29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–160 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF 

SCRUTINY ACT OF 2013 

JULY 19, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOODLATTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 367] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 367) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force 

or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, 

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 7 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 7 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 12 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 12 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 12 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 21 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 22 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 22 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 27 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 27 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 27 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 27 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 27 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 29 

Committee Jurisdiction Letters .............................................................................. 45 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny 

Act of 2013’’. 

SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for and transparency in the 

Federal regulatory process. Section 1 of article I of the United States Constitution 

grants all legislative powers to Congress. Over time, Congress has excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability for the content of the laws it passes. By requiring a vote in Congress, the REINS Act will result in more carefully drafted and detailed legislation, 

an improved regulatory process, and a legislative branch that is truly accountable 

to the American people for the laws imposed upon them. 

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING. 

Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘CHAPTER 8—CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING 

‘‘Sec. 

‘‘801. Congressional review. 

‘‘802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules. 

‘‘803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules. 

‘‘804. Definitions. 

‘‘805. Judicial review. 

‘‘806. Exemption for monetary policy. 

‘‘807. Effective date of certain rules. 

‘‘§ 801. Congressional review 

‘‘(a)(1)(A) Before a rule may take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such 

rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a 

report containing— 

‘‘(i) a copy of the rule; 

‘‘(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule; 

‘‘(iii) a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor rule, including an explanation of the classification specifically addressing each criteria for a major 

rule contained within sections 804(2)(A), 804(2)(B), and 804(2)(C); 

‘‘(iv) a list of any other related regulatory actions intended to implement the 

same statutory provision or regulatory objective as well as the individual and 

aggregate economic effects of those actions; and 

‘‘(v) the proposed effective date of the rule. 

‘‘(B) On the date of the submission of the report under subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to the Comptroller General and 

make available to each House of Congress— 

‘‘(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule, if any; 

‘‘(ii) the agency’s actions pursuant to sections 603, 604, 605, 607, and 609 of 

this title; 

‘‘(iii) the agency’s actions pursuant to sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and 

‘‘(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under any other Act and 

any relevant Executive orders. 

‘‘(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph (A), each House shall 

provide copies of the report to the chairman and ranking member of each standing 

committee with jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives or the 

Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law under which the rule is issued. 

‘‘(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each major rule to the 

committees of jurisdiction by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission or 

publication date. The report of the Comptroller General shall include an assessment 

of the agency’s compliance with procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B) and 

an assessment of whether the major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on 

private-sector activity. 

‘‘(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller General by providing 

information relevant to the Comptroller General’s report under subparagraph (A). 

‘‘(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall take 

effect upon enactment of a joint resolution of approval described in section 802 or 

as provided for in the rule following enactment of a joint resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is later. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(4) A nonmajor rule shall take effect as provided by section 803 after submission 

to Congress under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(5) If a joint resolution of approval relating to a major rule is not enacted within 

the period provided in subsection (b)(2), then a joint resolution of approval relating 

to the same rule may not be considered under this chapter in the same Congress 

by either the House of Representatives or the Senate. 

‘‘(b)(1) A major rule shall not take effect unless the Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval described under section 802. 

‘‘(2) If a joint resolution described in subsection (a) is not enacted into law by the 

end of 70 session days or legislative days, as applicable, beginning on the date on 

which the report referred to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress (excluding days either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress), then the rule described in that resolution shall be deemed not to 

be approved and such rule shall not take effect. 

‘‘(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a major rule may take effect for one 90-calendar-day period if the President makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such 

determination to the Congress. 

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the President by Executive 

order that the major rule should take effect because such rule is— 

‘‘(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other 

emergency; 

‘‘(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; 

‘‘(C) necessary for national security; or 

‘‘(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade 

agreement. 

‘‘(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under this subsection shall have 

no effect on the procedures under section 802. 

‘‘(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review otherwise provided under this 

chapter, in the case of any rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with 

subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date occurring— 

‘‘(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or 

‘‘(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60 legislative days, 

before the date the Congress is scheduled to adjourn a session of Congress through 

the date on which the same or succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, 

sections 802 and 803 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding session of Congress. 

‘‘(2)(A) In applying sections 802 and 803 for purposes of such additional review, 

a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though— 

‘‘(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register on— 

‘‘(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or 

‘‘(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the 15th legislative day, 

after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and 

‘‘(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under subsection (a)(1) 

on such date. 

‘‘(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the requirement under 

subsection (a)(1) that a report shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take 

effect. 

‘‘(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take effect as otherwise provided 

by law (including other subsections of this section). 

‘‘§ 802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules 

‘‘(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the term ‘joint resolution’ means only a joint 

resolution addressing a report classifying a rule as major pursuant to section 

801(a)(1)(A)(iii) that— 

‘‘(A) bears no preamble; 

‘‘(B) bears the following title (with blanks filled as appropriate): ‘Approving 

the rule submitted by lll relating to lll.’; 

‘‘(C) includes after its resolving clause only the following (with blanks filled 

as appropriate): ‘That Congress approves the rule submitted by lll relating 

to lll.’; and 

‘‘(D) is introduced pursuant to paragraph (2). 

‘‘(2) After a House of Congress receives a report classifying a rule as major pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A)(iii), the majority leader of that House (or his or her respective designee) shall introduce (by request, if appropriate) a joint resolution described in paragraph (1)— 

‘‘(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, within three legislative days; 

and 

‘‘(B) in the case of the Senate, within three session days. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

‘‘(3) A joint resolution described in paragraph (1) shall not be subject to amendment at any stage of proceeding. 

‘‘(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be referred in each House 

of Congress to the committees having jurisdiction over the provision of law under 

which the rule is issued. 

‘‘(c) In the Senate, if the committee or committees to which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been referred have not reported it at the end of 15 session days after its introduction, such committee or committees shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of the resolution and it shall be placed 

on the calendar. A vote on final passage of the resolution shall be taken on or before 

the close of the 15th session day after the resolution is reported by the committee 

or committees to which it was referred, or after such committee or committees have 

been discharged from further consideration of the resolution. 

‘‘(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee or committees to which a joint resolution is referred have reported, or when a committee or committees are discharged 

(under subsection (c)) from further consideration of a joint resolution described in 

subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion 

to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all points of order against the joint resolution (and 

against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject 

to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is 

agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of. 

‘‘(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all debatable motions 

and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, 

which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the joint 

resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in order and not debatable. An 

amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration 

of other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution is not in order. 

‘‘(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of the debate on a joint 

resolution described in subsection (a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion 

of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on 

final passage of the joint resolution shall occur. 

‘‘(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules 

of the Senate to the procedure relating to a joint resolution described in subsection 

(a) shall be decided without debate. 

‘‘(e) In the House of Representatives, if any committee to which a joint resolution 

described in subsection (a) has been referred has not reported it to the House at 

the end of 15 legislative days after its introduction, such committee shall be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution, and it shall be placed on 

the appropriate calendar. On the second and fourth Thursdays of each month it 

shall be in order at any time for the Speaker to recognize a Member who favors 

passage of a joint resolution that has appeared on the calendar for at least 5 legislative days to call up that joint resolution for immediate consideration in the House 

without intervention of any point of order. When so called up a joint resolution shall 

be considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered to its passage without intervening motion. It shall not be in order 

to reconsider the vote on passage. If a vote on final passage of the joint resolution 

has not been taken by the third Thursday on which the Speaker may recognize a 

Member under this subsection, such vote shall be taken on that day. 

‘‘(f)(1) If, before passing a joint resolution described in subsection (a), one House 

receives from the other a joint resolution having the same text, then— 

‘‘(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be referred to a committee; and 

‘‘(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same as if no joint resolution had been received from the other House until the vote on passage, when 

the joint resolution received from the other House shall supplant the joint resolution of the receiving House. 

‘‘(2) This subsection shall not apply to the House of Representatives if the joint 

resolution received from the Senate is a revenue measure. 

‘‘(g) If either House has not taken a vote on final passage of the joint resolution 

by the last day of the period described in section 801(b)(2), then such vote shall be 

taken on that day. 

‘‘(h) This section and section 803 are enacted by Congress— 

‘‘(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is deemed to be part of the rules of each 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in subsection (a) 

and superseding other rules only where explicitly so; and 

‘‘(2) with full recognition of the Constitutional right of either House to change 

the rules (so far as they relate to the procedure of that House) at any time, in 

the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of 

that House. 

‘‘§ 803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules 

‘‘(a) For purposes of this section, the term ‘joint resolution’ means only a joint resolution introduced in the period beginning on the date on which the report referred 

to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60 days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days during a 

session of Congress), the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 

‘That Congress disapproves the nonmajor rule submitted by the lll relating to 

lll, and such rule shall have no force or effect.’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in). 

‘‘(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with jurisdiction. 

‘‘(2) For purposes of this section, the term submission or publication date means 

the later of the date on which— 

‘‘(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under section 801(a)(1); or 

‘‘(B) the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal Register, if so published. 

‘‘(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint 

resolution) at the end of 15 session days after the date of introduction of the joint 

resolution, such committee may be discharged from further consideration of such 

joint resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members of the Senate, 

and such joint resolution shall be placed on the calendar. 

‘‘(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint resolution is referred 

has reported, or when a committee is discharged (under subsection (c)) from further 

consideration of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed 

to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all points 

of order against the joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to 

reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be 

in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed 

to, the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of. 

‘‘(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all debatable motions 

and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, 

which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the joint 

resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in order and not debatable. An 

amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration 

of other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution is not in order. 

‘‘(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of the debate on a joint 

resolution described in subsection (a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion 

of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on 

final passage of the joint resolution shall occur. 

‘‘(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules 

of the Senate to the procedure relating to a joint resolution described in subsection 

(a) shall be decided without debate. 

‘‘(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection (c) or (d) shall not apply 

to the consideration of a joint resolution respecting a nonmajor rule— 

‘‘(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning with the applicable 

submission or publication date, or 

‘‘(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was submitted during the period 

referred to in section 801(d)(1), after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the 15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes. 

‘‘(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that House receives from the other House a joint resolution 

described in subsection (a), then the following procedures shall apply: 

‘‘(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be referred to a committee. 

‘‘(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in subsection (a) of the House 

receiving the joint resolution— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

‘‘(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no joint resolution had been received from the other House; but 

‘‘(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint resolution of the other 

House. 

‘‘§ 804. Definitions 

‘‘For purposes of this chapter— 

‘‘(1) The term ‘Federal agency’ means any agency as that term is defined in 

section 551(1). 

‘‘(2) The term ‘major rule’ means any rule, including an interim final rule, 

that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result 

in— 

‘‘(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; 

‘‘(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; 

or 

‘‘(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export 

markets. 

‘‘(3) The term ‘nonmajor rule’ means any rule that is not a major rule. 

‘‘(4) The term ‘rule’ has the meaning given such term in section 551, except 

that such term does not include— 

‘‘(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a rule that approves or 

prescribes for the future rates, wages, prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate or financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures bearing on any of the 

foregoing; 

‘‘(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel; or 

‘‘(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not 

substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 

‘‘(5) The term ‘submission date or publication date’, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, means— 

‘‘(A) in the case of a major rule, the date on which the Congress receives 

the report submitted under section 801(a)(1); and 

‘‘(B) in the case of a nonmajor rule, the later of— 

‘‘(i) the date on which the Congress receives the report submitted 

under section 801(a)(1); and 

‘‘(ii) the date on which the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal 

Register, if so published. 

‘‘§ 805. Judicial review 

‘‘(a) No determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to judicial review. 

‘‘(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a court may determine whether a Federal 

agency has completed the necessary requirements under this chapter for a rule to 

take effect. 

‘‘(c) The enactment of a joint resolution of approval under section 802 shall not 

be interpreted to serve as a grant or modification of statutory authority by Congress 

for the promulgation of a rule, shall not extinguish or affect any claim, whether substantive or procedural, against any alleged defect in a rule, and shall not form part 

of the record before the court in any judicial proceeding concerning a rule except 

for purposes of determining whether or not the rule is in effect. 

‘‘§ 806. Exemption for monetary policy 

‘‘Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or 

the Federal Open Market Committee. 

‘‘§ 807. Effective date of certain rules 

‘‘Notwithstanding section 801— 

‘‘(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory 

program for a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping; or 

‘‘(2) any rule other than a major rule which an agency for good cause finds 

(and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the 

rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

1See Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, H.R. 3136, 104th Cong., § 251 (1996) 

(enacted as 104 P.L. 121, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 801–808). 

shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.’’. 

SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF RULES SUBJECT TO SECTION 802 OF TITLE 5, UNITED 

STATES CODE. 

Section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 

1985 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(E) BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF RULES SUBJECT TO SECTION 802 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.—Any rules subject to the congressional approval procedure set forth in section 802 of chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, 

affecting budget authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed to be effective unless it is not approved in accordance with such section.’’. 

SEC. 5. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY OF RULES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 

study to determine, as of the date of the enactment of this Act— 

(1) how many rules (as such term is defined in section 804 of title 5, United 

States Code) were in effect; 

(2) how many major rules (as such term is defined in section 804 of title 5, 

United States Code) were in effect; and 

(3) the total estimated economic cost imposed by all such rules. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress that 

contains the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a). 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 367, the ‘‘Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013,’’ also known as the REINS Act, reforms the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (‘‘CRA’’).1 The CRA was adopted to 

increase the accountability of Federal regulatory agencies and the 

Congress by creating a fast-track legislative process for Congress to 

overturn a final Federal regulation within 60 days of the rule’s 

publication in the Federal Register. In the seventeen years since 

the CRA was adopted, however, Federal regulatory agencies have 

issued over 60,000 regulations, including well over 1,000 major regulations, while Congress has overturned only one regulation using 

the CRA. The number of major regulations, moreover, has increased markedly in recent years, and this trend shows no signs of 

abating. The REINS Act reforms the CRA, insofar as the CRA applies to major regulations. The REINS Act would require Congress 

to pass within 60 days, and the President to sign, a joint resolution 

approving a new major regulation issued by a regulatory agency 

before the regulation could take effect. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 23, 2013, Rep. Todd Young (R–IN) introduced H.R. 

367, the ‘‘Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act 

of 2013’’ (the ‘‘REINS Act,’’ or the ‘‘Bill’’). As mentioned above, the 

REINS Act reforms the Congressional Review Act to require congressional approval of major agency regulations before the regulations can go into effect. Major regulations are those that produce 

$100 million or more in impacts on the U.S. economy, spur major 

increases in costs or prices for consumers, or have significant adverse effects on the economy. 

The REINS Act passed the House as H.R. 10 during the 112th 

Congress, on a bipartisan vote of 241–184. H.R. 367 reintroduced 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

2Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), P.L. 104–121, 110 

Stat. 857–874, Subtitle E (codified at 5 U.S.C. secs. 801–808). 3The legislative veto was particularly popular from the early 1970’s through 1983. Under this 

approach, an enabling statute sometimes provided that rules promulgated under its authority 

were subject to reversal if one or both of Houses of Congress passed a resolution repealing the 

Executive Branch’s action. In 1983, however, the Supreme Court struck down the legislative 

veto in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, on the grounds that, when Congress acted ‘‘legislatively,’’ 

it had to conform to the dictates of the Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements (see Article I, section 7, clause 2). Because the unicameral legislative veto was a legislative act that did not adhere to these provisions, it violated the Constitutional design for the separation of powers. 4 Congressional Research Service, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Update 

and Assessment of The Congressional Review Act after a Decade, Report No. RL30116 (May 8, 

2008). 5S.J. Res. 16, 107th Cong. (2001) (enacted). 

the previously passed text, with the exception that it did not include one reporting requirement that was added to H.R. 10 as a 

floor amendment. The Committee amended the bill to add a requirement that reports by the Comptroller General to the Congress 

on new major regulations assess whether the regulations impose 

new limits or mandates on private sector activity and to commission a study and report to Congress by the Comptroller General on 

the number of regulations in effect on the date of enactment, the 

number of major regulations in effect on the date of enactment, and 

the total estimated economic cost imposed by all such regulations. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

A. History of the Congressional Review Act and the Need for Reform 

The Congressional Review Act,2 part of the 1994 ‘‘Contract with 

America,’’ sprung from a desire for more active congressional control over a rapidly growing body of administrative rules. Prior to 

the CRA, Congress had employed other means to assert its authority over agencies, ranging from ordinary oversight to the unicameral legislative veto mechanism ruled unconstitutional in INS v. 

Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).3 These means, however, proved inadequate. 

To remedy this problem, the CRA established a mechanism for 

Congress to review and disapprove Federal agencies’ rules through 

an expedited legislative process. Recognizing in light of Chadha 

that Congress must conform to the Constitution’s requirements of 

bicameralism and presentment, the CRA required that rules be disapproved by a joint resolution of both houses which would then be 

presented to the President for signature. In this way, the CRA follows the model of the Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. 2072, et seq.), 

under which the Supreme Court has for many years promulgated 

rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for the Federal courts, subject to review that often has been exercised by Congress. 

Despite its conceptual promise, the CRA has produced few results. As of May 2008, for example, only 47 joint resolutions of disapproval had been introduced in both houses of Congress, relating 

to just 28 rules. During the same time period, Federal agencies had 

promulgated 47,540 major and non-major rules. 4 Since the CRA’s 

enactment, it has only once been used successfully to disapprove a 

rule.5 It is widely believed that this one rule—an Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration rule from the twilight of the 

Clinton administration—was disapproved more because of the conVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

6The OSHA ergonomic standards were controversial from the first publication in 1992 of the 

initial proposal for a rulemaking. There was Congressional opposition to the standards as well, 

which led to riders prohibiting OSHA from promulgating proposed or final ergonomic rules during fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1998. OSHA issued its final standard in 2000 after Congress 

was unable to pass another rider in that year’s appropriations. Shortly after the rule was issued 

and became effective, control of the White House changed parties. Therefore, there was control 

of both Houses of Congress and the presidency by the same party, longstanding opposition of 

the rule by those in control of Congress, and a President who was willing to seek the disapproval of a rule enacted at the end of the term of a previous administration. 7The disapproval mechanism was utilized, for example, by Rep. Wicker (R–MS) to achieve a 

compromise with OSHA regarding its rule setting exposure limits on methylene chloride by introducing H.J. Res. 67, 105th Cong. (1997), to disapprove the OSHA rule. The introduction of 

the resolution encouraged OSHA to negotiate with Rep. Wicker, who was able to include a provision in the FY 1998 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations requiring OSHA to provide onsite assistance for companies to comply with the new rules. 8 Role of Congress in Monitoring Administrative Rulemaking: Hearing on H.R. 47, H.R. 2727, 

and H.R. 2990 Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 2nd Sess. 104–93 (1996). 9 H.R. 47 (Rep. Taylor, R–NC); H.R. 2727 (Rep. Hayworth, D–AZ); and H.R. 2990 (Rep. Smith, 

R–MI). 10 House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Interim 

Report on the Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project for the 21st Century, Committee Print No. 10 (Dec. 2006) at 104. 11 C. Wayne Crews, Jr., Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal 

Regulatory State, 2010 ed., Competitive Enterprise Institute (April 15, 2010) at 2. 12 Nicole V. Crain & W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, Report 

No. SBAHQ–08–M–0466 (Sept. 2010) at 6, 48. 

vergence of special circumstances that are unlikely to recur consistently, rather than as a reliable example of how the CRA can effectively be used.6 Further, although joint resolutions have in numerous cases been introduced to pressure agencies to modify or withdraw their rules,7 as time shows that Congress is unlikely to use 

the CRA to disapprove of rules, this use of joint resolutions as a 

source of pressure becomes less and less effective. 

The need for further reform is thus evident, and, since the CRA’s 

enactment, Congress has continued to consider initiatives to foster 

greater congressional responsibility in the oversight of agency rulemaking. The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law, for example, held a hearing during the 104th Congress on the 

role of Congress in monitoring administrative rulemaking.8 At the 

hearing, the Subcommittee considered three bills that provided to 

varying degrees for congressional approval of administrative rules 

before they could become effective.9 Subsequently, CRA reform was 

a prominent topic in the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee’s Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project for 

the 21st Century, which was highly active during the 108th and 

109th Congresses. The first recommendation for CRA reform noted 

in the Subcommittee’s interim report on the project (‘‘Interim Report’’) was reform to require congressional approval of agency rules 

before the rules could become effective.10

As time has gone by, and particularly since the onset of the 

Obama Administration, the need for CRA reform has become all 

the more pressing. In 2009, Federal agencies promulgated 3,503 

final rules, while Congress passed and the President signed into 

law only 125 statutes.11 Last term, the Small Business’ Office of 

Advocacy reported that Federal rulemaking imposed a cumulative 

burden of $1.75 trillion on our economy—a figure that equaled 

fourteen percent of national income.12 Most recently, Douglas 

Holtz-Eakin, Ph.D., former Congressional Budget Office Director 

and current head of the American Action Forum, testified before 

the Subcommittee that, taking into account the costs imposed by 

Obama Administration regulations to date and those currently proVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

13Statement of Douglas Holtz-Eakin at ‘‘Hearing on the Obama Administration’s Regulatory 

War on Jobs, the Economy, and America’s Global Competitiveness,’’ February 28, 2013, at 3, 

available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/02282013/Holtz-Eakin%2002282013.pdf. 14 Id. 15 A Pledge to America (Sept. 22, 2010) at 28 (‘‘Pledge), available at http://pledge.gop.gov. 

posed, ‘‘[d]uring the past 4 years, the cumulative regulatory cost 

burden has increased by more than $520 billion[.]’’ 13 Dr. HoltzEakin further testified that: 

To put the $520 billion figure in perspective, it is more 

than the combined gross domestic product of Portugal and 

Norway, and there is little evidence 2013 will slow this 

pace. Based on a review of the 2012 Unified Agenda, AAF 

identified $123 billion in possible regulations this year, 

based on only 40 regulations (out of 2,387 active actions).14

Many other regulations, moreover, will surely come under the 

Administration—such as the many intended to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111–148, and the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 

Pub. L. 111–203. These regulations just as surely will add large additional costs to the regulatory burden on U.S. job creators and the 

U.S. economy. For example, on December 14, 2012, EPA issued a 

‘‘soot’’ rule which, by its own estimates, will cost between $53 million and $350 million per year. A week later, EPA issued a rule to 

limit mercury and other emissions from industrial boilers. That 

rule is expected to cost $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion a year. The President has also suggested that EPA will revive its rule to tighten 

ozone standards. That regulation is expected to cost up to $90 billion dollars annually. It also could render 650 counties non-compliant under the Clean Air Act, leading to significant negative impacts on business expansion and prospects for economic growth in 

those areas. Meanwhile, through just July 31, 2010, a full 3,833 

pages of Federal regulations had already been issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.15 More have been issued 

since, and more are yet to come. (The Congressional Research Service has identified 40 provisions in the Act that permit or require 

the issuance of regulations.) Similarly, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act imposes a host of regulatory 

obligations which agencies have yet to fulfill—it requires the promulgation of 398 rules, of which only 136 have yet been completed. 

That leaves 262 final rules to be done, of which only 133 had even 

been proposed as of February 2013. 

An additional ground for concern is President Obama’s threat to 

use the regulatory system specifically to evade Congress’ legislative 

will. The President’s climate change agenda provides the most obvious example of this institutional threat to Congress. The carbon 

cap-and-tax bill passed by the House in the 111th Congress was estimated to create nearly 1,500 new regulations and mandates with 

costs estimated to be well over a $1 trillion. Although that legislation failed in the Senate, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursued unilaterally a regulatory agenda to accomplish the legislation’s goals. Since the November 2012 presidential election, regulatory advocates have urged President Obama to continue unilaterally to impose climate agenda requirements through regulations. 

The President himself, in his 2013 State of the Union Address, 

made manifest his intent to do just that. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

B. Legislative History of the REINS Act 

During the first session of the 111th Congress, Rep. Geoff Davis 

(R-Ky) first introduced the REINS Act, as H.R. 3765. Like this 

term’s H.R. 367 and last term’s H.R. 10, and consistent with the 

recommendation of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law’s 2006 Interim Report, H.R. 3765 required congressional approval of major rules but essentially preserved the existing CRA process for non-major rules. 

Through its reforms, the REINS Act effectively constrains the 

delegation of Congressional authority by limiting the size and scope 

of rulemaking permission. Once major rules are drafted, they must 

be approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, satisfying the bicameralism and presentment requirements of 

the Constitution. This will increase Congress’ accountability for the 

content of Federal legal requirements and foster more deliberation 

before the Federal Government expands its reach into the lives of 

Americans through added regulation. The Act also can be expected 

to have a significant salutary effect on the substantive quality of 

major Federal rules and agency compliance with administrative 

law requirements before major rules are promulgated and submitted to Congress. Finally, although the Act does not change Congressional Review Act procedures for review of non-major rules, it 

can be hoped that the Act’s impacts on the quality of major-rulemaking will improve the overall culture of Federal rulemaking, elevating the quality of non-major-rulemaking in the process. 

H.R. 367 essentially replicates the text of the REINS Act as 

passed by the House during the 112th Congress. As a result, it includes revisions to the legislation, made during the Rules Committee’s markup of the bill, which post-date the Committee’s last review and markup of the legislation. These revisions principally refine the parliamentary procedures for introduction of, and consideration and floor action on, REINS Act approval resolutions. See 

infra at 6 (amendments to 5 U.S.C. sec. 802). These revisions serve 

to maximize the efficiency of the Act’s parliamentary procedures 

and prevent undue incursions on floor time needed for other legislative business. 

At the Subcommittee’s March 5, 2013 hearing, Mr. James 

Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation and Professor Eric Claeys of 

the George Mason University School of Law testified in support of 

H.R. 367. Professor Ronald Levin of the Washington University 

School of Law testified against it. In summary, Mr. Gattuso discussed the increasing burden of regulations on the economy over 

the past several decades, the palpably greater increase in major 

regulation experienced under the Obama Administration to date, 

and the strong likelihood of continuing, accelerated regulatory 

growth during the second term of the Obama Administration. Mr. 

Gattuso presented his view that the REINS Act represents a 

sound, effective, manageable, and constitutional means to assure 

that the largest new regulatory burdens are not placed on the people without the approval of the people’s elected representatives. He 

also emphasized that the REINS Act is not inherently anti-regulatory but simply assures that accountable, elected representatives 

will have the final say over whether or not to impose a new major 

rule. Prof. Claeys testified that the REINS Act represented a constitutional means of providing for Congressional approval of new 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

major regulations, implementing Congress’ powers under Article 1, 

sec. 1, of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause. 

He opined that the Act would not run afoul of the Chadha rule 

against unicameral legislative vetoes, in that the REINS Act itself 

would be enacted bicamerally, followed by presentment to and signature by the President, and any legislation—specifically, approval 

resolutions—subsequently arising under the REINS Act would also 

become law only following bicameral passage and presentment to 

and signature by the President. Prof. Claeys also emphasized that 

Justice Stephen Breyer and constitutional law professor Laurence 

Tribe had in the past written that a congressional approval mechanism for regulations, like that in the REINS Act, would be constitutional. Prof. Levin proffered his view that the REINS Act’s 

constitutionality was at least subject to question, in that the failure 

of an approval resolution in either chamber of Congress would 

mean that the regulation addressed by the resolution could not become effective. Prof. Levin also testified that the additional work 

required of Congress under the REINS Act would be too great, and 

that Congress’ role under the Bill would impede regulatory agencies’ fulfillment of their regulatory mandates. 

Further background information on the REINS Act can be found 

in the Judiciary Committee’s and Rules Committee’s reports on 

H.R. 10 in the 112th Congress (H. Rept. 112–278, Pts. 1 and 2, respectively). 

Hearings 

The Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 367, on 

March 5, 2013. As mentioned above, testimony was received from 

Mr. James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, Professor Eric 

Claeys of the George Mason University School of Law, and Professor Ronald Levin of the Washington University School of Law, 

with additional material submitted by Rep. Andy Barr (R–KY), 

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R–ND), the National Cattlemans’s Beef Association, and the Public Lands Council. 

In addition, during the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on 

Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law held an oversight 

hearing on the REINS Act on January 24, 2011, followed by a legislative hearing on March 8, 2011. The testimony and additional material received at these hearings is described in the Committee’s report on H.R. 10 in the 112th Congress (H. Rept. 112–278). 

Committee Consideration 

On March 20, 2013, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, 

Commercial and Antitrust Law met in open session and ordered 

the bill H.R. 367 favorably reported, without amendment, by a vote 

of 6 to 3, a quorum being present. On April 11, 2013, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 367 favorably 

reported with an amendment, by a rollcall vote of 20 to 9, a 

quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises the following rollVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

call votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

367. 

1. Amendment #6, offered by Mr. Conyers. The Amendment exempts from the REINS Act any rule ‘‘relating to protection of the 

public health or safety.’’ The Amendment was defeated by a rollcall 

vote of 16–15. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ...........................................................................................

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) ..........................................................................................

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) .........................................................................................

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) .......................................................................................

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) .......................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ...................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ..................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) .........................................................................................

Total ......................................................................................... 15 16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

2. Amendments #7 and #8, offered en bloc by Mr. Watt. The 

Amendments exempt from the REINS Act any rule ‘‘that is made 

under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’’ and any rule made by the ‘‘Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau pertaining to fraudulent mortgage lending practices.’’ The Amendments were defeated by a rollcall vote of 

17–15. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ...........................................................................................

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ..........................................................................................

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) .........................................................................................

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) .......................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ..................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 15 17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

3. Amendment #9, offered by Mr. Cohen. The Amendment exempts from the REINS Act ‘‘any rule that the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget determines would result in greater benefits 

than costs to society.’’ The Amendment was defeated by a rollcall 

vote of 14–11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) ..........................................................................................

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) .........................................................................................

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................

Mr. Labrador (ID) .......................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) .........................................................................................

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 11 14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

4. Amendment #10, offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. The Amendment 

exempts from the REINS Act ‘‘any rule that pertains to the safety 

of any products specifically designed to be used or consumed by a 

child under the age of 2 years.’’ The Amendment was defeated by 

a rollcall vote of 16–11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ...........................................................................................

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) .........................................................................................

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................

Mr. Labrador (ID) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) .........................................................................................

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 11 16 

5. Amendments #11 and #12, offered en bloc by Mr. Johnson. 

The Amendments exempt from the REINS Act ‘‘any rule that the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

of the Office of Management and Budget determines would result 

in net job growth’’ and ‘‘any rule that is intended to protect the privacy of United States citizens.’’ The Amendments were defeated by 

a rollcall vote of 18–9. 

ROLLCALL NO. 5 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ...............................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) .......................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) .................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) .......................................................................................

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 9 18 

6. Amendment #13, offered by Ms. Chu. The Amendment exempts from the REINS Act ‘‘any rule that pertains to protecting 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

schools and children from gun violence.’’ The Amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 17–10. 

ROLLCALL NO. 6 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ...............................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) .......................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) .................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) .......................................................................................

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 10 17 

7. Amendment #14, offered by Mr. Garcia. The Amendment exempts from the REINS Act ‘‘any rule that pertains to fraud under 

the Medicare and Medicaid programs under titles XVIII and XIX, 

respectively, of the Social Security Act.’’ The Amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 17–9. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

ROLLCALL NO. 7 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ...............................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) .......................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ...................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) .................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Johnson (GA) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) .......................................................................................

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 9 17 

8. Amendment # 15, offered by Mr. Jeffries. The Amendment exempts from the REINS Act ‘‘any rule that pertains to protection of 

the safety and soundness of the banking and financial services industries of the United States.’’ The Amendment was defeated by a 

rollcall vote of 19–7. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

ROLLCALL NO. 8 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ...............................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ...................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) .................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Johnson (GA) .......................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) .......................................................................................

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 7 19 

9. Reporting H.R. 367 as amended. The bill will increase accountability and transparency in the Federal regulatory process. 

Reported by a rollcall vote of 20–9. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

ROLLCALL NO. 9 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) .......................................................................

Mr. Coble (NC) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ........................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. King (IA) .............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei (NV) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ....................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ...................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) ........................................................................................

Mr. Collins (GA) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ....................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rothfus (PA) ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Scott (VA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Watt (NC) ............................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ........................................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) .................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) ..........................................................................................

Mr. Johnson (GA) .......................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) .......................................................................................

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) .....................................................................................

Ms. DelBene (WA) ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) .......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ......................................................................................... X 

Total ......................................................................................... 20 9 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 367, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 17, 2013. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 367, the ‘‘Regulations 

from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Masi, who can be 

reached at 226–9010. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 367—Regulations From the Executive in Need of 

Scrutiny Act of 2013. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on April 11, 2013. 

SUMMARY

Under current law, the Congress can prevent a rule from taking 

effect by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. In contrast, 

H.R. 367 would require enactment of a joint resolution of approval 

prior to any major rule taking effect. Therefore, H.R. 367 would 

make the implementation of new major regulations dependent on 

future legislation. Because CBO does not assume enactment of subsequent legislation in estimating a bill’s effect on direct spending 

and revenues, this estimate addresses the costs and savings that 

would be realized if anticipated major rules do not take effect. 

About 85 major rules have been issued per year, on average, over 

the past five years. Major rules vary greatly in their nature and 

scope. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 

cannot determine the budgetary effects of preventing all future 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

1See 5 USC § 804(2). 

2GAO Federal Rules Database, http://www.gao.gov/legal/congressact/fedrule.html. 

major rules from going into effect, but we expect that enacting H.R. 

367 would have significant effects on both direct spending and revenues. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. 

CBO expects that implementing H.R. 367 also could have a significant impact on spending subject to appropriation, although we 

cannot determine the magnitude of that effect. 

CBO expects that H.R. 367 would impose no intergovernmental 

or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA). 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Background 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996 requires Federal 

agencies to submit final rules to the Congress and the Comptroller 

General before they may take effect. Final rules may be annulled 

by the Congress if a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted into 

law. H.R. 367 would amend current law by requiring the Congress 

to enact a joint resolution of approval before any major rule may 

take effect, thereby making implementation of major rules contingent on future Congressional action. 

The definition of a major rule, which was originally set by the 

CRA and would be unchanged by H.R. 367, is any rule that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is 

likely to result in: 

• An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 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, innovation, or the ability of U.S.- 

based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic and export markets.1

H.R. 367 specifies special Congressional procedures and explicit 

timelines for enacting a joint resolution of approval for major rules. 

Under H.R. 367, if a joint resolution of approval is not enacted 

within 70 legislative (or session) days of receiving the major rule 

and accompanying report from a Federal agency, the rule could not 

take effect. Further, the Congress could not reconsider a joint resolution of approval relating to that rule in the same Congress. However, a major rule could take effect for one 90-calendar-day period 

without Congressional approval if the President determines, via an 

executive order, that the major rule was necessary for one of four 

reasons: (1) to respond to an imminent threat to health or safety, 

(2) to enforce criminal laws, (3) to protect national security, or (4) 

to implement an international trade agreement. 

Historical data show that Federal agencies published 68 major 

rules in 2012, and 85 major rules, on average, over the past five 

full calendar years.2 Major rules published in recent years include, 

for example, rules that required warnings for cigarette packages 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

and advertisements, set Medicare payment rates for inpatient psychiatric facilities, and established national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants from industrial, commercial and institutional boilers. However, looking to recent major rules as a way to 

estimate the number of future major rules that would be affected 

by H.R. 367 may not be a good guide to what would happen under 

the bill because agencies might change course if it was enacted. 

Because major rules are issued to implement current law, the 

budgetary effects of anticipated rules are reflected in CBO’s baseline projections, which are governed by section 257 of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Deficit Control 

Act). For example, routine annual rules establish new payment 

rates for a variety of Medicare services. Such updated payment 

rates reflect changes in the price indices specified to be used for 

those services by current law; the result is often an increase in 

payment rates and thus an increase in spending. 

Under the Deficit Control Act, actions that are contingent on future Congressional action are generally not included in CBO’s baseline projections. However, H.R. 367 would amend the Deficit Control Act to require that CBO, in its baseline projections, continue 

to assume that any planned major rule will go into effect, unless 

the rule has already been promulgated and the Congress has not 

enacted a resolution of approval within the 70-day period that 

would be established under the bill. (Without that provision 

amending the Deficit Control Act, H.R. 367 would result in baseline 

projections that would no longer reflect the budgetary impact of 

major rules.) 

As a result, CBO’s baseline projections would retain the budgetary impact of major rules even though future Congressional action would be necessary (under the bill) to approve such rules. For 

example, if H.R. 367 is enacted, baseline projections would continue 

to reflect the assumption that payment rates for Medicare providers would rise over time even though raising those rates would 

require future Congressional action. Accordingly, a Congressional 

resolution of approval for a major rule raising such rates would be 

estimated as having no cost relative to CBO’s baseline projections. 

(If the Congress does not pass a joint resolution of approval, then 

CBO’s subsequent baseline projections would be updated to exclude 

the budgetary impact of the proposed rule.) 

Impact on Direct Spending 

H.R. 367 would prevent all major rules from taking effect unless 

subsequent legislation is enacted. Because CBO does not assume 

enactment of future legislation in estimating effects on direct 

spending and revenues, in assessing the budgetary effects of H.R. 

367, CBO considered the costs and savings that would be realized 

if anticipated major rules do not take effect. The budgetary consequences of preventing major rules from taking effect would vary 

tremendously because the budgetary impact of different rules varies considerably. For example, of the three rules mentioned above, 

only one—which set Medicare payment rates for inpatient psychiatric facilities—has a significant Federal budgetary impact. 

Preventing some major rules from taking effect would result in 

costs to the Federal Government, while preventing others would result in savings. On net, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 367 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

would have a significant effect on direct spending, but we cannot 

determine the magnitude or sign of those changes for any year or 

period of years. Short-term effects would largely result from: (1) 

preventing annual updates to payment schedules for certain Medicare services and other routine revisions to aspects of certain government programs, including payment rate reductions scheduled to 

take place under the Medicare physician fee schedule, and (2) altering the implementation of new Federal programs with substantial 

budget effects. 

Routine Updates to Government Programs. Many major 

rules that occur routinely are related to the government’s health 

care programs and in particular pertain to Medicare. Some examples include rules that establish annual updates to payment rates 

for services provided by hospitals, physicians, and other Medicare 

providers. Enacting H.R. 367 would freeze payment structures for 

those providers at current levels pending future Congressional actions. Similarly, payment rates (such as the annual benefit amount 

for each individual) under some other Federal programs might also 

be frozen under the bill in the absence of future Congressional actions. CBO cannot estimate the net impact of all such changes. 

Implementation of New Federal Programs. Enacting H.R. 

367 could also affect the implementation of significant legislation 

for which major rules have not been issued. For example, enacting 

H.R. 367 could delay the implementation of new initiatives aimed 

at making more electromagnetic spectrum available for wireless 

services. As required by title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Job Creation Act of 2012, the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) is developing proposed rules for what are known as ‘‘incentive auctions,’’ for private firms to voluntarily relinquish some or 

all of their existing spectrum rights in exchange for a payment 

from the FCC. That spectrum would then be available for new licensed uses. Provisions in that act regarding the use of spectrum 

by Federal agencies and the development of a wireless network for 

public safety users are being implemented through rulemaking by 

the Department of Commerce. Making implementation of those 

programs contingent on future legislation would increase net direct 

spending (by reducing auction receipts expected without further 

Congressional actions) by several billion dollars over the 2014–2023 

period, relative to current law. 

Impact on Revenues 

Enacting H.R. 367 would also affect tax revenues, and JCT expects that preventing regulations from going into effect could reduce collections of revenues in some cases and increase collections 

in other cases. JCT cannot determine the sign or magnitude of the 

possible effects on revenues. 

Impact on Spending Subject to Appropriation 

H.R. 367 also would affect programs for which spending is subject to the annual appropriation process. However, CBO cannot determine the magnitude of that effect. For example, if the major 

rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency were prevented from taking effect, there could be reductions in spending for 

the agency, subject to appropriation action. A second example involves annual calculations made by the Department of Housing and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

Urban Development (HUD) of the fair-market rents that it uses to 

determine rental subsidies for low-income individuals. We expect 

that the bill would prohibit those calculations from being implemented, which would prevent the rental subsidy from being adjusted for changes in market conditions. Any increase in rents 

would be paid for by the tenant and not by HUD, and if tenants 

were unable to pay the increased rent, some landlords would probably leave the program. 

The legislation also would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to prepare a study on the rules and their economic cost. Based on information from agencies and on similar 

GAO reports, CBO estimates that completing the study would cost 

less than $500,000 over the next few years. 

Impact on Future Legislation 

If H.R. 367 was enacted, the budgetary effects of planned major 

rules would continue to be reflected in baseline projections, unless 

a rule had already been promulgated and a joint resolution of approval had not been enacted. Therefore, a cost estimate for a joint 

resolution of approval for a major rule would not include any direct 

spending and revenue effects of implementing that rule. Further, 

for future legislation whose implementation would be contingent 

upon the promulgation of major rules, CBO would estimate the 

budgetary effects assuming those major rules would take effect. 

However, if a joint resolution of approval is not enacted, and CBO’s 

baseline projections are subsequently updated to reflect that inaction, the costs or savings associated with that major rule would be 

counted for budget enforcement purposes if a joint resolution of approval is considered in a subsequent session of Congress. 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct 

spending or revenues. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply to H.R. 367 

because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and 

revenues. CBO and JCT cannot determine the sign or magnitude 

of those effects. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

CBO expects that H.R. 367 would impose no intergovernmental 

or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. By requiring 

major rules to be approved by a joint resolution of Congress and 

potentially delaying or halting the implementation of those rules, 

the bill could affect public or private entities in a number of ways, 

including slowing reimbursements and eliminating or changing 

regulatory requirements. Although the costs and savings tied to 

those individual effects could be significant, CBO has no basis for 

estimating either the overall direction or magnitude of those effects 

on public or private entities because of uncertainty about the nature and number of regulations affected. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Sarah Masi 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove 

Delisle 

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper-Bach 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Holly Harvey 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H.R. 367 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings 

The Committee estimates that H.R. 367 specifically directs to be 

completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

551. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 367 increases accountability and transparency in the Federal regulatory process by 

reforming the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to require Congress to approve all new major regulations. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 367 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1. Short Title. This section provides the short title of the 

bill, the ‘‘Regulations From the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act 

of 2013.’’ 

Section 2. Purpose. Section 2 establishes the purpose of the 

REINS Act, which is to increase accountability and transparency in 

the Federal regulatory process by requiring Congress to approve all 

new major regulations. 

Section 3. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. The bill 

amends chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code, to create the following 

method for congressional review of new major Federal rules: 

801. Congressional review—This section requires enhanced reporting of all Federal rules to Congress and the Comptroller General and provides that a major rule shall not take effect without 

a joint resolution of approval under section 802. Section 801 also 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

caps the time to enact a joint resolution of approval at 70 legislative days, and empowers the President to grant 90-day waivers for 

certain emergency situations. Finally, Section 801 outlines carryover provisions from one session of Congress to the next. 

802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules—Subsection (a) describes the content and method of introduction for a 

joint resolution of approval within 3 legislative or session days (as 

applicable), and prohibits any amendments to that joint resolution 

during its consideration. Subsection (b) provides for the appropriate 

referral of the measure to committees in both the Senate and 

House of Representatives. 

Subsections (c) and (d) provide for expedited consideration of the 

joint resolution in the Senate. In the Senate, a vote on passage 

must occur within 15 session days after a committee is discharged 

or reports the measure. A motion to proceed to the joint resolution 

is in order anytime after the committees are discharged or have reported. All points of order against the joint resolution are waived. 

The motion to proceed is not subject to amendment, a motion to 

postpone, or a motion to proceed to other business. A motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to proceed is not in order. If a motion to proceed to a joint resolution is agreed to, debate on the joint 

resolution (and all related motions and appeals) is limited to 2 

hours. The joint resolution is not amendable, and motions to postpone, motions to proceed to other business, and a motion to recommit are not in order. All appeals from decisions of the Chair regarding application of the Senate rules to procedure relating to a 

joint resolution are decided without debate, and a vote on final passage must occur after the conclusion of debate on the joint resolution. 

Subsection (e) provides for consideration of the joint resolution in 

the House. Committees in the House must report the joint resolution without amendment within 15 days after referral, or they are 

automatically discharged from further consideration. After the joint 

resolution is on the calendar for at least 5 legislative days, the 

Speaker may recognize a Member favoring passage of the joint resolution on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month to call 

up the joint resolution for immediate consideration. All points of 

order against the resolution and its consideration are waived, and 

the resolution is debatable for 1 hour. The bill prohibits amendments, motions to recommit, and motions to reconsider. If a vote 

on final passage of the joint resolution has not been taken by the 

third Thursday on which the Speaker may recognize a member for 

consideration of the joint resolution, the vote on final passage will 

occur on that day. 

Subsection (f) provides for the disposition of a joint resolution by 

the other House. Notably, paragraph (2) provides that the House 

does not have to vote on passage of a joint resolution passed by the 

Senate if that joint resolution is a revenue measure. 

Subsection (g) provides that provides that, if either House has 

not taken a vote on the final passage of a joint resolution by the 

last day of the voting period established for the resolution, then a 

vote shall be taken on that day. 

Finally, subsection (h) provides that sections 802 and 803 are enacted as a rulemaking exercise and are deemed to be part of the 

rules of each body with respect to the joint resolution of approval, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

and supersedes other rules only where it explicitly does so and that 

Congress reserves the right to change these rules in the same manner as any other rule. 

803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules— 

Section 803 preserves the existing disapproval process under the 

Congressional Review Act for all non-major rules. This section permits Congress to disapprove a rule if both houses of Congress pass 

a joint resolution of disapproval that the President signs (or if Congress overrides the President’s veto). Section 803 also provides expedited procedural mechanisms in the Senate. 

804. Definitions—This section defines certain terms, including 

‘major rule’ and ‘nonmajor rule’. It also provides that rules of particular applicability, rules relating to agency management, or rules 

relating to agency organization, procedure or practice are exempt 

from the REINS Act. 

805. Judicial Review—This section provides that no determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter will be subject 

to judicial review. The section does allow a court to determine 

whether a Federal agency has completed REINS Act requirements 

necessary for a rule to take effect, a determination which would enable a court to determine if a suit concerning the rule is ripe. In 

addition, the section provides that ‘‘[t]he enactment of a joint resolution of approval under section 802 shall not be interpreted to 

serve as a grant or modification of statutory authority by Congress 

for the promulgation of a rule, shall not extinguish or affect any 

claim, whether substantive or procedural, against any alleged defect in a rule, and shall not form part of the record before the court 

in any judicial proceeding concerning a rule except for purposes of 

determining whether or not the rule is in effect.’’ 

806. Exemption for monetary policy—Like the Congressional Review Act, section 806 exempts any rules concerning monetary policy promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System or the Federal Open Market Committee. 

807. Effective date of certain rules—Section 807 permits certain 

rules relating to hunting, fishing, or camping and certain nonmajor rules to take effect notwithstanding section 801. 

Section 4. Budgetary Effects of Rules Subject to Section 802 of 

Title 5, United States Code. Provides for amendment of section 

257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

Act of 1985 to add that rules subject to the congressional approval 

procedure set forth in section 802 of title 5 and ‘‘affecting budget 

authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed to be effective unless . . . not approved in accordance with such section.’’ 

Section 5. Government Accountability Office Study of Rules. Commissions a study and report to Congress by the Comptroller General on the number of regulations in effect on the date of enactment, the number of major regulations in effect on the date of enactment, and the total estimated economic cost imposed by all such 

regulations. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY 

* * * * * * * 

øCHAPTER 8—CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY 

RULEMAKING 

ø§ 801. Congressional review 

ø(a)(1)(A) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General a report containing— 

ø(i) a copy of the rule; 

ø(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and 

ø(iii) the proposed effective date of the rule. 

ø(B) On the date of the submission of the report under subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to each House 

of Congress— 

ø(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule, 

if any; 

ø(ii) the agency’s actions relevant to sections 603, 604, 605, 

607, and 609; 

ø(iii) the agency’s actions relevant to sections 202, 203, 

204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; 

and 

ø(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under 

any other Act and any relevant Executive orders. 

ø(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph 

(A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the chairman 

and ranking member of each standing committee with jurisdiction 

under the rules of the House of Representatives or the Senate to 

report a bill to amend the provision of law under which the rule 

is issued. 

ø(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each 

major rule to the committees of jurisdiction in each House of the 

Congress by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission or 

publication date as provided in section 802(b)(2). The report of the 

Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the agency’s 

compliance with procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B). 

ø(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller 

General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller General’s report under subparagraph (A). 

ø(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall take effect on the latest of— 

ø(A) the later of the date occurring 60 days after the date 

on which— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

ø(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 

paragraph (1); or 

ø(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so 

published; 

ø(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval described in section 802 relating to the rule, and the 

President signs a veto of such resolution, the earlier date— 

ø(i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails 

to override the veto of the President; or 

ø(ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which 

the Congress received the veto and objections of the President; or 

ø(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, 

if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of disapproval 

under section 802 is enacted). 

ø(4) Except for a major rule, a rule shall take effect as otherwise provided by law after submission to Congress under paragraph (1). 

ø(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the effective date of a rule 

shall not be delayed by operation of this chapter beyond the date 

on which either House of Congress votes to reject a joint resolution 

of disapproval under section 802. 

ø(b)(1) A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress 

enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 

802, of the rule. 

ø(2) A rule that does not take effect (or does not continue) 

under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in substantially the same 

form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule 

may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically 

authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution 

disapproving the original rule. 

ø(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would not take effect by 

reason of subsection (a)(3) may take effect, if the President makes 

a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written notice of 

such determination to the Congress. 

ø(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the 

President by Executive order that the rule should take effect because such rule is— 

ø(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 

safety or other emergency; 

ø(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; 

ø(C) necessary for national security; or 

ø(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 

international trade agreement. 

ø(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under this 

subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under section 802 

or the effect of a joint resolution of disapproval under this section. 

ø(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any rule for which a report 

was submitted in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A) during the 

period beginning on the date occurring— 

ø(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or 

ø(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60 legislative days, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

before the date the Congress adjourns a session of Congress 

through the date on which the same or succeeding Congress first 

convenes its next session, section 802 shall apply to such rule in 

the succeeding session of Congress. 

ø(2)(A) In applying section 802 for purposes of such additional 

review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as 

though— 

ø(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as 

a rule that shall take effect) on— 

ø(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or 

ø(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the 

15th legislative day, 

after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and 

ø(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress 

under subsection (a)(1) on such date. 

ø(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the 

requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect. 

ø(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take effect as 

otherwise provided by law (including other subsections of this section). 

ø(e)(1) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall also 

apply to any major rule promulgated between March 1, 1996, and 

the date of the enactment of this chapter. 

ø(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as 

though— 

ø(A) such rule were published in the Federal Register on 

the date of enactment of this chapter; and 

ø(B) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress 

under subsection (a)(1) on such date. 

ø(3) The effectiveness of a rule described under paragraph (1) 

shall be as otherwise provided by law, unless the rule is made of 

no force or effect under section 802. 

ø(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or 

effect by enactment of a joint resolution under section 802 shall be 

treated as though such rule had never taken effect. 

ø(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802 respecting a rule, no court or agency 

may infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction 

of the Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or joint 

resolution of disapproval. 

ø§ 802. Congressional disapproval procedure 

ø(a) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘joint resolution’’ 

means only a joint resolution introduced in the period beginning on 

the date on which the report referred to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is 

received by Congress and ending 60 days thereafter (excluding 

days either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days 

during a session of Congress), the matter after the resolving clause 

of which is as follows: ‘‘That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the — — relating to — —, and such rule shall have no 

force or effect.’’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

ø(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with jurisdiction. 

ø(2) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘submission or publication date’’ means the later of the date on which— 

ø(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under section 801(a)(1); or 

ø(B) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so 

published. 

ø(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred a joint 

resolution described in subsection (a) has not reported such joint 

resolution (or an identical joint resolution) at the end of 20 calendar days after the submission or publication date defined under 

subsection (b)(2), such committee may be discharged from further 

consideration of such joint resolution upon a petition supported in 

writing by 30 Members of the Senate, and such joint resolution 

shall be placed on the calendar. 

ø(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is discharged 

(under subsection (c)) from further consideration of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order 

(even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint 

resolution, and all points of order against the joint resolution (and 

against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to 

a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall 

remain the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of. 

ø(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all 

debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be 

limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally 

between those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. A 

motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. An 

amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to 

the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 

joint resolution is not in order. 

ø(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of the 

debate on a joint resolution described in subsection (a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on final passage of 

the joint resolution shall occur. 

ø(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure relating to a 

joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be decided without 

debate. 

ø(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection (c) or 

(d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint resolution respecting a rule— 

ø(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning 

with the applicable submission or publication date, or 

ø(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was submitted 

during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1), after the exVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

piration of the 60 session days beginning on the 15th session 

day after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes. 

ø(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint resolution of 

that House described in subsection (a), that House receives from 

the other House a joint resolution described in subsection (a), then 

the following procedures shall apply: 

ø(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be referred to a committee. 

ø(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution— 

ø(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as 

if no joint resolution had been received from the other 

House; but 

ø(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint resolution of the other House. 

ø(g) This section is enacted by Congress— 

ø(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 

and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 

deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in 

that House in the case of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the extent 

that it is inconsistent with such rules; and 

ø(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to 

the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. 

ø§ 803. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial 

deadlines 

ø(a) In the case of any deadline for, relating to, or involving 

any rule which does not take effect (or the effectiveness of which 

is terminated) because of enactment of a joint resolution under section 802, that deadline is extended until the date 1 year after the 

date of enactment of the joint resolution. Nothing in this subsection 

shall be construed to affect a deadline merely by reason of the postponement of a rule’s effective date under section 801(a). 

ø(b) The term ‘‘deadline’’ means any date certain for fulfilling 

any obligation or exercising any authority established by or under 

any Federal statute or regulation, or by or under any court order 

implementing any Federal statute or regulation. 

ø§ 804. Definitions 

øFor purposes of this chapter— 

ø(1) The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ means any agency as that 

term is defined in section 551(1). 

ø(2) The term ‘‘major rule’’ means any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in 

or is likely to result in— 

ø(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 

or more; 

ø(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

ø(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 

foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 

The term does not include any rule promulgated under the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the amendments made by 

that Act. 

ø(3) The term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning given such term in 

section 551, except that such term does not include— 

ø(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a 

rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, 

wages, prices, services, or allowances therefor, corporate or 

financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures bearing 

on any of the foregoing; 

ø(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel; or 

ø(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 

ø§ 805. Judicial review 

øNo determination, finding, action, or omission under this 

chapter shall be subject to judicial review. 

ø§ 806. Applicability; severability 

ø(a) This chapter shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of law. 

ø(b) If any provision of this chapter or the application of any 

provision of this chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder of this chapter, shall not be affected thereby. 

ø§ 807. Exemption for monetary policy 

øNothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee. 

ø§ 808. Effective date of certain rules 

øNotwithstanding section 801— 

ø(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or 

conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, 

or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping, 

or 

ø(2) any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor 

in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, 

shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating 

the rule determines.¿ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

CHAPTER 8—CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY 

RULEMAKING 

Sec. 

801. Congressional review. 

802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules. 

803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules. 

804. Definitions. 

805. Judicial review. 

806. Exemption for monetary policy. 

807. Effective date of certain rules. 

§ 801. Congressional review 

(a)(1)(A) Before a rule may take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General a report containing— 

(i) a copy of the rule; 

(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule; 

(iii) a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor 

rule, including an explanation of the classification specifically 

addressing each criteria for a major rule contained within sections 804(2)(A), 804(2)(B), and 804(2)(C); 

(iv) a list of any other related regulatory actions intended 

to implement the same statutory provision or regulatory objective as well as the individual and aggregate economic effects of 

those actions; and 

(v) the proposed effective date of the rule. 

(B) On the date of the submission of the report under subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit 

to the Comptroller General and make available to each House of 

Congress— 

(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule, 

if any; 

(ii) the agency’s actions pursuant to sections 603, 604, 605, 

607, and 609 of this title; 

(iii) the agency’s actions pursuant to sections 202, 203, 204, 

and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and 

(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under 

any other Act and any relevant Executive orders. 

(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph (A), 

each House shall provide copies of the report to the chairman and 

ranking member of each standing committee with jurisdiction under 

the rules of the House of Representatives or the Senate to report a 

bill to amend the provision of law under which the rule is issued. 

(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each 

major rule to the committees of jurisdiction by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date. The report of 

the Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the agency’s 

compliance with procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B) and 

an assessment of whether the major rule imposes any new limits or 

mandates on private-sector activity. 

(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller General’s 

report under subparagraph (A). 

(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall take effect upon enactment of a joint resolution of 

approval described in section 802 or as provided for in the rule folVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

lowing enactment of a joint resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is later. 

(4) A nonmajor rule shall take effect as provided by section 803 

after submission to Congress under paragraph (1). 

(5) If a joint resolution of approval relating to a major rule is 

not enacted within the period provided in subsection (b)(2), then a 

joint resolution of approval relating to the same rule may not be 

considered under this chapter in the same Congress by either the 

House of Representatives or the Senate. 

(b)(1) A major rule shall not take effect unless the Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval described under section 802. 

(2) If a joint resolution described in subsection (a) is not enacted into law by the end of 70 session days or legislative days, as 

applicable, beginning on the date on which the report referred to in 

section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress (excluding days either 

House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress), then the rule described in that resolution shall be 

deemed not to be approved and such rule shall not take effect. 

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a major rule may take effect for one 

90-calendar-day period if the President makes a determination 

under paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such determination to the Congress. 

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the President by Executive order that the major rule should take effect because such rule is— 

(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 

safety or other emergency; 

(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; 

(C) necessary for national security; or 

(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement. 

(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under section 802. 

(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any rule for which a report 

was submitted in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A) during the 

period beginning on the date occurring— 

(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or 

(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60 legislative days, 

before the date the Congress is scheduled to adjourn a session of 

Congress through the date on which the same or succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, sections 802 and 803 shall 

apply to such rule in the succeeding session of Congress. 

(2)(A) In applying sections 802 and 803 for purposes of such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though— 

(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register on— 

(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or 

(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the 

15th legislative day, 

after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and 

(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under 

subsection (a)(1) on such date. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the 

requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report shall be submitted 

to Congress before a rule can take effect. 

(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take effect as 

otherwise provided by law (including other subsections of this section). 

§ 802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules 

(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘joint resolution’’ 

means only a joint resolution addressing a report classifying a rule 

as major pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A)(iii) that— 

(A) bears no preamble; 

(B) bears the following title (with blanks filled as appropriate): ‘‘Approving the rule submitted by lll relating to 

lll.’’; 

(C) includes after its resolving clause only the following 

(with blanks filled as appropriate): ‘‘That Congress approves the 

rule submitted by lll relating to lll.’’; and 

(D) is introduced pursuant to paragraph (2). 

(2) After a House of Congress receives a report classifying a rule 

as major pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A)(iii), the majority leader of 

that House (or his or her respective designee) shall introduce (by request, if appropriate) a joint resolution described in paragraph (1)— 

(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, within three 

legislative days; and 

(B) in the case of the Senate, within three session days. 

(3) A joint resolution described in paragraph (1) shall not be 

subject to amendment at any stage of proceeding. 

(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be referred in each House of Congress to the committees having jurisdiction over the provision of law under which the rule is issued. 

(c) In the Senate, if the committee or committees to which a 

joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been referred have 

not reported it at the end of 15 session days after its introduction, 

such committee or committees shall be automatically discharged 

from further consideration of the resolution and it shall be placed 

on the calendar. A vote on final passage of the resolution shall be 

taken on or before the close of the 15th session day after the resolution is reported by the committee or committees to which it was referred, or after such committee or committees have been discharged 

from further consideration of the resolution. 

(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee or committees to which 

a joint resolution is referred have reported, or when a committee or 

committees are discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at 

any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the 

same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all points of order against the 

joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint resolution) 

are waived. The motion is not subject to amendment, or to a motion 

to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 

business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is 

agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the joint 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the Senate until 

disposed of. 

(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in order and not debatable. An 

amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to 

the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 

joint resolution is not in order. 

(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of the 

debate on a joint resolution described in subsection (a), and a single 

quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on final passage of the 

joint resolution shall occur. 

(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure relating to a joint 

resolution described in subsection (a) shall be decided without debate. 

(e) In the House of Representatives, if any committee to which 

a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been referred has 

not reported it to the House at the end of 15 legislative days after 

its introduction, such committee shall be discharged from further 

consideration of the joint resolution, and it shall be placed on the 

appropriate calendar. On the second and fourth Thursdays of each 

month it shall be in order at any time for the Speaker to recognize 

a Member who favors passage of a joint resolution that has appeared on the calendar for at least 5 legislative days to call up that 

joint resolution for immediate consideration in the House without 

intervention of any point of order. When so called up a joint resolution shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 hour 

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

and the previous question shall be considered as ordered to its passage without intervening motion. It shall not be in order to reconsider the vote on passage. If a vote on final passage of the joint resolution has not been taken by the third Thursday on which the 

Speaker may recognize a Member under this subsection, such vote 

shall be taken on that day. 

(f)(1) If, before passing a joint resolution described in subsection 

(a), one House receives from the other a joint resolution having the 

same text, then— 

(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be referred to a committee; and 

(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same 

as if no joint resolution had been received from the other House 

until the vote on passage, when the joint resolution received 

from the other House shall supplant the joint resolution of the 

receiving House. 

(2) This subsection shall not apply to the House of Representatives if the joint resolution received from the Senate is a revenue 

measure. 

(g) If either House has not taken a vote on final passage of the 

joint resolution by the last day of the period described in section 

801(b)(2), then such vote shall be taken on that day. 

(h) This section and section 803 are enacted by Congress— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 

and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is 

deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 

applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in 

that House in the case of a joint resolution described in subsection (a) and superseding other rules only where explicitly so; 

and 

(2) with full recognition of the Constitutional right of either 

House to change the rules (so far as they relate to the procedure 

of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same 

extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. 

§ 803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor 

rules 

(a) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘joint resolution’’ 

means only a joint resolution introduced in the period beginning on 

the date on which the report referred to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60 days thereafter (excluding days 

either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days during 

a session of Congress), the matter after the resolving clause of which 

is as follows: ‘‘That Congress disapproves the nonmajor rule submitted by the lll relating to lll, and such rule shall have 

no force or effect.’’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in). 

(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with jurisdiction. 

(2) For purposes of this section, the term submission or publication date means the later of the date on which— 

(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under section 

801(a)(1); or 

(B) the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal Register, 

if so published. 

(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred a joint 

resolution described in subsection (a) has not reported such joint 

resolution (or an identical joint resolution) at the end of 15 session 

days after the date of introduction of the joint resolution, such committee may be discharged from further consideration of such joint 

resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members of 

the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be placed on the calendar. 

(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is discharged 

(under subsection (c)) from further consideration of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order 

(even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint 

resolution, and all points of order against the joint resolution (and 

against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion 

is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to 

reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed 

to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 

of the joint resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain 

the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in order and not debatable. An 

amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to 

the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 

joint resolution is not in order. 

(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of the 

debate on a joint resolution described in subsection (a), and a single 

quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on final passage of the 

joint resolution shall occur. 

(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure relating to a joint 

resolution described in subsection (a) shall be decided without debate. 

(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection (c) or (d) 

shall not apply to the consideration of a joint resolution respecting 

a nonmajor rule— 

(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning 

with the applicable submission or publication date, or 

(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was submitted 

during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1), after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the 15th session day 

after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes. 

(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint resolution of 

that House described in subsection (a), that House receives from the 

other House a joint resolution described in subsection (a), then the 

following procedures shall apply: 

(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be referred to a committee. 

(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in subsection 

(a) of the House receiving the joint resolution— 

(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as 

if no joint resolution had been received from the other 

House; but 

(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint resolution of the other House. 

§ 804. Definitions 

For purposes of this chapter— 

(1) The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ means any agency as that 

term is defined in section 551(1). 

(2) The term ‘‘major rule’’ means any rule, including an interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and 

Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in— 

(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 

more; 

(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and export markets. 

(3) The term ‘‘nonmajor rule’’ means any rule that is not a 

major rule. 

(4) The term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning given such term in section 551, except that such term does not include— 

(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a 

rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages, 

prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate or financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or acquisitions 

thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures bearing on 

any of the foregoing; 

(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel; or 

(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 

(5) The term ‘‘submission date or publication date’’, except 

as otherwise provided in this chapter, means— 

(A) in the case of a major rule, the date on which the 

Congress receives the report submitted under section 

801(a)(1); and 

(B) in the case of a nonmajor rule, the later of— 

(i) the date on which the Congress receives the report submitted under section 801(a)(1); and 

(ii) the date on which the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal Register, if so published. 

§ 805. Judicial review 

(a) No determination, finding, action, or omission under this 

chapter shall be subject to judicial review. 

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a court may determine 

whether a Federal agency has completed the necessary requirements 

under this chapter for a rule to take effect. 

(c) The enactment of a joint resolution of approval under section 

802 shall not be interpreted to serve as a grant or modification of 

statutory authority by Congress for the promulgation of a rule, shall 

not extinguish or affect any claim, whether substantive or procedural, against any alleged defect in a rule, and shall not form part 

of the record before the court in any judicial proceeding concerning 

a rule except for purposes of determining whether or not the rule is 

in effect. 

§ 806. Exemption for monetary policy 

Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee. 

§ 807. Effective date of certain rules 

Notwithstanding section 801— 

(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or 

subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping; or 

(2) any rule other than a major rule which an agency for 

good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that notice 

and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or 

contrary to the public interest, 

shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating 

the rule determines. 

* * * * * * * 

BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT 

CONTROL ACT OF 1985 

* * * * * * * 

PART C—EMERGENCY POWERS TO ELIMINATE 

DEFICITS IN EXCESS OF MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 257. THE BASELINE. 

(a) * * * 

(b) DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS.—For the budget year and 

each outyear, the baseline shall be calculated using the following 

assumptions: 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Laws providing or creating direct spending and receipts are assumed to operate in the manner specified in those laws for each such year and funding for entitlement authority is assumed to be adequate to make all payments required by those laws. 

(2) EXCEPTIONS.—(A)(i) No program established by a law 

enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Balanced 

Budget Act of 1997 with estimated current year outlays greater 

than $50,000,000 shall be assumed to expire in the budget year 

or the outyears. The scoring of new programs with estimated 

outlays greater than $50,000,000 a year shall be based on scoring by the Committees on Budget or OMB, as applicable. OMB, 

CBO, and the Budget Committees shall consult on the scoring 

of such programs where there are differenes between CBO and 

OMB. 

(ii) On the expiration of the suspension of a provision of 

law that is suspended under section 171 of Public Law 104– 

127 and that authorizes a program with estimated fiscal year 

outlays that are greater than $50,000,000, for purposes of 

clause (i), the program shall be assumed to continue to operate 

in the same manner as the program operated immediately before the expiration of the suspension. 

(B) The increase for veterans’ compensation for a fiscal 

year is assumed to be the same as that required by law for veterans’ pensions unless otherwise provided by law enacted in 

that session. 

(C) Excise taxes dedicated to a trust fund, if expiring, are 

assumed to be extended at current rates. 

(D) If any law expires before the budget year or any outyear, then any program with estimated current year outlays 

greater than $50,000,000 that operates under that law shall be 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

assumed to continue to operate under that law as in effect immediately before its expiration. 

(E) BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF RULES SUBJECT TO SEC- TION 802 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.—Any rules subject to the congressional approval procedure set forth in section 802 of chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, affecting budget authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed 

to be effective unless it is not approved in accordance with 

such section. 

(3) HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND.—Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of 

the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall be included in all calculations required by this Act. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

Committee Jurisdiction Letters 

LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR367A1.eps
46 

RESPONSE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR367A2.eps

F JAMESSENSEN8RENNER.JR .. Wlo<:onoin 

HOWARDCOUU.No"I>C.rolin. 

lAMAR SMITH. Tox .. STEVECKAUOT.Ohio ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SPENCEA8M:HUS.AI._ 

OAAAElLEISSA,.C.lirorn;. 

JRANDYFOABES.Virgini. 

SU;vtKING.Iow. 

TII£NT FflANKS. ArizoN 

LOUIE GOHMERT. Tu .. 

JIMJOIID.A.N.Otllo 

TEDPQE.T . . .. 

(i'ongress of the \lntted ~tates 

lIlousc of'lR.cprcscnrotiocs JASONCllAFFETZ.Uto" 

TOM MAIIINO. P.n~.ylv.nio 

TIIEVGOWOY.SCUlhC.,olin.o 

MAAK E..AMOO£I.NIWad. 

COMM ITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

RAUL A, LABRAOOft Id&ho 

ULAKEFAflENTHOlO.T" . .. 

2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

GEOAGE HOlDING. NOrlhCa,ollna 

DOUG COLLINS. a.or(li. 

HONOliSANnS.FlorMto 

KEITHJ AOTHFUS.Pe ........ Io.r ..... 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Chairman 

Committee on the Budget 

207 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Ryan, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-62 16 

(202) 225-3951 

hnp:lIwww,OOuse.gov/judiciery 

April 12, 2013 

Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 367, the "Regulations from the Executive in 

Need of Scrutiny Act of20 13," which the Judiciary Committee reported favorably, as amended, 

to the House on April II, 2013. 

As you noted, section 4 ofH.R. 367 formed the basis for an additional referral of the bill 

to your committee. I am most appreciative of your decision to discharge the Committee on 

Budget from further consideration ofH.R. 367 so that it may proceed to the House floor. I 

acknowledge that although you are waiving formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on 

the Budget is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those 

provisions of the bill that fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. In addition, if a conference is 

necessary on this legislation, I will support any request that your committee be represented 

therein. 

Finally, [ am pleased to include this letter and your letter in the Congressional Record 

during floor consideration ofH.R. 367. 

Sincerely, 

Gi:1J"r/6z~ Chairman 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

The Honorable Chris Van Hollen 

Mr. Tom Wickham, Jr. 
47 

LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR367A3.eps

PETE SESSIONS, TEXAS 

CHAIRMAN 

~ommittff on 'Rules 1:l.~. 1!\OUJlf of'iRcprcsclltlltillfJl 

!\' i} 2 'i:hc G::apitol 

Uashington. 'l9G:: 20515'0209 

July 9, 2013 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

Chainnan 

Committee on the Judiciary 

2138 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Goodlatte: 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

On April 11, 2013, the Committee on Judiciary ordered reported RR 367, the Regulations From 

the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of20U As you know, the Committee on Rules was 

granted an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's 

jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the rules of the House 

and special orders of business. 

Because of your willingness to consult with my committee regarding this matter, I will waive 

consideration of the bill by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the 

bill, the Rules Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R 367. In addition, the 

Committee on Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are 

within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this 

legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Rules for 

conferees on H.R. 367 or related legislation. 

I request that you include this letter and your response as part of your committee's report on the 

bill and the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. 

Thank you for your attention to these matters. 
48 

RESPONSE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR367A4.eps

Tbe Honorable Pete ScsBlons 

Chairman 

Committee on the Rules 

11-312, The 

'N ashington, 20515 

Dear Chairman Sessions, 

July 10, 2013 

367, the "Regulations from. the Executive in 

Committee ordered reported favorably) as 

noted, the Committee on Rules was granted an additional referral of the bill. Imn 

decision to discharge the Committee on Rules from further 

so thaI it proceed to the House floor, I that 

formal bill, the Committee on the is in no 

JW,,,,,,'''VIiO-';ier the subject matter c.ontainad in these provisions of the hill that 

within your Rutc Xj urisdktion, In addition, if a conference is necessary on this legislation, 1 

v.rill support any request that your committ:;-e be represented therein. 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner 

The Honorable John Jr. 

The Honorable Louise Slaughter 

:vir, Thomas Wickham, Jr. 

letter in our committee· s report as 

cOllsi(ienlticmofl-LK 367, 

Chainnan 
(49) 

1 5 U.S.C. §§ 801–08 (2013). 

2 5 U.S.C. § 801(b) (2013). 

3The other organizations include: Alliance for Justice, American Association of University Professors, American Federation of Teachers, Americans for Financial Reform, American Rivers, 

American Values Campaign, American Sustainable Business Council, BlueGreen Alliance, Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform, Center for Effective Government, Center for Food Safety, 

Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, Center for Independent Living, Center 

for Science in the Public Interest, Citizens for Sludge-Free Land, Clean Air Watch, Clean Water 

Continued 

Dissenting Views 

INTRODUCTION

H.R. 367, the ‘‘Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013’’ (REINS Act), is a seriously flawed attempt to 

make the rulemaking process subject to increased congressional 

oversight and accountability. The bill will substantially delay and 

potentially prevent agency rulemaking—at great risk to public 

health and safety—by requiring both Houses of Congress and the 

President to approve all new major rules (i.e., rules with an annual impact on the economy of at least $100 million or having one of a 

number of economic impacts) before they can take effect. The bill 

effectuates this requirement by amending the Congressional Review Act (CRA).1

By requiring congressional and presidential approval of all major 

rules, H.R. 367 would essentially impose a procedural ‘‘chokehold’’ 

on Federal agency rulemaking. The bill undermines the ability of 

agencies to provide essential protections to Americans and thereby 

threatens public health and safety. Regulations are critical to ensuring the safety and soundness of virtually every facet of our 

lives, including clean air, clean water, safe toys, safe cars, and safe 

workplaces. H.R. 367, however, would make it almost impossible 

for agencies to issue rules implementing these critical protections. 

Like nearly every other anti-regulatory measure that the Committee has considered this Congress and during the previous Congress, the REINS Act is a solution in search of a problem. Congress 

already has sufficient tools to conduct effective oversight, which include narrowing delegations of authority to agencies, controlling 

agency appropriations, and conducting oversight of agency activity. 

Congress even has the authority under the CRA to disapprove any 

proposed rule.2 Worse yet, H.R. 367 may result in an unconstitutional one-house legislative veto. 

Recognizing that the REINS Act ‘‘attempts to radically alter the 

balance of power in government and jeopardize the public interest,’’ 

a broad coalition of 72 environmental, labor, and consumer organizations—including the AFL–CIO, the American Federation of 

State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Lung Association, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the 

League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, and the Union of 

Concerned Scientists—strongly opposes the REINS Act.3 AdditionVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

Network, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Countercorp, Cumberland Countians for 

Peace and Justice, Demos, Economic Policy Institute, Edmonds Institute, Environment America, 

Farmworker Justice, Free Press, Friends of the Earth, Green for All, Health Care for America 

Now, In the Public Interest, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Center for 

Technology Assessment, International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural 

Implement Workers of America (UAW), Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, Main Street 

Alliance, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Center for Healthy Housing, 

National Consumers League, National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, National 

Employment Law Project, National Lawyers Guild Louisville Chapter, National Women’s Health 

Network, National Women’s Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of the United Church of Christ, New Jersey Work Environment Council, New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, Oregon Peaceworks, 

People for the American Way, Protect All Children’s Environment, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, Safe Tables Our Priority (S.T.O.P.), Service Employees International Union, 

Southern Illinois Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, The Arc of the United States, 

The Partnership for Working Families, Trust for America’s Health, U.S. Camber Watch, U.S. 

PIRG, Union Plus, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, United Steelworkers, 

Waterkeeper Alliance, Worksafe. See Letter from Katherine McFate, President & CEO, OMB 

Watch, et al. to Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary 

(Apr. 11, 2013) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff). The American Association for Justice also opposes the bill. Letter from Mary Alice McLarty, President, American 

Association for Justice, to Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 

Judiciary (Apr. 10, 2013) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff). 4See Letter from Prof. William L. Andreen, University of Alabama School of Law, et al. to 

Members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives (Mar. 14, 

2011) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff). 

ally, 66 academics in the fields of administrative and environmental law also opposed the REINS Act in the previous Congress 

as being ‘‘unnecessary to establish agency accountability and unwise as a matter of public policy because it undercuts the implementation of laws intended to protect people and the environment.’’ 4

For the foregoing reasons and others discussed more fully below, 

we must respectfully dissent and urge opposition to H.R. 367. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

In addition to requiring both Houses of Congress and the President to approve all new major rules before they can take effect, 

H.R. 367 imposes an extensive series of procedural mandates under 

the CRA as amended by this measure. A summary of those provisions that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction follows. New section 801(a)(1)(A) requires a Federal agency to submit a report to 

each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a report containing: (1) a copy 

of the rule; (2) a concise general statement relating to the rule; (3) 

a classification of the rule as a major or non-major rule, including 

the rule’s classification specifically addressing each element of the 

definition of a ‘‘major rule;’’ (4) a list of any other related regulatory actions intended to implement the same statutory provision 

or regulatory objective, together with a description of the rule’s individual and aggregate effects; and (5) the rule’s proposed effective 

date. With respect to the rule’s classification as a major rule, the 

report must indicate: (1) whether the rule has an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more; (2) whether the rule imposes 

a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) whether the rule imposes significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

5 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. (2013). 6Pub. L. No. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48 (1995). 

In addition, new section 801(a)(1)(B) requires an agency to submit to GAO and both Houses of Congress: (1) a cost-benefit analysis of the rule, if any; (2) actions taken pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act;5 (3) actions taken to comply with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995;6 and (4) any other relevant information or requirement under any other act or executive order. Pursuant to new section 801(a)(1)(C), each House of Congress must provide copies of the report required by section 801(a)(1)(A) to the 

Chair and Ranking Member of each House and Senate standing 

committee with jurisdiction to report a bill to amend the provision 

of law under which the rule is issued (hereinafter ‘‘Committees of 

Jurisdiction’’). 

New section 801(a)(2)(A) requires the GAO to provide a report on 

each major rule to the Committees of Jurisdiction within 15 calendar days from the date on which an agency submitted the report 

required by section 801(a)(1)(A). The GAO’s report must include an 

assessment of the agency’s compliance with section 801(a)(1)(B) as 

well as an assessment of whether the major rule imposes any new 

limits or mandates on private-sector activity. New section 

801(a)(2)(B) specifies that agencies must cooperate with the GAO 

in providing information relevant to preparing its report required 

under section 801(a)(2)(A). 

New section 801(a)(3) provides that a major rule takes effect 

upon enactment of a joint resolution of approval or whatever the 

enactment date is in the rule following enactment of the joint resolution, whichever is later. New section 801(a)(4) retains current 

law; i.e., a nonmajor rule takes effect after 60 days if Congress does 

not enact a joint resolution of disapproval. New section 801(a)(5) 

clarifies that if a joint resolution of approval is not enacted, a joint 

resolution relating to the same rule cannot be considered in the 

same Congress by either House. 

New section 801(b)(1) prohibits a major rule from taking effect 

unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval pursuant to 

the Act. In turn, new section 801(b)(2) deems a major rule as not 

approved and without effect if a joint resolution of approval concerning that rule is not enacted within 70 legislative or session 

days beginning on the date on which Congress receives the report 

required by section 801(a)(1)(A), excluding days that either House 

is adjourned for more than 3 days during session. 

New section 801(c) sets forth certain temporary exceptions to the 

congressional approval process for major rules. New section 

801(c)(1) provides that a major rule may take effect for one 90-calendar-day period if the President makes a determination under section 801(c)(2). New section 801(c)(2), in turn, authorizes the President to determine by executive order that a major rule should take 

effect notwithstanding the requirements of this statute if such rule 

is: (1) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety 

or other emergency; (2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal 

laws; (3) necessary for national security; or (4) issued pursuant to 

a statute implementing an international trade agreement. New section 801(c)(3), however, clarifies that the President’s exercise of auVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

thority under this subsection does not affect congressional approval 

procedures outlined in new section 802. 

New section 801(d) addresses instances when major rules are 

submitted to Congress within 60 legislative or session days prior to 

the adjournment of a congressional session through the date Congress first convenes its next session. New section 801(d)(1) states 

that any rule submitted within such period is subject to the Act’s 

approval and disapproval procedures in the succeeding session. 

New section 801(d)(2)(A) specifies that, in such a circumstance, the 

rule must be treated as if it were published in the Federal Register 

on the 15th session or legislative day after the succeeding session 

convenes and considers the report on such a rule to have been submitted on such day. New section 801(d)(2)(B) specifies that this 

subsection should not be construed to affect the requirement that 

a rule be submitted to Congress before it can take effect. Finally, 

new section 801(d)(3) provides that a rule in this circumstance 

takes effect as otherwise provided for by law, including pursuant 

to the other provisions of the Act. 

Although new section 802 is not within the jurisdiction of our 

Committee, an explanation of this provision is necessary to place 

the remainder of the bill in proper perspective, particularly the impact of expedited House procedures on rulemaking. Subsections (c) 

and (d) detail the expedited Senate procedures for consideration of 

joint resolutions of approval. New section 802(e) outlines expedited 

procedures in the House of Representatives for consideration of 

joint resolutions of approval. The provision requires that if a Committee of Jurisdiction does not act on a joint resolution of approval 

within 15 legislative days, such resolution must be placed on the 

floor calendar. On every second and fourth Thursday of a month, 

a Member who supports a joint resolution that has been on a calendar for at least five legislative days could call up the resolution 

and have it considered immediately on the House floor, with a limit 

of one hour of debate total, after which the previous question shall 

be considered as ordered. A vote on final passage must take place 

no later than the third eligible Thursday under this subsection. 

New section 802(f) addresses the situation where one chamber of 

Congress, before it passes a joint resolution of approval, receives a 

joint resolution of approval from the other chamber. In such a situation, the chamber that has not yet passed the joint resolution will 

continue following its procedures as if no joint resolution had been 

received from the other chamber, but the vote on final passage 

must be on the other chamber’s joint resolution. Section 802(f) also 

clarifies that it does not apply to the House in the case of joint resolutions coming from the Senate regarding revenue measures. New 

section 802(g) requires that if both chambers have failed to take a 

vote on a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative or session days, they must take such a vote on the 70th day. 

Although new section 805(a) prohibits judicial review of any determination, finding, action, or omission under the Act, subsection 

(b) clarifies that, notwithstanding subsection (a), a court may review an agency’s compliance with the Act’s requirements. 

New section 807 excepts from the Act’s requirements any major 

or nonmajor rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or subVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

7 H.R. 367, the REINS Act of 2013: Promoting Jobs, Growth, and American Competitiveness: 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust L. of the H. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) [hereinafter ‘‘REINS Act 2013 Hearing’’] (statement 

of Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis) [hereinafter ‘‘Levin Statement’’] (‘‘The reality is that the Act would in substance revive the legislative veto as a tool for controlling agency rulemaking.’’); Regulations from 

the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011: Hearing on H.R. 10 Before the Subcomm. on 

Courts, Commercial and Admin. L. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) [hereinafter ‘‘REINS Act 2011 Legislative Hearing’’] (statement of David Goldston, Director of Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council) [hereinafter ‘‘Goldston Statement’’] (‘‘Agencies often take several years to formulate a particular safeguard, reviewing hundreds of scientific studies, drawing on their own experts in science and economics, empaneling outside expert advisors, gathering thousands of public comments, and going though many levels of executive branch review’’). 

sistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping. Notably, 

this exception is not extended to other important matters such as 

those implicating critical public health and safety issues. With respect to a nonmajor rule, section 807 retains the exception for instances where an agency finds good cause that notice and procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 

Section 5 of the bill requires the GAO to study how many rules 

are in effect as of the enactment date, how many major rules exist 

on such date, and the estimated total cost of such rules. The GAO 

is required to report its findings to Congress one year from the enactment date. This provision does not address the many concerns 

with H.R. 367 and, in fact, would only make a bad bill worse by 

taxing the GAO’s already-limited resources. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 367

I. THE REINS ACT WILL SEVERELY RESTRICT FEDERAL RULEMAKING, 

THEREBY UNDERMINING THE ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROTECT

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

The REINS Act will severely restrict agency rulemaking by adding numerous procedural hurdles to the rulemaking process and, as 

a result of these unworkable procedures for congressional consideration of major rules, well-financed industry representatives will 

have greater opportunities to stop major rules from going into effect. In so doing, the REINS Act undermines the ability of agencies 

to protect public health and safety. 

A. The congressional approval requirement adds an unnecessary 

and dangerous additional step to the rulemaking process for 

major rules that will further ossify the rulemaking process and 

create more opportunities for private special interests to intervene. 

The REINS Act would effectively act as a chokehold on Federal 

agency rulemaking by requiring congressional assent to major rules 

before they can take effect. This approval process would be in addition to an already heavily proceduralized rulemaking process that 

typically takes years to conclude. Under the new approval process 

imposed by the legislation, congressional gridlock or deliberate inaction would serve as a veto of even critically needed rules.7

Notably, the REINS Act would consume vast amounts of limited 

congressional time and resources, which would necessarily have to 

be diverted from other critical legislative, oversight, and conVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

8Maeve P. Carey & Curtis W. Copeland, REINS Act: Number and Type of ‘‘Major Rules’’ in 

Recent Years, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, R 61651 (Dec. 2, 2011). 9Levin Statement at 2 (‘‘The REINS Act would impose great strain on congressional workloads. In many instances, this would be a poor use of scarce legislative time, because the subject 

matter of numerous major rules is arcane and most prudently left to specialized administrators.’’). 10Goldston Statement at 3 (‘‘Lobbyists would descend on Congress with even greater fervor 

than is currently the case to pressure Members to take their side on individual regulations.’’). 11See Constitutional Amendment to Restore Legislative Veto: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 

the Constitution of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. (1984); An Amendment to Sec. 

13 of S. 1080, The Regulatory Reform Act, to Provide for Congressional Review of Agency Rules: 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Admin. Practice and Proc. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

98th Cong. (1984); On the Impact of the Supreme Court Decision in the Case of Immigration and 

Naturalization Service v. Chadha Which Found the Legislative Veto Unconstitutional: Hearing 

Before the H. Comm. on Rules, 98th Cong. (1983); Legislative Veto and the ‘‘Chadha’’ Decision: 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Admin. Practice and Proc. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

98th Cong. (1983); The Supreme Court Decision in INS v. Chadha and its Implications for Congressional Oversight and Agency Rulemaking: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Admin. Law and 

Govt’l Rels. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. (1983). 12 H.R. 3939, 98th Cong. tit. II (1983). Then-Rep. Trent Lott (R–MS) was the sponsor of this 

legislation, which was cosponsored by 79 Members, all but 5 of them Republicans. 

stituent responsibilities. In calendar year 2010 alone, Federal agencies issued 100 major new rules that would have been subject to 

the REINS Act’s requirements.8 Meanwhile, there were only 116 

legislative days in the House during that same time period. Under 

these constraints, there would not have been enough time for Congress to consider and approve even the most worthy rules while 

also fulfilling its other responsibilities. Under such expedited procedures, Congress would likely be forced to choose between passing 

judgment on complex regulations, on the one hand, and other important duties, on the other. 

By requiring Congress to pass judgment on major rules without 

the time or expertise to make a well-informed decision, the REINS 

Act would allow well-subsidized business interests to further influence the rulemaking process. Major rules generally involve highly 

technical and complex scientific data as well as other types of evidence that require substantive expertise to decipher. Simply put, 

Congress lacks the time and the resources to provide meaningful 

review of such rules.9 In the face of this complexity, Members of 

Congress would be susceptible to readily available ‘‘answers’’ from 

well-funded industry lobbyists, who no doubt would readily supply 

Members with industry-friendly talking points and other information regarding the merits of a particular rule.10

Adding to the concern about Congress’s ability to provide meaningful review of major rules is the fact that Congress would have 

only 70 legislative days within which to act, and Committees of Jurisdiction would have only 15 legislative days to consider a proposed rule’s merits. Moreover, under the bill’s expedited House procedures, which limit floor consideration of joint resolutions of approval to the second and fourth Thursdays of every month, there 

would only be 6 days remaining in 2013 for the House to consider 

major rules. 

This is not the first time that Congress has considered a congressional approval mechanism for agency rulemaking. In the early 

1980’s, Congress held a number of hearings on this concept 11 and 

a bill was introduced that would have required affirmative congressional assent to all major rules.12 Wisely, Congress chose not to 

pursue such a mechanism. Tellingly, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, 

Jr., when he was an Associate White House Counsel in 1983, critiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

13OMB Watch, Roberts Showed Prudence in Reg Reform Initiative (2005), available at 

www.ombwatch.org/node/2652; see also Alliance for Justice, Report on the Nomination of John 

G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court 78, available at http://www.afj.org/ 

afjXrobertsXprehearingXreport.pdf (‘In general, Judge Roberts disagreed with proposals to require Congress to approve regulations before they took effect. . . .’). 14OMB Watch, Roberts Showed Prudence in Reg Reform Initiative (2005), available at 

www.ombwatch.org/node/2652. 15 Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 10, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (Dec. 6, 2011). 16 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Major School Shootings in the United States 

Since 1997, available at http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/school-shootings.pdf. 17 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 367, the ‘‘Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny 

Act of 2013,’’ by the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong., at 130–133 (Apr. 11, 2013) [hereinafter ‘‘Markup Transcript’’]. 18 Id. at 141–142. 

cized this idea because it would ‘‘hobbl[e] agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative Congressional assent to all major rules.’’ 13 He 

further noted that such a provision ‘‘would seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies in a manner that could 

well impede the achievement of Administration objectives.’’ 14

B. By restricting rulemaking for major rules, the REINS Act threatens public health and safety and the Nation’s financial stability. 

While the REINS Act is unnecessary and unworkable, its most 

pernicious effect will be putting the health, welfare and safety of 

Americans at risk. In addition to the economic benefits of regulations, regulations promote improved air quality, healthier children, 

reduced discrimination, protection of our public health and safety, 

protection of human dignity, and other non-quantifiable, but fundamental, values. The costs of delaying these highly beneficial rules 

could be devastating. As the Administration noted in its opposition 

to the REINS Act last Congress, the REINS Act would ‘‘delay and, 

in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and 

execution of duly enacted laws, increase business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and create unnecessary confusion. There is no justification for such an unprecedented requirement.’’ 15

Addressing gun violence against children is just one example of 

a pressing threat to public safety that agencies may be tasked with 

addressing. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, there were 14 instances of major school shootings in the 

United States last year, including the killings of 20 children and 

6 staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.16 Hopefully, legislation will soon be enacted into law that 

will help prevent further instances of gun violence directed at 

school children. More than likely, that law will require affected 

agencies to issue regulations to implement its provisions. There is 

absolutely no reason to delay efforts to safeguard schools from gun 

violence, which is exactly what the REINS Act would do by sending 

such rules into the morass that the congressional legislative process has become before such rules could take effect. To remedy this 

concern, Representative Judy Chu (D–CA) offered an amendment 

that would have exempted from the bill’s congressional approval requirement any proposed rule that pertains to protecting schools 

and children from gun violence.17 This amendment failed on a 

party-line vote of 10 to 17.18


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

19 Id. at 98–102. 20 Id. at 113. 21 Id. at 29–33. 22 Id. at 41. 23Pub. L. No. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 24Markup Transcript at 49–55. 25 Id. at 84. 

Children face other threats that agencies must be able to respond 

to without unnecessary delay. Four years ago, traces of the toxic 

chemical melamine were found in infant formula that was manufactured by an American company. It is likely that the REINS Act 

would have substantially delayed any corrective regulation issued 

in response to this contamination event. In response to this concern 

and, more broadly, to protect the safety of young children, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D–TX) offered an amendment to 

exempt from H.R. 367’s congressional approval requirement any 

proposed rule pertaining to the safety of any products specifically 

designed to be used or consumed by a child under two years of 

age.19 Although Representative Jackson Lee emphasized the need 

to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, her amendment failed by a vote of 11 to 16.20 Similarly, Ranking Member 

John Conyers, Jr. (D–MI) offered an amendment to exempt from 

the congressional approval requirement any rule that protects or 

saves lives.21 This amendment also failed on a party-line basis by 

a vote of 15 to 16.22

The dangerous consequences that can result from regulatory failure also include enormous economic harm. For example, the 2008 

financial crisis and resultant Great Recession were largely caused 

by regulatory failure within the financial services industry as a 

whole, and with respect to mortgage lending practices, securitization, and derivatives in particular. As a result of this failure, a home foreclosure crisis unprecedented since the Great Depression occurred, unemployment skyrocketed, and the Nation’s 

economy to this day suffers from the lingering after-effects. Rules 

that are designed to protect the American economy from the harm 

caused by the kind of reckless practices that an under-regulated financial services industry engages in should not be held hostage to 

the kind of political gridlock and industry influence in Congress 

that the REINS Act would impose. 

In response to insufficient regulation of financial services, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act,23 which established various new standards to 

strengthen the safety and soundness of the financial services industry and created the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), 

all of which require numerous implementing rules. Nevertheless, if 

the REINS Act were in effect, industry would have significant opportunities to delay and possibly derail Dodd-Frank’s implementation. 

In recognition of these concerns, Representative Mel Watt (D– 

NC) offered two amendments exempting from the bill’s congressional approval requirement rules implementing the Dodd-Frank 

Act and rules issued by the CFPB concerning mortgage lending.24

These amendments, considered en bloc, were defeated 15 to 17 on 

a party-line vote.25 Similarly, Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D– 

NY) offered an amendment exempting rules concerning the staVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

26 Id. at 151–155. 27 Id. at 162. 28Susan Kelly, U.S. Recovers $4.2 Billion From Healthcare Fraud Probes: Report, REUTERS, 

Feb. 11, 2013, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/11/us-healthcare-fraud-idUS 

BRE91A0ZO20130211. 29Markup Transcript at 142–145. 30 Id. at 151. 31Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, FTC Releases Top 10 Complaint Categories for 

2012—Identity Theft Tops List for 13th Consecutive Year in Report of National Consumer Complaints (Feb. 26, 2013) (noting that out of more than two million complaints received by the 

agency last year, 18 percent were related to identity theft), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/ 

2013/02/sentineltop.shtm. 32Markup Transcript at 114, 118–120. 33 Id. at 129. 

bility of banks and other financial services institutions.26 This 

amendment was also defeated by a 7 to 19 party-line vote.27

Last fiscal year, the federal government recovered $4.2 billion 

from those who fraudulently billed government health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.28 This kind of fraud ultimately hurts both taxpayers and those who depend on such programs. Particularly at a time when some are proposing cuts to 

these essential safety net programs, rules that are designed to prevent this kind of fraud are critical. For this reason, Representative 

Joe Garcia (D–FL) offered an amendment that would have exempted from the REINS Act’s congressional approval requirement rules 

concerning Medicare and Medicaid fraud.29 This amendment was 

defeated by a 9 to 17 party-line vote.30

Regulations can also play a critical role with respect to protecting 

consumers’ sensitive personal information. With the increasing opportunities for governmental and private organizations to obtain, 

maintain, and disseminate citizens’ sensitive, private information, 

it is critical that Congress not prevent or delay the implementation 

of regulations designed to safeguard such information. There is a 

real concern that such personally identifiable information has itself 

become a commodity with financial value, subject to abuse by those 

who seek to sell it for financial gain or for criminal purposes. 

Thanks to the largely unfettered use of Social Security numbers 

and the availability of other personally identifiable information 

through technological advances, data security breaches are occurring with much greater frequency. In turn, identity theft has swiftly evolved into one of the most prolific crimes in the United States. 

According to a 2013 Federal Trade Commission report, identity 

theft ‘‘is once more the top complaint’’ received by the agency.31 For 

these reasons, Representative Hank Johnson (D–GA) offered an 

amendment exempting from the REINS Act’s congressional approval requirement rules protecting Americans’ privacy.32 The 

amendment, however, was defeated 9 to 18 along party lines.33

II. THE REINS ACT IS BASED ON FALSE PREMISES

ABOUT REGULATORY COSTS

Proponents of the REINS Act assert that Federal agency regulations impose excessive costs on businesses, stifle job creation, and 

hobble the Nation’s economic growth. This premise, however, is 

based on flawed data and completely ignores the significant benefits of regulation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

34See, e.g., Markup Transcript at 68. 35 Nicole V. Crain & W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, Rep. 

No. SBAHQ–08–M–0466 (Sept. 2010), available at http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/ 

rs371tot.pdf. 36See, e.g., REINS Act—Promoting Jobs and Expanding Freedom by Reducing Needless Regulations: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. 

on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Sally Katzen, former OIRA Administrator); 

see also Sidney Shapiro et al., Setting the Record Straight: The Crain and Crain Report on Regulatory Costs (2011), available at http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/SBAX 

RegulatoryXCostsXAnalysisX1103.pdf. 37Sidney Shapiro et al., Setting the Record Straight: The Crain and Crain Report on Regulatory Costs (2011), available at http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/SBAX 

RegulatoryXCostsXAnalysisX1103.pdf.] 38 Id. 39 Curtis W. Copeland, Congressional Research Service, Analysis of an Estimate of the Total 

Costs of Federal Regulations, R41763 (2011). 40 Id. at 26 (quoting an e-mail from Nicole and W. Mark Crain to the author of the CRS report). 41 Id. The Economic Policy Institute also issued a critique of the Crain study outlining similar 

concerns with the study’s methodology and data. See John Irons & Andrew Green, Flaws Call 

for Rejecting Crain and Crain Model: Cited $1.75 Trillion Cost of Regulations Is Not Worth Repeating (2011), available at http://w3.epi-data.org/temp2011/IssueBrief308.pdf. 

A. Proponents rely on unreliable and flawed data regarding the 

cost of regulation. 

In support of their arguments concerning the costs of regulation, 

proponents of anti-regulatory measures, such as the REINS Act, 

regularly cite 34 a widely-debunked study by economists Nicole and 

Mark Crain, which claims that Federal rulemaking imposes a cumulative burden of $1.75 trillion a year.35 Critics of this study note 

its flawed assumptions and methodologies.36 For example, the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) observed that the study does not 

account for any benefits of regulation.37 Additionally, CPR documented that the study did not rely on actual data regarding the 

costs imposed by Federal regulation in the United States.38 Indeed, 

CPR found that the Crain study’s methodology was defective because, in calculating economic costs, it relied on World Bank international public opinion polling on how friendly a particular country 

was to business interests. 

The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Research Service 

(CRS) also criticized much of the Crain study’s methodology.39 CRS 

reported that the authors of the study admitted that it was ‘‘not 

meant to be a decision-making tool for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the ‘right’ level of regulation. In 

no place in any of the reports do we imply that our reports should 

be used for this purpose. (How could we recommend this use when 

we make no attempt to estimate the benefits?).’’ 40 CRS concluded 

that ‘‘a valid, reasoned policy decision can only be made after considering information on both costs and benefits’’ of regulation.41

In a similar vein, a study by the American Action Forum (AAF) 

claims that federal regulations added more than $236 billion in 

costs in 2012. As Professor Robert Glicksman of George Washington University Law School testified, however, the AAF study 

was flawed because it relied exclusively on ex ante agency cost estimates and those estimates, in turn, rely primarily on surveys of 

representative companies that will be regulated by the rule at 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

42The Obama Administration’s Regulatory War on Jobs, the Economy, and America’s Global 

Competitiveness: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust 

L. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Robert L. Glicksman, 

J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, The George Washington University 

Law School). 43 Id. 44Office of Management and Budget, Draft 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs 

of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities 21, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/draftl2012lcostlbenefitl report.pdf. 45Office of Management and Budget, 2011 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of 

Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities 21, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011Xcb/2011XcbaXreport.pdf. 

46See REINS Act—Promoting Jobs and Expanding Freedom by Reducing Needless Regulations: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. 

on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Sally Katzen, former OIRA Administrator). 47 Id. 48 Environmental Protection Agency, Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, Second Prospective Study—1990 to 2020 (2011) available at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html. 49 Id. 

issue.42 Professor Glicksman noted that these companies have an 

incentive to vastly overstate estimated costs.43

B. The benefits of regulations significantly outweigh their costs. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has annually estimated the costs of regulations. Significantly, OMB’s reports to Congress include data on the benefits of regulations. The Draft 2012 

Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations 

finds that the net benefits of regulations through the third fiscal 

year of the Obama Administration exceed $91 billion, which is 25 

times more than the net benefits during the first three years of the 

George W. Bush Administration.44 Similarly, its 2011 report concluded that for fiscal year 2010, Federal regulations cost between 

$6.5 billion and $12.5 billion and generated between $18.8 billion 

and $86.1 billion in benefits.45 According to OMB, the costs of regulations during the 10-year period from FY 1999 through FY 2009 

were between $43 billion and $55 billion, while their benefits 

ranged from $128 billion to $616 billion.46 Therefore, even if one 

uses OMB’s highest estimate of costs and its lowest estimate of 

benefits, the regulations issued over the past 10 years have produced net benefits of $73 billion to our society. Such estimates were 

consistent across Democratic and Republican administrations.47

Given that the benefits of regulations consistently exceed their 

costs, the need for any legislation that would make the issuance of 

regulations more difficult or time-consuming is questionable. The 

benefits of regulation are also apparent when viewed through the 

lens of prevention. For example, a 2011 Environmental Protection 

Agency report found that the public health benefits of clean air regulations far outweigh the compliance cost to industry.48 The report 

concluded that restrictions on fine particle and ground-level ozone 

pollution mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would 

prevent 230,000 deaths and produce benefits of about $2 trillion by 

2020.49

Alternatively, the costs of not regulating can be significant. For 

example, as the New York Times noted in a series of articles highlighting the danger of natural gas extraction practices, such largely 

unregulated practices led to toxic contamination of the drinking 

water of potentially millions of people. This contamination was the 

result of a lack of regulation, often because regulatory authorities 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

50See Ian Urbina, Drilling Down: A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May Be More, 

N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 3, 2011 (investigative series on the dangers associated with the controversial 

natural gas drilling technique known as fracking); Ian Urbina, Drilling Down: Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 1, 2011; Ian Urbina, Drilling Down: Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 26, 2011. 51Markup Transcript at 84–88. 52 Id. at 97. 53See, e.g., Memorandum from Eric Cantor to House Republicans (Aug. 29, 2011) available at http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/08/memo-on-upcoming-jobs-agenda.html. (‘By pursuing a 

steady repeal of job-destroying regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty hanging 

over small and large employers alike, empowering them to hire more workers.’). 54 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, Extended Mass Layoffs (Quarterly) 

News Release (Aug. 10, 2011), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/msloX 

08102011.htm. 55The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011: Hearing on H.R. 3010 Before the H. Comm. on 

the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise 

Instutute). 56See William C. Dunkelberg & Holly Wade, NFIB Small Business Economic Trends (2011) 

available at http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201109.pdf.] 57See Phil Izzo, Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Weak Hiring, WALL ST. J., July 18, 2011. 

were fearful of confronting a lucrative and politically powerful industry.50

While a cost-benefit analysis of the current regulatory process 

clearly establishes the fact that the benefits of regulations well exceed their costs, the REINS Act itself will definitely result in more 

costs than benefits. The real costs of the REINS Act will be the 

harm to public health and safety as well as the Nation’s economy 

resulting from the uncertainty and delay implicit in the convoluted 

congressional approval process mandated by this legislation. 

In an effort to highlight the benefits of major rules, Representative Steve Cohen (D–TN) offered an amendment to exempt from 

H.R. 367’s congressional approval requirement any proposed rule 

that OMB determines would result in a net benefit to society. He 

observed that when the benefits of a rule to society outweigh its 

costs, society has an interest in ensuring that the rule take effect 

without unnecessary delay.51 Representative Cohen’s amendment, 

however, failed by a party-line vote of 11 to 14.52

C. Regulations do not hinder job creation 

Proponents of H.R. 367 constantly claim that regulations interfere with job creation because they create uncertainty for businesses, thereby preventing them from investing and hiring.53 To 

the contrary, regulations have no determinable effect on job creation. For instance, a survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

that tracks companies’ reasons for large layoffs found that, during 

the first and second quarters of 2011, 144,746 layoffs were attributable to poor ‘‘business demand’’ while only 1,119 were attributable to ‘‘government regulations.’’ 54 Indeed, one of the Majority’s 

own witnesses, during a hearing on another anti-regulatory bill, 

testified that when it came to linking jobs and regulations, the 

‘‘focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates’’ and 

that the employment effects of regulation ‘‘are indeterminate.’’ 55

Similarly, a National Federation of Independent Business survey of 

its members reveals that poor sales, not regulations, are by far the 

biggest deterrent to hiring.56 In addition, the Wall Street Journal’s 

July 2011 survey of business economists found that the ‘‘main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according 

to a majority of economists.’’ 57


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

58 Bruce Bartlett, Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 4, 2011 available at http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment. 

59 Id. 60 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), Economic Analysis of 

a Program to Promote Clean Transportation Fuels in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region (2011) 

(on file with Natural Resources Defense Council) available at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ 

ngreene/CFS%20Economic%20Analysis%20Report%20INTERNAL.PDF. 61 Id. 62 Natural Resources Defense Council et al., Supplying Ingenuity: U.S. Suppliers of Clean, 

Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Technologies (2011), available at http://www.nrdc.org/transportation/ 

autosuppliers/files/SupplierMappingReport.pdf.] 63 Id. 64Markup Transcript at 114, 115–118. 65 Id. at 129. 

According to Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked in the Administrations of both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. 

Bush, the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job 

growth is ‘‘just nonsense. It’s just made up.’’ 58 He further opined 

that ‘‘regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans 

that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an 

agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. 

In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a 

serious effort to deal with high unemployment.’’ 59

Rather than hindering job growth, regulations can play a valuable role in promoting job growth. A report by Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) demonstrates a direct correlation between environmental regulations and job growth 

in the Northeast. It found that by enacting stricter fuel economy 

standards and pursuing cleaner forms of energy, more jobs would 

be created.60 Specifically, NESCAUM reported that stricter fuel 

economy standards and regulations governing cleaner forms of energy would increase employment from 9,490 to 50,700 jobs; increase gross regional product, a measure of the states’ economic 

output, by $2.1 billion to $4.9 billion; and increase household disposable income by $1 billion to $3.3 billion.61

According to a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the United Auto Workers, and the National Wildlife Federation, 

vehicle emissions standards and clean vehicle research, development and production are already responsible for 155,000 jobs at 

504 facilities in 43 states and the District of Columbia.62 The report also found that 119,000 jobs were created in this industry just 

between 2009 and 2011 alone.63

By preventing the promulgation of rules, the REINS Act would 

seriously stifle economic growth and the creation of new jobs. To 

highlight this issue, Representative Hank Johnson (D–GA) offered 

an amendment to exempt from the bill’s congressional approval requirement any proposed rule that OMB determines would result in 

net job growth.64 Representative Johnson’s amendment, however, 

failed by a vote of 9 to 18 along party lines.65

III. THE REINS ACT IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE CONGRESS ALREADY

HAS THE TOOLS TO OVERSEE FEDERAL AGENCY RULEMAKING

Congress already has various mechanisms at its disposal to oversee and influence the Federal agency rulemaking process. In its 

simplest and most straightforward form, Congress can delegate 

rulemaking authority to agencies with greater specificity or restriction, which would limit an agency’s rulemaking authority either 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

66 Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, H.R. 2681, 112th Cong. (2011). 67See Curtis W. Copeland, Congressional Influence on Rulemaking and Regulation Through 

Appropriations Restrictions, Congressional Research Service RL 34354 (Aug. 5, 2008). 68These amendments primarily targeted environmental regulations and regulations implementing health care reform legislation. H.R. 1, 112th Cong. (2011). 69 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–59, 701–06, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 (2013). 70 2 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq. (2013). 71 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. (2013). 72 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. (2013). 73Pub. L. No. 104–121, § 242, 110 Stat. 847, 857 (1996). 74Levin Statement at 7. 75 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (holding that a one-House legislative veto violated the Constitution’s 

bicameralism and presentment clauses). 

from the outset or through later amendment of an agency’s organic 

statute. Indeed, Congress can simply pass legislation to stay the effect of an existing rule, as the House did with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency’s cement manufacturing standards.66

Further, Congress can impose restrictions on agency rulemaking 

through the appropriations process. These restrictions can take a 

variety of forms, including restrictions on the finalization of particular proposed rules, restrictions on regulatory activity within 

certain areas, restrictions on implementation or enforcement of certain rules, and conditional restrictions that prevent a rule from 

taking effect until an agency takes certain steps.67 For instance, no 

fewer than 19 out of the 67 amendments to H.R. 1, the ‘‘Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,’’ were aimed at de-funding 

the promulgation or implementation of existing and proposed regulations.68

Congress can also prescribe rulemaking procedures. Prior examples include the Administrative Procedure Act,69 which was enacted in 1946 to establish baseline procedures for rulemaking. Others include the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,70 the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act,71 the Paperwork Reduction Act,72 and the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,73 all of which 

added procedural and analytical requirements to the agency rulemaking process. In addition, the CRA already allows Congress to 

disapprove of an agency rule, thereby giving Congress yet another 

way to take accountability for agency rules. 

Finally, Congress can exert influence over rulemaking through 

its oversight activities, whether by conducting periodic oversight 

hearings, requesting GAO studies, or conveying its concerns to the 

agencies. Such oversight actions can ensure that agencies are subject to democratic accountability for their actions. 

IV. THE REINS ACT MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The REINS Act raises constitutional concerns because it may 

provide for what arguably is an unconstitutional one-House legislative veto. As Professor Ronald Levin of Washington University Law 

School testified, one House of Congress can effectively veto an 

agency’s rule under H.R. 367’s congressional approval mechanism 

by simply not acting within the 70-legislative-day time frame provided for in the bill.74 Such a mechanism would be, in effect, indistinguishable from the one-House legislative veto that the Supreme 

Court held to be unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha.75 In Chadha, 

the Court held that a veto of a Federal agency’s regulation was 

itself a legislative act that required passage by both Houses of ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR160P1.XXX HR160P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

76 Id. 

gress and presentment to the President for his signature.76 Under 

H.R. 367, one House could effectively veto an agency rule (i.e., a 

legislative act) without meeting the Constitutional requirements 

discussed in Chadha by simply not acting to pass a resolution of 

approval. The REINS Act, therefore, may violate the constitutional 

rule announced in Chadha. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 367 would effectively make it nearly impossible for important regulations to take effect. By requiring that each House pass 

and the President sign a joint resolution of approval for every new 

major regulation, this misguided legislation will require Congress 

to expend time and expertise that it does not have, while increasing the opportunity for regulated entities to influence the rulemaking process. 

This bill an unworkable solution to an artificial problem. Regulations play a critical role in protecting the health of all Americans, 

ensuring the safety of our workers, promoting the stability of our 

financial system, and preserving the environment. Delaying or 

thwarting these critical measures imperils the well-being of all 

Americans. The tangible benefits of regulations far outweigh any 

costs. Moreover, there is no evidence that regulations stifle job creation, as H.R. 367’s proponents claim. 

The REINS Act is not necessary because Congress already has 

myriad tools at its disposal to shape agency rulemaking, such as 

disapproving proposed rules, limiting delegations of authority to 

agencies, controlling agency appropriations, staying the effect of 

specific rules, and holding oversight hearings. These tools, unlike 

the REINS Act, are not constitutionally suspect and will not lead 

to government gridlock. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we strongly oppose H.R. 367 and 

we urge our colleagues to join us in opposition. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

STEVE COHEN. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI. 

JUDY CHU. 

TED DEUTCH. 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ. 

KAREN BASS. 

CEDRIC RICHMOND. 

SUZAN DELBENE

JOE GARCIA. HAKEEM JEFFRIES. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS