Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump is dangerously naive.

He has a pathological unwillingness to criticize anything the Kremlin does. He is discrediting U.S. intelligence agencies and telling the world they cant be believed.

Story Continued Below

As for Trumps refusal to disavow Russian President Vladimir Putin and the murders and poisonings of Putin critics in recent years because, as Trump put it, America has killers too? I dont think weve ever had a more harmful statement come out of the Oval Office than that one, says Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, in an extensive interview for our new podcast, The Global Politico.

Schiff, a Harvard-trained lawyer who made his career by prosecuting an FBI agent caught in a sex-for-secrets trap by the Soviet Union, has been one of the leading Democrats calling for a more serious investigation of Trumps mysterious ties to Russia. Last week, when national security adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign after misleading the vice president about his December phone call with the Russian ambassador, Schiff quickly demanded an expansion of the House intel panels probe of the 2016 election hacking to include the Flynn matter, an expansion Chairman Devin Nunes reluctantly agreed to late last week.

Now, Schiff is openly suggesting a possible cover-up in the Flynn affair. Theres a profound question about whether he was acting on his own, or whether he was acting at the behest of the now president or others in the administration, Schiff says. Who else was knowledgeable that he had misled the vice president, and in doing so misled the country?

Throughout our conversation, Schiff described Russia under Putin in terms Ive rarely heard over nearly two decades of covering U.S. relations with the Kremlin, and almost never from a Democrat in recent years, when it was largely Republicans who criticized Putin and what they saw as President Barack Obamas reluctance to confront Russian aggression. Russia is a major threat to the country, Schiff says. They are doing their best to dismantle democratic institutions in Europe, just as they did in Russia itself. And just as they tried to do in our own country, in the election ... Theres a real confrontation with a real malignant power.

Perhaps most striking about this kind of rhetoric is who its coming from, and the partisan divide it heralds for American foreign policy going forward as a new generation of Russia hawks emerges. Because Schiff is new to the outrage factory, a mild-mannered sort on Capitol Hill whose Twitter feed used to be filled with polite hearing notices and the measured policy wonkiness for which he has been known. Just about every article ever written about the California Democrat, a triathlete who keeps an extreme fitness regimen, has called him some version of a moderates moderate.

But that was before Trump and his unlikely, largely unexplained, admiration for Putin. Schiff in recent months has turned his perch on the House Intelligence Committee into a newly public role as perhaps the loudest voice on Capitol Hill pushing Republicans to investigate not only the Russian hacking of the 2016 election but also just what ties Trump and his campaign advisers may have with the Russian government whose strongman leader Trump has said he admires. Schiff tells me the panel will examine any contacts between Russia and U.S. persons to see whether there was any U.S. person complicity in the 2016 election-related hacking.

But its not entirely clear whether the panel will actually do soor how effective the committee will be. Schiff and other Democrats have been rebuffed in efforts to commission a special joint investigation commission and uncertain about how much cooperation they will receive from the FBI, which is conducting its own probe of the Flynn matter as well as the broader Russia hacking during the 2016 campaign. And among House Republicans, there remains resistance to looking too closely at the dealings of a president from their own party.

While Senate Republicans, under pressure from noted Russia hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have sounded a tougher note about their investigation, in the House, Nuneswho served on Trumps transition teamhas been much more skeptical. At first, Nunes refused last week to broaden the probe to Flynn, saying instead that he preferred, as the president insisted, to investigate the leaks that led to the disclosures about the Flynn call. On Sunday, Nunes went on the talk shows to cast doubt on Schiffs insistence that the panel will look at whether and how complicit any Americans tied to Trump may have been in the Russian hacking.

We are not going to go on a witch hunt against the American people, against American citizens, he told CBS John Dickerson, insisting, as far as I know our law enforcement authorities dont have that information.

Wherever the unfolding investigations around Russia, Trump and Putin lead, the swirling controversy has already had one inescapable effect in American politics: the return of Cold War-style rhetoric and ominous warnings about Russia. Three straight American presidentsBill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obamahave started out hoping to forge a closer relationship with Putin and ending up disillusioned and barely on speaking terms.

But now, with Trump calling Putin a better leader than Obama during the campaign and the U.S. intelligence communitys finding that Russias election hacking was specifically aimed at boosting Trumps chances in the presidential race, the prospects of another attempted reset of U.S.-Russia policy have taken on a darker cast. Trump acknowledged as much during his stemwinder of a news conference the other day, invoking the image of Putin observing the uproar and deciding its going to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure hes got with this fake story.

***

As the top Democrat on the House panel, Schiff is one of the so-called Gang of Eight, the four top leaders in both houses and four top intelligence committee members, who receive special classified briefings from the U.S. intelligence agencies that other members of Congress do not. Working together with Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel who is also part of the Gang, Schiff started sounding the alarm about Russian interference in the election early last fall.

They faced, Schiff now acknowledges, strong pushback from the Obama White House when they tried to get the administration to go public with evidence about the Russian hacking. Schiff reveals in the interview that he and Feinstein lobbied the National Security Council staff to make such a statement but were rebuffed. There was a real reticence in the administration to talk about this publicly, he says, especially at a time when Trump was already complaining publicly that he believed Democrats would try to rig the election for Hillary Clinton.

Instead, he and Feinstein teamed up, and on September 22, released their own statement saying there was a serious and concerted effort by Russia to meddle in the 2016 racea statement confirmed by the Obama administration in October and then, after the election, by a public finding from the U.S. intelligence agencies that the hacking was aimed at electing Trump. Many Democrats today remain furious about that timetable, wondering whether Obamas hesitant response to the hacking and unwillingness to speak out more forcefully before Nov. 8 may have inadvertently helped Trump win the presidency.

Regardless, the conversation with Schiff makes clear that theres an entirely new politics to Russia in the U.S. today, and nowhere more so than on Capitol Hill, where historically it has been Republicans who, even long after the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union 25 years ago, remained much more critical of Putins heavy-handed rule and expansionist foreign policy across the former Soviet territory.

For the most part, they still areand when reports circulated that Trumps White House was considering lifting some sanctions on Russia as an early executive order, it was strong pushback from Republicans on the Hill, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, that helped to table, or at least delay, whatever plans there were; the subsequent furor over Flynn and his Russia entanglements makes that even less likely to proceed for now. Nunes nodded to that new realityand probably to Schiffs Russia warningsin his comments to CBS. There are Russia hawks now, he said wryly, I think theres more Russia hawks in Congress than there are congressmen and senators.

For Schiff and others in the newly-hawkish-on-Russia camp, theres an explicit connection between Putins threatening moves and the rise of like-minded populist nationalists such as Trump in the United States and others in Europe. We are in a new war of ideas, in which autocracy appears to be on the march, and we have to confront it, he says.

So what about the Republicans who had in recent years been so quick to criticize Obama for being soft on Putin and warning of Russian imperial designs across Eastern Europe? The same party that applauded when 2012 nominee Mitt Romney labeled Russia the No. 1 geopolitical threat to the United States? Had his GOP colleagues, I asked Schiff, suddenly changed their minds about Russia now that Trump is promoting a different line?

His answer was as revealing about the state of play in Congress for President Trump as it was about anything having to do with foreign policy. And it suggests that while, for now, most of the GOP is not openly breaking with its combative new president, that may not always be the case.

They havent changed their mind about Russia. I think they are as deeply distrustful as ever. They dont want to cross this president yet, Schiff says of his Republican colleagues. They have no illusions about Vladimir Putin; none of them think hes a friend. They all recognize the great evil that hes doing bombing civilians in Aleppo, invading his neighbors, murdering journalists. So, I dont think they have any new viewI dont think theyve been persuaded by Donald Trump that somehow Russia is now our friend.

Susan Glasser is Politicos chief international affairs columnist and host of its new weekly podcast, The Global Politico.

See the article here:
Will Republicans Break With Trump Over Russia? - POLITICO Magazine

RICHMOND Speaker William J. Howell, a pragmatic Republican who has presided over Virginias fractious House of Delegates for 15 sessions and spent the last four as a thorn in Gov. Terry McAuliffes side, will not seek reelection in November.

Howell, 73, announced his decision Monday in emotional remarks in the ornate House chamber, with his wife of 50 years, Cessie, and other family members looking on.

I have really enjoyed serving in this esteemed body, Howell said. It has truly been the greatest professional honor of my life.

Even before it was officially announced, Howells plan to retire at the end of his term in January set off a competition between two delegates to replace him at the helm of the overwhelmingly GOP-majority chamber.

House Majority Leader M. Kirkland Cox (Colonial Heights) and Del. Terry G. Kilgore (Scott) worked quietly over the past week to line up support for their rival bids to replace Howell (Stafford), according to two Republicans familiar with their efforts. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal caucus matters.

Kilgore has since withdrawn. I just didnt think it was the right time for me, he said. Cox declined to comment, saying that this is the speakers day.

The House GOP caucus is expected to name Cox its speaker-designee in a close-door meeting Wednesday.

House members on both sides of the aisle praised Howell on the floor not only for his political leadership but also for a quick wit that could defuse tense situations and for a sense of personal friendship.

I think after I called my parents, youre the first person I called after I adopted my kid, thats how much I think of you, said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), his voice breaking. You are proof, Mr. Speaker, that nice guys can finish first.

House Minority Leader David Toscano (D-Charlottesville) praised Howell for standing up to his own party on an off-year redistricting scheme in 2013. Senate Republicans had tacked an entirely redrawn state Senate map onto a bill calling for minor technical adjustments to House districts. Howell ruled it out of order, a move that infuriated some Republicans.

[From the archives: Spike of Virginia redistricting plans shows House speakers pragmatic streak]

You are truly a historic figure in this chamber and in this Capitol, said Toscano, adding that the speaker is akin to a judge. The good judges are the ones who let you try your case. ... You let us try our cases, and we thank you for that.

Howells relationship with McAuliffe (D) has been strained, despite their shared history as dealmakers and McAuliffes efforts to woo the speaker over craft beer in the Executive Mansion.

Howell has used his position among the most powerful in state government to help thwart many of the governors biggest goals, including the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the appointment of a state Supreme Court justice and the blanket restoration of voting rights to more than 200,000 felons.

With a lawsuit filed last year to block the restoration of felons voting rights, Howell became the first speaker in the history of the commonwealth to successfully challenge a governors executive order in court.

[Va. high court invalidates McAuliffes order restoring felon voting rights]

On behalf of the people of Virginia, I want to thank Speaker Bill Howell for his outstanding service to Virginia, McAuliffe said in a statement. I have tremendous respect for the Speaker and the professional and dignified way he led the House throughout his tenure. I wish him the very best in his retirement.

Howell is Virginias second-longest-serving speaker, behind Democrat Edgar Blackburn Moore, who held the post from 1950 to 1968.

Deemed the accidental speaker because he assumed the role in January 2003 after S. Vance Wilkins resigned amid a sexual harassment scandal, Howell instituted a number of reforms, including bringing some strictness and objectivity to rules governing what can be ruled in and out of order.

A member of the House since 1988, Howell was one of four delegates to start a prayer group that still meets at 7 a.m. every Wednesday during the session. He has been a conservative on social issues such as abortion.

But he also sought to keep a lid on some hot-button bills after they consumed the 2012 legislative session. Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the chambers most vocal conservatives, often complained that Howell had some of his bills quietly killed off in committees to avoid controversy. An example of that this year was Marshalls ill-fated measure to require transgender people to use the public bathroom that corresponds with the sex on their birth certificates.

[Va. lawmaker presses fellow Republicans on transgender bathroom bill]

Howell has primarily focused on promoting business-friendly policies. And he has been willing to cut deals to get things done sometimes to the chagrin of more ideologically driven Republicans.

Among those deals were some involving McAuliffes predecessors. Howell spoke out against Democrat Mark R. Warners $1.6billion tax hike but quietly instructed a few Republicans to skip a committee vote so that the bill would go the House floor. Despite his distaste for Democrat Tim Kaines smoking ban, he struck a deal there as well. He signed on to the transportation plan of Republican Robert F. McDonnell, even after the legislation was amended into the largest tax hike in Virginia history.

Its really Bill Howells greatest legacy, said Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax), referring to the transportation funding measure. Wed still have smoking in restaurants for that matter.

A wills and trusts lawyer who practices in a log cabin on the Rappahannock River, Howell assumed the speakership at a time when his party enjoyed a slim majority in the 100-seat chamber. Their numbers swelled as high as 68 during his tenure, which also saw the adoption of a 2011 redistricting map favorable to Republicans. Two lawsuits one before the U.S. Supreme Court, the other before a state circuit court challenged the constitutionality of the maps.

Presiding over that growing majority became tricky with the rise of more conservative, tea-party-affiliated members, who looked askance at Howells pragmatic streak.

In 2014, some conservative Republicans said they feared that Howell was secretly on board with McAuliffes plan to expand Medicaid as they pushed for a budget amendment that they thought was needed to tie the governors hands. The speaker had called the amendment unnecessary but eventually got on board. McAuliffe later acknowledged that the amendment blocked a loophole that he had intended to use to expand Medicaid unilaterally.

See the rest here:
Va. House Speaker William Howell, a pragmatic Republican, will not run again - Washington Post

House Speaker Paul Ryan arrives back at his office for a meeting at the Capitol in Washington, January 9, 2017. Republicans are rigging the system to transfer tens of billions of dollars a year from ordinary workers to their rich friends. (Photo: Al Drago / The New York Times)

We all know how hard it is to be rich. After all, it takes a lot of money to keep up multiple homes, pay for first class air travel, expensive cars and the like. For this reason, most people would naturally support a Republican plan to make workers pay higher fees on their retirement accounts so that the Wall Street crew is better able to maintain their standard of living.

Unfortunately, this is not a joke. One of the major problems facing workers today is the inability to save for retirement. Traditional defined benefit pensions are rapidly disappearing. Roughly half the workforce now has access to a 401(k) defined contribution plan at their workplace, but we know that these generally are not providing much support in retirement.

Most workers manage to accumulate little money in these accounts over the span of their working career. Part of this is due to the fact that they often change jobs. They may go several years without being able to contribute to a 401(k) plan at their workplace. And they often cash out the money that they saved in a plan when they leave a job.

In addition, many of these plans charge high fees. This is often overlooked by workers since the financial companies operating the plans usually don't like to advertise their fees. The average fee is close to 1.0 percent of the money saved, with many charging fees of 1.5 percent of higher.

If this sounds like a small matter, imagine that you were able to save $100,000 in a 401(k). That would put you way ahead of most workers, since the median accumulation among the 60 percent of the workforce who have 401(k)s was just $26,000 in 2015, but $100,000 is certainly a plausible amount for a worker earning $60,000 a year.

A fee of 1 percent means that this worker is giving $1,000 a year to the financial industry. If they are paying 1.5 percent, then they are giving the financial industry $1,500 a year. But this is not a single year story. Suppose you average $100,000 in your account over a 20-year period. You might have handed over $30,000 to a bank, brokerage house or insurance company for basically nothing. Feel good now?

Several states, most notably Illinois and California, are in the process of opening up their public retirement plans to workers in the private sector to allow people to save without giving so much money to the financial industry. Under this plan, workers in private firms would have the option to contribute to a state managed system.

This would have the advantage of keeping the same plan even as someone changed jobs and the fees would be far lower. Instead of fees of 1 to 1.5 percent, workers would likely be seeing fees in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 percent. Did I mention this was voluntary?

Okay, so we're talking about giving workers the option to save for their own retirement in individual accounts. If the Republican Party stood for anything other than giving money to rich people, this would be it.

But the Republicans are up in arms against making it easier for workers to save. Paul Ryan and his gang are planning to deny states the right to offer such plans. The trick they are using is in a ruling by the Labor Department which gives the individual employers exemptions from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requirements when their workers contribute to the state sponsored plan. The ERISA requirements are designed to ensure that an employer operating a pension plan for their workers is doing proper bookkeeping and is handling the money appropriately.

In this case, it doesn't make sense for the ERISA rules to apply to individual employers since all they are doing is sending a check for their workers' contributions to the state-operated system. The individual employer plays zero role in what happens to the money.

This is the reason the Labor Department ruled last year that ERISA did not apply to individual employers who had workers taking part in the state-sponsored system. It is this ruling that Paul Ryan's gang wants to reverse. They argue, incredibly, that workers need safeguards with their savings and that the government must have oversight over employers sending checks to the state system.

This one is too ridiculous even for Washington politics. Everyone knows that there is nothing the Republicans in Congress hate more than government regulations that protect workers. This is why they were so anxious to repeal the fiduciary rule requiring financial advisers to act in the interest of their clients. This is why they want to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The story here is about as simple as it gets. Republicans' buddies in the financial industry will lose a lot of money if workers can put their money in these state-sponsored retirement systems instead of having to rely on their rip-off outfits. The Republicans are rigging the system to transfer tens of billions of dollars a year from ordinary workers to their rich friends. The only principle here is giving more money to the rich.

See the article here:
More Republican Handouts to the Rich - Truth-Out

Forbes

From Rappers To Republicans, Fireball Whisky Is One Hot Drink Forbes "That's the best," a sexagenarian advises as he walks past me in the Total Wine aisle, where I'm holding a bottle of Fireball Cinnamon Whisky. "You have to put that in Angry Orchard," the sunburned woman in line in front of me pronounces when she spots ... and more »

Link:
From Rappers To Republicans, Fireball Whisky Is One Hot Drink - Forbes

WASHINGTON While President Donald Trump distracts the public with his angry tweets, Republicans in Congress have been busy undoing federal regulations that agencies have been working on for years.

GOP lawmakers are dismantling regulations they deem overreaching and burdensome using an obscure law known as the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, which can be used to undo any regulation within 60 days of its finalization. The law, passed in 1996, also bars agencies from writing a substantially similar rule after the initial rule has been blocked a major concern for legal experts and advocates.

The CRA came to be under legislation pushed by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Lawmakers wanted an easier way to undo regulations, even though agencies can only issue them according to statutes written by Congress.

Congress had only used the CRA once before Trump took office, which is another reason people are concerned about its implications. There isnt a whole lot of legal precedent concerning how and when it should be used.

In 2001, Republicans used the CRA to undo a Clinton-era regulation creating new workplace ergonomics rules to prevent repetitive injuries. The agency that wrote the rule the Occupational Safety and Health Administration never touched ergonomics standards again.

Ergonomics may sound silly, but the rules werent about desk jockeys dealing with carpal tunnel syndrome. Think more like meat-packers crippled by repetitive injuries those are the people the regulation would have helped the most.

Ergonomic injury is very common among poultry processing workers, both because repetitive knife cuts and hoisting heavy birds on and off the assembly line cause debilitating carpal tunnel, explained University of Maryland law professor Rena Steinzor,formerly president of the Center for Progressive Reform.

When the Obama administration considered allowing faster line speeds at poultry plants in 2012, labor groups opposed the move as dangerous and urged OSHA to write new a new rule to make the work safer; poultry plant workers already suffer injuries at twice the rate of the general workforce.

Steinzor, who has testified before Congress on regulations, credits the 2001 CRA resolution targeting ergonomics as the reason OSHA decided not to write a new rule, though the agency didnt cite it in itsformal denial of petitionsto take action on behalf of poultry workers.

OSHAcowered, said Steinzer. It was battered. It stopped dealing with ergonomics.

Republicans desire to rip up Obama-era rules is no surprise, but using the CRA to do so could have a chilling effect on federal agencies that lasts for years.

In the last month, the House has pushed through 13 resolutions of disapproval reversing Obama-era regulations, including a Labor Department ruleblocking contractors that have repeatedly violated workplace standards from receiving new contracts. The Senate is expected to take up that measure soon, and the House is also eyeing other Labor Department regulations that qualify for CRA action.

What makes passing a disapproval resolution under the CRA so easy is that you only need a simple majority to do it, meaning Democrats in the Senate cant use a filibuster to stop it.

The most interesting and troubling thing about this is that it may very well be the ultimate block on modernizing workplace standards, said Celine McNicholas, labor counsel for the Economic Policy Institute.

The lack of precedent when it comes to the use of the CRA creates a tricky situation for all branches of government, since the agencies are still required to issue rules on specific issues, but cant do so in a way that replicates their previous rule.The CRA states that a rule may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and that the agencies cannot issue a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress passes a new law requiring a rule on that subject.

McNicholas noted that because the CRA has been used only once before, there has not been a judicial review, nor is there any case law defining how agencies should proceed.

Were in uncharted territory here, she said.

Craig Warga/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Even the 60-day limit on using the CRA is fuzzy, because the time frame is 60 legislative days after finalization, not actual days. The Congressional Research Service reported last fall that any rule agencies finalized after May 30 last year is potentially subject to disapproval which means as many as145 rules are subject to potential repeal.

The main reason the CRA is not used more often is that presidents generally dont want to overturn rules their agencies have created, and will veto any resolutions of disapproval that make it through Congress. Republicans passed five CRAsbetween 2009 and 2016, but Obama vetoed all of them.

Its the time period shortly after the White House switches parties and the reigning party controls both chambers of Congress when the stars alignfor the CRA.

And its not just labor rules Republicans are throwing out. In the first few weeks of the Trump administration, Congress has passed CRAs undoing a Social Security Administration rule meant to keep mentally ill people from buying guns, and a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments.

The foreign disclosure rule in particular puts the SEC in a bit of a bind, because under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Congress passed in 2010, companies must provide this kind of information to regulators.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who co-authored the law, expressed great frustration with his Republican colleagues who helped write Dodd-Frank but then voted in support of the CRA chopping up the SEC rule.Cardin said he talked to Republican colleagues who had supported that piece of Dodd-Frank, hoping to convince them to flip their vote. It didnt work.

What the Senate did with the CRA, what Republicans did on a straight party-line vote, is outrageous, Cardin said. Its an abuse of the CRA, compromises Americas leadership, and delays substantially and perhaps even the quality of the disclosures that will have to take place.

Cardin admitted that the SEC took too long to write the rules Dodd-Frank required, as its been almost seven years since Congress passed the law. But undoing them now,Cardin said, would damage the countrys international credibility when it comes to fighting corruption, and would make it more difficult for the SEC to find another avenue for fulfilling the Dodd-Frank mandate.

But the SEC will need to try, Cardin said, because he isnt holding his breath in hopes that Congress will advance any other anti-corruption legislation anytime soon.

Environmental advocates have been some of the loudest opponents the CRA. Republicans have already targeted three Interior Department regulations; Trump signed a billundoing regulations to protect waterwaysfrom from coal mining operations on Thursday. Two other bills targeting rules from the Interior Departments Bureau of Land Management are expected to come up for a vote in the Senate when lawmakers return on Feb. 27.

One of those BLM rules cracks down on the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that natural gas producers are allowed release in drilling operations on federal land. The other ruleupdated BLM guidelineson when and where to allow development on federal lands and provided more opportunities for the public to weigh in on those decisions.

If the Senate follows the House in undoing both rules, environmental advocates will inevitably challenge agencies to write similar regulations opening the door to potential lawsuits.

Its unfortunate that they have decided to take a tool that has such a lack of precedence and that is so blunt and extreme, said Josh Mantell, energy campaign manager with the Wilderness Society. We understand there may be issues with some of these regulations, but the idea that youd throw the entire thing out and not allow anyone to move forward just traps us in the past.

Mantell added that there could be some loopholes for agencies if they want to write a similar rule later. They could issue the regulation under other statutes, or a new administration could direct a different agency with similar jurisdiction to take it on.Still, he said, its unfortunate that five-year processes, with an extreme amount of public engagement, are wiped out through the CRA.

BURGER/PHANIE via Getty Images

One of the rules Republicans put up for a disapproval vote in the House last week came as a surprise to a lot of people, since the rule hadnt received any significant attention when it was issued. It has to do with urine.

In 2012, Congress passed a law that would allow states to make people filing for unemployment insurance submit to drug tests. Democrats hated the idea, but they agreed to the provision in exchange for getting Republican support for an expensive extension of long-term unemployment insurance.

Democrats didnt agree to allow states to just do whatever they want, however. As a compromise to the compromise, the legislation said states could only test people in occupations for which such testing is common, such as jobs with a public safety component. And the bill instructed the Labor Department to come up with a regulation controlling how states decide which workers should be subject to urinalysis. Democrats were confident the department wouldnt allow states to test too many people.

But Republicans neglected to give the Labor Department a deadline for writing those rules. The agency took its time, and didnt release a proposed rule until 2014. Congressional Republicans and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) complained that the draft regulation wouldnt let states drug test enough people. But the rule only received 16 public comments; contentious rules can get tens of thousands of comments.

The Labor Department issued the final version of the regulation last August which is within the timeline for disapproval under the CRA, according to the Congressional Research Service. The delay in drafting the rule could guarantee its demise, as Republicans seek to expanddrug testing for the poor and jobless.

A former Labor Department official said the agency was mindful of the CRA, but had no way of knowing exactly when the cutoff would be.

Also, nobody expected Trump to be president.

When you have a rule with 16 comments and youre making significant changes to address those comments, we didnt think of this as a CRA target, the former official said.

Now that the CRA resolution targeting urine passed the House, the Senate will need to vote before it can head to Trumps desk.

Theoretically, once the urinalysis rule is gone, the Trump Labor Department could reissue a new version that Republicans like better. The CRA language about what constitutes substantially similar regulations has never been tested, and it doesnt say who is the arbiter of what is too similar.It might be up to Congress.

But its also possible that Congress strikes the rule and the Labor Department cant issue a new one. Republicans could try to pass a new drug testing law, but Senate Democrats would probably keep that from happening. Then states will be left with no authority to drug test unemployment claimants at all.

The use of the Congressional Review Act is only the first step for Republicans when it comes to undoing regulations, said Steinzor.

Weve gone DefCon 1, she said. Theres worse still to come.

How will Trumps first 100 days impact you? Sign up for our weekly newsletter and get breaking updates on Trumps presidency by messaging us here.

See the original post:
Republicans Are Using An Arcane Tool To Handcuff Federal Agencies - Huffington Post