations for national defense priorities, such as new technologies the President sought to confront the Soviet military. The White House ultimately calculated that the political embarrassment and adverse policy consequences of a bill that funded its most important policy priorities would be so great that the President would have to swallow hard and sign the bill.
House Republican leaders are analyzing President Obama's policy priorities to determine which policy initiatives he might be willing to trade off against funding for higher priorities. They also will seek to identify “must pass” funding legislation to which zeroing out provisions could be attached, such as a supplemental appropriations bill to fund a shooting war.
One potential target for zeroing out is the EPA rule limiting GHG emissions from large industrial facilities. For example, the House majority might pass an urgent spending measure that zeros out funding for those measures and try to pressure Democratic senators in coal-producing States who face reelection in 2012 into supporting defunding. In response, the Administration could seek to solidify opposition in the Senate through policy arguments and appeals to the Democratic caucus to preserve the President's political authority. Such a contest could serve as an early test whether a Republican defunding strategy could succeed or whether federal agencies will have the ability to develop and implement their regulatory programs for the remainder of the President's tenure.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of
Read John Cooney's previous column.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250