Regulation Decimation Act
- Bill Number
- S. 712
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2025-09-11T16:37:41Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Regulation Decimation Act" (S. 712) aims to reduce the overall regulatory burden on individuals, businesses, states, and local governments by requiring federal agencies to repeal multiple existing rules before issuing new ones. This promotes a more streamlined regulatory environment by eliminating outdated, costly, or unnecessary rules.
Key Provisions
- Repeal Requirement for New Rules: Federal agencies cannot issue any new rule unless they first repeal at least 10 existing rules. These repealed rules must, where possible, be related to the new rule and impose costs or responsibilities on non-governmental persons (e.g., individuals or businesses) or state/local governments.
- Additional Rules for Major Rules: A "major rule" (defined as a regulation with significant economic impact, as per existing U.S. law) requires the same 10-rule repeal, plus the total cost of the new major rule must be less than or equal to the combined cost of the repealed rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget must certify this cost comparison.
- Publication and Scope: All repealed rules must be published in the Federal Register (the official record of federal regulations). The requirements apply only to rules that add costs or burdens; they do not cover internal agency policies, procurement rules, or revisions that make rules less burdensome (e.g., reducing compliance costs).
- Agency Review and Reporting: Within 90 days of the law's enactment, each agency head must submit a report to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget reviewing all agency rules, identifying those that are costly, ineffective, duplicative, outdated, or otherwise unnecessary.
- Presidential Report: Within 5 years of enactment, the President must submit a report to Congress detailing the total number of rules in effect and the progress on reducing rules over that period.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill introduces a novel "10-for-1" repeal mandate, which does not exist in current U.S. law. While existing laws (like the Administrative Procedure Act) already require agencies to justify new rules and consider costs, this adds a strict numerical and cost-based barrier to rulemaking. It builds on but expands concepts from prior executive orders (e.g., those requiring cost-benefit analysis) by making repeals mandatory and enforceable through certification and reporting.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Agencies will face increased administrative workload to review, repeal, and justify rules, potentially slowing new rulemaking and leading to fewer regulations overall. This could shift focus from creating policies to pruning existing ones.
- On Citizens and Businesses: Reduced regulatory burdens may lower compliance costs for individuals and companies, potentially easing economic pressures, but it could also weaken protections in areas like environment, health, or safety if key rules are repealed.
- On States and Local Governments: States, territories, the District of Columbia, and federally recognized Indian Tribes may benefit from fewer imposed federal requirements, allowing more local flexibility, though it might limit federal support through regulations.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though reduced regulations in trade, environment, or security could affect U.S. compliance with international agreements.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primary implementers, required to conduct reviews and balance repeals with new rules.
- Businesses and Industries: Likely beneficiaries of deregulation, facing lower compliance costs but potential risks from reduced oversight.
- State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Affected by rules imposing costs on them; the law could reduce federal overreach.
- Citizens and Advocacy Groups: Individuals may see varied effects—e.g., environmental or consumer groups could oppose repeals of protective rules, while others might welcome less red tape.
- Congress and the Executive Branch: Congress gains oversight through reports; the President and OIRA play roles in certification and long-term reporting.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill enforces rulemaking through certification and publication, potentially leading to more court challenges if agencies fail to comply or if cost calculations are disputed. It defines terms by reference to existing statutes (e.g., Title 5 of the U.S. Code), ensuring consistency with current administrative law.
- Constitutional Implications: By constraining executive branch rulemaking, it reinforces Congress's oversight role under Article I (legislative power), but could raise separation-of-powers questions if seen as unduly limiting the President's authority to execute laws.
- Political Implications: The act favors deregulation, aligning with efforts to limit government expansion, but may spark debates over whether it prioritizes cost savings over public protections. Its 5-year review provision allows for future adjustments based on empirical outcomes.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (2)
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK], Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2025-02-25: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Regulation Decimation Act — issued 2025-02-25 — PDF (4 pages)