[House Report 119-446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Rept. 119-446
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
=======================================================================
UNFUNDED MANDATES ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2025
----------------
January 13, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 580]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 580) to amend the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 to provide for regulatory impact analyses
for certain rules, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 6
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 6
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 11
Legislative History.............................................. 12
Committee Consideration.......................................... 12
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 12
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 24
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 24
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 25
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 25
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 25
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 25
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 25
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 25
Earmark Identification........................................... 25
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 26
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 26
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 30
Minority Views................................................... 47
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates Accountability
and Transparency Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``tribal'' each place that term appears and
inserting ``Tribal'';
(2) in section 3 (2 U.S.C. 1502)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the term `major rule' means a rule, as defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code, that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs determines is likely to cause--
``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000
or more, adjusted once every 5 years to reflect
increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State,
local, or Tribal government agencies, or geographic
regions; or
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation,
public health and safety, or the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets.''; and
(3) in section 202 (2 U.S.C. 1532)--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 202. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.'';
(B) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as
subsections (d) and (e), respectively;
(C) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Definition of Cost.--In this section, the term `cost' means the
cost of compliance and any reasonably foreseeable indirect costs,
including revenues lost, as a result of a major rule of an agency that
is subject to this section.
``(b) Regulatory Impact Analyses.--
``(1) Requirement.--Before promulgating any proposed or final
major rule, the agency promulgating the major rule shall
prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial and
final regulatory impact analysis with respect to the major
rule.
``(2) Initial regulatory impact analysis.--An initial
regulatory impact analysis required under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) accompany the notice of proposed rulemaking
with respect to the major rule that is the subject of
the analysis; and
``(B) be open to public comment.
``(3) Final regulatory impact analysis.--A final regulatory
impact analysis required under paragraph (1) shall accompany
the final major rule that is the subject of the analysis.
``(c) Content.--Each initial and final regulatory impact analysis
prepared and published under subsection (b) shall include, with respect
to the major rule that is the subject of the analysis--
``(1)(A) an analysis of the anticipated benefits and costs of
the major rule, which shall be quantified to the extent
feasible;
``(B) an analysis of the benefits and costs of a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives within the range of the
discretion of the agency under the statute authorizing the
major rule, including alternatives that--
``(i) use incentives and market-based means to
encourage the desired behavior;
``(ii) provide information based upon which the
public can make choices; or
``(iii) employ other flexible regulatory options that
permit the greatest flexibility in achieving the
objectives of the statute authorizing the major rule;
and
``(C) an explanation of how the major rule complies with the
requirements of section 205;
``(2) an assessment of the extent to which--
``(A) the costs to State, local, and Tribal
governments may be paid with Federal financial
assistance (or otherwise paid for by the Federal
Government); and
``(B) Federal resources are available to carry out
the major rule;
``(3) estimates of--
``(A) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the
major rule upon any particular--
``(i) regions of the United States;
``(ii) State, local, or Tribal governments;
``(iii) types of communities, including urban
or rural communities; or
``(iv) segments of the private sector; and
``(B) the effect of the major rule on job creation or
job loss, which shall be quantified to the extent
feasible; and
``(4)(A) a description of the extent of the prior
consultation of the agency under section 204 with elected
representatives of each affected State, local, or Tribal
government;
``(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were
presented to the agency orally or in writing by State, local,
or Tribal governments; and
``(C) a summary of the evaluation by the agency of the
comments and concerns described in subparagraph (B).'';
(D) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by
striking ``a statement under subsection (a) is
required, the agency shall include in the promulgation
a summary of the information contained in the
statement'' and inserting ``an analysis under
subsection (b) is required, the agency promulgating the
major rule shall include in the promulgation a summary
of the information contained in the analysis''; and
(E) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by
striking ``any statement required under subsection (a)
in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement
or analysis, provided that the statement or analysis
satisfies the provisions of subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``any analysis required under subsection (b)
in conjunction with, or as a part of, any other
statement or analysis if the other statement or
analysis satisfies the requirements of subsections (b)
and (c)''.
SEC. 3. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.
Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1534) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and private
sector'' before ``input'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small businesses),'' after
``on their behalf)''; and
(B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental
mandates'' and inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of subsections (a)
and (b) consistent with applicable laws and regulations, the following
guidelines shall be followed:
``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible,
before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue
through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly into
the rulemaking process.
``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State,
local, and Tribal officials and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small businesses). Geographic,
political, and other factors that may differentiate varying
points of view should be considered.
``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist
with these consultations. The scope of the consultation should
reflect the cost and significance of the Federal mandate being
considered.
``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and Tribal
governments, and impacted parties within the private
sector (including small businesses), on costs,
benefits, and risks; and
``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of
compliance and potential flexibilities, and input on
whether the Federal regulation will harmonize with and
not duplicate similar laws in other levels of
government.
``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of
regulations on the affected entities.
``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of comments
by relevant parties but may not use those comments as the sole
method of satisfying the guidelines in this subsection.''.
SEC. 4. MAXIMIZE NET BENEFITS OR PROVIDE EXPLANATION.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) is amended by striking section 205 (2 U.S.C. 1535) and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 205. MAXIMIZE NET BENEFITS.
``(a) Definition of Cost.--In this section, the term `cost' has the
meaning given the term in section 202(a).
``(b) Requirement.--Before promulgating any proposed or final major
rule for which a regulatory impact analysis is required under section
202, an agency shall from the alternatives identified and considered
under section 202(c)(1)(B), select the alternative that maximizes net
benefits, taking into consideration only the costs and benefits that
arise within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the
rulemaking.
``(c) Exceptions.--An agency may adopt an alternative other than as
required under subsection (b) only if--
``(1) the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs approves the adoption by the agency of the
alternative; and
``(2) the alternative is adopted to--
``(A) account for costs or benefits that cannot be
quantified, including costs or benefits related to
constitutional or civil rights, provided that the
agency identifies all such costs and benefits and
explains why those costs and benefits justify the
adoption of the alternative; or
``(B) achieve additional benefits or cost reductions,
provided that the agency--
``(i) identifies--
``(I) all such additional benefits
and the associated costs of those
benefits; and
``(II) all such cost reductions and
the associated benefits of those cost
reductions; and
``(ii) explains why--
``(I) the additional benefits justify
the additional costs; or
``(II) the additional cost reductions
justify any benefits foregone.''.
SEC. 5. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF INFORMATION
AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1538) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS RESPONSIBILITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (in this section referred to as the `Administrator')
shall provide meaningful guidance and oversight so that the major rules
of an agency for which a regulatory impact analysis is required under
section 202--
``(1) are consistent with the principles and requirements of
this title, as well as other applicable laws; and
``(2) and do not conflict with the policies or actions of
another agency.
``(b) Notification.--If the Administrator determines that the major
rules of an agency for which a regulatory impact analysis is required
under section 202 do not comply with the principles and requirements of
this title, are not consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict
with the policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator
shall--
``(1) identify areas of noncompliance;
``(2) notify the agency; and
``(3) request that the agency comply before the agency
finalizes the major rule concerned.
``(c) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--The
Administrator shall submit to Congress, including the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, an annual written report that, for the 1-year period
preceding the report--
``(1) details compliance by each agency with the requirements
of this title that relate to major rules for which a regulatory
impact analysis is required by section 202, including
activities undertaken at the request of the Administrator to
improve compliance; and
``(2) contains an appendix detailing compliance by each
agency with section 204.''.
SEC. 6. INITIATION OF RULEMAKING.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating section 209 (2 U.S.C. 1531 note) as
section 210; and
(2) by inserting after section 208 (2 U.S.C. 1548) the
following:
``SEC. 209. INITIATION OF RULEMAKING FOR MAJOR RULES.
``When an agency determines to initiate a rulemaking that may result
in a major rule, the agency shall--
``(1) establish an electronic docket for that rulemaking,
which may have a physical counterpart; and
``(2) publish a notice of initiation of rulemaking in the
Federal Register, which shall--
``(A) briefly describe the subject and objectives of,
and the problem to be solved by, the major rule;
``(B) refer to the legal authority under which the
major rule would be proposed, including the specific
statutory provision that authorizes the rulemaking;
``(C) invite interested persons to propose
alternatives and other ideas regarding how best to
accomplish the objectives of the agency in the most
effective manner;
``(D) indicate how interested persons may submit
written material for the docket; and
``(E) appear in the Federal Register not later than
90 days before the date on which the agency publishes a
notice of proposed rulemaking for the major rule.''.
SEC. 7. INCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Section 421(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(1)) is amended by striking ``, but does not include
independent regulatory agencies''.
(b) Exemption for Monetary Policy.--The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5
the following:
``SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.
``Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.''.
SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Title IV of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is amended by
striking section 401 (2 U.S.C. 1571) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
``(a) In General.--A person that is aggrieved by final agency action
in adopting a major rule that is subject to section 202 is entitled to
judicial review of whether the agency complied with section 202(b),
202(c)(1), or 205 with respect to the rule.
``(b) Scope of Review.--Chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code,
shall govern the scope of judicial review under subsection (a).
``(c) Jurisdiction.--Each court that has jurisdiction to review a
rule for compliance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or
under any other provision of law, shall have jurisdiction to review a
claim brought under subsection (a).
``(d) Relief Available.--In granting relief in an action under this
section, a court shall order the agency that promulgated the major rule
that is under review to take remedial action consistent with chapter 7
of title 5, United States Code.''.
SEC. 9. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES.
Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
658d(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(2) by striking ``section 424(a)(1)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1) of section 424''.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of this Act and the amendments made by those
sections shall take effect on the date that is 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Summary and Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 580 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) to lower the burdens imposed by federal regulatory
mandates upon states, local governments, tribal governments,
and the private sector; increase public participation in, and
the accountability and transparency of, the federal regulatory
process; and enhance congressional tools to check against the
imposition of excessively burdensome regulatory mandates upon
the private sector. The bill requires federal agencies to
prepare, take public comment on, and publish regulatory impact
analyses--including analyses of costs, benefits, alternatives,
disproportionate impacts, and effects on jobs--for major rules
that mandate economic impacts of $100 million or more, present
major increases in costs or prices, or have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, or markets. Initial
assessments must be published in the Federal Register for
public comment when agencies issue notices of proposed
rulemaking; final analyses must accompany notices of final
rulemaking. The bill also requires earlier and enhanced public
participation in major rulemakings; generally requires final
major rules to lower costs by maximizing net benefits; exposes
to substantive points of order under the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 legislation that would impose private sector
mandates; and brings independent agencies under UMRA's
requirements.
Background and Need for Legislation
The current estimated burden of federal regulation--i.e.,
unfunded federal regulatory mandates--exceeds $2 trillion, as
calculated conservatively by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI).\1\ As CEI has observed, ``if it were a
country, U.S. regulation would be the world's eighth-largest
economy (not counting the United States itself), ranking behind
the Russian Federation and ahead of Canada.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Clyde Wayne Crews Jr, Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual
Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, Competitive Enterprise Inst.,
at 6 (2025), available at https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/
10K_2025_v5.pdf.
\2\Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A substantial portion of this burden falls upon state,
local and tribal governments; most of it falls on private
sector entities.In the end, these burdens fall upon taxpayers
and consumers, to whom these crushing costs ultimately are
passed. They amount to a stunning figure for each U.S.
household. CEI estimates that ``U.S. households pay on average
$16,016 annually in a hidden regulatory tax, which consumes 16
percent of income and 21 percent of household expenses.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For several terms of Congress, reform to lower these
burdens and improve the accountability and transparency of the
federal rulemaking process has been pursued through legislation
introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) to strengthen
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The original act was
enacted to curb the federal government from imposing costly
unfunded mandates on states, localities and tribal governments
and was later amended to protect the private sector from costly
new federal mandates.\4\ Bills to strengthen the original act
began with the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency
Act, first introduced during the 110th Congress, and have
continued through the successive iterations of that bill and,
later, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency
Act, first introduced during the 116th Congress.\5\ The
Committee incorporates by reference its prior reports regarding
these bills and the need for them.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Pub. L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. sec. 1501, et seq.
\5\See H.R. 6964 (110th Congress); H.R. 2255 (111th Congress); H.R.
373 (112th Congress); H.R. 899 (113th Congress); H.R. 50 (114th
Congress); H.R. 50 (115th Congress); H.R. 300 (116th Congress); H.R.
7332 (116th Congress); H.R. 701 (117th Congress); H.R. 3230 (118th
Congress); and the instant legislation, H.R. 580 (119th Congress).
\6\H. Rept. 112-483 (May 16, 2012); H. Rept. 113-352 (Feb. 14,
2014); H. Rept. 114-011 (Feb. 2, 2015); H. Rept. 115-798 (June 29,
2018); and H. Rpt. 118-906 (Dec. 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the necessity of this legislation in preceding
years, the Biden Administration's aggressive regulatory
approach demonstrated that this legislation is increasingly
necessary. Upon assuming office on January 20, 2021, the Biden
Administration pursued a ``whole-of-government'' regulatory
blowout, substantially implemented through the mandates of
several key Executive Orders (E.O.), such as E.O. 13990 and
E.O. 14008 focused on climate, E.O. 14025 focused on
unionization, and E.O. 14036 focused on competition.\7\
Agencies across the government created new, costly, unfunded
mandates through new regulations, particularly major
regulations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\86 Fed. Reg. 7037 (Jan. 20, 2021); 86 Fed. Reg. 22829 (Apr. 29,
2021); and 86 Fed. Reg. 36987 (July 14, 2021).
\8\H.R. 580 defines a major regulation as one that ``the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
determines is likely to cause--
(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more,
adjusted once every 5 years to reflect increases in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor;
(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, local, or Tribal government agencies, or
geographic regions; or
(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety, or the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Foundation for Government Accountability
(FGA), President Biden's administration approved more than $200
billion in new regulatory costs during its first year in
office, more than four times what President Obama's approved
during the same period.\9\ For comparison, estimated new
regulatory costs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 exceeded the FY 2021
congressional discretionary budget by about $400 billion.\10\
According to the American Action Forum (AAF), the regulatory
burdens the Biden Administration imposed in its first two years
vastly exceeded those imposed by the two previous
administrations, with ``$318 billion in total costs and more
than 218 million hours of paperwork'' from just those rules for
which cost or paperwork estimates were prepared, as can be seen
in the following table compiled by AAF:\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\FGA, See for Yourself: Biden's Regulatory Spree is Out of
Control, The Found. For Gov't Accountability (May 2, 2023), available
at https://thefga.org/one-pagers/see-for-yourself-bidens-regulatory-
spree-is-out-of-control.
\10\Id.
\11\Dan Goldbeck, Tracking the Regulatory Record of Recent
Administrations at the Halfway Point, American Action Forum (Feb. 7,
2023), available at https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/
tracking-the-regulatory-record-of-recent-administrations-at-the-
halfway-point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adminstration Rules Costs ($ Billions) Paperwork (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden.............................................. 517 318.4 218,052,445
Trump.............................................. 564 -2.0 18,600,331
Obama.............................................. 740 208.7 131,258,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAF estimated that the costs of all new federal regulations
promulgated between 2021 and November 1, 2024, as the Biden
Administration was drawing to a close, totaled a staggering
$1.8 trillion, as reflected in the following table:\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Tracking the Administrations 11.1.24, American Action Forum
(last accessed June 25, 2025), available at https://
www.americanactionforum.org/week-in-regulation/an-active-end-to-
october/tracking-the-administrations-1-11-24/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
By the end of 2024, the Biden Administration had pushed the
total up even further, to $1.9 trillion.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Regulation Rodeo: Explore the Data, American Action Forum (last
accessed June 25, 2025), available at https://regrodeo.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rapid growth in power, authority, and regulatory costs
from the Executive Branch has significant impacts, not only for
those upon whom unfunded regulatory mandates are imposed
directly, but for consumers everywhere. The most impacted are
low-income communities (e.g., through increased electricity and
vehicle costs), retirees, and investors (e.g., through the
Biden Administration's climate disclosure and Environmental,
Social, and Governance (ESG) rules impacting returns).
The increase in unfunded regulatory mandates under the
Biden Administration occurred on top of the massive, cumulative
federal regulatory burdens already imposed over preceding
decades. Those burdens are portrayed in the following graph
provided to the Committee on the Budget in Congressional
testimony from AAF:\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Testimony on: Regulatory Burdens and
Economic Growth, American Action Forum (May 24, 2023), available at
https://www.americanactionforum.org/testimony/testimony-on-regulatory-
burdens-and-economic-growth/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small businesses--the backbone of American communities and
job creation--have borne much of both this cumulative burden
and the brunt of the Biden Administration's regulatory
overreach. Protection of small businesses from regulatory
overreach is especially important. A study performed in 2014,
for example, showed that small manufacturers already bear more
than three times the average regulatory burden per employee
than does the average U.S. business.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\W. Mark Crain and Nicole V. Crain, The Cost of Regulation to
the U.S. Economy, Manufacturing, and Small Business: a Report to the
National Association of Manufacturers at 2-3 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The level of Biden Administration overreach was harmful
enough but adding to the problem were the numerous major
``transformative'' regulations the Administration pursued under
President Biden's climate and other ``whole-of-government''
executive orders. These rules represented nationwide industrial
policymaking of the kind rarely seen since the New Deal.
Leading the way on this front were major new environmental
rules from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
including, for example, the following sectors:
Transportation--forcing by 2032 a massive
shift of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles from
use of internal combustion engines to fully electric
battery power;\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and
Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, 89 Fed. Reg. 50234 (June 13,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing--revising National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for particulate matter (e.g., soot)
down to levels that could force 40 percent of the U.S.
population into Clean Air Act non-attainment areas,
meaning development for new manufacturing and other
purposes that generate emissions in those areas would
be severely restrained;\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Act
Standards for Particulate Matter, 89 Fed. Reg. 6202 (Mar. 6, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Land Use--redefining ``navigable
waters''' under the Clean Water Act to vastly extend
EPA permitting requirements to lands throughout the
country;\18\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Revised Definition of ``Waters of the United States,'' 88 Fed.
Reg. 3004 (Jan. 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Generation--clamping down on emissions
from fossil-fuel-fired power plants to force out of the
market electricity generation from fossil fuels.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Unites; and Repeal of
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 89 Fed, Reg. 39798 (May 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden EPA was not the only agency pursuing such
transformational rules. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council
during the Biden Administration pursued greenhouse gas emission
disclosure rules to force ESG climate-action agendas across
publicly traded companies and federal contractors.\20\ The
Biden Department of Energy (DOE) pursued a host of restrictive
energy efficiency standards for gas-fired home appliances as
part of its contribution to the Administration's whole-of-
government offensive against fossil fuels.\21\ And the Biden
Administration pursued regulations in the federal contracting
system, not only to push ESG climate-disclosure rules into the
economy, but to put a massive thumb on the scale to
discriminate in favor of union labor through a rule to require
union labor on major federal and federally-funded construction
projects.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\See Federal Acquisition Regulation: Disclosure of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk, 87 Fed. Reg. 68312
(Nov. 14, 2022); see also The Enhancement and Standardization of
Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, 87 Fed. Reg. 21334 (April
11, 2022).
\21\See, e.g., Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation
Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products, 88 Fed. Reg. 6818
(Feb. 1, 2023).
\22\Federal Acquisition Regulation: Use of Project Labor Agreements
for Federal Construction Projects, 88 Fed. Reg. 88708 (Dec. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony received by the Committee indicates that, in just
its first two years, the Biden Administration's new regulations
imposed approximately $10,000 per U.S. household in new
regulatory burdens.\23\ Still more alarming, the Biden
Administration was predicted to be on a pace that could have,
if the Administration had been given two full terms, resulted
in approximately $60,000 per household in new regulatory
costs.\24\ At the same time, witnesses before the Committee
confirmed that the instant legislation, if enacted, could stem
this regulatory tide by strengthening the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, such as by improving agency analysis of the
costs of proposed new regulatory mandates and strengthening
judicial review.\25\ It has never been more important than now
to pass the reforms contained in H.R. 580 to prevent the
Executive Branch's unreasonable imposition of unfunded
regulatory mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Statement of Prof. Casey Mulligan, Univ. of Chicago, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Accountability, Hearing on ``Death by a Thousand
Regulations: The Biden Administration's Campaign to Bury America in Red
Tape,'' at 4 (June 14, 2023).
\24\Id.
\25\Transcript, H. Comm. on Oversight and Accountability, Hearing
on ``Death by a Thousand Regulations: The Biden Administration's
Campaign to Bury America in Red Tape,'' at 39-41 (June 14, 2023); see
also Statement of Adam J. White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute, and Co-Executive Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C.
Boyden Gray Center for Study of the Administrative State, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Accountability, Hearing on ``Death by a Thousand
Regulations: The Biden Administration's Campaign to Bury America in Red
Tape,'' at 20 (June 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
The short title is the ``Unfunded Mandates Accountability
and Transparency Act of 2025''.
Section 2. Regulatory analyses for certain rules
Requires initial and final Regulatory Impact Analyses
(RIAs) for new major rules. RIAs must address costs, benefits,
alternatives, disproportionate impacts on states, localities
and tribal governments, and jobs impacts. Defines major rules
consistently with 5 U.S.C. sec. 804 (Congressional Review Act),
adding a five-year inflation adjuster.
Section 3. Enhanced stakeholder consultation
Requires early stakeholder consultation (i.e., before
issuance of notices of proposed rulemaking) on regulatory
proposals containing significant federal mandates to states,
localities, tribal governments or the private sector.
Consultations must include representatives of states,
localities, tribal governments, and the private sector, be
informed by estimates of costs, benefits and risks, continue
throughout the rulemaking process, and include consideration of
alternative methods of compliance, cumulative regulatory
impacts on affected entities, and whether federal regulation
would harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws at other
levels of government.
Section 4. Maximize net benefits or provide explanation
For major rules, generally requires agencies to adopt the
regulatory alternative that maximizes net benefits (i.e.,
achieves the greatest benefits at the lowest costs),
considering only the costs and benefits within the scope of the
statutory provision authorizing the rulemaking (i.e., excluding
consideration of collateral benefits). Allows for exceptions,
subject to the approval of the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, to account for costs or
benefits that cannot be quantified (e.g., constitutional or
civil rights) or to achieve additional benefits that can be
cost-justified.
Section 5. New authorities and responsibilities for Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
Requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) to oversee whether major rules are consistent with the
Act and other laws and do not conflict with other agencies'
policies or actions. Requires OIRA to notify the agency and
request compliance before a major rule is finalized if it
determines the agency has not met these requirements. Requires
OIRA to submit an annual report to Congress detailing agency
compliance with sections 202 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
Section 6. Initiation of rulemaking
Requires agencies to issue notices of initiation of
rulemaking and take early public comment on alternatives that
could accomplish agency goals when agencies determine to take
action that may require major rules. Requires notices of
initiation to be issued at least 90 days before any subsequent
notices of proposed rulemaking. Requires establishment of
electronic dockets for covered rulemakings.
Section 7. Inclusion of independent agencies
Extends application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 to independent agencies. Exempts rules that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.
Section 8. Judicial review
Amends Title IV of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1571) by replacing
section 401 (Judicial Review) with a new section authorizing
judicial review of agency compliance with the bill's
requirements to analyze costs, benefits, and regulatory
alternatives and choose the alternative that maximizes net
benefits. Permits courts to order remedial action consistent
with chapter 7 of title 5.
Section 9. Applying substantive point of order to private sector
mandates
Amends sec. 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to expose to substantive points of order legislation that
would impose private sector mandates.
Section 10. Effective date
Provides that sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Act and the
amendments made by those sections shall take effect on the date
that is 120 days after the date of the Act's enactment.
Legislative History
H.R. 580, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and
Transparency Act was introduced on January 21, 2025, by
Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with the
Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Budget, and the
Committee on the Judiciary receiving secondary referrals. The
following Representatives are cosponsors of the bill: Henry
Cuellar (D-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME), Ashley Hinson (R-IA), and
Pete Sessions (R-TX). The Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform held hearings on February 5, February 26, April 1, April
29, and May 20, 2025, used to develop or consider the bill. The
Committee considered H.R. 580 at a business meeting on May 21,
2025, and ordered the bill as amended favorably reported by a
recorded vote.
Committee Consideration
On May 21, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 580, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of
23-19, a quorum being present.
Roll Call Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following roll call vote
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 580:
The roll call vote was on final passage of H.R. 580. The
bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 23-19.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Explanation of Amendments
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute that made a certain
technical change to the bill. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute passed by voice vote.
List of Related Committee Hearings
In accordance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) the
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 580:
On February 5, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Rightsizing Government'' with the Hon. Kim Reynolds,
Governor, State of Iowa; Mr. Thomas A. Schatz, President,
Citizens Against Government Waste; and Prof. William G. Resh,
Ph.D., Sol Price School of Public Policy and Management,
University of Southern California.
(2) The following related hearing was held:
On February 26, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Leading the Charge: Opportunities to Strengthen America's
Energy Reliability'' with Mr. Alex Epstein, President and
Founder, Center for Industrial Progress; Ms. Mandy Gunasekara,
former Chief of Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. Alex Herrgott, Chief Executive Officer and President, the
Permitting Institute; Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director,
Climate and Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists.
(3) The following related hearing was held:
On April 1, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``America's AI Moonshot: The Economics of AI, Data Centers, and
Power Consumption'' with Mr. Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy,
the Abundance Institute; Mr. Josh Levi, President, Data Center
Coalition; Mr. Mark P. Mills, Executive Director, National
Center for Energy Analytics; and Mr. Tyson Slocum, Energy
Program Director, Public Citizen.
(4) The following related hearing was held:
On April 29, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Made in the USA: Igniting the Industrial Renaissance of the
United States'' with Mr. Kevin Czinger, Founder and Executive
Chairman, Divergent 3D; Mr. Chris Power, Founder and Chief
Executive Officer, Hadrian; Mr. Austin Bishop, Chief Executive
Officer, New American Industrial Alliance; and Dr. Adm S.
Hersh, Ph.D., Senior Economist, Economic Policy Institute.
(5) The following related hearing was held:
On May 20, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Mandates, Meddling, and Mismanagement: The IRA's Threat to
Energy and Medicine'' with Mr. Ben Lieberman, Senior Fellow,
Competitive Enterprise Institute; Dr. Erin Trish, Ph.D., Co-
Director, USC Schaeffer Center and Associate Professor,
Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, USC Mann
School of Pharmacy; Dr. William McBride, Ph.D., Chief Economist
and Stephen J. Entin Fellow in Economics, Tax Foundation; and
Dr. Emily Gee, Senior Vice President for Inclusive Growth,
Center for American Progress.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for
Legislation section above.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals or objectives of this bill are to lower the burdens
imposed by federal regulatory mandates upon states, local
governments, tribal governments, and the private sector;
increase public participation in, and the accountability and
transparency of, the federal regulatory process; and enhance
congressional tools to check against the imposition of
excessively burdensome regulatory mandates upon the private
sector, and for other purposes.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill does not relate to employment or access to public
services and accommodations in the legislative branch.
Duplication of Federal Programs
In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement
Pursuant to section 5(b) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C.
1004(b)), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Committee
finds that this Committee Print does not direct the
establishment of an advisory committee.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has included a letter received from the
Congressional Budget Office below.
Earmark Identification
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII, the Committee adopts
as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII, the cost
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill would:
Require agencies that promulgate any rule
with an annual economic effect of $100 million or more
to publish a regulatory impact analysis for that rule
Require agencies that promulgate such rules
to undertake and report on cost-benefit analyses,
consultations with interested parties, and assessments
of alternatives to those rules
Impose mandates on private-sector entities
Estimated budgetary effects would mainly stem from:
Increased analysis and reporting
requirements for which agencies would need additional
staff
Increases in direct spending and decreases
in revenues for several fee-funded, independent
agencies and the Federal Reserve System to carry out
provisions of the bill
Increases in costs for agencies that are
funded through annual appropriations to carry out the
provisions of the bill
Areas of significant uncertainty include:
Determining whether rules that are affected
because of the bill's requirements would have a net
cost or savings for the federal government
Bill summary: H.R. 580 would require agencies that
promulgate major rules--those with an annual economic effect of
$100 million or more--to prepare and publish regulatory impact
analyses that would accompany the notice of proposed rulemaking
and the final rule. Additionally, the bill would limit some of
the discretion agencies have over selecting an approach to that
regulatory analysis. H.R. 580 also would codify some policies
that are common practice or required under executive orders
related to regulatory impact analyses.
In addition, H.R. 580 would expand the role of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office
of Management and Budget, and authorize OIRA to review and
approve rules proposed by certain independent federal agencies.
Under current law, most independent regulatory agencies are not
required to submit regulatory impact analyses to OIRA.
The bill would amend an existing Congressional rule to make
legislation out of order if the private-sector mandate costs
are in excess of a specific threshold. That rule is not
automatically enforced; a Member of Congress must raise a point
of order to enforce it. (A point of order is an objection
raised by a Member on the floor of the House or Senate that
questions an action being taken as contrary to the rules of
that body.) If a point of order is raised in the House or
Senate, each chamber resolves the issue according to its
established rules and procedures. Under current rules, only
legislation with intergovernmental mandates above a specific
threshold is subject to a point of order.
Estimated Federal cost: CBO expects that enacting H.R. 580
could affect the issuance of some rules but because of the
large number and variety of federal rules issued each year, CBO
cannot determine whether those effects would have costs or
result in savings for the federal government.
Although CBO has no basis on which to estimate the overall
budgetary effects of enacting H.R. 580, we expect that the
reporting requirements in the bill would increase
administrative costs for many federal agencies. Under the bill,
agencies that promulgate major rules would need to enhance
their research and reporting efforts in the areas of cost-
benefit analyses, consultations with interested parties, and
assessments of alternatives to the rules.
The estimated costs for agencies to implement those
requirements are shown in Table 1 and fall within multiple
budget functions.
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO IMPLEMENT H.R. 580
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2026-2030 2026-2035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases in Direct Spending
Estimated Budget Authority................................ 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 28
Estimated Outlays......................................... 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 28
Decreases in Revenues
Estimated Revenues........................................ * * * * -12 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -12 -27
Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation
Estimated Authorization................................... 11 11 11 12 12 n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. 57 n.e.
Estimated Outlays......................................... 9 11 11 12 12 n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. 55 n.e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.e. = not estimated; * = between -$500,000 and zero.
CBO has no basis on which to estimate the overall budgetary effects of enacting H.R. 580 but we expect that the reporting requirements in the bill would
increase administrative costs for many federal agencies.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
580 will be enacted before the end of 2025.
Direct spending: CBO cannot determine the bill's overall
effect on direct spending, but we expect that enacting the bill
would increase direct spending for the administrative costs of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National
Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); that spending is not subject
to the availability of appropriated funds. The NCUA and the OCC
collect fees from financial institutions to offset their
operating costs; those fees are treated as reductions in direct
spending. Using information from the FDIC, CBO estimates that
the increased administrative workload under H.R. 580 to prepare
additional analyses and reports would increase spending for
that agency by $28 million over the 2026-2035 period.
Under current law, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) is permanently authorized to spend amounts transferred
from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve in an amount
necessary to carry out its responsibilities, subject to a
statutory cap that was lowered by the 2025 reconciliation act.
CBO expects that the CFPB will spend all the transferred funds
up to its cap in each year over the 2026-2035 period. Thus, CBO
treats any costs for the CFPB to implement H.R. 580 as
contingent on future appropriations and discusses those costs
below under the heading, ``Spending Subject to Appropriation.''
Revenues: CBO cannot determine the bill's overall effect on
revenues, but we expect that enacting H.R. 580 also would
affect revenues by changing the cost of operations for the
Federal Reserve System, which remits its net earnings to the
Treasury. Those remittances are classified as revenues in the
federal budget. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO
estimates that the increased costs under the bill would reduce
remittances to the Treasury by $27 million over the 2026-2035
period. The bill would not subject the Federal Reserve to the
additional reporting requirements for any major rules proposed
for monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
or the Federal Open Market Committee.
Changes in costs for the Federal Reserve banks have
historically resulted in changes to remittances during the same
year. However, since fiscal year 2023, the central bank has
recorded a deferred asset to account for accrued net losses
from expenses in excess of income. As a result, remittances
largely have been suspended. In CBO's projections, remittances
from the Federal Reserve will generally be suspended until
2030, and until they resume, most changes in costs incurred by
the system will not be recorded as changes in remittances.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For more information, see Congressional Budget Office, ``Recent
Changes to CBO's Projections of Remittances From the Federal Reserve''
(presentation, February 2023), www.cbo.gov/publication/58913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending subject to appropriation: CBO cannot determine the
bill's overall effect on spending subject to appropriation, but
we expect that implementing H.R. 580 would increase spending
for agencies whose administrative funding is provided in annual
appropriation acts. CBO estimates that agencies which tend to
produce large numbers of major rules would need more personnel
to produce the additional analyses and perform other
administrative tasks under H.R. 580. CBO expects that the
agencies that promulgate the most major rules, and thus would
be the most affected by this bill, include the Departments of
Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, Labor, and Transportation, along with the CFPB, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration. Based
on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that the
administrative costs to implement H.R. 580 would total $55
million over the 2026-2030 period; that spending would be
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Under current law, the SEC is authorized to collect fees
sufficient to offset its annual appropriation; therefore, CBO
estimates that the net budgetary effect of the SEC's activities
to implement H.R. 580 would not be significant, assuming
appropriation actions consistent with the commission's
authorities.
Uncertainty: CBO expects that enacting H.R. 580 could
affect the issuance of some federal rules. Because of the large
number and variety of rules issued each year, CBO cannot
determine whether those effects would result in costs or
savings for the federal government.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply to H.R. 580 because
enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and
revenues. However, CBO cannot determine the magnitude or
direction of all of those effects.
Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO
cannot determine the magnitude or direction of the budgetary
effects of H.R. 580. As a result, we cannot determine whether
the legislation would increase net direct spending by more than
$2.5 billion or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in
any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.
Mandates: If federal financial regulators increased fees to
offset the costs of implementing the bill, H.R. 580 would
increase the cost of an existing mandate on private-sector
entities required to pay those assessments. CBO estimates that
the incremental cost of the mandate would be well below the
threshold for private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ($206 million in 2025, adjusted
annually for inflation).
The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julia Aman (for the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit
Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency), David Hughes (for regulatory agencies whose spending
is subject to appropriation); Revenues: Nathaniel Frentz;
Mandates: Andrew Laughlin.
Estimate reviewed by: Justin Humphrey, Chief, Finance,
Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit; Joshua Shakin,
Chief, Revenue Projections Unit; Kathleen FitzGerald, Chief,
Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director,
Congressional Budget Office.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT OF 1995
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and State, local, and [tribal] Tribal
governments;
(2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full
consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on
State, local, and [tribal] Tribal governments without
adequate Federal funding, in a manner that may displace
other essential State, local, and [tribal] Tribal
governmental priorities;
(3) to assist Congress in its consideration of
proposed legislation establishing or revising Federal
programs containing Federal mandates affecting State,
local, and [tribal] Tribal governments, and the private
sector by--
(A) providing for the development of
information about the nature and size of
mandates in proposed legislation;and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such
information to the attention of the Senate and
the House of Representatives before the Senate
and the House of Representatives vote on
proposed legislation;
(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in
any particular instance;
(5) to require that Congress consider whether to
provide funding to assist State, local, and [tribal]
Tribal governments in complying with Federal mandates,
to require analyses of the impact of private sector
mandates, and through the dissemination of that
information provide informed and deliberate decisions
by Congress and Federal agencies and retain competitive
balance between the public and private sectors;
(6) to establish a point-of-order vote on the
consideration in the Senate and House of
Representatives of legislation containing significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates without providing
adequate funding to comply with such mandates;
(7) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration
of proposed regulations affecting State, local, and
[tribal] Tribal governments,by--
(A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a
process to enable the elected and other
officials of State, local, and [tribal] Tribal
governments to provide input when Federal
agencies are developing regulations; and
(B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare
and consider estimates of the budgetary impact
of regulations containing Federal mandates upon
State, local, and [tribal] Tribal governments
and the private sector before adopting such
regulations, and ensuring that small
governments are given special consideration in
that process; and
(8) to begin consideration of the effect of
previously imposed Federal mandates, including the
impact on State, local, and [tribal] Tribal governments
of Federal court interpretations of Federal statutes
and regulations that impose Federal intergovernmental
mandates.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act--
(1) except as provided in section 305 of this Act,
the terms defined under section 421 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974 (as added by section 101 of this Act) shall have
the meanings as so defined; [and]
(2) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office[.]; and
(3) the term ``major rule'' means a rule, as defined
in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs determines is likely to cause--
(A) an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more, adjusted once every 5
years to reflect increases in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the Department of Labor;
(B) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal,
State, local, or Tribal government agencies, or
geographic regions; or
(C) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, public health and
safety, or the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets.
SEC. 4. EXCLUSIONS.
This Act shall not apply to any provision in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report before
Congress and any provision in a proposed or final Federal
regulation that--
(1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals;
(2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, nationalorigin, age, handicap, or
disability;
(3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing
procedures with respect to grants or other money or
property provided by the Federal Government;
(4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at
the request of any State, local, or [tribal] Tribal
government or any official of a State, local, or
[tribal] Tribal government;
(5) is necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty
obligations;
(6) the President designates as emergency legislation
and that the Congress so designates in statute; or
(7) relates to the old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance program under title II of the Social Security
Act (including taxes imposed by sections 3101(a) and
3111(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to old-age, survivors, and disability insurance)).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.
Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules that
concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.
TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM
* * * * * * *
SEC. 105. CONSIDERATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.
Nothing in this Act shall preclude a State, local, or
[tribal] Tribal government that already complies with all or
part of the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
from consideration for Federal funding under section 425(a)(2)
of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(as added by section 101 of this Act) for the cost of the
mandate, including the costs the State, local, or [tribal]
Tribal government is currently paying and any additional costs
necessary to meet the mandate.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM
SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS.
Each agency shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and
[tribal] Tribal governments, and the private sector (other than
to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements
specifically set forth in law).
SEC. 202. [STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.]
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.
[(a) In General.--Unless otherwise prohibited by law, before
promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is
likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement
containing--
[(1) an identification of the provision of Federal
law under which the rule is being promulgated;
[(2) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the
anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate,
including the costs and benefits to State, local, and
tribal governments or the private sector, as well as
the effect of the Federal mandate on health, safety,
and the natural environment and such an assessment
shall include--
[(A) an analysis of the extent to which such
costs to State, local, and tribal governments
may be paid with Federal financial assistance
(or otherwise paid for by the Federal
Government); and
[(B) the extent to which there are available
Federal resources to carry out the
intergovernmental mandate;
[(3) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent
that the agency determines that accurate estimates are
reasonably feasible, of--
[(A) the future compliance costs of the
Federal mandate; and
[(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects
of the Federal mandate upon any particular
regions of the nation or particular State,
local, or tribal governments, urban or rural or
other types of communities, or particular
segments of the private sector;
[(4) estimates by the agency of the effect on the
national economy, such as the effect on productivity,
economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of
United States goods and services, if and to the extent
that the agency in its sole discretion determines that
accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that
such effect is relevant and material; and
[(5)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's
prior consultation with elected representatives (under
section 204) of the affected State, local, and tribal
governments;
[(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were
presented by State, local, or tribal governments either
orally or in writing to the agency; and
[(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those
comments and concerns.]
(a) Definition of Cost.--In this section, the term ``cost''
means the cost of compliance and any reasonably foreseeable
indirect costs, including revenues lost, as a result of a major
rule of an agency that is subject to this section.
(b) Regulatory Impact Analyses.--
(1) Requirement.--Before promulgating any proposed or
final major rule, the agency promulgating the major
rule shall prepare and publish in the Federal Register
an initial and final regulatory impact analysis with
respect to the major rule.
(2) Initial regulatory impact analysis.--An initial
regulatory impact analysis required under paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) accompany the notice of proposed
rulemaking with respect to the major rule that
is the subject of the analysis; and
(B) be open to public comment.
(3) Final regulatory impact analysis.--A final
regulatory impact analysis required under paragraph (1)
shall accompany the final major rule that is the
subject of the analysis.
(c) Content.--Each initial and final regulatory impact
analysis prepared and published under subsection (b) shall
include, with respect to the major rule that is the subject of
the analysis--
(1)(A) an analysis of the anticipated benefits and
costs of the major rule, which shall be quantified to
the extent feasible;
(B) an analysis of the benefits and costs of a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives within the
range of the discretion of the agency under the statute
authorizing the major rule, including alternatives
that--
(i) use incentives and market-based means to
encourage the desired behavior;
(ii) provide information based upon which the
public can make choices; or
(iii) employ other flexible regulatory
options that permit the greatest flexibility in
achieving the objectives of the statute
authorizing the major rule; and
(C) an explanation of how the major rule complies
with the requirements of section 205;
(2) an assessment of the extent to which--
(A) the costs to State, local, and Tribal
governments may be paid with Federal financial
assistance (or otherwise paid for by the
Federal Government); and
(B) Federal resources are available to carry
out the major rule;
(3) estimates of--
(A) any disproportionate budgetary effects of
the major rule upon any particular--
(i) regions of the United States;
(ii) State, local, or Tribal
governments;
(iii) types of communities, including
urban or rural communities; or
(iv) segments of the private sector;
and
(B) the effect of the major rule on job
creation or job loss, which shall be quantified
to the extent feasible; and
(4)(A) a description of the extent of the prior
consultation of the agency under section 204 with
elected representatives of each affected State, local,
or Tribal government;
(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were
presented to the agency orally or in writing by State,
local, or Tribal governments; and
(C) a summary of the evaluation by the agency of the
comments and concerns described in subparagraph (B).
[(b)] (d) Promulgation.--In promulgating a general notice of
proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which [a statement
under subsection (a) is required, the agency shall include in
the promulgation a summary of the information contained in the
statement] an analysis under subsection (b) is required, the
agency promulgating the major rule shall include in the
promulgation a summary of the information contained in the
analysis.
[(c)] (e) Preparation in Conjunction With Other Statement.--
Any agency may prepare [any statement required under subsection
(a) in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement or
analysis, provided that the statement or analysis satisfies the
provisions of subsection (a)] any analysis required under
subsection (b) in conjunction with, or as a part of, any other
statement or analysis if the other statement or analysis
satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR
INPUT.
(a) In General.--Each agency shall, to the extent permitted
in law, develop an effective process to permit elected officers
of State, local, and [tribal] Tribal governments (or their
designated employees with authority to act on their behalf),
and impacted parties within the private sector (including small
businesses), to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals containing significant
[Federal intergovernmental mandates] Federal mandates.
(b) Meetings Between State, Local, Tribal and Federal
Officers.--Chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code, shall not
apply to actions in support of intergovernmental communications
where--
(1) meetings are held exclusively between Federal
officials and elected officers of State, local, and
[tribal] Tribal governments (or their designated
employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting
in their official capacities; and
(2) such meetings are solely for the purposes of
exchanging views, information, or advice relating to
the management or implementation of Federal programs
established pursuant to public law that explicitly or
inherently share intergovernmental responsibilities or
administration.
[(c) Implementing Guidelines.--No later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall issue
guidelines and instructions to Federal agencies for appropriate
implementation of subsections (a) and (b) consistent with
applicable laws and regulations.]
(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of
subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
(1) Consultations shall take place as early as
possible, before issuance of a notice of proposed
rulemaking, continue through the final rule stage, and
be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process.
(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of
State, local, and Tribal officials and impacted parties
within the private sector (including small businesses).
Geographic, political, and other factors that may
differentiate varying points of view should be
considered.
(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to
assist with these consultations. The scope of the
consultation should reflect the cost and significance
of the Federal mandate being considered.
(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
(A) seek out the views of State, local, and
Tribal governments, and impacted parties within
the private sector (including small
businesses), on costs, benefits, and risks; and
(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods
of compliance and potential flexibilities, and
input on whether the Federal regulation will
harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws
in other levels of government.
(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact
of regulations on the affected entities.
(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of
comments by relevant parties but may not use those
comments as the sole method of satisfying the
guidelines in this subsection.
[SEC. 205. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION REQUIRED.
[(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
before promulgating any rule for which a written statement is
required under section 202, the agency shall identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and
from those alternatives select the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, for--
[(1) State, local, and tribal governments, in the
case of a rule containing a Federal intergovernmental
mandate; and
[(2) the private sector, in the case of a rule
containing a Federal private sector mandate.
[(b) Exception.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply
unless--
[(1) the head of the affected agency publishes with
the final rule an explanation of why the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome method of
achieving the objectives of the rule was not adopted;
or
[(2) the provisions are inconsistent with law.
[(c) OMB Certification.--No later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall certify to Congress, with a written
explanation, agency compliance with this section and include in
that certification agencies and rulemakings that fail to
adequately comply with this section.]
SEC. 205. MAXIMIZE NET BENEFITS.
(a) Definition of Cost.--In this section, the term ``cost''
has the meaning given the term in section 202(a).
(b) Requirement.--Before promulgating any proposed or final
major rule for which a regulatory impact analysis is required
under section 202, an agency shall from the alternatives
identified and considered under section 202(c)(1)(B), select
the alternative that maximizes net benefits, taking into
consideration only the costs and benefits that arise within the
scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the
rulemaking.
(c) Exceptions.--An agency may adopt an alternative other
than as required under subsection (b) only if--
(1) the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs approves the adoption by the
agency of the alternative; and
(2) the alternative is adopted to--
(A) account for costs or benefits that cannot
be quantified, including costs or benefits
related to constitutional or civil rights,
provided that the agency identifies all such
costs and benefits and explains why those costs
and benefits justify the adoption of the
alternative; or
(B) achieve additional benefits or cost
reductions, provided that the agency--
(i) identifies--
(I) all such additional
benefits and the associated
costs of those benefits; and
(II) all such cost reductions
and the associated benefits of
those cost reductions; and
(ii) explains why--
(I) the additional benefits
justify the additional costs;
or
(II) the additional cost
reductions justify any benefits
foregone.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 208. ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE.
[No later than 1 year after the effective date of this title
and annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall submit to the Congress, including
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives, a written report detailing compliance by each
agency during the preceding reporting period with the
requirements of this title.]
SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (in this section referred to
as the ``Administrator'') shall provide meaningful guidance and
oversight so that the major rules of an agency for which a
regulatory impact analysis is required under section 202--
(1) are consistent with the principles and
requirements of this title, as well as other applicable
laws; and
(2) and do not conflict with the policies or actions
of another agency.
(b) Notification.--If the Administrator determines that the
major rules of an agency for which a regulatory impact analysis
is required under section 202 do not comply with the principles
and requirements of this title, are not consistent with other
applicable laws, or conflict with the policies or actions of
another agency, the Administrator shall--
(1) identify areas of noncompliance;
(2) notify the agency; and
(3) request that the agency comply before the agency
finalizes the major rule concerned.
(c) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--The
Administrator shall submit to Congress, including the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House
of Representatives, an annual written report that, for the 1-
year period preceding the report--
(1) details compliance by each agency with the
requirements of this title that relate to major rules
for which a regulatory impact analysis is required by
section 202, including activities undertaken at the
request of the Administrator to improve compliance; and
(2) contains an appendix detailing compliance by each
agency with section 204.
SEC. 209. INITIATION OF RULEMAKING FOR MAJOR RULES.
When an agency determines to initiate a rulemaking that may
result in a major rule, the agency shall--
(1) establish an electronic docket for that
rulemaking, which may have a physical counterpart; and
(2) publish a notice of initiation of rulemaking in
the Federal Register, which shall--
(A) briefly describe the subject and
objectives of, and the problem to be solved by,
the major rule;
(B) refer to the legal authority under which
the major rule would be proposed, including the
specific statutory provision that authorizes
the rulemaking;
(C) invite interested persons to propose
alternatives and other ideas regarding how best
to accomplish the objectives of the agency in
the most effective manner;
(D) indicate how interested persons may
submit written material for the docket; and
(E) appear in the Federal Register not later
than 90 days before the date on which the
agency publishes a notice of proposed
rulemaking for the major rule.
SEC. [209.] 210. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--REVIEW OF FEDERAL MANDATES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 304. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL COURT RULINGS.
No later than 4 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, and no later than March 15 of each year thereafter, the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations shall submit
to the Congress, including the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and to the President a
report describing any Federal court case to which a State,
local, or [tribal] Tribal government was a party in the
preceding calendar year that required such State, local, or
[tribal] Tribal government to undertake responsibilities or
activities, beyond those such government would otherwise have
undertaken, to comply with Federal statutes and regulations.
SEC. 305. DEFINITION.
Notwithstanding section 3 of this Act, for purposes of this
title the term ``Federal mandate'' means any provision in
statute or regulation or any Federal court ruling that imposes
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [tribal] Tribal
governments including a condition of Federal assistance or a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW
[SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
[(a) Agency Statements on Significant Regulatory Actions.--
[(1) In general.--Compliance or noncompliance by any
agency with the provisions of sections 202 and 203(a)
(1) and (2) shall be subject to judicial review only in
accordance with this section.
[(2) Limited review of agency compliance or
noncompliance.--(A) Agency compliance or noncompliance
with the provisions of sections 202 and 203(a) (1) and
(2) shall be subject to judicial review only under
section 706(1) of title 5, United States Code, and only
as provided under subparagraph (B).
[(B) If an agency fails to prepare the written
statement (including the preparation of the estimates,
analyses, statements, or descriptions) under section
202 or the written plan under section 203(a) (1) and
(2), a court may compel the agency to prepare such
written statement.
[(3) Review of agency rules.--In any judicial review
under any other Federal law of an agency rule for which
a written statement or plan is required under sections
202 and 203(a) (1) and (2), the inadequacy or failure
to prepare such statement (including the inadequacy or
failure to prepare any estimate, analysis, statement or
description) or written plan shall not be used as a
basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating or otherwise
affecting such agency rule.
[(4) Certain information as part of record.--Any
information generated under sections 202 and 203(a) (1)
and (2) that is part of the rulemaking record for
judicial review under the provisions of any other
Federal law may be considered as part of the record for
judicial review conducted under such other provisions
of Federal law.
[(5) Application of other federal law.--For any
petition under paragraph (2) the provisions of such
other Federal law shall control all other matters, such
as exhaustion of administrative remedies, the time for
and manner of seeking review and venue, except that if
such other Federal law does not provide a limitation on
the time for filing a petition for judicial review that
is less than 180 days, such limitation shall be 180
days after a final rule is promulgated by the
appropriate agency.
[(6) Effective date.--This subsection shall take
effect on October 1, 1995, and shall apply only to any
agency rule for which a general notice of proposed
rulemaking is promulgated on or after such date.
[(b) Judicial Review and Rule of Construction.--Except as
provided in subsection (a)--
[(1) any estimate, analysis, statement, description
or report prepared under this Act, and any compliance
or noncompliance with the provisions of this Act, and
any determination concerning the applicability of the
provisions of this Act shall not be subject to judicial
review; and
[(2) no provision of this Act shall be construed to
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable by any person in any administrative or
judicial action.]
SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--A person that is aggrieved by final agency
action in adopting a major rule that is subject to section 202
is entitled to judicial review of whether the agency complied
with section 202(b), 202(c)(1), or 205 with respect to the
rule.
(b) Scope of Review.--Chapter 7 of title 5, United States
Code, shall govern the scope of judicial review under
subsection (a).
(c) Jurisdiction.--Each court that has jurisdiction to review
a rule for compliance with section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, or under any other provision of law, shall have
jurisdiction to review a claim brought under subsection (a).
(d) Relief Available.--In granting relief in an action under
this section, a court shall order the agency that promulgated
the major rule that is under review to take remedial action
consistent with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
----------
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE
FISCAL PROCEDURES
* * * * * * *
Part B--Federal Mandates
SEC. 421. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this part:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the same meaning
as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States
Code[, but does not include independent regulatory
agencies].
(2) Amount.--The term ``amount'', with respect to an
authorization of appropriations for Federal financial
assistance, means the amount of budget authority for
any Federal grant assistance program or any Federal
program providing loan guarantees or direct loans.
(3) Direct costs.--The term ``direct costs''--
(A)(i) in the case of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, means the aggregate
estimated amounts that all State, local, and
tribal governments would be required to spend
or would be prohibited from raising in revenues
in order to comply with the Federal
intergovernmental mandate; or
(ii) in the case of a provision referred to
in paragraph (5)(A)(ii), means the amount of
Federal financial assistance eliminated or
reduced;
(B) in the case of a Federal private sector
mandate, means the aggregate estimated amounts
that the private sector will be required to
spend in order to comply with the Federal
private sector mandate;
(C) shall be determined on the assumption
that--
(i) State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector
will take all reasonable steps
necessary to mitigate the costs
resulting from the Federal mandate, and
will comply with applicable standards
of practice and conduct established by
recognized professional or trade
associations; and
(ii) reasonable steps to mitigate the
costs shall not include increases in
State, local, or tribal taxes or fees;
and
(D) shall not include--
(i) estimated amounts that the State,
local, and tribal governments (in the
case of a Federal intergovernmental
mandate) or the private sector (in the
case of a Federal private sector
mandate) would spend--
(I) to comply with or carry
out all applicable Federal,
State, local, and tribal laws
and regulations in effect at
the time of the adoption of the
Federal mandate for the same
activity as is affected by that
Federal mandate; or
(II) to comply with or carry
out State, local, and tribal
governmental programs, or
private-sector business or
other activities in effect at
the time of the adoption of the
Federal mandate for the same
activity as is affected by that
mandate; or
(ii) expenditures to the extent that
such expenditures will be offset by any
direct savings to the State, local, and
tribal governments, or by the private
sector, as a result of--
(I) compliance with the
Federal mandate; or
(II) other changes in Federal
law or regulation that are
enacted or adopted in the same
bill or joint resolution or
proposed or final Federal
regulation and that govern the
same activity as is affected by
the Federal mandate.
(4) Direct savings.--The term ``direct savings'',
when used with respect to the result of compliance with
the Federal mandate--
(A) in the case of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, means the aggregate
estimated reduction in costs to any State,
local, or tribal government as a result of
compliance with the Federal intergovernmental
mandate; and
(B) in the case of a Federal private sector
mandate, means the aggregate estimated
reduction in costs to the private sector as a
result of compliance with the Federal private
sector mandate.
(5) Federal intergovernmental mandate.--The term
``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' means--
(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that--
(i) would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal
governments, except--
(I) a condition of Federal
assistance; or
(II) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary
Federal program, except as
provided in subparagraph (B);
or
(ii) would reduce or eliminate the
amount of authorization of
appropriations for--
(I) Federal financial
assistance that would be
provided to State, local, or
tribal governments for the
purpose of complying with any
such previously imposed duty
unless such duty is reduced or
eliminated by a corresponding
amount; or
(II) the control of borders
by the Federal Government; or
reimbursement to State, local,
or tribal governments for the
net cost associated with
illegal, deportable, and
excludable aliens, including
court-mandated expenses related
to emergency health care,
education or criminal justice;
when such a reduction or
elimination would result in
increased net costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in
providing education or
emergency health care to, or
incarceration of, illegal
aliens; except that this
subclause shall not be in
effect with respect to a State,
local, or tribal government, to
the extent that such government
has not fully cooperated in the
efforts of the Federal
Government to locate,
apprehend, and deport illegal
aliens;
(B) any provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State, local, and
tribal governments under entitlement authority,
if the provision--
(i)(I) would increase the stringency
of conditions of assistance to State,
local, or tribal governments under the
program; or
(II) would place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide
funding to State, local, or tribal
governments under the program; and
(ii) the State, local, or tribal
governments that participate in the
Federal program lack authority under
that program to amend their financial
or programmatic responsibilities to
continue providing required services
that are affected by the legislation,
statute, or regulation.
(6) Federal mandate.--The term ``Federal mandate''
means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal
private sector mandate, as defined in paragraphs (5)
and (7).
(7) Federal private sector mandate.--The term
``Federal private sector mandate'' means any provision
in legislation, statute, or regulation that--
(A) would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector except--
(i) a condition of Federal
assistance; or
(ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program; or
(B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of
authorization of appropriations for Federal
financial assistance that will be provided to
the private sector for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with such duty.
(8) Local government.--The term ``local government''
has the same meaning as defined in section 6501(6) of
title 31, United States Code.
(9) Private sector.--The term ``private sector''
means all persons or entities in the United States,
including individuals, partnerships, associations,
corporations, and educational and nonprofit
institutions, but shall not include State, local, or
tribal governments.
(10) Regulation; rule.--The term ``regulation'' or
``rule'' (except with respect to a rule of either House
of the Congress) has the meaning of ``rule'' as defined
in section 601(2) of title 5, United States Code.
(11) Small government.--The term ``small government''
means any small governmental jurisdictions defined in
section 601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any
tribal government.
(12) State.--The term ``State'' has the same meaning
as defined in section 6501(9) of title 31, United
States Code.
(13) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal
government'' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or
other organized group or community, including any
Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688;
43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) which is recognized as eligible
for the special programs and services provided by the
United States to Indians because of their special
status as Indians.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 425. LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO POINT OF ORDER.
(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or
the House of Representatives to consider--
(1) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by
a committee unless the committee has published a
statement of the Director on the direct costs of
Federal mandates in accordance with section 423(f)
before such consideration, except this paragraph shall
not apply to any supplemental statement prepared by the
Director under section 424(d); and
(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would increase the direct costs
of [Federal intergovernmental mandates] Federal
mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds
specified in [section 424(a)(1)] subsection (a)(1) or
(b)(1) of section 424 to be exceeded, unless--
(A) the bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report provides new
budget authority or new entitlement authority
in the House of Representatives or direct
spending authority in the Senate for each
fiscal year for such mandates included in the
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report in an amount equal to or
exceeding the direct costs of such mandate; or
(B) the bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report includes an
authorization for appropriations in an amount
equal to or exceeding the direct costs of such
mandate, and--
(i) identifies a specific dollar
amount of the direct costs of such
mandate for each year up to 10 years
during which such mandate shall be in
effect under the bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion or
conference report, and such estimate is
consistent with the estimate determined
under subsection (e) for each fiscal
year;
(ii) identifies any appropriation
bill that is expected to provide for
Federal funding of the direct cost
referred to under clause (i); and
(iii)(I) provides that for any fiscal
year the responsible Federal agency
shall determine whether there are
insufficient appropriations for that
fiscal year to provide for the direct
costs under clause (i) of such mandate,
and shall (no later than 30 days after
the beginning of the fiscal year)
notify the appropriate authorizing
committees of Congress of the
determination and submit either--
(aa) a statement that the
agency has determined, based on
a re-estimate of the direct
costs of such mandate, after
consultation with State, local,
and tribal governments, that
the amount appropriated is
sufficient to pay for the
direct costs of such mandate;
or
(bb) legislative
recommendations for either
implementing a less costly
mandate or making such mandate
ineffective for the fiscal
year;
(II) provides for expedited
procedures for the consideration of the
statement or legislative
recommendations referred to in
subclause (I) by Congress no later than
30 days after the statement or
recommendations are submitted to
Congress; and
(III) provides that such mandate
shall--
(aa) in the case of a
statement referred to in
subclause (I)(aa), cease to be
effective 60 days after the
statement is submitted unless
Congress has approved the
agency's determination by joint
resolution during the 60-day
period;
(bb) cease to be effective 60
days after the date the
legislative recommendations of
the responsible Federal agency
are submitted to Congress under
subclause (I)(bb) unless
Congress provides otherwise by
law; or
(cc) in the case that such
mandate that has not yet taken
effect, continue not to be
effective unless Congress
provides otherwise by law.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The provisions of subsection
(a)(2)(B)(iii) shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise
restrict a State, local, or tribal government from voluntarily
electing to remain subject to the original Federal
intergovernmental mandate, complying with the programmatic or
financial responsibilities of the original Federal
intergovernmental mandate and providing the funding necessary
consistent with the costs of Federal agency assistance,
monitoring, and enforcement.
(c) Committee on Appropriations.--
(1) Application.--The provisions of subsection (a)--
(A) shall not apply to any bill or resolution
reported by the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate or the House of Representatives;
except
(B) shall apply to--
(i) any legislative provision
increasing direct costs of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate contained in
any bill or resolution reported by the
Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate or House of Representatives;
(ii) any legislative provision
increasing direct costs of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate contained in
any amendment offered to a bill or
resolution reported by the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate or House
of Representatives;
(iii) any legislative provision
increasing direct costs of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate in a
conference report accompanying a bill
or resolution reported by the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate or
House of Representatives; and
(iv) any legislative provision
increasing direct costs of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate contained in
any amendments in disagreement between
the two Houses to any bill or
resolution reported by the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate or House
of Representatives.
(2) Certain provisions stricken in senate.--Upon a
point of order being made by any Senator against any
provision listed in paragraph (1)(B), and the point of
order being sustained by the Chair, such specific
provision shall be deemed stricken from the bill,
resolution, amendment, amendment in disagreement, or
conference report and may not be offered as an
amendment from the floor.
(d) Determinations of Applicability to Pending Legislation.--
For purposes of this section, in the Senate, the presiding
officer of the Senate shall consult with the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, to the extent practicable, on questions
concerning the applicability of this part to a pending bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report.
(e) Determinations of Federal Mandate Levels.--For purposes
of this section, in the Senate, the levels of Federal mandates
for a fiscal year shall be determined based on the estimates
made by the Committee on the Budget.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
Regulations have been a straw man for Republicans to attack
government agencies for years. Yet the majority of Americans
support government regulation across a range of industries.
Regulations are what enable us to feel confident that the food
we eat and the water we drink are safe for consumption.
Regulations prevent fraudulent advertising and targeting
children with products like tobacco and alcohol. They help
protect the quality of the very air we breathe.
Regulations have a profound effect on every aspect of our
lives. They help keep our nation safe, healthy, and prosperous.
Democrats support improving transparency and public
participation in the regulatory process. But that is not what
this bill does.
H.R. 580 will make the already complex regulatory process
more burdensome and give industry, which already has
significant input in the regulatory process, even more say. In
contrast, the Biden Administration worked to modernize the
regulatory process, strengthening democracy by further
advancing the transparency, inclusivity, and effectiveness of
federal regulations.
The Biden Administration's modernization plans promoted
both efficiency and fairness with the purpose of ensuring that
well-funded and well-connected corporations no longer have
outsized influence on federal regulations simply because they
have the time, resources, and lobbyists to bombard federal
officials with input.
The changes implemented by the Biden Administration require
federal officials to proactively seek out the voices of those
who are underrepresented in--but still critically affected by--
the rulemaking process, including people with disabilities and
people living in rural areas, as well as minority groups.
This bill would overwhelm those underrepresented voices by
giving special interests a megaphone in the regulatory process.
This is not the way to increase public participation and reduce
the opacity of the regulatory process--it is in fact a way to
increase the influence of special interests.
The bill would also expand the definition of ``major rule''
to include any rule with an annual financial effect of $100
million or more. The definition would further be expanded to
include the vague qualification of any regulation with
significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety,
or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
H.R. 580 would also require federal agencies to prepare and
publish a burdensome analysis of the impacts of the regulation
prior to promulgating any proposed or final major rule. The
analysis would be required to include a cost-benefit analysis
of the rule and possible regulatory alternatives, among other
details.
The bill would also expand judicial review of federal
regulations making it easier for entities to go to court to
block regulatory actions. It would also create a point of order
preventing consideration in both the House and Senate of any
legislation, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report that has private sector costs of $100 million or more in
a given fiscal year. Previously, this point of order only
applied to federal intergovernmental mandates.
Regulations are a tool in our democracy that serve the
public good. Unfortunately, this bill would hinder, not improve
the ability of the public to be heard and represented. For
these reasons, Democrats strongly oppose this legislation.
Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member.
[all]