S 648 Re-checks Congress.gov for new actions and updates the bill's status, and fills in any sponsors, committees, or related bills that are missing. It does not re-pull sponsors/cosponsors/committees/related — those rarely change — and it skips all work if nothing has changed upstream, so it's cheap to click.
To provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes.
Summary
This bill establishes a regulatory reform process requiring federal agencies to offset the costs of new rules by repealing existing rules. When an agency issues a new rule, it must repeal other rules such that the cost savings equal or exceed the cost of the new rule. The bill directs the U.S. DOGE Service to review existing federal regulations and identify rules for repeal to achieve at least a 33 percent reduction in cumulative federal regulation costs by July 4, 2026. New rules must include a plan for their review within 10 years. The bill applies specific criteria for identifying rules as candidates for repeal, including whether their original purpose was achieved, their cost-benefit ratio, whether they are obsolete or overlap with other regulations, and whether they harm innovation or competitiveness.
AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill text — neutral, and may be imperfect. See the full text below for the exact wording.
Sponsor (1)
- Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA] (R-IA)
Money behind the sponsor
Top reported contributors to Joni Ernst’s campaign committee (2024 cycle) — who funds the bill’s sponsor, not a claim about this bill. Data from FEC.
- NULL $57,653
- CAPITAL GROUP $40,000
- SOROBAN CAPITAL $13,200
- CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES $7,500
- GOOGLE $6,800
Organizations whose employees gave the most — itemized individual contributions grouped by the donor’s reported employer (FEC Schedule A). Full finance for Joni Ernst → · Outside spending →
Actions (2)
- Feb 20, 2025 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. · senate
- Feb 20, 2025 Introduced in Senate
More bills on these subjects (8)
Other bills that carry the most legislative subjects in common with this one (topical discovery — distinct from the procedural related bills above).
Similar bills (6)
Bills with similar text or summary — includes reintroductions across Congresses. Ranked by semantic similarity of the bill text (computed locally); a neutral discovery aid, not a claim the bills are duplicates.
Full text
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 20, 2025
Ms. Ernst introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
A BILL
To provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2025” or the “SCRUB Act of 2025”.
(b) Table of Contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I—REGULATORY CUT-GO
Sec. 101. Cut-go procedures. Sec. 102. Applicability. Sec. 103. OIRA certification of cost calculations.
TITLE II—RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF EXISTING AND NEW RULES
Sec. 201. Plan for review of existing rules. Sec. 202. Plan for future review.
TITLE III—JUDICIAL REVIEW; EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 301. Judicial review. Sec. 302. Effective date.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
(2) Agency.—The term “agency” has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Director.—The term “Director” means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(4) DOGE.—The term “DOGE” means the United States DOGE Service under the Executive Office of the President.
(5) Major rule.—The term “major rule” means any rule that the Administrator determines is likely to impose—
(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for inflation;
(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local, or Tribal government agencies, or geographic regions;
(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.
(6) Rule.—The term “rule” has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(7) Set of rules.—The term “set of rules” means a set of rules that collectively implements a regulatory authority of an agency.
TITLE I—REGULATORY CUT-GO
SEC. 101. CUT-GO PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.—Except as provided in section 102, or subsection
(b) of this section, when an agency makes a new rule, the agency shall repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency meeting the criteria provided in section 201(d), such that the annual costs of the new rule to the United States economy is offset by such repeals, in an amount equal to or greater than the cost of the new rule, based on the regulatory cost reductions of repeal identified by the DOGE, as calculated pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
(b) Alternative Procedure.—
(1) In general.—An agency may, alternatively, repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency meeting the criteria provided in section 201(d) prior to the time specified in subsection
(a).
(2) Application of reduction of cost.—If an agency repeals a rule or set of rules under paragraph (1) and thereby reduces the annual, inflation-adjusted cost of the rule or set of rules to the United States economy, the agency may thereafter apply the reduction in regulatory costs to meet, in whole or in part, the regulatory cost reduction required under subsection (a) to be made at the time the agency promulgates a new rule if the new rule is finalized within 2 years of repeal of the rule or set of rules reducing the annual, inflation-adjusted cost thereof.
(c) Achievement of Full Net Cost Reductions.—
(1) In general.—Subject to the provisions of paragraph
(2), an agency may offset the costs of a new rule or set of rules by repealing a rule or set of rules that implement the same statutory authority as the new rule or set of rules.
(2) Limitation.—When using the authority provided in paragraph (1), the agency shall achieve a net reduction in costs imposed by the body of rules of the agency (including the new rule or set of rules) that is equal to or greater than the cost of the new rule or set of rules to be promulgated, including, whenever necessary, by repealing additional rules of the agency meeting the criteria provided in section 201(d).
(d) Regulatory Cost Analysis.—When calculating the cost of a new or existing rule for purposes of compliance with this section, an agency shall not consider any non-monetized or unquantified factor.
SEC. 102. APPLICABILITY.
An agency shall no longer be subject to the requirements of sections 201 and 203 beginning on the date on which there is no rule or set of rules of the agency meeting the criteria provided in section 201(d) that has not been repealed such that all regulatory cost reductions from repealing rules meeting such criteria have been achieved.
SEC. 103. OIRA CERTIFICATION OF COST CALCULATIONS.
(a) In General.—The Administrator shall review and certify the accuracy of agency determinations of the costs of new rules under section 201.
(b) Inclusion.—The certification described in subsection (a) shall be included in the administrative record of the relevant rulemaking by the agency promulgating the rule, and the Administrator shall transmit a copy of the certification to Congress when the Administrator transmits the certification to the agency.
TITLE II—RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF EXISTING AND NEW RULES
SEC. 201. PLAN FOR REVIEW OF EXISTING RULES.
(a) In General.—The DOGE shall conduct a review of the Code of Federal Regulations to identify and, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and any relevant agency head, repeal rules and sets of rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the economy.
(b) Priority.—The DOGE shall give priority in the review to rules or sets of rules that—
(1) are major rules or include major rules;
(2) have been in effect more than 15 years;
(3) impose paperwork burdens that could be reduced substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness;
(4) impose disproportionately high costs on entities that qualify as small entities within the meaning of section 601(6) of title 5, United States Code; or
(5) could be strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs.
(c) Goal.—The DOGE shall have as a goal to achieve a reduction of at least 33 percent in the cumulative costs of Federal regulation with a minimal reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation by no later than July 4, 2026, by coordinating with the Director, the Administrator, and relevant agency heads to repeal rules or sets of rules identified pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
(d) Nature of Review.—To identify which rules and sets of rules should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the economy, the DOGE shall apply the following criteria:
(1) Whether the original purpose of the rule or set of rules was achieved, and the rule or set of rules could be repealed without significant recurrence of adverse effects or conduct that the rule or set of rules was intended to prevent or reduce.
(2) Whether the implementation, compliance, administration, enforcement or other costs of the rule or set of rules to the economy are not justified by the benefits to society within the United States that are directly attributable to the rule or set of rules produced by the expenditure of those costs.
(3) Whether the rule or set of rules has been rendered unnecessary or obsolete, taking into consideration the length of time since the rule was made and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, market practices, or other relevant factors have changed in the subject area affected by the rule or set of rules.
(4) Whether the rule or set of rules is ineffective at achieving the purposes of the rule or set of rules when evaluated using data analytics and statistical relationships, or unable to be evaluated using such standards.
(5) Whether the rule or set of rules overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules.
(6) Whether the rule or set of rules has excessive compliance costs or is otherwise excessively burdensome, as compared to alternatives that—
(A) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or manners of compliance;
(B) establish economic incentives to encourage desired behavior;
(C) provide information upon which choices can be made by the public;
(D) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather than agency actions that specify conduct or manners of compliance; or
(E) could in other ways substantially lower costs without significantly undermining effectiveness.
(7) Whether the rule or set of rules inhibits innovation in or growth of the United States economy, such as by impeding the introduction or use of safer or equally safe technology that is newer or more efficient than technology required by or permissible under the rule or set of rules.
(8) Whether or not the rule or set of rules harms competition within the United States economy or the international economic competitiveness of enterprises or entities based in the United States.
(9) Whether the rule or set of rules concerns a major economic or policy question but lacks an explicit statutory basis.
(10) Whether the rule or set of rules imposes costs or burdens disproportionately and predominantly on one segment of society or one industry if the benefits of such rule or set of rules accrue to a distinct segment of society or industry.
(11) Whether the rule or set of rules is justified in whole or in part by a benefit accrued by one or more foreign nations while costs are borne by American consumers, businesses, other entities, or individuals.
(12) Whether the rule or set of rules are not based on the best meaning and plain reading of the enabling statute for the rule or set of rules.
(13) Such other criteria as the DOGE devises to identify rules and sets of rules that can be repealed to eliminate or reduce unnecessarily burdensome costs to the United States economy.
(e) No Substantially Similar Rule To Be Reissued.—A rule that is repealed under subsection (a) of this section or section 101 may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the repeal of the original rule.
SEC. 202. PLAN FOR FUTURE REVIEW.
(a) In General.—When an agency makes a rule, the agency shall include in the final issuance of such rule a plan for the review of such rule by not later than 10 years after the date such rule is made.
(b) Review of Rules.—The plan for review under subsection (a) shall use interpretations and definitions of terms included in 201(d) that are substantially similar to those used by the DOGE under the review pursuant to section 201.
(c) Public Comment on Plan.—Whenever feasible, an agency shall include a proposed plan for review of a proposed rule under subsection
(a) in the notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule and shall receive public comment on the plan.
(d) Repeal of Rules.—The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with any relevant agency head, shall repeal any rule failing to meet the criteria provided section 201(d).
TITLE III—JUDICIAL REVIEW; EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 301. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Cut-Go Procedures.—Agency non-compliance with title I shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Plans for Future Review.—Agency non-compliance with section 202 shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. <all>
Comments