Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013

Floor Speech

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called Regulations in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.

This misguided legislation would overturn the long-established process for the promulgation of major federal policy rules and tie the health, environment, and economy of our nation to the ability of Congress to act. Considering we are working through the 113th Congress--which is on pace to be the least productive Congress in history--this is a terrible idea.

Federal agencies issue rules to implement laws that are passed by Congress and signed by the President. Federal agencies cannot issue rules on policies Congress has not authorized them to act on, and the very laws the Congress passes explain in detail the authority of the agency to issue rules and often mandate the very rule the agency must issue. The purpose of this process is to allow the policy experts at those agencies to conduct the research, seek the public input, and craft the most efficient and effective way to issue the rules to implement the legislation that Congress has passed. This bill would insert partisan politics into this deliberative and complex process, undermining the ability of these agencies to protect the public's health and safety.

Besides ignoring the fact that the agencies are simply issuing rules to implement the statutes that the Congress has enacted, supporters of this legislation forget that there already exists a mechanism through which Congress can review and reject rules issued by executive agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Congress can help reject a rule if it passes a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of receiving the rule (the President must also sign the resolution). Additionally, Congress has considerable authority over federal rulemaking through the appropriations process, where it can restrict the use of funds to implement certain rules. Finally, the Congress can continue to pass legislation to reform the rulemaking process, such as when it enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This legislation would cause any major rule issued by a federal agency to be automatically rejected unless Congress acts in approval within 70 days. The legislation does not guarantee that there will be an up-or-down vote in that time period; therefore, it leaves these important rules vulnerable to partisan obstruction and inaction. Congressional Republicans exemplify the danger of this approach through their repeated rejection of all compromise and obstruction of efforts to move our country and our economy forward. Giving one chamber of Congress de-facto veto-power over Executive Branch agencies would put at risk our environment, inject uncertainty into the economy for our businesses, and endanger the health and well-being of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Source