Donate Button
Follow us...

BILL

Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act
2017

Bill Number: HR-26

Disposition: 2019-Jan-02
Passed House, Failed in Senate

The bill will not become law.

Full title...
An act 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.

Click to view...
Bill Text (Reading difficulty: Moderate)
Vote (House)
More Information

Sponsor & Key Contributors
Doug Collins
Steve King (Amendment 13)
Luke Messer (Amendment 3)

Related Issues...
Assault on Regulations

Related News...
House passes bill to revoke consumer and financial protections

Other names for this bill

This bill is typically referred to as the REINS (acronym for Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny) Act.

This bill effectively could stop all recent regulations that protect Americans

This bill would require that any major rule issued by a federal agency be approved by Congress. If not explicitly approved, the rule would be nullified.

It would change the Congressional Review Act. That law allows Congress to nullify new rules, but unless Congress explicitly nullifies the rule then it automatically takes effect.

Additions would eliminate even more protections

There were two amendments to the bill that were approved to become part of the bill...

o Amendment 3: Requires that any agency issuing a new rule repeal an existing rule to offset any yearly costs to the U.S. economy.

o Amendment 13: Allows Congress to review (and nullify) any rule issued in the previous 10 years.

Proposed changes to protect Americans were rejected

The following amendments were proposed, but were rejected...

o Amendment 4 would have required an analysis of greenhouse gas impacts of a rule, and the impacts of the rule on low-income and rural communities.
(Raul Grijalva)

o Amendment 5 would have exempted any rule that would result in reduced incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, or respiratory disease in children.
(Kathy Castor)

o Amendment 6 would have exempted rules pertaining to the protection of public health or safety.
(David Cicilline)

o Amendment 7 would have exempted rules that provide for reduction of lead in public drinking water.
(John Conyers)

o Amendment 8 would have exempted safety rules governing products used or consumed by children younger than 2 years.
(Henry (Hank) Johnson)

o Amendment 10 would have exempted any rule pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards in order to prevent nuclear meltdowns.
(Jerrold Nadler)

o Amendment 11 would have exempted any rule intended to ensure the safety of natural gas or hazardous materials pipelines or prevent, mitigate, or reduce the impact of spills from such pipelines.
(Jerry McNerney)

o Amendment 12 would have exempted any rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the Mine Safety and Health Administration pertaining to workplace health and safety.
(Robert (Bobby) Scott)

This is Republicans' fourth try at this

This is not the first time Republicans in Congress have tried to pass this law...

o In 2011, HR-10 was passed by the House, but its companion bill, S-299, failed in the Senate.

o In 2013, HR-367 was passed by the House, but its companion bill, S-15, failed in the Senate.

o In 2015, HR-427 was passed by the House, but its companion bill, S-226, failed in the Senate.

The House bills were sponsored by Reps. Geoff Davis and Todd Young (Young is now a senator). The Senate bills were sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul.

Disposition

This bill expired when the 115th Congress ended in Jan. 2019.

                   Tell us if we goofed                                                  Copyright