Loading the public record
Loading the public record
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
All recent votes114th CongressHouse
TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
(Sec. 101) This bill establishes the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to conduct a review of the Code of Federal Regulations to identify rules and sets of rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation. The Commission shall give priority to the review of rules or sets of rules that are major rules or that include major rules, that have been in effect more than 15 years, that impose paperwork burdens or unfunded mandates that could be reduced substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness, that impose disproportionately high costs on small entities, or that could be strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs. The Commission's goal is to achieve a reduction of at least 15% in the cumulative costs of regulation with a minimal reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation.
Criteria the Commission shall use in identifying which rules and sets of rules should be repealed include whether:
the original purpose of the rules was achieved;
The bill requires congressional consideration and enactment of a joint resolution of approval of recommendations of the Commission for the repeal of a rule or rules prior to agency implementation of a repeal. An agency is prohibited from: (1) reissuing rules substantially similar to rules repealed by this Act without congressional approval, or (2) issuing a new rule that results in the same adverse effects of a repealed rule.
The Commission shall establish a public website to provide information in a standard data format and shall receive and publish public comments at no cost to the public.
Jan 7, 2016Each bar: ✓ Yea from the bottom, ✕ Nay aboveJan 7, 2016
House Jan 7, 2016 · the primary vote
Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015 or the “SCRUB Act of 2015”
Passed
245 Yea 174 Nay 14 not voting
Party-line vote 8 of 419 voting members broke with their own party: 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
DemocratsRepublicansFilled: YeaRing: NayGrey: not voting or present
433 members on this roll call, from the official House record. Party majorities need at least five voting members, so an independent never counts as breaking with a party.
Signing on is not a vote: a member can cosponsor H.R. 1155 and vote against it. 7 signed when it was filed.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the Commission and any subcommittees of the Commission.
TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO
(Sec. 201) This title requires agencies, when making a new rule, to repeal rules or sets of rules classified by the Commission as recommended for repeal to offset the costs of the new rule (cut-go procedure).
(Sec. 202) Agencies are exempted from cut-go requirements when the Commission has implemented the repeal of all rules and sets of rules that the Commission has recommended for repeal.
(Sec. 203) The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget shall review and certify the accuracy of agency determinations of the cost of new rules subject to cut-go requirements.
TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES
(Sec. 301) This title requires an agency, when issuing a new rule, to include a plan for the review of such rule not later than 10 years after the date of such rule.
TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW
(Sec. 401) This title allows judicial review of repeals of regulations, cut-go procedures, and plans for future review.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
(Sec. 501) A "major rule" is defined to mean any rule that OIRA determines is likely to impose: (1) an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies, or geographic regions; (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises; or (4) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.
Written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, describing H.R. 1155 as passed House amended on Jan 7, 2016. It is not the text of the measure; a later amendment may have changed what it does.
Organizations that named H.R. 1155 in a lobbying disclosure. Only those that cited the bill by number appear, so this is a floor, not a full list.
59 disclosures name this measure. Retrieved from LDA.gov on 2026-10-05. Senate Office of Public Records cannot vouch for the data or analyses derived from these data after the data have been retrieved from LDA.gov.