Should Congress Have More Power to Approve (or Reject) Major Regulations? (H.R. 26)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H.R. 26?
(Updated December 29, 2020)
This bill would require Congress to approve all new major regulations by enacting a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative or session days after the federal agency proposing the rule submits its final report to Congress. If a Congressional resolution of approval is not enacted within that period, the major rule would be considered ‘not approved’ and would not take effect.
- "An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
- A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
- Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets."
A major rule could take effect for one 90-calendar day period without the approval of Congress if the President determines it is necessary:
- Because of an imminent threat to public health or safety or another type of emergency,
- For the enforcement of criminal law,
- For national security,
- Or to implement an international trade agreement.
Federal agencies would be kept from allowing any major rule to take effect without congressional review. Courts would also have the authority to review whether an agency has finished all the necessary requirements under this Act before a major rule can take effect.
Argument in favor
Federal agencies have issued costly regulations without oversight from Congress or much engagement from the general public. This would allow both to reassert their voice in the regulatory process.
Argument opposed
The regulations that would have to be approved or rejected by Congress under this bill would be the most significant impact on the environment, the economy, and public health.
Impact
People and businesses that would be affected by the implementation of a major rule; agencies proposing a major rule; and Congress.
Cost of H.R. 26
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
In-Depth: According to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Collins (R-IN), the agencies of the executive branch implemented 76 major rules in the last year which had a total economic impact in the billions of dollars. Collins believes that to be excessive, saying:
"Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that. We've ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy. I'm introducing the REINS Act to bring accountability to these agencies through Congressional and presidential oversight."
The American Action Forum researched the impact this bill's predecessor in the last Congress could have, and found that over $27 billion in regulatory costs and 11.5 million hours of paperwork could be saved each year.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards opposed this bill during the 114th Congress, calling it a:
“back-door way to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future safeguards that big-money interests do not want.”
In its analysis of the bill's impact, the Cato Institute concluded:
“Nothing in the REINS Act would hinder a sympathetic Congress from approving new regulations. In all likelihood, however, the REINS Act’s congressional approval process would prevent the implementation of particularly unpopular or controversial regulatory initiatives.”
The House approved the REINS Act in August 2013 on a 232-183 vote, but it failed to receive a vote in the Senate during the 113th Congress. It fared little better in the 114th Congress, passing the House on a 243-165 vote before stalling in the Senate once again.
Media:
- Sponsoring Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) Press Release
- CBO Cost Estimate (Previous Version)
- The Washington Post
- Politico
- American Action Forum (In Favor)
- Center for Effective Government (Opposed)
- Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (Opposed)
- FreedomWorks (In Favor)
-
Cato Institute (Context - Previous Version)
Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Jim Larrison)
The Latest
-
Should U.S. Implement a New Tax on AI to Fund Worker Benefits?The debate As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into our society. While leaders in AI read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health
-
IT: ⛑️ It's American Red Cross Giving Day, and... How will you give back today?Welcome to Wednesday, March 27th, philanthropists and entrepreneurs... It's American Red Cross Giving Day - a time to ensure the read more...
-
Moscow Concert Hall, Russia’s Deadliest Attack in DecadesOn Friday, March 22, at least four men fired automatic weapons into a sold-out show at the Crocus City Hall auditorium in read more... Public Safety