The ERASER Act, officially known as S. 30, is a proposed law that aims to simplify federal regulations by requiring agencies to remove three existing rules for every new one they create. This bill is designed to cut down on bureaucratic red tape and make it easier for businesses to operate without being bogged down by excessive regulations.
What This Bill Does
The ERASER Act introduces a "one-in-three-out" rule for federal agencies. This means that before an agency can introduce a new regulation, it must first eliminate three existing ones. This rule applies to most types of regulations, except for those that are considered interpretive or related to agency management and procedures.
For major rules, which are those that have a significant economic impact or affect competition and employment, the new rule's cost must be equal to or less than the cost of the rules being repealed. This provision is intended to ensure that new regulations do not add extra financial burdens on businesses and the economy.
The bill also requires that all repealed rules be published in the Federal Register, a government publication that records official documents and regulations. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is tasked with reporting on the number and costs of all current rules, providing a clearer picture of the regulatory landscape.
Overall, the ERASER Act seeks to streamline the regulatory process by forcing agencies to prioritize which rules are truly necessary, thereby reducing the overall number of federal regulations.
Why It Matters
The ERASER Act could have a significant impact on businesses, consumers, and government agencies. By reducing the number of regulations, businesses may find it easier to operate and innovate, potentially leading to economic growth and job creation. This could be particularly beneficial for small businesses that often struggle with the cost and complexity of compliance.
For consumers, fewer regulations might mean lower prices on goods and services, as businesses pass on the savings from reduced compliance costs. However, there is a concern that cutting regulations could also lead to weaker protections for public health and safety, as some important rules might be repealed to meet the new requirements.
Government agencies will face the challenge of determining which regulations to eliminate, which could lead to a more efficient and accountable regulatory process. However, there is also the risk of losing important protections if the wrong rules are cut.
Key Facts
- Cost/Budget Impact: No Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score is available yet, but the bill is expected to have minimal administrative costs.
- Timeline for Implementation: The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies to all future notice-and-comment rules.
- Number of People Affected: The bill could impact businesses, consumers, and government agencies across the country.
- Key Dates: Introduced on January 8, 2025, and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Current Status: The bill is in the early stages and has not yet been debated or amended.
- Precedents: Similar efforts, like the Trump administration's "two-for-one" executive order, have been implemented in the past.
- Potential Impact: The bill could lead to lower costs for goods but might also result in weaker safety and environmental protections.
Arguments in Support
- Reduces Regulatory Burden: Supporters argue that the bill will cut down on outdated and unnecessary regulations, saving businesses money and time.
- Promotes Economic Growth: By reducing the cost of compliance, the bill could encourage businesses to invest and expand, leading to job creation.
- Enhances Government Efficiency: The requirement to review and repeal old rules could lead to a more streamlined and effective regulatory process.
- Increases Transparency: Publishing repealed rules in the Federal Register allows the public to see which regulations are being removed.
- Prevents Overreach: Tying new rules to the repeal of old ones helps prevent agencies from expanding their regulatory reach unnecessarily.
Arguments in Opposition
- Hampers Essential Protections: Critics worry that important rules related to health, safety, and the environment might be repealed, putting the public at risk.
- Arbitrary Quotas: The "three-out" requirement may force agencies to eliminate effective rules just to introduce new ones, potentially weakening overall protections.
- Economic Disruption: Repealing rules could lead to job losses in sectors that rely on certain regulations for stability and safety.
- Undermines Expertise: The bill could politicize the rulemaking process, limiting agencies' ability to respond to new scientific data and emerging threats.
- Implementation Challenges: The requirement for GAO reporting and the complexity of determining which rules to repeal could create administrative burdens.