Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 This bill revises provisions relating to congressional review of agency rulemaking. Specifically, the bill establishes a congressional approval process for a major rule. A major rule may only take effect if Congress approves of the rule. A major rule is a rule that has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The bill generally preserves the current congressional review process for a nonmajor rule.
Should HB 277 become law, it would significantly alter the process by which federal regulations are implemented. By necessitating congressional approval for major rules, the bill aims to enhance congressional oversight and limit the scope of executive power in regulatory affairs. This shift may lead to slower implementation of vital regulations as Congress could delay or deny approval, thereby impacting nationwide regulatory frameworks and possibly hindering timely responses to urgent public policy issues.
House Bill 277, formally known as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, seeks to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to require congressional approval for major rules put forth by federal agencies. Under this legislation, no major rule can take effect unless explicitly approved by a joint resolution of Congress. The definition of a major rule includes provisions that would have significant economic impacts, including substantial costs or adverse effects on competition and employment.
The reception of HB 277 has been mixed among legislators. Supporters, particularly from Republican circles, argue that the bill restores necessary checks on executive authority, ensuring that regulations are not imposed without adequate scrutiny. Conversely, critics, including many Democrats, warn that the bill could be an obstacle to effective governance, arguing that it undermines the necessary regulatory authority of federal agencies. They contend that such restrictions could lead to regulatory paralysis and ultimately harm the public interest.
A notable point of contention surrounding HB 277 is the definition of a 'major rule' and the implications of requiring congressional approval for such regulations. Critics fear that this would give Congress undue influence over essential regulations, potentially politicizing the regulatory process. Proponents insist that this adds a layer of accountability and ensures that regulations are aligned with legislative intent. Overall, the debate highlights the ongoing struggle between maintaining effective governance and ensuring adequate oversight of executive power.