The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, or the REINS Act, a bill sponsored by Florida Republican representative Kat Cammack, would require congressional approval for any proposed federal agency rule with an economic impact of $100 million or more. This proposal is about to return this week to the House floor for a vote.
I usually argue for cutting spending and reforming the tax code (cut spending and reform the tax code!) but the truth is that there won’t be much of an abundance agenda if we don’t remove or reform some of the rules that make it impossibly long and at times prohibitive to build houses and factories, to develop drugs, to start new occupations, and to launch new innovations. A failure to act creates a drag on growth, and slower growth itself causes many problems.
The growth of the regulatory burden is in part caused by the congressional delegation of its legislative powers to regulatory agencies. CEI’s James Broughel puts it well in this piece:
Over the last century, Congress has delegated away increasing amounts of its authority, through the passage of vague and sweeping legislation that entrusts vast discretion to regulatory bodies when implementing the laws Congress passes. As a result, and contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, powerful lawmaking authority now resides in an alphabet soup of federal agencies like the EPA, the CDC, and the SEC.
Our elected representatives, meanwhile, have largely been relegated to the sidelines, engaging in political sideshows like holding hearings or writing letters to agency heads. These actions can be useful but too often constitute political theater and not meaningful oversight. Nor do legislators regularly use appropriations powers to rein in agencies. Instead, spending more often works as a one-way ratchet that only ever increases.
In addition, the process followed by these agencies to impose rules on us all is empty of much cost-benefit analysis, accountability, or supervision. I wrote about the problems with the regulatory process and where the REINS Act fits in if we want to reform the regulatory regime. See this.
The primary purpose of the REINS Act is to place more decision-making power regarding major regulations in the hands of elected representatives. By requiring Congress to approve such regulations, it aims to enhance democratic accountability and reduce regulatory overreach by executive-branch agencies.
Under the REINS Act, if a federal agency proposes a major regulation, it would need to submit that proposal to Congress for approval. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate would then have a certain period of time to pass a joint resolution of approval. If the resolution fails to pass, the regulation would not go into effect.
Imagine if we had something like the REINS Act on the books over the last two years. According to Doug Holtz Eakin’s Daily Dish from a few days ago:
It is no secret that the Biden Administration is a regulatory tsunami. To date it has racked up $368 billion in burden costs imposed on the private sector, averaging $628 million per rulemaking. Barack Obama, not exactly a regulatory lightweight, had totals of only $214 billion and $249 million, respectively, to the same point in his tenure. (AAF provides a weekly update to the regulatory costs.)
Here’s to hoping that Congress finally starts taking seriously the regulatory burden now weighing down so many producers in this country.
By the way, the Broughel piece has some good debunking of arguments made by those who oppose legislative accountability for regulators. He also talks about how Florida, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have in place something equivalent to the REINS Act and what other states have done.