Latest news with #REINS
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach
A provision that would have benefited the public tremendously by enabling Congress to rein in out-of-control, costly regulations was stripped out of the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a sad turn of events that hopefully will be corrected in the Senate. Nearly a decade ago, Congress considered legislation to fundamentally alter how regulations are adopted, defending personal and economic freedom in the process: the Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny or REINS Act. REINS provisions that were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act until shortly before its passage would have put Congress back in the driver's seat regarding regulations. The importance of the REINS Act and the efforts to get it passed as part of the reconciliation bill cannot be overstated. Tens of thousands of new regulations are imposed by unaccountable agency bureaucrats each year, limiting individual liberty and choice and increasing costs in myriad, often unrecognized ways. Regulations are hidden taxes that siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from individual households and businesses every year. They represent the largest single fiscal burden on the economy outside of individual and corporate income taxes. The measure has been misleadingly described as a 'wholesale rollback of federal regulations.' In fact, it would merely force Congress to take responsibility for regulations developed by executive agencies to execute the laws it passes. Under REINS, if Congress disagrees with an agency's interpretation of what a law requires or imposes, Congress could prevent the regulations in question from taking effect. The scare-tactics used to vilify REINS inevitably involve a focus on regulations that protect human health and the environment. But many regulations — especially in energy and environmental policy — provide little or no measurable benefits in these areas despite imposing huge costs. The rules are often designed to expand the budgets and power of bureaucrats, creating make-work ventures and guaranteeing lifetime employment for agency staff. In a craven attempt to evade responsibility, past Congresses found it easy to delegate lawmaking power to executive agencies. Congress took credit for passing vague feel-good laws, only to blame agencies for going overboard, claiming they never intended the resulting onerous outcomes. Congress then publicly assails agencies for going beyond what lawmakers intended but does nothing to correct the supposed overreach. Recognizing the growing problem of overregulation, in 1996 Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which granted Congress the power under limited circumstances to review and block major regulations retroactively. The Congressional Review Act, however, has been used to overturn only 20 out of tens of thousands of regulations enacted in the nearly 30 years since it passed — in part because the president is allowed to veto resolutions under that law. The REINS Act is superior because it reverses this dynamic by requiring congressional approval for all major regulations — an opt-in system, so to speak, instead of opt-out. And under REINS, the president would not be authorized to ignore the will of Congress and its interpretation of its own laws, because no veto is available. The REINS provisions House Republicans inserted into the reconciliation bill are even more expansive than the original REINS legislation, requiring that any 'major rule that increases revenue' be approved through a joint resolution of the House and Senate. The provisions would have also allowed lawmakers to retroactively terminate countless rules that federal agencies have already implemented by requiring agencies to submit them to Congress for review. Rules that Congress fails to approve would automatically sunset. Also, multiple recently finalized regulations could be rescindedwith a single resolution rather than each individually as the Congressional Review Act requires. House sponsors had to remove the REINS provisions to avoid letting Democrats filibuster the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate. However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) reportedly believes he can make some of the provisions pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, so that they can be reinserted and the bill can still pass with a simple majority. I believe the REINS provisions maybe the single most beneficial law Congress could adopt to get regulators' boots off the throats of average people and businesses. Congress alone was delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce. It didn't jealously guard that power before now; it should do so going forward. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach
A provision that would have benefited the public tremendously by enabling Congress to rein in out-of-control, costly regulations was stripped out of the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a sad turn of events that hopefully will be corrected in the Senate. Nearly a decade ago, Congress considered legislation to fundamentally alter how regulations are adopted, defending personal and economic freedom in the process: the Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny or REINS Act. REINS provisions that were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act until shortly before its passage would have put Congress back in the driver's seat regarding regulations. The importance of the REINS Act and the efforts to get it passed as part of the reconciliation bill cannot be overstated. Tens of thousands of new regulations are imposed by unaccountable agency bureaucrats each year, limiting individual liberty and choice and increasing costs in myriad, often unrecognized ways. Regulations are hidden taxes that siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from individual households and businesses every year. They represent the largest single fiscal burden on the economy outside of individual and corporate income taxes. The measure has been misleadingly described as a 'wholesale rollback of federal regulations.' In fact, it would merely force Congress to take responsibility for regulations developed by executive agencies to execute the laws it passes. Under REINS, if Congress disagrees with an agency's interpretation of what a law requires or imposes, Congress could prevent the regulations in question from taking effect. The scare-tactics used to vilify REINS inevitably involve a focus on regulations that protect human health and the environment. But many regulations — especially in energy and environmental policy — provide little or no measurable benefits in these areas despite imposing huge costs. The rules are often designed to expand the budgets and power of bureaucrats, creating make-work ventures and guaranteeing lifetime employment for agency staff. In a craven attempt to evade responsibility, past Congresses found it easy to delegate lawmaking power to executive agencies. Congress took credit for passing vague feel-good laws, only to blame agencies for going overboard, claiming they never intended the resulting onerous outcomes. Congress then publicly assails agencies for going beyond what lawmakers intended but does nothing to correct the supposed overreach. Recognizing the growing problem of overregulation, in 1996 Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which granted Congress the power under limited circumstances to review and block major regulations retroactively. The Congressional Review Act, however, has been used to overturn only 20 out of tens of thousands of regulations enacted in the nearly 30 years since it passed — in part because the president is allowed to veto resolutions under that law. The REINS Act is superior because it reverses this dynamic by requiring congressional approval for all major regulations — an opt-in system, so to speak, instead of opt-out. And under REINS, the president would not be authorized to ignore the will of Congress and its interpretation of its own laws, because no veto is available. The REINS provisions House Republicans inserted into the reconciliation bill are even more expansive than the original REINS legislation, requiring that any 'major rule that increases revenue' be approved through a joint resolution of the House and Senate. The provisions would have also allowed lawmakers to retroactively terminate countless rules that federal agencies have already implemented by requiring agencies to submit them to Congress for review. Rules that Congress fails to approve would automatically sunset. Also, multiple recently finalized regulations could be rescindedwith a single resolution rather than each individually as the Congressional Review Act requires. House sponsors had to remove the REINS provisions to avoid letting Democrats filibuster the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate. However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) r eportedly believes he can make some of the provisions pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, so that they can be reinserted and the bill can still pass with a simple majority. I believe the REINS provisions maybe the single most beneficial law Congress could adopt to get regulators' boots off the throats of average people and businesses. Congress alone was delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce. It didn't jealously guard that power before now; it should do so going forward. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
E&E News
3 days ago
- Politics
- E&E News
Republicans cast doubt on ‘REINS Act' megabill eligibility
As one senator pushes to include a massive overhaul of federal regulations in Republicans' party-line megabill, other GOP members have cast doubt on whether it is procedurally eligible. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has spent this week heavily lobbying for deregulatory language based on the 'Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act' to be included in the Republicans' tax, energy and security budget reconciliation package. The legislation would give Congress final approval over any 'major rule that increases revenue' and expand mechanisms for undoing existing rules. It would upend federal agencies' rulemaking powers. Advertisement But Republican senators are skeptical of whether such language is eligible for a reconciliation package. The Senate's 'Byrd rule' means that everything within the package must be related to the budget in order for the bill to pass by a simple majority.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump could gain vast new deregulatory and antitrust powers under GOP megabill plans
It was widely expected that congressional Republicans would use the GOP's sweeping domestic policy bill to cut taxes, boost border security and slash federal spending. They're also proposing to hand President Donald Trump a broad new swath of executive power. A legislative draft released by the House Judiciary Committee Monday and set to be adopted at a committee meeting Wednesday would consolidate the federal government's antitrust enforcement powers at the Justice Department, taking them away from the independent Federal Trade Commission. And it would also supercharge the GOP's deregulatory agenda, allowing Republicans to potentially overturn reams of government regulations during the remainder of Trump's term. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in a brief interview that his panel is determined to 'address the cost of over-regulation.' 'Part of our jurisdiction in Judiciary deals with regulatory concerns,' he said, 'and so we are looking at … spending and costs associated with certain regulations. That's why that language is written the way it was.' But the scope of the proposal is hardly modest. It includes a version of the REINS Act — short for 'Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny' — which has percolated inside the GOP for more than a decade. Conservatives have long championed the proposal, which would essentially turn the federal regulatory process on its head: While Congress now has the opportunity to veto most agency rules, REINS would require Congress to affirmatively approve major new regulations. Republicans are selling the measure as a way to check presidential power, not expand it. 'It's a reassertion of Article I authority that Congress constitutionally has and has long since forgotten,' said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), a lead co-sponsor of the bill. But a key provision included in the bill would grant Trump sweeping powers to erase existing federal regulations from the books. It would task federal agencies with submitting portions of their rules to Congress for approval over a five-year period. Absent that approval, the rules would cease to have effect — in essence, fast-tracking Trump's deregulatory agenda. Critics of the REINS Act say it would significantly slow down the rulemaking process and allow partisan majorities in Congress to determine regulations rather than agency experts. Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), chair of the Republican Policy Committee, told POLITICO's E&E News that Republicans are seeking to include it in the party-line megabill because it's unlikely to get enough support otherwise. "You're having Congress basically involved in every agency decision," Hern said. "It's somewhat controversial, and if you look at it historically, I think that's probably why it hasn't passed." The inclusion of the measure in the Judiciary text means it's likely that the House will finally enact this version of REINS as part of the larger domestic policy bill — considered a must-pass for the GOP. It's less clear whether it will have sufficient support in the Senate, whose committees are expected to develop their own competing text in the coming months. The budget blueprint for the megabill, finalized earlier this month, gave the Judiciary Committee authority to raise the federal budget deficit by $110 billion — a recognition of the panel's role in overseeing costly immigration programs. Much of the new legislation's text is devoted to a litany of new fees to be assessed on people interacting with the immigration system. But the regulatory and antitrust proposals are riding along as Republican drafters hope to take advantage of the bill's planned use of budget reconciliation — the party-line procedure allowing the GOP to sidestep a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. The House, for instance, has passed iterations of the REINS Act four times, but filibuster threats have meant the Senate has never taken it up. There are complications to using reconciliation — only policies that have a direct impact on the budget can be included. Cammack said Republicans spent eight months modifying the language of the REINS Act to accommodate those strictures, and under the House Judiciary bill, only rules that increase revenue would require congressional approval. The other major non-immigration provision the panel included involves curtailing the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust enforcement powers by transferring its authority and employees to the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. It's a change that has been supported by, among others, Elon Musk — a key Jordan ally. Jordan said in an interview he did not think he had spoken with Musk about the policy change but declined to provide details about their conversations. Congress established the Federal Trade Commission more than a century ago to add an expert, bipartisan body to the federal government's antitrust enforcement. Now the Justice Department and the FTC have overlapping authority over antitrust enforcement, but there are differences in their jurisdiction and how they enforce the laws. The two entities have clearance processes to prevent conflicts, said John Newman, a former deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition and trial attorney with the DOJ's Antitrust Division. But if Congress erodes the FTC's power, it could bolster Trump's influence on antitrust enforcement, he argued. 'It's much easier for the president to order the assistant attorney general to do or not do something,' Newman said. Alvaro Bedoya, whom Trump fired as an FTC commissioner earlier this year and is now challenging his dismissal in court, said the House Judiciary plan would upend antitrust enforcement in an X post Monday. 'If you want to gut the agency who has shown itself willing to confront billionaire monopolists — and win — vote for this bill,' he wrote. Kelsey Brugger, Hassan Kanu and Andres Picon contributed to this report.
Politico
29-04-2025
- Business
- Politico
Trump could gain vast new deregulatory and antitrust powers under GOP megabill plans
It was widely expected that congressional Republicans would use the GOP's sweeping domestic policy bill to cut taxes, boost border security and slash federal spending. They're also proposing to hand President Donald Trump a broad new swath of executive power. A legislative draft released by the House Judiciary Committee Monday and set to be adopted at a committee meeting Wednesday would consolidate the federal government's antitrust enforcement powers at the Justice Department, taking them away from the independent Federal Trade Commission. And it would also supercharge the GOP's deregulatory agenda, allowing Republicans to potentially overturn reams of government regulations during the remainder of Trump's term. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in a brief interview that his panel is determined to 'address the cost of over-regulation.' 'Part of our jurisdiction in Judiciary deals with regulatory concerns,' he said, 'and so we are looking at … spending and costs associated with certain regulations. That's why that language is written the way it was.' But the scope of the proposal is hardly modest. It includes a version of the REINS Act — short for 'Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny' — which has percolated inside the GOP for more than a decade. Conservatives have long championed the proposal, which would essentially turn the federal regulatory process on its head: While Congress now has the opportunity to veto most agency rules, REINS would require Congress to affirmatively approve major new regulations. Republicans are selling the measure as a way to check presidential power, not expand it. 'It's a reassertion of Article I authority that Congress constitutionally has and has long since forgotten,' said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), a lead co-sponsor of the bill. But a key provision included in the bill would grant Trump sweeping powers to erase existing federal regulations from the books. It would task federal agencies with submitting portions of their rules to Congress for approval over a five-year period. Absent that approval, the rules would cease to have effect — in essence, fast-tracking Trump's deregulatory agenda. Critics of the REINS Act say it would significantly slow down the rulemaking process and allow partisan majorities in Congress to determine regulations rather than agency experts. Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), chair of the Republican Policy Committee, told POLITICO's E&E News that Republicans are seeking to include it in the party-line megabill because it's unlikely to get enough support otherwise. 'You're having Congress basically involved in every agency decision,' Hern said. 'It's somewhat controversial, and if you look at it historically, I think that's probably why it hasn't passed.' The inclusion of the measure in the Judiciary text means it's likely that the House will finally enact this version of REINS as part of the larger domestic policy bill — considered a must-pass for the GOP. It's less clear whether it will have sufficient support in the Senate, whose committees are expected to develop their own competing text in the coming months. The budget blueprint for the megabill, finalized earlier this month, gave the Judiciary Committee authority to raise the federal budget deficit by $110 billion — a recognition of the panel's role in overseeing costly immigration programs. Much of the new legislation's text is devoted to a litany of new fees to be assessed on people interacting with the immigration system. But the regulatory and antitrust proposals are riding along as Republican drafters hope to take advantage of the bill's planned use of budget reconciliation — the party-line procedure allowing the GOP to sidestep a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. The House, for instance, has passed iterations of the REINS Act four times, but filibuster threats have meant the Senate has never taken it up. There are complications to using reconciliation — only policies that have a direct impact on the budget can be included. Cammack said Republicans spent eight months modifying the language of the REINS Act to accommodate those strictures, and under the House Judiciary bill, only rules that increase revenue would require congressional approval. The other major non-immigration provision the panel included involves curtailing the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust enforcement powers by transferring its authority and employees to the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. It's a change that has been supported by, among others, Elon Musk — a key Jordan ally . Jordan said in an interview he did not think he had spoken with Musk about the policy change but declined to provide details about their conversations. Congress established the Federal Trade Commission more than a century ago to add an expert, bipartisan body to the federal government's antitrust enforcement. Now the Justice Department and the FTC have overlapping authority over antitrust enforcement, but there are differences in their jurisdiction and how they enforce the laws. The two entities have clearance processes to prevent conflicts, said John Newman, a former deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition and trial attorney with the DOJ's Antitrust Division. But if Congress erodes the FTC's power, it could bolster Trump's influence on antitrust enforcement, he argued. 'It's much easier for the president to order the assistant attorney general to do or not do something,' Newman said. Alvaro Bedoya, whom Trump fired as an FTC commissioner earlier this year and is now challenging his dismissal in court, said the House Judiciary plan would upend antitrust enforcement in an X post Monday. 'If you want to gut the agency who has shown itself willing to confront billionaire monopolists — and win — vote for this bill,' he wrote. Kelsey Brugger, Hassan Kanu and Andres Picon contributed to this report.
