998 -- Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act | Poliscope

Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act

998

115th Congress

Government Operations and Politics

In Committee

Legislative Progress

✓

Introduced

✓

Committee

Floor Vote

Other Chamber

Enacted

Introduced

February 9, 2017

Latest Action

March 2, 2017

Primary Sponsor

Jason SmithRepublican(MO)

Momentum (last 30 days)

score

0 actions · 0 new cosponsors · 0 votes

Speed vs cohort

68pct

21d open

vs 7,393 other HR bills in the 115th — cohort avg 50d

Summary

Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act or the SCRUB Act TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION (Sec. 101) This bill establishes the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to conduct a review of the Code of Federal Regulations to identify rules and sets of rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation. The commission shall give priority to the review of rules or sets of rules that are major rules or that include major rules, that have been in effect more than 15 years, that impose paperwork burdens or unfunded mandates that could be reduced substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness, that impose disproportionately high costs on small entities, or that could be strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs. The commission's goal is to achieve a reduction of at least 15% in the cumulative costs of regulation with a minimal reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation. Criteria the commission shall use in identifying which rules and sets of rules should be repealed include whether: the original purpose of the rules was achieved; the implementation, compliance, administration, enforcement, imposition of unfunded mandates, or other costs of the rules are not justified by a cost-benefit analysis; the rules have been rendered unnecessary or obsolete; the rules are ineffective at achieving their purposes; the rules overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other federal, state, or local rules; the rules have excessive compliance costs, impose unfunded mandates, or are otherwise excessively burdensome compared to possible alternatives; the rules inhibit innovation or harm competition; the rules limit or prevent an agency from applying new or emerging technologies to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government; the rules harm wage growth, including wage growth for minimum wage and part-time workers; the agency complied with Congressional Review Act requirements to submit the rules to Congress and the Government Accountability Office before the rules take effect; and a repeal would impact public health. The commission shall terminate on the later of five years and 180 days after the enactment of this bill or five years after the date by which the terms of all members of the commission have commenced. The bill requires congressional consideration and enactment of a joint resolution of approval of recommendations of the commission for the repeal of a rule or rules prior to agency implementation of a repeal. An agency is prohibited from: (1) reissuing rules substantially similar to rules repealed by this bill without congressional approval, or (2) issuing a new rule that results in the same adverse effects of a repealed rule. The commission shall establish a public website to provide information in a standard data format and shall receive and publish public comments at no cost to the public. The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the commission. TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO (Sec. 201) This title requires agencies, when making a new rule, to repeal rules or sets of rules classified by the commission as recommended for repeal to offset the costs of the new rule (cut-go procedure). (Sec. 202) Agencies are exempted from cut-go requirements when the commission has implemented the repeal of all rules and sets of rules that the commission has recommended for repeal. (Sec. 203) The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget shall review and certify the accuracy of agency determinations of the cost of new rules subject to cut-go requirements. TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES (Sec. 301) This title requires an agency, when issuing a new rule, to include a plan for the review of such rule not later than 10 years after the date of such rule. TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW (Sec. 401) This title allows judicial review of repeals of regulations, cut-go procedures, and plans for future review. TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (Sec. 501) A "major rule" is defined to mean any rule that OIRA determines is likely to impose: (1) an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies, or geographic regions; (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises; or (4) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.

Lobbying filings that explicitly cite this bill (50)

These links require the bill number to appear in the filing's source-reported specific issue text. Client expenses and lobbying-firm income are separate disclosure fields.

Filing registrants (49)

KEY IMPACT STRATEGIES (8)POTOMAC GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, LLC (6)POLICY INTEGRATION PARTNERS, LLC (4)KEARNEY, DONOVAN & MCGEE (3)SCHOENING STRATEGIES (5)MASON CONSULTING, LLC (1)STUNTZ DAVIS & STAFFIER, P.C. (1)AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION (1)AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION (5)AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION (4)

Show 39 more registrants

ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

Subjects (9)

Administrative law and regulatory procedures

Advisory bodies

Competitiveness, trade promotion, trade deficits

Congressional oversight

Economic performance and conditions

Government information and archives

Government studies and investigations

Judicial review and appeals

Actions (52)

March 2, 2017

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

March 1, 2017

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

March 1, 2017

On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 185 (Roll no. 114).

House

March 1, 2017

Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 185 (Roll no. 114).

House

March 1, 2017

On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 190 - 235 (Roll no. 113).

House

March 1, 2017

The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.

March 1, 2017

Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Raskin motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the same back to the House with an amendment to add an exemption to the underlying bill for any rules pertaining to laws governing potential conflicts of interest of an employee or officer of the executive branch, financial disclosures of an employee or officer of the executive branch, or bribery.

March 1, 2017

Mr. Raskin moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (text: CR 1417)

Committees

Committee	Chamber	Activity	Date
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee	Senate	Referred to	March 2, 2017
Judiciary Committee	House	Discharged from	February 21, 2017
Oversight and Accountability Committee	House	Reported by	February 21, 2017
Oversight and Accountability Committee