Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler shares with National Review Online readers his argument supporting tighter congressional control over federal regulations.
This week the House will consider legislation to restore congressional accountability for regulatory policy. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act would prevent federal agencies from adopting major regulatory initiatives without congressional assent. Specifically, the REINS Act provides that newly promulgated regulations anticipated to cost over $100 million per year cannot take effect unless both houses of Congress pass a joint resolution approving them, and the resolution is forwarded to the president for his signature (or veto).
The other important feature of the REINS Act is the creation of an expedited procedure to ensure prompt consideration of resolutions of approval in each house of Congress without obstruction or delay. Among other things, it provides that resolutions of approval are automatically introduced and are privileged, not subject to amendment, and not subject to dilatory procedural motions. Debate is limited in each house, and a resolution may not be filibustered in the Senate. The idea is to force an up-or-down vote on the most important regulatory measures before they become law. In this way, REINS would both discipline the regulatory process and introduce far greater accountability.
In effect, the REINS Act amends existing regulatory statutes to remove federal agencies’ authority to unilaterally adopt regulatory measures, instead requiring them to forward “final” rules as proposals for congressional review. Requiring congressional approval will ensure that Congress takes responsibility for major regulatory-policy decisions. Adopting an expedited legislative process, much like the one used for fast-track trade authority or military-base closings, will enhance transparency and prevent congressional review from unduly delaying needed initiatives.
