A bill that would gut federal agencies’ ability to impose sweeping regulations could save government workers a great deal of time and money if implemented — more than 11 million hours of paperwork and $27 billion each year — according to an advocacy group.
The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act would force lawmakers to approve or deny every major rule with an economic impact of $100 million or more. The executive branch finalized 200 such rules last year, when it produced 16 times more regulations overall than the laws Congress passed over the same time period.
Right-leaning policy group American Action Forum published a study Tuesday predicting how much each state could save if the regulatory reform bill was already law, and could be used to block the 12 most expensive proposed federal rules from passing into regulation.
Sam Batkins, the nonprofit’s director of regulatory policy and author of the research, said he envisioned the measure giving Congress the power to kill proposed rules similar to the ones he used in his research if it ever became law. He said the bill would allow lawmakers to “claw back” some of the governing power federal agencies presently hold.
While REINS opponents have expressed concerns that the bill could bog down the regulatory process, Batkins predicted Congress would spend time debating just five to 10 rules a year.
“I think if you look at the entire universe of major rules, the majority of them aren’t controversial,” he said.
Batkins’ research used census data to determine how states would share the more than $27 billion of potential savings from his suggested REINS cuts.
His research showed California could save $6.5 billion and Florida could save $3 billion if Congress chose to disapprove a slate of major rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture, among others.
Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind., re-introduced the bill to the House, where it has passed twice with bipartisan support, last month.
The measure has never been allowed a hearing in the Senate, though Sen. Rand Paul introduced it unsuccessfully in 2013.
“When executive agencies issue new rules and regulations, they tend to do so within a narrow window of expertise and jurisdiction. Rarely do they consider a cost-benefit analysis that justifies their policy rationale against the economic impact, or against the compliance costs and paperwork burdens on individuals and small businesses,” Young told the Washington Examiner.
“This research shows, though, that someone ought to be taking such things into account before regulations take effect,” he said of Batkins’ study.
Young said he is “excited” for the REINS Act’s prospects in the Senate now that Democrats have ceded control.
But a critic of the proposed legislation noted Batkins’ supporting research failed to account for the benefits of regulations he suggested eliminating.
Ronald White, director of regulatory policy at the left-leaning Center for Effective Government, called REINS “radical” and noted the economic benefits of many major rules, including many from the EPA, far outweigh the costs.
White said the bill is another in a spate of Republican-backed regulatory reform measures that have made their way onto the House floor in recent weeks.
“They’re all designed to basically grind the regulatory process to a halt,” he said. “This one is just the most extreme of all of them.”
White said he is certain the measure will attract a presidential veto if it survives Capitol Hill.
