Cicilline Rep
yikes 118th
https://truthout.org/articles/gaetz-wants-reading-of-pledge-of-allegiance-before-judiciary-committee-meetings/
no lnx
wednesday, Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz introduced a new amendment to the House Judiciary Committee hearing rules, which would require lawmakers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before each meeting.
:{
}:
Gaetz’s proposal was likely aimed at embarrassing Democrats on the committee, who opposed the requirement.
The pledge has been used as a political weapon numerous times in U.S. history,to label those who don’t participate or who oppose its use as unpatriotic.
Nativists and white supremacists have also used the pledge to attack people they deem “un-American” based on their race or immigration status.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-New York), who previously chaired the Judiciary Committee, objected to Gaetz’s proposal.
“I don’t know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day to show how patriotic we are,” Nadler said.
RELATED STORY
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy addresses the media outside his office at the U.S. Capitol on January 24, 2023, in Washington, D.C.
NEWS | POLITICS & ELECTIONS
Kevin McCarthy Appoints 3 Election Deniers to the House Ethics Committee
The new chair of the committee signed on to a lawsuit from Texas that sought to discount millions of votes in 2020.
By Chris Walker , TRUTHOUTFebruary 1, 2023]
Predictably, Gaetz and other committee members fired back, noting that Nadler and others aren’t always on the House floor when the pledge is recited. Nadler responded by saying that there is documentation of him saying the pledge many times.
:{
}:
Later that day, after theJudiciary Committee’s hearing, Gaetz attacked Nadler on social media for opposing his amendment. “The Pledge of Allegiance is not a waste of time,” Gaetz said on Twitter. The account representing the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked Nadler and Democrats for opposing the idea.
During the meeting, however, Rep. David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island) turned the issue on its head. Cicilline proposed adding wording to Gaetz’s amendment on reciting the pledge specifying that no person “who supported an insurrection against the United States in any way” should be invited to read the pledge before the committee.
Republicans voiced their disdain for the idea, interpreting it as an attack on some members’ votes against certifying the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, the day the Capitol was attacked by a mob of loyalists to former President Donald Trump. Gaetz claimed that Democrats “may be disqualifying [their] own members” through such an amendment, perhaps referring to the fact that Democrats have voted against certifying electors in previous presidential elections (though not nearly in the same numbers as Republicans in 2021).
Cicilline said it was “interesting” that Gaetz’s mind went in that direction, since his proposed amendment was referring to people in general, not solely lawmakers.
:{
}:
“I think we should all agree that no one who participated in insurrection should lead the Judiciary Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance, so it shouldn’t be complicated to accept this amendment,” Cicilline said, adding:
This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution. It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.
Cicilline’s amendment was ultimately defeated, while Gaetz’s amendment, requiring that the Pledge of Allegiance be read before each committee hearing, was passed.
Had Cicilline’s amendment passed, it likely wouldn’t have been enforced, as it would have given power to determine whether or not someone is an insurrectionist to the Judiciary Committee Chair, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Only one person in the U.S. so far has been successfully barred from holding future office for violating the insurrectionist clause of the 14th Amendment — former Cowboys for Trump leader Couy Griffin, who helped coordinate the attack on the Capitol.
Notably, Trump himself could be barred from holding office in the future under the insurrectionist clause. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has promised that the organization will seek to have Trump listed as an insurrectionist under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
In an open letter to Trump in November, Bookbinder warned that if Trump announced another presidential run, CREW would take appropriate action to bar him “based on [his] engaging in the insurrection that culminated on January 6, 2021.”
“The evidence that you engaged in insurrection as contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment — including by mobilizing, inciting, and aiding those who attacked the Capitol — is overwhelming,” Bookbinder wrote, weeks before Trump announced his 2024 presidential run.
CHRIS WALKER
Chris Walker is a news writer at Truthout, and is based out of Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on the American people.
an 7 22
Republican outrage was described as a “small political side circus,” after U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) succeeded in having several fact-checking articles exposing Republicans’ false claims made part of the Congressional Record.
The articles all debunked the false and baseless claims conservatives and the far right have been making for nearly a year, that **Attorney General Merrick Garland** called parents speaking at school boards “domestic terrorists,” and was investigating them.
Cicilline first tried to read the articles into the record, but Republicans immediately objected.
The Democrat from Rhode Island appeared genuinely surprised that the Judiciary Committee Republicans would object to the very basic and standard procedure. He was forced to describe the articles to have them included in the official record – something the Republicans also caused a commotion over.
Referring to **Congressman Jim Jordan** (R-OH), Rep. Cicilline said that “theranking member made reference to a Department of Justice whistleblower memo and grossly mischaracterized its content. So I’d ask unanimous consent that I’d be permitted to read the memo into the record.”
Republicans objected.
“You object to reading into the record the memo?” Cicilline, shocked, asked. “Then I ask unanimous consent that the document that the Republicans were afraid to have be read aloud be introduced into the record.”
He read the titles into the record (NCRM has linked to those titles online below.)
“No, the federal government isn’t using the Patriot Act to treat parents like domestic terrorists,” which refutes a claim Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) made last year in October during another Judiciary Committee hearing.
“:{McCarthy’s:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: false claims that Garland called parents ‘terrorists’” was the title of another article made part of the record.
“Attorney General never called concerned parents ‘domestic terrorists’” was yet another article.
“Kevin McCarthy keeps repeating false claim that attorney general called parents terrorists for wanting to attend school board meetings,” was the final article.
Cicilline then asked “unanimous consent” that Republicans “read these documents and stop making false claims,” to which the Chair responded, “Good luck with that.”
Republicans were outraged.
“Point of order!” yelled one.
“The gentleman just impugned our integrity!” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) decried.“I would demand that his words be taken down. He is not allowed under the rules to impugn false statements by this side.”
Gohmert literally pointed his finger at Cicilline as he yelled.
“And as far as Politifact, and some of those, they couldn’t find the truth with both hands,” Gohmert, making what would likely be a “pants on fire claim,” also charged.
The Jim Jordan Louie-Gohmert part of the GOP caucus did not appear to have the full support of their fellow members.
U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a far-right Republican of Texas, held his head in his hand during part of the outbreak, and later ignored it by using his cell phone. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was laughing toward the end.
Watch below or at this link.
https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/disgraced-rhode-island-republican-illegally-sought-help-from-russian-intelligence-fec/
Rep. David Cicilline enjoyed a landslide reelection when he defeated Republican challenger H. Russell Taub by 29% in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District. But that defeat was the least of Taub’s problems: Taub, in 2019, was sent to prison for defrauding donors and committing wire fraud. And now, the Federal Election Commission is saying that Taub illegally sought help from Russian government intelligence during his 2016 campaign.
The Providence Journal’s Alex Kuffner reports, “A few months before the November 2016 general election, Taub sent a direct message to a Twitter account known to be used by the GRU, Russia’s main intelligence agency, according to a recently released FEC filing. In the message to Guccifer 2.0, Taub asked for a list of Republican donors.”
Taub, Kuffner adds, “later received a dossier that included opposition research reports, polling data and other information about his incumbent Democratic opponent in the 1st Congressional District race.”
According to the FEC, Taub violated federal campaign law “by knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving a prohibited in-kind foreign national contribution in the form of opposition research related to the candidate’s opponent.”
Taub, now 33, was 30 when, on July 24, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that he had been sentenced to three years in federal prison for defrauding donors — a crime he pled guilty to along with wire fraud.
Under federal campaign finance law, campaign donations must be used for campaigns, not personal expenses.But Taub admitted to using more than $1 million in campaign money for everything from strip clubs to clothes to cigars.
Taub was released from prison on January 13, according to Kuffner.
==
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/trumps-shocking-and-deeply-disturbing-foreign-conflicts-of-interest-detailed-in-explosive-new-report
no lnx
Trump’s ‘shocking and deeply disturbing’ foreign conflicts of interest detailed in explosive new report
Written by Brad Reed / Raw Story January 20, 2020
Even though President Donald Trump has been impeached for his efforts to shake down the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponents, Democrats in Congress are still working on uncovering information about Trump’s unprecedented conflicts of interests with foreign governments.
A new report from Politico shows just how deep Trump’s foreign conflicts of interest go, and they show multiple potential violations of the Constitution’s so-called emoluments clause that bars the president from taking payments from foreign governments.
Among the conflicts include “state-owned companies in China, Saudi Arabia and South Korea”that are building Trump resorts, as well as countries that “are constructing roads and donating public land for new developments” at Trump properties. The report cites recently disclosed documents showing that “the Trump administration authorized foreign governments to rent condos in Trump World Tower in New York.”
The Trump administration and the Trump Organization have been infamously uncooperative with congressional investigations and have instead taken a strategy of dragging things out through the courts for as long as possible.
Nonetheless, Congressional Democrats remain determined to get to the bottom of the president’s shady foreign dealings.
“The level of this is shocking and deeply disturbing,”Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), tells Politico. “This president has a habit of doing things out in the open, which are completely improper or even illegal and somehow … the average person thinks, ‘Well, if he’s doing it out in the open it must be OK; I must not completely understand the rules.’ But it’s not.”
==
==
aha fang extracts from press
https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/a-leading-democrat-has-a-plan-to-save-journalism-from-the-tech-giants/
no lnx
A leading Democrat has a plan to save journalism from the tech giants
Written by Grace Gedye / Washington Monthly August 9, 2019
This was a bad week for journalism, in a depressingly familiar way.
On Monday, the investment firm that controls the newspaper publisher GateHouse Media bought Gannett, another publishing giant, which runs the USA Today network. Both companies own hundreds of newspapers around the country, and had already instituted layoffs this year. Meanwhile, public filings indicate that cost cutting will continue to be a priority, according to the Washington Post.
Then, on Wednesday, Pacific Standard, an online magazine focusing on social and environmental justice, announced abruptly that it would be shutting down. The same day, Governing, which covers state and local policy, said in a statement that it would be closing because it had proven “unsustainable as a business in today’s media environment.”
It’s part of a much larger trend: with Facebook and Google sucking up ever-increasing shares of ad revenue, publications are finding it harder and harder to stay financially viable.
One member of Congress thinks he has a solution. This spring, Rhode Island Congressman David Cicilline proposed the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, a bill that would allow news publishers to collectively bargain with giant tech companies and negotiate the terms under which their content is republished.
It’s part of Cicilline’s broader effort to counter the negative effects of market consolidation. As chair of the House’s antitrust subcommittee, he has emerged as one of the most prominent critics in Washington of tech giants and monopoly power. This year, he’s leading a congressional investigation into Big Tech, summoning executives to Capitol Hill and grilling them on whether they squash competitors. I spoke with him this week about local journalism, the increasing popularity of reviving antitrust, and whether he thinks President Trump will be an ally—or an obstacle—in the effort.
This conversation has been shortened and edited for clarity
GG: I’d like to start by talking about the topic of yourfirst hearing in the antitrust investigations, which was the impact on local journalism. Why did you choose to start with that subject?
DC: I think this is one of the areas where the market dominance of these large technology platforms is having a really serious and negative impact on our democracy. This is not just about their market dominance resulting in some impact on the sale of widgets, but this is really about the ability of citizens of this country to access trustworthy, reliable, local news, and a free and diverse press—particularly a local press—is really essential to the proper functioning of our democracy.[ANOTHER KIND OF DE FACTO PRESS SUPPRESSION?!]
GG: You proposed a bill in the spring that would allow news publications to collectively bargain with online platforms like Facebook and Google that republish their content. What motivated you to write that bill?
DC: When you look at what’s happening in the marketplace, you see that the vast majority of American people access their news through two large platforms, Facebook and Google. And Facebook and Google have amassed enormous revenue from online advertising—$60 billion last year, the majority of all online revenue. At the very same time, despite [publications’] record levels of online readership, there’s been a steep decline in revenues as a result of the rise of these two large technology giants. And you’re seeing all across the country the impact on newsrooms where people are being laid off, newspapers are closing, and in a lot of ways, local journalism is on life support. So, the legislation I’ve proposed, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, provides an interim step to stabilize the marketplace by allowing producers of content online and small newspapers to collectively negotiate with the two large technology platforms.
GG: So, were this bill to pass, what are some specific measures that you could see news organizations pushing for in their negotiations?
DC: Well, I’ll leave it up to them to negotiate, but I think there’s no doubt they will attempt to negotiate terms that ensure that the branding and attribution—that is, when a newspaper has invested significantly in their brand because of high-quality and accurate journalism, then I think they want to be sure that that brand is protected. So, my guess is they would negotiate about attribution and branding, that they would negotiate about making certain that these platforms are not engaged in discriminatory conduct which favors their own publications.
GG: Antitrust seems to be having a resurgence of popularity in the past year or couple of years. It’s now a much more frequent topic of debate in national politics, but we obviously had huge companies before these past couple of years. Why do you think this subject is gaining traction now?
DC: I think we’re beginning to see the consequences of this enormous market concentration: in significant data breaches, in the widespread use of false information on the internet, the consequences of the interference in the American presidential election, the work by Cambridge Analytica. At least in the Democratic Party, we’ve very much focused on developing an economic agenda that really speaks to the anxieties of the American people, the economic anxieties, and focuses on getting the economy to work for everyone, raising family incomes, and being sure that we’re reducing the cost of people’s lives. The kind of mega-mergers and market concentration that we’re seeing is part of the reason that the economy isn’t working for everyone. I think people have just really begun to understand that our failure to be aggressive in antitrust enforcement has contributed to very substantial market concentration and some of the worst income inequality in our country’s history.
GG: For about the past 40 years, much of the discussion about why monopolies are bad—including antitrust legal decisions—has focused on consumer prices, the logic being that monopoly power is bad because it results in higher prices for consumers. But during the antitrust committee hearing that you had a couple of weeks ago, with lawyers from Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, I noticed that very few of your questions had to do with impact on consumer prices. Is that a deliberate pivot?
DC: In the age in which attention is a commodity, and where your attention is monetized for ad revenue, the idea that focusing on, “Well, Facebook and Google are free”—but they’re not actually free. You’re giving them your attention, which is really the coin of the realm. Even in the context where it feels like the service is free, antitrust principles are important. In some ways even more important, because it may feel like “Oh, what’s the big deal, this is all free,” but if in fact they are crushing competitors by excluding them or acquiring them so that there’s no real competition, that has a very adverse impact on innovation. We want to make sure that the next Facebook, or the next Amazon, or the next Google has the ability to be successful.
So, this idea of really seriously impacting innovation is significant. If they are favoring their own products and services while giving you the impression that the search is done in some kind of neutral way, that’s also harmful to the consumer. I think the reason that you probably didn’t hear a lot about consumer prices is that there’s a recognition that that factor alone is insufficient to appreciate the dangers of monopolies and a lack of competition in the 21st century.
GG: Do you think your Republican colleagues agree that we have a monopoly problem?
DC: Yes. I don’t know if they’ll agree with every solution, but I think this is a bipartisan investigation, and I think my Republican colleagues have at least expressed a willingness to be part of the investigation, and help identify some solutions.
GG: So, two weeks or so ago, President Trump said that the government “should be suing Google and Facebook” and then said, “perhaps we will.” The Justice Department also recently opened an antitrust review of tech companies. Do you think President Trump will be an ally in the committee’s work?
DC: Unclear. You know, I don’t take the President at his word, to be very honest. I think this administration has not been effective at all in taking on the question of the technology giants and the deep concentration of market power in the technology platforms, or in monopolies generally. It’s an administration that seems to favor the very wealthy and big corporate interests, so I haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is going to be on the side of consumers and workers in the antitrust work and the work for our committee, but we’ll see.
GG: Have you at all been in touch with the president about the committee’s work?
DC: No.
==
https://truthout.org/video/as-amazon-continues-undercutting-rivals-workers-demand-fair-pay-and-conditions/
[over simple econ 101 invis hand?
... GOODMAN: On Tuesday, Democratic Congressmember David Cicilline of Rhode Island questioned the associate general counsel at Amazon, Nate Sutton.
REP. DAVID CICILLINE: I just want to give you an example of an entrepreneur in Rhode Island who creates a better set of headphones. She sells her product on Amazon, on the Marketplace. Sales soar, which is great for her, great for Amazon, because more people will become Amazon Prime customers to buy this great Rhode Island product.
But instead of seeing the fruits of her success, the next thing that happens is that this hard-working Rhode Islander discovers that Amazon has rolled out a direct replica of her product. And because Amazon controls the platform, Amazon gives itself top billing and demotes the entrepreneur to page three results, which most people will never see.
So, how would anyone — in light of that kind of sequence of events, how would any entrepreneur invest in this kind of environment where that can happen, where there’s no assurance it won’t?
NATE SUTTON: Our incentive is to help the seller succeed, because we rely on them. If we did that, we know they’d go elsewhere. They have many options. So we apply the same criteria to both, and we do not use their individual data when we’re making decisions to launch private brands.
AMY GOODMAN: Nate Sutton, the associate general counsel at Amazon, answering the questions of the Rhode Island Congressmember David Cicilline. Stacy Mitchell, your response?
STACY MITCHELL: Yeah, well, it’s simply not true that merchants have other options. Amazon’s one out of every two dollars spent online and a huge amount of shopping search. You know, the next biggest one is eBay, at about 6%. So it really drops off from there. You know, I interview, for our research, lots of sellers, and they consistently tell me Amazon is the main deal. There is really nowhere else. And increasingly, more and more over time, particularly as Prime memberships grow, as Alexa becomes the voice interface for a lot of homes, people are more and more defaulting to Amazon.
...
==
https://www.wired.com/story/house-antitrust-hearing-amazon-facebook/
TODAY’S YOUNGER, MORE tech-savvy breed of House Democrats may spend a lot of their time online, but that doesn’t mean they’re happy with the tech companies they rely on. In fact, it seems the more testimony they hear from top Silicon Valley executives, the louder their calls to regulate these behemoth technology firms become.
This was starkly on display Tuesday, as senior officials fromAmazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google testifiedin front of a powerfulHouse Judiciary subcommittee as a part of an ongoing investigation into potential antitrust violations from the nation’s tech giants.
All the executives maintained that their companies face fierce competition at every turn, especially now with Chinese competitors like WeChat and TikTok eating into their global market share. But whenever Democrats pressed them about the details that are the foundation of those claims and their business practices, they rebuffed the questions and said they’d have to report back later.
“It is frustrating. It definitely is frustrating, which definitely means that we’re asking the right kinds of questions and that we recognize that this is an ongoing issue,” freshman representative Lucy McBath (D–Georgia) told WIRED as she was exiting the committee room. “We need to always make sure there’s always healthy competition, you know, more choices for consumers.”
While tech companies like Google have been investigated and fined overseas for anticompetitive practices (in fact, the European Union just opened a new investigation into Amazon this week), US lawmakers and regulators have traditionally been more laissez-faire on antitrust. That’s changed over the past few years, however, amid a wider reckoning with the size and power of these companies and their impacts on everything from consumer privacy to American democracy. Congress is watching Silicon Valley closely—three separate tech hearings took place across Capitol Hill on Tuesday alone. Some lawmakers, including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have even proposed breaking up some of the companies.
At the antitrust hearing, Amazon and Facebook executives faced the brunt of lawmakers’ increasing annoyance with what many feel is Silicon Valley titans’ dismissive treatment of the political class in Washington.
“Is Facebook, in your view, a monopoly?” freshman representative Joe Neguse (D–Colorado) asked Matt Perault, Facebook's public policy director.
“No, congressman, it is not,” Perault replied.
That answer didn’t sit well with Neguse, who went on to press Perault about the scope of a company that also includes Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger—giving Facebook four of the top slots in today’s social media landscape.
“When a company owns four of the largest six entities measured by active users in the world in that industry, we have a word for that,” Neguse said. “And that’s monopoly.”
Still, Perault ended the hearing where he began, claiming Facebook has a number of business rivals in today’s marketplace. “Many of our competitors are sitting at this table with me,” he argued.
The tech firms did find some sympathetic ears on the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, including the top Republican on the panel. “Just because a business is big doesn’t mean it is bad,” representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R–Wisconsin) told his colleagues and the executives at one point.
Democrats weren’t arguing big is bad. They were arguing too big, too powerful, and too unregulated is bad for consumers, which is why a couple of lawmakers pressed Nate Sutton, Amazon’s associate general counsel for competition, about its acquisition policies.
“When people sell products on your site, do you track which products are most successful and then do you sometimes create a product to compete with that product?” representative Pramila Jayapal (D–Washington) asked, a line of questioning she returned to again.
Throughout the hearing. Sutton maintained the company line: “We do not use individual seller data in order to compete with them.”
The chair of the antitrust subcommittee seemed to view that claim with skepticism, reminding Sutton twice that he was under oath. "You do collect enormous data about what products are popular, what’s selling, where they’re selling," representative David Cicilline (D–Rhode Island) told the witness. “You’re saying you don’t use that in any way to promote Amazon products? And I’d remind you, you’re under oath.”
“We use data to serve our customers,” Sutton replied.
That answer isn’t what Jayapal wanted to hear. She has been exploring setting up a board of experts to oversee and regulate these Silicon Valley firms.
“The argument they’re trying to make is: They don’t acquire competition; they acquire businesses that make their business better, and oh, if they happen to be competitors, well oops, that’s not why they acquired them,” she told WIRED after asking her questions. “I think that’s disingenuous.”
####
After the executives were dismissed, Cicilline vented to reporters outside the hearing room.
“I think we’re going to have to test some of the representations that were at this hearing to facts that we collect during the course of the investigation,” Cicilline said. “I don’t think there’s any question that we cannot expect them to regulate themselves. We’ve seen the total absence of any ability to regulate themselves, so I think it will absolutely require some action by Congress.”
Cicillinesays that action could come in the form of new laws, working with the relevant federal agencies to tighten regulations on their own, or through Congress providing more resources to antitrust agencies with the express purpose of keeping these companies on the perpetual hot seat—or even a combination of all three.
“The notion that they all see themselves in fierce competition I think strains credulity,” he said.
This was the antitrust subcommittee’s second hearing into what many call the monopolistic practices of Silicon Valley’s largest firms, and they’re not done.
“This was an important hearing to have, but we have a lot of work to do to continue to understand and collect evidence about the anti-competitive behavior or the absence of competition, about the practices of favoring their own services and products,” Cicilline said. “We have a lot more to do.”
==
==
Dem Rep takes down Trump-loving GOPer for blaming gun violence on immigrants: ‘Are members of Congress entitled to make things up?’
David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement
Democratic U.S. Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island eloquently blasted Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida during Wednesday’s House hearing on gun control.
==
==
https://thehill.com/regulation/333610-dems-plot-to-overturn-regulatory-repeal-law
Democrats are taking aim at President Trump’s power to roll back regulations.
The Sunset the CRA and Restore American Protections (SCRAP) Act introduced Tuesday by Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) would eliminate the law that Trump and Republican lawmakers have used to repeal more than a dozen Obama-era regulations. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is backing identical legislation in the House.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) makes it easier for lawmakers to repeal regulations they disapprove of from the executive branch. Under the 1996 law, Congress only needs a simple majority to rollback recently issued regulations. Federal agencies are also blocked from publishing similar rules in the future.
The SCRAP Act would not only prevent Republicans from using this law to repeal future regulations, but it would also allow federal agencies to reinstate rules that have already been struck down under the CRA.
Before Trump, the CRA had only been successfully used once, in 2001, to repeal a Clinton-era labor rule.
Since then, Republicans have turned to the CRA to repeal 14 Obama-era regulations, hoisting the relatively obscure law into the limelight.
The rules overturned include environmental regulations like the Interior Department’s stream protection rule, internet regulations, financial rules, healthcare rules, education rules and gun restrictions.
Democrats warn Republicans are abusing their authority under the law by rolling back so many regulations.
“It’s like using a sledgehammer when a chisel is needed,” Udall said.
“The CRA never should have been passed into law, and it’s past time to repeal it,” he added.
The bill stands no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Congress, but it is something Democrats could someday return to in the majority.
Robert Weissman, president of the left-leaning Public Citizen, called Republicans’ use of the CRA a “corporate payback scheme.”
“If there was any doubt before, it’s now certain that the CRA must go,” he said.