PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-675, Part I.
Congressional Research Service
Version 28 · Reported to House without amendment, Part I · Dec 12, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2014 or the SCRUB Act of 2014 - Title I: Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission - Establishes the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to review the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to identify, using specified criteria, rules and sets of rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the economy, giving priority to major rules that: (1) have been in effect more than 15 years, (2) impose paperwork burdens that could be reduced substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness, (3) impose disproportionately high costs on small business entities, and (4) could be strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs.
Title II: Regulatory Cut-go - Requires a federal agency that makes a new rule to repeal rules identified by the Commission to offset the cost to the economy of such new rule (cut-go procedures). Requires the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and certify the accuracy of agency determinations of the cost of new rules.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Title III: Retrospective Review of New Rules - Requires a federal agency that makes a new rule to include in the final issuance of such rule a plan for reviewing the rule not later than 10 years after it is promulgated.
Title IV: Judicial Review - Makes agency compliance with the requirements of this Act subject to judicial review.
Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions - Defines terms used in this Act and makes it effective upon enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-675, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-675, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 15.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 10.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law Discharged.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4874 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4874 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4874 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4874 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.