Cut the Burden, Keep the Benefits Act
HB6354, titled the “Cut the Burden, Keep the Benefits Act,” would direct the Small Business Administration’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy to create and maintain a public hotline for small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions to report federal government actions they believe are burdensome. The hotline would be available through an email address and a website-based submission option, and the Chief Counsel would also be expected to solicit information from affected entities and consider regulatory alternatives that reduce burdens while still achieving agency goals.
The bill also requires annual reporting to the SBA Administrator and Congress. Those reports would identify the government actions most frequently reported, the industries affected, and, for rules, the estimated regulatory benefits as determined by OMB or the issuing agency. For tariff-related executive orders or presidential proclamations, the report would include the number of notifications, the costs imposed on small entities, and actions taken by the Chief Counsel in response. The bill defines “government action” broadly to include rules, executive orders, statutes, regulations, and presidential proclamations, and it incorporates existing Small Business Act definitions for covered entity types.
If enacted, the bill would amend Section 203 of Public Law 94-305, codified at 15 U.S.C. 634c, by adding a new small-business burden reporting and response mechanism within the SBA Office of Advocacy. It would create new administrative duties for the Chief Counsel, require a public-facing intake system, and establish recurring reporting obligations to Congress. The measure would not directly repeal or change substantive regulatory requirements, but it could influence how federal agencies evaluate and respond to rules and other federal actions affecting small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded votes or committee debate, the measure appears to be framed positively toward small-business relief and regulatory responsiveness. Its sponsors present it as a way to surface burdensome federal actions and preserve beneficial policy outcomes while reducing compliance costs. The overall tone is deregulatory and pro-small-entity, with an emphasis on feedback, transparency, and alternatives rather than outright elimination of federal rules.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s broad scope and its implicit critique of federal regulation, including rules, executive orders, statutes, regulations, and tariff-related actions. Supporters are likely to view the hotline as a practical tool for identifying unnecessary burdens on small entities, while critics may argue that it could be used to amplify complaints about legitimate public-interest regulations or create additional administrative work without changing underlying policy. The requirement to report on regulatory benefits alongside burdens suggests an effort to balance those concerns, but the bill still centers on reducing regulatory impact, which may draw differing views from pro-regulation and small-business advocacy perspectives.