Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share Facebook Share through Google Plus Share this Page by Email Print this Page

Federal - HR 998

Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act

Introduced

February 9, 2017

Description

A bill to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes.

Our Position

Oppose

Original Sponsor 1

Co-Sponsors 3

Latest Actions See More/Less

  • March 8, 2017Pascrell, D-N.J., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.104, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E289

  • March 6, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.108, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E276

  • March 6, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.107, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E276

  • March 6, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.106, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E276

  • March 6, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.105, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E276

  • March 2, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.114, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. H1484

  • March 2, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.113, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. H1483

  • March 2, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.112, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. H1483

  • March 2, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.111, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. H1483

  • March 2, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.110, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. H1483

  • March 2, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.109, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. H1483

  • March 2, 2017 — Received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Congressional Record p. S1576

  • March 1, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.108, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E260

  • March 1, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.107, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E260

  • March 1, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.106, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E260

  • March 1, 2017Wagner, R-Mo., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.108, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017Wagner, R-Mo., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.107, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017Wagner, R-Mo., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.106, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.108, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.107, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.106, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017Wagner, R-Mo., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.105, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017Hudson, R-N.C., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.105, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017R. Davis, R-Ill., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.105, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E258

  • March 1, 2017K. Brady, R-Texas, House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.104, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E256

  • March 1, 2017K. Brady, R-Texas, House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.103, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E254

  • March 1, 2017House Vote 114 Regulatory Review Commission — Passage
    Passage of the bill that would establish a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy. The commission would identify those regulatory policies that it deems should be repealed immediately, and would set up a "Cut-Go" system that would require agencies to repeal existing rules to offset costs before issuing a new rule. As amended, the commission, in identifying which rules should be repealed, would be required to evaluate the extent to which a repeal of a rule would impact public health. It would bar from membership on the commission individuals who have been registered lobbyists during the previous two years. Passed 240-185. Congressional Record p. H1419

  • March 1, 2017House Vote 113 Regulatory Review Commission — Recommit
    Raskin, D-Md., motion to recommit the bill to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with an amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions rules related to laws governing potential conflicts of interest and financial disclosures for executive branch employees, and would exempt rules related to bribery. Motion rejected 190-235. Congressional Record p. H1417-H1419

  • March 1, 2017 — Committee of the Whole amendment adopted by voice vote. Congressional Record p. H1417

  • March 1, 2017House Vote 112 Regulatory Review Comission — Whistleblower Protections
    Cummings, D-Md., amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions rules related to whistleblower protections and rules related to penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 194-231. Congressional Record p. H1413-H1414, H1416-H1417

  • March 1, 2017House Vote 111 Regulatory Review Commission — Tribal Sovereignty
    Moore, D-Wis., amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions rules related to federal obligations to tribal governments and rules related to supporting tribal sovereignty. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 197-229. Congressional Record p. H1412-H1413, H1415-H1416

  • March 1, 2017House Vote 110 Regulatory Review Commission — Clean Air Act Enforcement
    Raskin, D-Md., amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions rules related to the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 189-231. Congressional Record p. H1411-H1412, H1415

  • March 1, 2017 — Bonamici, D-Ore., amendment no. 9, that would exempt rules related to financial assistance to education agencies to children in low-income families, rejected by voice vote. Amendment text. Congressional Record p. H1410-H1411

  • March 1, 2017House Vote 109 Regulatory Review Commission — Student Loan Borrower Protections
    Bonamici, D-Ore., amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions rules related to providing consumer protections for student loan borrowers. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 191-235. Congressional Record p. H1408-H1410, H1414-H1415

  • March 1, 2017 — Considered by the House. Congressional Record p. H1408-H1419

  • Feb. 28, 2017Adrian Smith, R-Neb., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.104, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. H1370

  • Feb. 28, 2017Adrian Smith, R-Neb., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.103, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. H1370

  • Feb. 28, 2017House Vote 108 Regulatory Review Commission — Airport Noise Restrictions
    Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., amendment that would exempt rules related to airport noise restrictions. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 192-230. Congressional Record p. H1382-H1383, H1385

  • Feb. 28, 2017House Vote 107 Regulatory Review Commission — National Airspace
    Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., amendment that would exempt rules related to the safety of the national airspace system. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 189-234. Congressional Record p. H1381-H1382, H1384-H1385

  • Feb. 28, 2017 — McNerney, D-Calif., amendment no. 5, that would exempt rules related to the physical security and cybersecurity of the bulk power system, rejected by voice vote. Amendment text. Congressional Record p. H1381

  • Feb. 28, 2017House Vote 106 Regulatory Review Commission — Authorized Funding
    Plaskett, D-V.I., amendment that would remove the bill's authorization of up to $30 million and would prohibit funds authorized or appropriated by other laws from being made available to implement the bill's provisions. Rejected in Committee of the Whole 181-243. Congressional Record p. H1379-H1381, H1383-H1384

  • Feb. 28, 2017 — McSally, R-Ariz., amendment no. 3, that would require the rule review commission, in identifying rules that should be repealed, to evaluate whether the rule had been submitted to Congress as required by the Congressional Review Act, adopted by voice vote. Amendment text. Congressional Record p. H1378-H1379

  • Feb. 28, 2017House Vote 105 Regulatory Review Commission — Public Health Impact
    DeSaulnier, D-Calif., amendment that would require the regulatory review commission, in identifying which rules should be repealed, to consider the extent to which repealing the rule would impact public health. Adopted in Committee of the Whole 348-75. Congressional Record p. H1377-H1378, H1383

  • Feb. 28, 2017 — Cummings, D-Md., for Beyer, D-Va., amendment no. 1, that would bar from membership on the rule review commission individuals who have been registered lobbyists during the previous two years, adopted by voice vote. Amendment text. Congressional Record p. H1376-H1377

  • Feb. 28, 2017 — Considered by the House. Congressional Record p. H1370-H1385

  • Feb. 28, 2017House Vote 104 Regulatory Review and OSHA Citation Disapproval — Rule
    Adoption of the rule (H Res 150) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill (HR 998) that would create a commission to review existing federal regulations to identify those that should be repealed in order to reduce costs to the economy. It also would provide for consideration of the joint resolution (H J Res 83) that would nullify and disapprove of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule related to citations of employers who do not maintain certain workplace injury or illness records. Adopted 225-188. Congressional Record p. H1369-H1370

  • Feb. 28, 2017House Vote 103 Regulatory Review and OSHA Citation Disapproval — Previous Question
    Collins, R-Ga., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 150) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill (HR 998) that would create a commission to review existing federal regulations to identify those that should be repealed in order to reduce costs to the economy. It also would provide for consideration of the joint resolution (H J Res 83) that would nullify and disapprove of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule related to citations of employers who do not maintain certain workplace injury or illness records. Motion agreed to 224-191. Congressional Record p. H1369

  • Feb. 27, 2017 — Rules Committee resolution, H Res 150, reported to the House as a rule for HR 998.

  • Feb. 27, 2017 — House Rules Committee granted a structured rule providing for consideration of the bill. Congressional Record p. H1340, H1354

  • Feb. 27, 2017 — Full committee proceeding held by the House Rules Committee.

  • Feb. 21, 2017 — House Judiciary Committee discharged pursuant to clause 2 of Rule XIII. Congressional Record p. H1316

  • Feb. 21, 2017 — Reported to the House by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and placed on the Union Calendar. H Rept 115-14, Pt. 1Congressional Record p. H1316

  • Feb. 14, 2017 — Full committee consideration and markup held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

    Feb. 14, 2017 — Committee Vote: Regulatory Review Commission — Older Regulation Prioritization
      Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill. —

    Amendment that would require the Regulatory Review Commission created by the bill to begin its review with the oldest regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations and proceed chronologically towards more recent regulations.

    Amendment that would require the Regulatory Review Commission created by the bill to begin its review with the oldest regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations and proceed chronologically towards more recent regulations.

    Rejected by voice vote.

    Feb. 14, 2017 — Committee Vote: Regulatory Review Commission — Whistleblower Protections
      Cummings, D-Md. —

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any agency rule or regulation that protects whistleblowers and imposes penalties on retaliation.

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any agency rule or regulation that protects whistleblowers and imposes penalties on retaliation.

    Rejected 12-21.

    Feb. 14, 2017 — Committee Vote: Regulatory Review Commission — Lead Safety Regulations Exemption
      Lawrence, D-Mich. —

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any agency rule or regulation related to the protection of the public from lead poisoning.

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any agency rule or regulation related to the protection of the public from lead poisoning.

    Rejected 14-21.

    Feb. 14, 2017 — Committee Vote: Regulatory Review Commission — Conflict of Interest Regulation Exemptions
      Raskin, D-Md. —

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any regulation or rule related to the conflict of interest by government or elected officials.

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any regulation or rule related to the conflict of interest by government or elected officials.

    Rejected 17-22.

    Feb. 14, 2017 — Committee Vote: Regulatory Review Commission — Clean Air Regulatory Exemption
      Raskin, D-Md. —

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any regulation or rule related to the Clean Air Act.

    Amendment that would exempt from the bill's provisions any regulation or rule related to the Clean Air Act.

    Rejected 17-22.

    Feb. 14, 2017 — Committee Vote: Regulatory Review Commission — Vote to Report

    Create a Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to review rules and regulations, their impact and their effectiveness to determine if they should be repealed. The bill also would require the commission to be terminated five years and 180 days after the bill's enactment or five years after all of the members of the commission begin serving, whichever is later.

    The measure would direct the commission to establish a standard methodology for reviewing rules.

    It would direct the president to appoint and the Senate to confirm nine members to the commission based on recommendations from leaders in both chambers of Congress.

    The bill would require the commission to hold public hearings and make relevant information available online. It also would grant subpoena powers to the commission and provide its members with payment and travel expenses.

    It would permit the commission to hire a staff.

    It also would require federal agencies to repeal rules as recommended by the commission within 60 days if Congress passes a joint resolution approving of the commissions decision.

    It would require federal agencies to repeal older regulations with similar economic costs, before issuing new rule. Agency compliance with the terms of the legislation would be subject to judicial review.

    It also would establish for the commission, a goal of at least a 15 percent reduction in the cost of federal regulations and direct the commission to give a priority in the review process to rules that have been in an effect for more than fifteen years.

    It would authorize such sums as necessary to carry out the legislation, but it would limit the total amount of funds appropriated to $30 million over the five-year period. It would allow any remaining funds to be used in subsequent fiscal years.

    Create a Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to review rules and regulations, their impact and their effectiveness to determine if they should be repealed. The bill also would require the commission to be terminated five years and 180 days after the bill's enactment or five years after all of the members of the commission begin serving, whichever is later.

    The measure would direct the commission to establish a standard methodology for reviewing rules.

    It would direct the president to appoint and the Senate to confirm nine members to the commission based on recommendations from leaders in both chambers of Congress.

    The bill would require the commission to hold public hearings and make relevant information available online. It also would grant subpoena powers to the commission and provide its members with payment and travel expenses.

    It would permit the commission to hire a staff.

    It also would require federal agencies to repeal rules as recommended by the commission within 60 days if Congress passes a joint resolution approving of the commissions decision.

    It would require federal agencies to repeal older regulations with similar economic costs, before issuing new rule. Agency compliance with the terms of the legislation would be subject to judicial review.

    It also would establish for the commission, a goal of at least a 15 percent reduction in the cost of federal regulations and direct the commission to give a priority in the review process to rules that have been in an effect for more than fifteen years.

    It would authorize such sums as necessary to carry out the legislation, but it would limit the total amount of funds appropriated to $30 million over the five-year period. It would allow any remaining funds to be used in subsequent fiscal years.

    Ordered reported favorably to the full House 22-17.
  • Feb. 13, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 2

    Chaffetz, (R-Utah)Sessions, (R-Texas)
  • Feb. 9, 2017 — Original cosponsor(s): 1

    Goodlatte, R. (R-Va.)
  • Feb. 9, 2017 — Read twice and referred to: House Judiciary, House Oversight and Government Reform.Congressional Record p. H1099