HB 142, titled the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025” or the REINS Act, would substantially change how federal executive-branch regulations become effective. The bill requires that any “major rule” issued by a federal agency—generally a rule with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more, major cost increases, or significant effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation—must be approved by Congress through a joint resolution before it can take effect. If Congress does not enact approval within the specified review period, the major rule is deemed not approved and cannot take effect.
The bill also preserves a separate congressional disapproval process for nonmajor rules, while requiring agencies to submit extensive supporting materials, including data, studies, cost-benefit analyses, job impact information, and other relevant regulatory materials, to Congress and the Comptroller General. It creates expedited procedures in both chambers for considering approval or disapproval resolutions, limits debate, restricts amendments, and sets special timing rules for rules submitted near adjournment. The bill includes an emergency temporary-effect provision for certain major rules if the President determines they are needed for health or safety emergencies, criminal law enforcement, national security, or implementation of international trade agreements.
In addition to the congressional review changes, HB 142 amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act so that budgetary scoring would generally assume a rule subject to the new approval process is effective unless it is not approved. It also directs the Government Accountability Office to study how many rules and major rules are currently in effect and to estimate their total economic cost, with a report due to Congress within one year of enactment. The bill exempts Federal Reserve monetary policy rules and preserves immediate effectiveness for certain hunting, fishing, camping, and good-cause rules.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsors is strongly supportive of limiting executive-branch regulatory power and increasing congressional accountability. The bill’s stated purpose emphasizes that Congress has delegated too much authority to agencies and should reclaim its constitutional role in lawmaking. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or floor debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests it is likely to be controversial because it would significantly slow or block the implementation of major federal regulations.
The main points of contention are likely to be the shift of final approval power from agencies to Congress, the potential for delaying or preventing regulations even after agency rulemaking, and the added procedural burden on both branches. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill improves transparency, accountability, and democratic control over regulation, while critics would likely argue that it weakens expert agency policymaking, creates bottlenecks for urgent or complex regulations, and could make it harder for the executive branch to respond quickly to public health, safety, environmental, labor, or economic issues.
HB 142 would amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to require affirmative congressional approval for major federal rules before they can take effect, while preserving a separate disapproval process for nonmajor rules. It would also add detailed reporting requirements for agencies, create expedited House and Senate procedures for joint resolutions, exempt Federal Reserve monetary policy, and modify budgetary treatment of rules subject to the new approval process. The bill would therefore materially alter the federal administrative law framework by increasing congressional control over executive rulemaking and changing how major regulations are reviewed, scored, and implemented.
The bill is framed by its sponsors as a pro-accountability, pro-transparency reform intended to restore Congress’s constitutional role in lawmaking and rein in agency overreach. The introduced text and sponsor list indicate strong support among Republican members. Because no committee discussion or vote record was provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition in the supplied materials, but the bill’s premise is inherently divisive: supporters are likely to view it as a check on regulation, while opponents are likely to see it as an obstacle to effective governance and timely agency action.
The central contention is whether major regulations should require an affirmative vote of Congress to become effective. Supporters of the bill are likely to argue that agencies have too much delegated power and that elected lawmakers should bear responsibility for major policy choices. Opponents are likely to argue that the bill would create legislative bottlenecks, reduce the ability of agencies to implement complex statutory programs, and make it harder to respond to emergencies or technical regulatory needs. Additional likely points of dispute include the bill’s broad definition of major rules, the expedited procedures that limit amendment and debate, and the possibility that Congress could block important rules even after extensive agency analysis.