Reclaim the Reins Act: Congress Eyes Veto Power on Agency Rules, Mandates $20M Overhaul of Regulatory Process

The "Reclaim the Reins Act" proposes a major shake-up in how federal agency rules are created and maintained, aiming to give Congress significantly more direct control. This isn't just a minor tweak; Section 2 of the bill lays out a plan that would overhaul the existing Congressional Review Act, allocating $20 million to implement these changes—$10 million each to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Comptroller General (head of the Government Accountability Office, GAO), available through fiscal year 2034. The core idea? To ramp up congressional oversight on the regulations that federal agencies issue, which affect everything from environmental standards to the financial products you use.

New Rules, New Hoops: What's Changing for Future Regulations?

If this bill passes, federal agencies will face a much heavier lift before any new rule sees the light of day. The proposed Section 809 to Title 5 of the U.S. Code would require agencies to submit a detailed dossier for each rule. We're talking an estimate of budgetary effects, a deep dive into direct and indirect costs, an analysis of jobs gained or lost in affected industries, and even an estimate of the rule's impact on inflation. Agencies would also need to list all information the rule is based on and pinpoint the constitutional authority allowing them to make it.

Crucially, the definition of a "rule" itself gets a major expansion under the amended Section 804. It would now include "interpretative rules, general statements of policy, and all other agency guidance documents." Think about that: even a helpful FAQ an agency posts, or a policy memo clarifying how they interpret a law, could be swept into this intensive review process. If the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) deems a rule "major" (generally meaning a $100 million annual economic impact or other significant effects) and it increases government revenue, the new Section 810 kicks in: that rule cannot take effect unless Congress explicitly passes a joint resolution of approval. No approval within a set timeframe means the rule is dead on arrival. This effectively gives Congress a veto over a wide swath of agency actions, particularly those that might fund new programs or government functions. Furthermore, any such rule submitted during a president's final year will have its review procedures pushed into the next session of Congress, as per the new Section 811.

Old Rules on the Chopping Block? The Great Regulatory Review

It's not just new rules under the microscope; existing regulations face a new gauntlet too. The proposed Section 812 mandates a massive review: agencies must scrutinize at least 20% of their existing rules annually for four years. For each reviewed rule, they'll submit a report. Here’s the kicker: if Congress doesn't enact a joint resolution of approval for an "eligible rule" within five years of this review process starting, that rule will simply cease to exist. Even more urgently, if Congress fails to approve all eligible rules designated by agencies for review within 90 legislative days after designation, those rules become null and void, and the agency can't enforce them.

What does this mean for you? Imagine long-standing protections—say, for clean air, workplace safety, or consumer financial products. If they get caught in this review cycle and don't secure explicit re-approval from a busy Congress, they could vanish. This creates a scenario where beneficial regulations might disappear not due to being flawed, but due to inaction or political gridlock.

The Big Picture: Shifting Power and Potential Fallout

This legislation represents a significant shift of power from executive branch agencies—the ones with specialized expertise—to the legislative branch. While proponents might argue this increases accountability, the practical implications could be far-reaching. The sheer volume of new analytical work for agencies, coupled with the need for congressional approval for many actions, could dramatically slow down the regulatory process. This might make it harder for agencies to respond nimbly to new challenges or issue timely guidance that businesses and the public rely on.

To get a handle on the current regulatory landscape, the bill also tasks the Comptroller General with conducting a study within one year to determine the total number of federal rules in effect, how many are "major," and their total estimated economic cost. This information will likely fuel further debate, but the immediate effect of the bill could be a period of regulatory uncertainty. Businesses might find it harder to plan, and the public could see a rollback of protections if existing rules expire or new ones are blocked. The $20 million price tag is just the start; the real costs could be felt in how effectively our government can establish and maintain the rules that shape daily life.