A recent budget adjustment bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives removed a provision that could have helped manage excessive regulations. I really hope the Senate addresses this oversight.
Nearly ten years ago, Congress entertained the idea of reforms aimed at changing how regulations are created, which would, in theory, safeguard personal and economic liberties. They considered administrative regulations needing scrutiny, essentially aiming for more oversight. This “rein” provision was part of a comprehensive bill, but it was taken out just before its passage, returning regulatory authority back to Congress.
The significance of the rein law and the push to include it in the latest settlement bill can’t be overstated. Every year, tens of thousands of new regulations are rolled out by government agencies. These regulations often limit personal freedom and increase costs in ways that many people might not realize. They really act like hidden taxes, draining hundreds of billions of dollars from households and businesses annually. Besides income taxes, they represent the largest financial burden on the economy.
This idea is often misrepresented as a “rollback” of federal regulations. In reality, it quite simply places the responsibility on Congress to oversee the regulations that agencies implement based on the laws they pass.
With the rein law in place, if Congress disagrees with how an agency interprets a law, it can block the regulation from taking effect.
Critics have portrayed the rein provision as a threat to regulations that safeguard health and the environment. However, many regulations, especially those related to energy and environmental policies, often provide minimal benefits while imposing significant costs. These regulations might mainly serve to expand bureaucratic power and create unnecessary jobs.
In the past, Congress has often tried to avoid blame for overly broad laws by delegating authority to enforcement agencies. They might pass a law, only to later criticize agencies for overreaching—claiming that the negative impacts were unintended. Congress then tends to publicly call out these agencies for not rectifying the issues that they themselves helped create.
Aware of the problem of overregulation, Congress introduced the Congressional Review Act in 1996, granting power under specific conditions to retroactively review and revoke certain regulations. But, because this act relies on the president to reject resolutions, it has only been effective in repealing about 20 out of the tens of thousands of regulations introduced since then.
The rein law aims to change this by requiring Congress to approve all significant regulations, essentially creating an opt-in system. It also means the President can’t unilaterally override Congress’s interpretations of laws.
House Republicans included a provision in the settlement bill that broadens the original rein law, aiming for Congressional approval of “major rules.” This approach would allow lawmakers to retroactively eliminate numerous existing rules by requiring agencies to submit regulations for review. Any rules not approved would automatically end.
Furthermore, under the Parliamentary Review Act, lawmakers can revoke several recent final regulations with just one resolution instead of addressing each one separately.
The rein provisions were removed from the bill to prevent a Democratic filibuster, although Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is reportedly optimistic about reintroducing them in the Senate, believing the bill can still pass with a simple majority.
I think reinstating the rein law might be one of the most beneficial moves Congress could make to ease the regulatory burden on ordinary citizens and businesses. The power to regulate interstate commerce was intended to be held solely by the legislature, and it’s crucial for Congress to reclaim and defend that authority moving forward.
