Regulatory: Blocking Minorities in the Senate
Regulatory policy battles today are reminiscent of those in the past.
April 26, 2011 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The major regulatory policy battles of 2011 are following a pattern that's become familiar when each party controls one body in Congress. The House of Representatives has approved bills that would delay or overrule agency regulatory initiatives. In the Senate, leadership has cobbled together blocking minorities of 40 votes to filibuster repeal legislation to death. These deregulatory measures, however, can be revived on multiple occasions as other “must pass” legislation is considered. The Obama Administration may well have to make repeated commitments to cut spending to preserve the impasse in the Senate.
For example, the Durbin Amendment to the financial reform bill requires the Federal Reserve Board to adopt regulations that will limit the interchange fees banks that issue debit cards can charge merchants on a transaction. The proposed implementing rule would reduce these fees by 75 percent, transferring $14 billion per year from banks to merchants. The Federal Reserve was unable to meet the tight statutory deadline for issuing the rule, however, and opponents of the regulation have introduced a bill that would delay its effective date by two years, until after the next election. To date, Senator Durbin has been able to hold together enough votes to block the measure, but the Majority Leader will not schedule the extension bill for a vote until he is certain that the filibuster will succeed. Opponents of the Durbin Amendment would have one remaining option: to try to block the rule under the Congressional Review Act, which requires agencies to submit to Congress for potential disapproval each “major” rule (those with an annual impact of $100 million). Under Senate rules, a motion to disapprove an implementing regulation under this statute (which has been successfully invoked only once) cannot be filibustered.
A more complicated calculus applies in the policy dispute over EPA's authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In the skirmishing over the threatened government shutdown, the House easily passed legislation to repeal EPA's regulatory authority. The Senate deadlocked 50-50 on the measure, which proved fatal in the short term to republican efforts to attach the measure to the 2011 budget bill. While the repeal legislation has failed initially, EPA's authority will be in jeopardy until the 2012 elections. “Must pass” spending bills will continue to arise, notably those raising the debt ceiling and adopting the 2012 budget. On each occasion, republicans can reintroduce riders to strip the agency of authority, and the administration will have to renew efforts to preserve its blocking minority.
Repeated votes on repeal legislation could force the administration to accept many more spending cuts to obtain the swing votes necessary to kill the measure. Each time the issue arises, swing Senators will be able to demand additional spending reductions. President Reagan experienced this problem in 1985-86 in his efforts to support the Nicaraguan Contras. House democrats determined that the president was dug in on the matter and would agree to increased spending on democratic priorities to obtain a small level of funding for the Contras. Proposals to zero out Contra funding were introduced whenever adverse article were published about the Contras. Some internal administration estimates were that by structuring votes on a series of defunding provisions, democrats forced the president to accept $100 in spending on their priorities for each $1 approved for Contra funding.
If the swing senators are similarly motivated and equally skilled, the president may have to agree to substantial spending reductions on his policy priorities in order to preserve EPA's regulatory authority.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable.
Read John Cooney's previous column. Read John Cooney's next 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