- H.R. 10171August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10156August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10172August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10160August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10181August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10176August 27, 2026
- H.Res. 1496August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10164August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10170August 27, 2026
- H.Res. 1494August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10163August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10157August 27, 2026
- Administration
- Agriculture
- Agriculture, Nutrition, And Forestry
- Appropriations
- Armed Services
- Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs
- Budget
- Commerce, Science, And Transportation
- Education and Workforce
- Energy And Commerce
- Energy And Natural Resources
- Environment And Public Works
- Ethics
- Finance
- Financial Services
- Foreign Affairs
- Foreign Relations
- Health, Education, Labor, And Pensions
- Homeland Security
- Homeland Security And Governmental Affa…
- Indian Affairs
- Indian and Insular Affairs
- Intelligence
- Judiciary
- Natural Resources
- Oversight And Government Reform
- Permanent Select Intelligence
- Rules
- Rules And Administration
- Science, Space, And Technology
- Select Intelligence
- Small Business
- Small Business And Entrepreneurship
- Subcommittee on Aviation
- Subcommittee on Border Security and Enf…
- Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritim…
- Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digi…
- Subcommittee on Conservation, Research,…
- Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and In…
- Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infra…
- Subcommittee on Disability Assistance a…
- Subcommittee on Economic Development, P…
- Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
- Subcommittee on Emergency Management an…
- Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Reso…
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands
- Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticultu…
- Subcommittee on General Farm Commoditie…
- Subcommittee on Health
- Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
- Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and P…
- Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign A…
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investiga…
- Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigatio…
- Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, a…
- Subcommittee on Transportation and Mari…
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Env…
- Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fis…
- Transportation And Infrastructure
- Veterans' Affairs
- Ways And Means

S. 648
U.S. Senate•In Senate Committee
Summary
S. 648, the SCRUB Act of 2025, was introduced in the Senate on Feb 20, 2025 by Sen. Joni Ernst (R). It was referred to Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs, and last saw action on Feb 20, 2025: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Record
Text
S. 648 has no co-sponsors and has not gone to a roll call.
sb648/introduced-in-senate.txt119 S648 IS: Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2025U.S. Senate2025-02-20text/xmlENPursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.II 119th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 648 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 BILLTo provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes.1.Short title; table of contents(a)Short titleThis 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 contentsThe table of contents for this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.Sec. 2. Definitions.TITLE I—Regulatory Cut-GoSec. 101. Cut-go procedures.Sec. 102. Applicability.Sec. 103. OIRA certification of cost calculations.TITLE II—Retrospective Review of Existing and New RulesSec. 201. Plan for review of existing rules.Sec. 202. Plan for future review.TITLE III—Judicial review; effective dateSec. 301. Judicial review.Sec. 302. Effective date.2.DefinitionsIn this Act:(1)AdministratorThe term Administrator means the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.(2)AgencyThe term agency has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.(3)DirectorThe term Director means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.(4)DOGEThe term DOGE means the United States DOGE Service under the Executive Office of the President.(5)Major ruleThe 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)RuleThe term rule has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.(7)Set of rulesThe term set of rules means a set of rules that collectively implements a regulatory authority of an agency.IRegulatory Cut-Go101.Cut-go procedures(a)In generalExcept 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 generalAn 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 costIf 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 generalSubject 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)LimitationWhen 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 analysisWhen 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.102.ApplicabilityAn 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.103.OIRA certification of cost calculations(a)In generalThe Administrator shall review and certify the accuracy of agency determinations of the costs of new rules under section 201.(b)InclusionThe 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.IIRetrospective Review of Existing and New Rules201.Plan for review of existing rules(a)In generalThe 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)PriorityThe 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)GoalThe 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 reviewTo 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 reissuedA 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.202.Plan for future review(a)In generalWhen 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 rulesThe 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 planWhenever 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 rulesThe 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).IIIJudicial review; effective date301.Judicial review(a)Cut-Go proceduresAgency non-compliance with title I shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.(b)Plans for future reviewAgency non-compliance with section 202 shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.302.Effective dateThis Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
Tracker
The tracker indicates the progress of this legislation as it moves through the legislative process.
- Introduced2025-02-20
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- Conference
- To President
- Became Law
A bill to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes.
Sponsors
Sen. Joni Ernst (R) sponsors S. 648 alone.
Committees
S. 648 went before 1 committee: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Actions
S. 648 has taken 2 actions since Feb 20, 2025.
| Chamber | Action | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Feb 20, 2025 | Senate | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee | ||
Feb 20, 2025 | — | Introduced in Senate |
Votes
S. 648 has not gone to a roll call.
Titles
S. 648 goes by 4 titles, 2 of them short titles.
- SCRUB Act of 2025 — Display Title
- SCRUB Act of 2025 — Short Title(s) as Introduced
- Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2025 — Short Title(s) as Introduced
- A bill to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes. — Official Title as Introduced
Lobbying
1 client hired 1 firm and 5 registered lobbyists who named S. 648 in 1 quarterly filing, 2025. Reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act; a filing’s income covers everything its registrant worked that quarter, so the amounts below are the filings’, not this bill’s.
Filed under Energy/Nuclear, Science/Technology.
Clients
Who paid to be heard, by how many filings named the bill.
| Client | Business | State | Firms | Filings | Reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUVERA FUEL CELLS | manufacturing | Massachusetts | 1 | 1 | $50K |
Firms
Registrants who filed on the bill, by filings.
| Registrant | Clients | Filings | Reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| MICHAEL BEST STRATEGIES LLC | 1 | 1 | $50K |
Lobbyists
Named on the filings that cite the bill.
| Lobbyist | Firms | Clients | Filings |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALEXANDER ANGELSON | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| BRETT EWER | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| RACHEL SPIVEY | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| SARAH HELTON | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| TAMI BUCKNER | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Filings
The documents themselves, on the Senate’s Lobbying Disclosure site, largest reported first.
| Client | Registrant | Period | Reported | Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUVERA FUEL CELLS | MICHAEL BEST STRATEGIES LLC | 2025 first_quarter | $50K | 1st Quarter - Report |
Classification
The Congressional Research Service files S. 648 under Government Operations and Politics, one of its 31 policy areas, and gives it 2 legislative subjects.
CRS Subjects
CRS assigns every bill one policy area from its 31; S. 648’s is Government Operations and Politics.
s648/policy-areas.txtLegislative Subjects
S. 648 carries 2 of CRS’s legislative subjects, from Administrative law and regulatory procedures to Judicial review and appeals.
s648/subjects.txtSource: congress.gov · legiscan.com