Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]
- Committees
- Budget Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 3, 2025
Bottom line
The bill fundamentally shifts power over federal rulemaking from executive agencies to Congress by mandating legislative approval for economically significant regulations, potentially leading to increased accountability but also regulatory delays.
What it actually does
This bill amends chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to require that all "major rules" promulgated by executive branch agencies must receive explicit Congressional approval through a joint resolution before they can take effect. It establishes expedited legislative procedures for Congress to consider these approval resolutions and also provides for Congressional disapproval of "nonmajor rules."
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill increases accountability and transparency in the federal regulatory process, restoring Congress's constitutional legislative authority and ensuring that significant regulations have direct democratic consent. They contend it will lead to more carefully drafted legislation and a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the American people for the laws imposed upon them.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that such a requirement would paralyze the regulatory process, making it difficult for agencies to respond to emerging issues, implement existing laws, and update regulations efficiently. They contend it would politicize technical rulemaking and overburden Congress, leading to regulatory uncertainty and potentially hindering economic growth or public safety.
The bill is moderately complex due to its procedural nature, requiring careful reading, but is manageable within a reasonable timeframe for an informed reader.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)
Enhanced Agency Reporting Requirements for Rules
This provision requires federal agencies to submit comprehensive reports to both houses of Congress and the Comptroller General for every new rule before it can take effect. These reports must include a copy of the rule, a concise statement, its classification as major or nonmajor with justification, a list of related regulatory actions, the proposed effective date, and a complete cost-benefit analysis, including job impacts.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision increases transparency and provides Congress with the necessary information to perform robust oversight of agency rulemaking, ensuring that legislative decisions are well-informed.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that these extensive reporting requirements add significant administrative burden and potential delays to the rulemaking process, diverting agency resources from substantive work.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for increased transparency and Congressional oversight with the potential for increased administrative costs and delays in the regulatory process.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3) and 801(b)(1)
Congressional Approval Mandate for Major Rules
This is the central mechanism of the bill, mandating that any "major rule" issued by an executive branch agency cannot take effect unless both the House and Senate pass a joint resolution specifically approving it, and that resolution is subsequently enacted into law. This reverses the current default where rules take effect unless Congress acts to disapprove them.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2)
70-Day Time Limit for Major Rule Approval
This provision establishes a strict deadline for Congressional action on major rules. If a joint resolution of approval for a major rule is not enacted into law by the end of 70 session days (for the Senate) or legislative days (for the House) after the rule is submitted to Congress, the rule is automatically deemed not approved and cannot take effect.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 802
Expedited Congressional Approval Procedures for Major Rules
This section outlines specific, fast-track legislative procedures for Congress to consider joint resolutions approving major rules. These procedures include automatic discharge from committee if not reported within 15 days, strict limits on debate (2 hours in the Senate, 1 hour in the House), and prohibitions on amendments or motions to recommit. The goal is to ensure a quick up-or-down vote on major rules.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 804(2)
Definition of 'Major Rule'
This provision defines a "major rule" as any rule, including an interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) finds is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices for various entities, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete globally. This definition is critical as it determines which rules are subject to Congressional approval.
This section significantly limits judicial review of determinations, findings, actions, or omissions made under this chapter, except for determining whether a Federal agency has completed the necessary procedural requirements for a rule to take effect. It also clarifies that Congressional enactment of an approval resolution does not grant or modify statutory authority for a rule, extinguish claims against alleged defects in a rule, or form part of the record in judicial proceedings, except to confirm the rule is in effect.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 805
Why it matters:Defining the scope of judicial review for new statutory schemes is standard legislative practice. However, the specific limitations here are consequential for accountability and the legal avenues available to challenge rules.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents frivolous lawsuits challenging procedural aspects of Congressional review and ensures that the act's primary purpose (Congressional approval) is not undermined by judicial intervention. It also clarifies that Congressional approval doesn't shield a rule from substantive legal challenges based on its underlying legality or statutory authority.
Case against: Critics might argue that limiting judicial review could reduce accountability for agencies if they fail to properly classify rules or follow procedures, and that the clarification regarding statutory authority could lead to complex legal challenges post-approval, creating uncertainty about the finality of rules.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on the legal landscape surrounding federal rulemaking, affecting the avenues for challenging agency actions and the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative/executive branches regarding regulatory oversight.
This section explicitly exempts rules concerning monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee from the Congressional review requirements established by this chapter.
Section 3, new 5 U.S.C. 806
Why it matters:It is standard practice to carve out specific areas of policy from broad regulatory reforms, particularly due to the unique nature and statutory independence of the Federal Reserve in conducting monetary policy.
Case for: Proponents argue that the Federal Reserve's independence on monetary policy is crucial for economic stability and that subjecting these decisions to Congressional approval would politicize and undermine their effectiveness, potentially leading to adverse economic consequences.
Case against: Critics of the Federal Reserve's independence might argue that all significant economic decisions, including monetary policy, should be subject to democratic oversight and accountability, and that this exemption perpetuates an undemocratic concentration of power.
Estimated impact: Ensures the Federal Reserve retains its traditional autonomy over monetary policy, preventing potential legislative interference in decisions related to interest rates, quantitative easing, and other tools used to manage the nation's economy.