PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 55 · Passed Senate · Dec 18, 2023
Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2023
This bill requires federal agencies to include a list of outdated or duplicative reporting requirements in their annual budget justifications. With respect to each recurring plan or report that is outdated or duplicative, the agency must also include (1) a recommendation on whether to end, modify, consolidate, or reduce the frequency of the report or plan; (2) a citation to each provision of law or directive in a congressional report that requires or requests the submission of the report or plan; and (3) a list of the relevant congressional committees.
If a recurring plan or report is required to be submitted by at least two federal agencies, the bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to (1) determine whether the requirement to submit the recurring plan or report is outdated or duplicative, and (2) make recommendations to Congress accordingly.
People & committees
Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate concurred in the House amendment to S. 2073 with an amendment (SA 3021) by Yea-Nay Vote. 91 - 3. Record Vote Number: 221.
Senate roll call 221 · Individual votesResolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate concurred in the House amendment to S. 2073 with an amendment (SA 3021) by Yea-Nay Vote. 91 - 3. Record Vote Number: 221.
Senate roll call 221 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate (Message from the House considered). (consideration: CR S5566)
Motion by Senator Schumer to refer to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with the following amendment (SA 3023) fell when cloture was invoked on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2073 in Senate.
Cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2073 invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 86 - 1. Record Vote Number: 219. (CR S5505)
Senate roll call 219 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate (Message from the House considered). (consideration: CR S5489-5490, S5497-5505)
Motion by Senator Schumer to refer to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs the House message to accompany S. 2073 with instructions to report back forthwith with the following amendment (SA 3023) made in Senate. (CR S5174)
Cloture motion on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2073 with an amendment (SA 3021) presented in Senate. (CR S5174)
Motion by Senator Schumer to concur in the House amendment to S. 2073 with an amendment (SA 3021) made in Senate. (CR S5174)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5174-5175)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2850-2851)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2850-2851)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 2073.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2850-2852)
Mr. LaTurner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6027; text: CR S6027)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6027; text: CR S6027)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 194.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Peters under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/27/2023 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 118-91.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Peters under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/27/2023 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 118-91.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
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: Dec 5, 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.2073 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.2073 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.2073 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.2073 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.