HR 277: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023

HR 277 in plain English: The REINS Act of 2023 would require Congress to explicitly approve any major federal agency rule before it can take effect. A rule is considered 'major' if it would have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, significantly raise costs, harm competition or employment, or mandate vaccinations. The bill also requires congressional review of at least 20% of existing agency rules currently in effect.

Stated purpose

The bill aims to increase accountability and transparency in the federal regulatory process by requiring Congress to explicitly approve any major rule — one with large economic effects — before it can take effect, rather than allowing executive agencies to implement such rules on their own.

Key points

• Requires Congress to vote to approve any major federal regulation before it becomes law
• Defines a 'major rule' as one with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more
• Also classifies rules mandating vaccinations as major rules subject to congressional approval
• Requires congressional review and approval of at least 20% of existing agency rules currently in effect

Arguments supporters make

• Unelected agency officials currently impose billion-dollar rules on Americans without a direct vote from their elected representatives; this bill restores democratic accountability by requiring Congress to say yes before major rules take effect.
• The Constitution gives Congress — not executive agencies — the power to make law, and this bill corrects decades of Congress delegating too much authority to the executive branch without proper oversight.
• Requiring congressional approval forces lawmakers to write clearer, more specific laws and makes the full cost of regulation visible and debated publicly before rules take effect.

Arguments opponents make

• Congress is already slow and gridlocked; requiring a positive vote on every major rule could paralyze needed health, safety, and environmental protections that agencies are technically expert at crafting and that current law already authorizes.
• Agencies write regulations using specialized scientific and technical knowledge that most members of Congress lack, and shifting final authority to Congress could result in worse or more politically driven outcomes on complex issues.
• The bill's definition of 'major rule' is broad and includes a catch-all for mandatory vaccinations, suggesting the standard may be designed to block specific disfavored policies rather than serve a neutral oversight purpose.

Tradeoffs

Giving Congress direct control over major regulations increases elected-branch accountability but risks slowing or blocking rules that address urgent public needs, since any rule can stall if Congress fails to act. The bill trades executive-branch speed and technical expertise for legislative deliberation and democratic approval, and that balance affects how quickly — or whether — significant federal protections or requirements can be put in place.

Current status in Congress: Passed House.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week