HR-277-118
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 103.
Sponsored by Kat Cammack (R-FL)
What it does
The REINS Act of 2023 would require Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval before any "major rule" — one with an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, or other significant impacts — could take effect. It would also require Congress to review and approve at least 20% of existing agency rules currently on the books. Under current law, major rules take effect automatically unless Congress passes a resolution of disapproval.
Who benefits
Businesses and industries subject to federal regulations, particularly those in heavily regulated sectors such as energy, finance, manufacturing, agriculture, and healthcare, who would gain a new veto point against costly rules. Small businesses that argue compliance costs are disproportionately burdensome would benefit. Members of Congress who seek greater legislative control over agency policymaking would gain formal authority. States and localities that oppose federal regulatory expansion would benefit from a slower rulemaking process.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies (EPA, OSHA, FDA, CFPB, etc.) whose ability to implement statutory mandates would depend on affirmative congressional votes. Workers, consumers, and communities who rely on timely agency action on workplace safety, environmental, financial, or public health rules, which could be delayed or blocked indefinitely if Congress fails to act. Advocacy groups focused on environmental protection, consumer safety, and public health, whose policy priorities are often advanced through agency rulemaking rather than legislation. Agencies operating under tight statutory deadlines could face legal conflicts if required rules cannot take effect without congressional approval.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that when unelected agency officials issue rules with billion-dollar economic consequences, democratic accountability breaks down — the people most affected have no direct recourse against the regulators who issued the rule. The REINS Act would restore the constitutional design: Congress writes the law, and Congress — not agencies — decides when a rule significant enough to reshape entire industries should have the force of law. Supporters point to West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) as evidence that the Supreme Court itself has recognized agencies have accumulated policymaking power that was never clearly granted by Congress. Requiring an affirmative vote forces elected representatives to own major policy decisions, creating a direct line of accountability to voters. Supporters also contend the bill would reduce regulatory uncertainty for businesses, encourage domestic investment, and eliminate rules that persist on the books long after their justification has faded.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that requiring an affirmative congressional vote for every major rule would effectively paralyze the federal regulatory system, because Congress routinely fails to pass legislation even on broadly popular topics. Under this bill, a rule protecting drinking water, ensuring workplace safety, or stabilizing financial markets could be blocked simply by congressional inaction — not a deliberate vote against it. Opponents contend that Congress already delegated rulemaking authority to agencies precisely because technical, fast-moving policy areas require expert judgment that legislators lack. They argue the bill conflicts with existing statutes that require agencies to issue rules on specific timelines, creating legal contradictions. Critics also note that the 20% retrospective review requirement would consume enormous congressional and agency resources with no guarantee of improved outcomes. Opponents further argue the bill shifts power to well-funded industries that can lobby Congress to withhold approval, while diffuse public interests — clean air, safe food, fair lending — lose the expert agency advocates that current law provides.
Constitutional context
The bill sits at the intersection of several constitutional provisions and recent doctrinal shifts. The Presentment Clause and nondelegation doctrine are central: the bill raises questions about whether Congress can condition the effectiveness of its own prior delegations on a subsequent affirmative vote, and whether such a structure is consistent with INS v. Chadha (1983), which struck down the one-house legislative veto. The Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942; United States v. Lopez, 1995) underlies the substantive rules the bill would subject to review. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) directly support the bill's premise that agencies must have clear congressional authorization for major rules. The Appointments Clause and separation of powers are implicated by the shift of final rulemaking authority from the executive to the legislative branch.
Checks and balances
The bill would significantly shift policymaking authority from the executive branch to Congress. Currently, agencies exercise delegated legislative power to issue binding rules; the REINS Act would make that power contingent on affirmative legislative approval, effectively reclaiming a final veto over major executive action. The President retains veto power over the joint resolution of approval, preserving some executive leverage. The judiciary's role would also be affected: post-Loper Bright, courts independently interpret agency authority, and rules that never take effect cannot be challenged — reducing the volume of regulatory litigation while also reducing judicial oversight of agency reasoning.
Historical precedent
The original REINS Act has been introduced in multiple Congresses since 2011 but has never been enacted. The Congressional Review Act (1996) established the existing framework of congressional disapproval of major rules, which the REINS Act would reverse to an approval requirement. INS v. Chadha (1983) struck down a one-house legislative veto, raising structural questions about congressional review mechanisms that remain relevant to this bill's design.