PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 25, 2015
Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015 or the SCRUB Act of 2015
Establishes the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to review the Code of Federal Regulations 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using specified criteria, rules and sets of rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the economy, giving priority to major rules that: (1) have been in effect more than 15 years, (2) impose paperwork burdens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.
Sets forth congressional procedures for consideration of recommendations for the repeal of rules in the Commission's reports. Requires agencies to repeal a rule or set of rules as recommended by the Commission within 60 days after the enactment of a joint resolution approving the recommendations in the Commission's reports. Prohibits the reissuance of a rule similar to any rule that has been repealed or that results in the same adverse effects of a repealed rule.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Commission to: (1) establish a public website to make regulatory information accessible to the public at no cost, and (2) make any of its meetings of hearings open to the public.
Requires a federal agency that makes a new rule to: (1) repeal rules identified by the Commission to offset the cost to the economy of such new rule (cut-go procedures), and (2) include in the final issuance of such rule a plan for reviewing the rule not later than 10 years after it is promulgated. Requires the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget to review and certify the accuracy of agency determinations of the cost of new rules.
Makes agency compliance with the requirements of this Act subject to judicial review.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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 S.1683 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 S.1683 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 S.1683 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 S.1683 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.