[House Report 113-160]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


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

                             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.

``Sec. 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.
  ``(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).

``Sec. 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 ___ relating to 
        ___.';
          ``(C) includes after its resolving clause only the following 
        (with blanks filled as appropriate): `That Congress approves 
        the rule submitted by ___ relating to ___.'; 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 
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 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.

``Sec. 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 
___ relating to ___, 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--
                  ``(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.

``Sec. 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.

``Sec. 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.

``Sec. 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.

``Sec. 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,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, H.R. 3136, 
104th Cong., Sec. 251 (1996) (enacted as 104 P.L. 121, codified at 5 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801-808).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                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 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. LHistory 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Small 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).
    \3\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 convergence 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
    \5\S.J. Res. 16, 107th Cong. (2001) (enacted).
    \6\The 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.
    \7\The 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 on-site assistance for 
companies to comply with the new rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 proposed, ``[d]uring the past 4 
years, the cumulative regulatory cost burden has increased by 
more than $520 billion[.]''\13\ Dr. Holtz-Eakin further 
testified that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
    \13\Statement 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.

        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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Id.

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\A Pledge to America (Sept. 22, 2010) at 28 (``Pledge), 
available at http://pledge.gop.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
B. LLegislative 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 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 rollcall 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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 
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.

                             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.

                             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.

                             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.

               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 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:

         LAn annual effect on the economy of 
        $100,000,000 or more;

         LA major increase in costs or prices for 
        consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or 
        local government agencies, or geographic regions; or

         LSignificant 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See 5 USC Sec. 804(2).

    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\GAO Federal Rules Database, http://www.gao.gov/legal/
congressact/fedrule.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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 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
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 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 carry-over 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, 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 non-major 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 omitted 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         [CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING

[Sec. 801. Congressional review

    [(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--
            [(i) a copy of the rule;
            [(ii) a concise general statement relating to the 
        rule, including whether it is a major rule; and
            [(iii) 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 relevant to sections 
        603, 604, 605, 607, and 609;
            [(iii) the agency's actions relevant 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 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).
    [(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 on the latest of--
            [(A) the later of the date occurring 60 days after 
        the date on which--
                    [(i) the Congress receives the report 
                submitted under paragraph (1); or
                    [(ii) the rule is published in the Federal 
                Register, if so published;
            [(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--
                    [(i) on which either House of Congress 
                votes and fails to override the veto of the 
                President; or
                    [(ii) occurring 30 session days after the 
                date on which the Congress received the veto 
                and objections of the President; or
            [(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).
    [(4) Except for a major rule, a rule shall take effect as 
otherwise provided by law after submission to Congress under 
paragraph (1).
    [(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.
    [(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.
    [(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.
    [(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.
    [(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the 
President by Executive order that the 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 or the effect of a joint resolution of disapproval 
under this section.
    [(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 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.
    [(2)(A) In applying section 802 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 (as a rule that shall take effect) 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).
    [(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.
    [(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional 
review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated 
as though--
            [(A) such rule were published in the Federal 
        Register on the date of enactment of this chapter; and
            [(B) a report on such rule were submitted to 
        Congress under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
    [(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.
    [(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.
    [(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.

[Sec. 802. Congressional disapproval procedure

    [(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).
    [(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 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 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.
    [(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 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.
    [(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 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.
    [(g) This section is enacted by Congress--
            [(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
            [(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.

[Sec. 803. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial 
                    deadlines

    [(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).
    [(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.

[Sec. 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 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.
        The term does not include any rule promulgated under 
        the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the amendments 
        made by that Act.
            [(3) 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 therefor, 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.

[Sec. 805. Judicial review

    [No determination, finding, action, or omission under this 
chapter shall be subject to judicial review.

[Sec. 806. Applicability; severability

    [(a) This chapter shall apply notwithstanding any other 
provision of law.
    [(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.

[Sec. 807. 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.

[Sec. 808. 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 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.]

          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.

Sec. 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.
    (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).

Sec. 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 ___ 
        relating to ___.'';
            (C) includes after its resolving clause only the 
        following (with blanks filled as appropriate): ``That 
        Congress approves the rule submitted by ___ relating to 
        ___.''; 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 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 
        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.

Sec. 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 
___ relating to ___, 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--
                    (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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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,
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 assumed to continue to operate 
        under that law as in effect immediately before its 
        expiration.
                    (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.
            (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     Committee Jurisdiction Letters

                LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET



              RESPONSE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY



                   LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES



              RESPONSE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY



                            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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801-08 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(b) (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\ Additionally, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The 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 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).
    \4\See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601 et seq. (2013).
    \6\Pub. L. No. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 authority 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 subsistence 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. LThe 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 constituent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Maeve 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Levin 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.'').
    \10\Goldston 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, criticized 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See 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.
    \13\OMB 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. . . .').
    \14\OMB Watch, Roberts Showed Prudence in Reg Reform Initiative 
(2005), available at www.ombwatch.org/node/2652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LBy 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Id. at 98-102.
    \20\Id. at 113.
    \21\Id. at 29-33.
    \22\Id. at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 stability of banks and other 
financial services institutions.\26\ This amendment was also 
defeated by a 7 to 19 party-line vote.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Markup Transcript at 49-55.
    \25\Id. at 84.
    \26\Id. at 151-155.
    \27\Id. at 162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Susan 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.
    \29\Markup Transcript at 142-145.
    \30\Id. at 151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Press 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.
    \32\Markup Transcript at 114, 118-120.
    \33\Id. at 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             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.
A. LProponents 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\See, 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.
    \36\See, 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.
    \37\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.]
    \38\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 issue.\42\ Professor Glicksman noted 
that these companies have an incentive to vastly overstate 
estimated costs.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LThe 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Office 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/
draft_2012_cost_benefit_
report.pdf.
    \45\Office 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.
    \46\See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 were 
fearful of confronting a lucrative and politically powerful 
industry.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Markup Transcript at 84-88.
    \52\Id. at 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. LRegulations 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\See, 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.
    \55\The 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).
    \56\See William C. Dunkelberg & Holly Wade, NFIB Small Business 
Economic Trends (2011) available at http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/
sbet/sbet201109.pdf.]
    \57\See Phil Izzo, Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Weak Hiring, Wall 
St. J., July 18, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Markup Transcript at 114, 115-118.
    \65\Id. at 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, H.R. 2681, 112th 
Cong. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\See Curtis W. Copeland, Congressional Influence on Rulemaking 
and Regulation Through Appropriations Restrictions, Congressional 
Research Service RL 34354 (Aug. 5, 2008).
    \68\These amendments primarily targeted environmental regulations 
and regulations implementing health care reform legislation. H.R. 1, 
112th Cong. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551-59, 701-06, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 
(2013).
    \70\2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1501 et seq. (2013).
    \71\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601 et seq. (2013).
    \72\44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3501 et seq. (2013).
    \73\Pub. L. No. 104-121, Sec. 242, 110 Stat. 847, 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
Congress 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Levin Statement at 7.
    \75\462 U.S. 919 (1983) (holding that a one-House legislative veto 
violated the Constitution's bicameralism and presentment clauses).
    \76\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               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.