AN ASSESSMENT

OF THE

UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT

IN 1999

March 2000
PREFACE

This paper is the fourth annual assessment of the Congressional Budget Office's

(CBO's) activities under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The paper

covers legislation before the Congress in 1999 that would impose federal mandates

on other levels of government or the private sector. In addition, it examines

amendments to UMRA enacted or proposed during 1999 and discusses a recent

change in CBO's procedures for determining whether a bill is excluded from

consideration under UMRA.

The paper was prepared by Theresa Gullo, chief of the State and Local

Government Cost Estimates Unit of CBO's Budget Analysis Division, under the

supervision of Robert Sunshine, and by Patrice Gordon, coordinator of private-sector

mandates for CBO's Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division, under the

supervision of Roger Hitchner. Gail Del Balzo, Lisa Driskill, Leslie Frymier,

Christopher Jehn, Rick Kasten, and Wanda Sivak made significant contributions to

the analysis. 

Chris Spoor edited the paper, and Sherry Snyder proofread it. Rae Wiseman

prepared the final version for publication, and Laurie Brown prepared the electronic

versions for CBO's World Wide Web site (www.cbo.gov).

Dan L. Crippen

Director

March 2000
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

AN OVERVIEW OF UMRA IN 1999 1

Intergovernmental Mandates 5

Private-Sector Mandates 7

COSTS TO STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

FROM 1999 LEGISLATION 13

RECENT CHANGES TO UMRA 16

A Legislative Change: UMRA and Large Entitlement 

Grant Programs 16

A Proposed Change: The Mandates Information Act 17

A Procedural Change: CBO's Interpretation of the 

National Security Exclusion 19

APPENDIXES

A List of Bills in 1999 That Contained Intergovernmental 

Mandates 21

B Primary Contributors to CBO's Analyses 

of Mandates 29
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 iv

TABLES

1. Number of CBO Mandate Statements for Bills, Proposed

Amendments, and Conference Reports in 1999 2

2. Status of 1999 Mandates That Would Exceed the 

Statutory Thresholds 3

3. Bills Before the Congress in 1999 That Contained Tax 

Offset Provisions Constituting Private-Sector Mandates 

That Would Exceed the Statutory Threshold 10

4. Laws Enacted in 1999 That Contained Intergovernmental

Mandates 14

A-1. Bills Reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office 

in 1999 That Contained Intergovernmental Mandates 22
INTRODUCTION

Title I of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) aims to ensure that

the Congress knows the potential direct costs of federal mandates before it enacts

legislation that would impose such mandates on state, local, and tribal governments

or the private sector. UMRA does that, in part, by requiring the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) to give Congressional authorizing committees written

statements about whether reported bills contain federal mandates. If the total direct

costs of all intergovernmental and private-sector mandates in a bill would exceed

specified thresholds in any of the first five fiscal years in which the mandate was

effective, CBO must provide an estimate of those costs (if feasible) and explain the

basis of the estimate. The statutory threshold is $50 million for intergovernmental

mandates and $100 million for private-sector mandates (in 1996 dollars), adjusted

annually for inflation. Each CBO mandate statement must also assess whether the

bill authorizes or otherwise provides funding to cover the costs of any new federal

mandate. In the case of intergovernmental mandates, the statement must (under

certain circumstances) estimate the appropriations needed to fund such authorizations

for up to 10 years after the mandate takes effect.

This paper reviews CBO’s activities under title I of UMRA during 1999—its

fourth year of providing information about federal mandates to the Congress. The

paper lists the bills that CBO considered during the year and found to contain

mandates above the relevant thresholds. It also examines recent legislative initiatives

to amend UMRA and outlines a change in CBO's procedures for determining whether

a bill is excluded from consideration under the act.

AN OVERVIEW OF UMRA IN 1999 

In all, CBO reviewed more than 550 bills and other legislative proposals last year to

determine whether they contained federal mandates (see Table 1). About 14 percent

of them (81 bills) had intergovernmental mandates, and approximately 1 percent

(four bills) had such mandates with costs that would exceed the threshold of $50

million a year. In addition, CBO identified private-sector mandates in about 19

percent of the bills and amendments it examined; almost 4 percent (20 bills) had

costs over the $100 million annual threshold for such mandates, and another 2

percent (13 bills) had costs that could not be determined. 

Multiple bills or proposals sometimes contain similar mandates. Consequently,

CBO's mandate statements for different bills sometimes identify the same mandate.

Although the number of bills with federal mandates in 1999 was noticeably higher

than in previous years, the number of separate mandates was not. Hence, the increase

in the number of bills with mandates appeared to occur primarily because the

Congress considered more versions of the same bills last year than in prior years.
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 2

TABLE 1. NUMBER OF CBO MANDATE STATEMENTS FOR BILLS, PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS, AND CONFERENCE REPORTS IN 1999

Intergovernmental

Mandates

Private-Sector

Mandates

Total Number of Statements Transmitted 573 556

Number of Statements That Identified Mandates 81 105

Mandate costs would exceed thresholda 4 20

Mandate costs could not be estimated 0 13

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.

NOTE: The numbers in this table represent official statements transmitted to the Congress by CBO. CBO prepared more

intergovernmental statements than private-sector statements because in some cases it was asked to review a

specific bill, amendment, or conference report solely for intergovernmental mandates. In those cases, no privatesector analysis was transmitted to the requesting Member or committee. CBO also completed a number of

preliminary reviews and informal estimates for other legislative proposals that are not included in this table.

Mandate statements may cover more than one mandate provision, and occasionally more than one formal CBO

statement is issued for each mandate topic.

a. The thresholds are $50 million a year (in 1996 dollars) for intergovernmental mandates and $100 million a year (in 1996

dollars) for private-sector mandates. Those amounts are adjusted annually for inflation.

In 1999, the four bills with intergovernmental mandates above the cost

threshold contained three separate mandates: new requirements regarding the confidentiality of health records (an unnumbered Senate proposal), a prohibition on Internet gambling (S. 692), and an increase in the minimum wage (H.R. 3081 and S. 192).

Those mandates would affect state, local, and tribal governments as employers and

as providers of certain health services. (Appendix A lists all of the bills and proposals that CBO reviewed in 1999 that contained intergovernmental mandates,

regardless of the cost.) None of the intergovernmental mandates with costs above the

threshold were enacted into law, and all were still pending before the Congress at the

end of 1999 (see Table 2).

Of the 81 bills that CBO identified as containing intergovernmental mandates,

more than 35 included preemptions of state and local laws. Many of those preemptions would affect state regulation of telecommunications, electronic commerce, and

financial services. In all of those cases, CBO concluded that although the

preemptions would limit the authority of state and local governments in a particular

area, their implementation would not cause those governments to spend significantly

more. Thus, the mandates would not have direct costs—as defined by UMRA—that

exceeded the statutory threshold. 
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 3

TABLE 2. STATUS OF 1999 MANDATES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE STATUTORY

THRESHOLDS

Topic Mandate Status at End of 1999

Intergovernmental Mandatesa

Health Information

Confidentiality

Preempts health privacy laws and imposes

new requirements on entities handling

patients' health records

Referred to the Senate Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions

Internet Gambling Prohibits gambling over the Internet,

including certain tribal casino games

Passed by the Senate in narrower

form

Minimum Wageb Increases the minimum wage paid by

employers covered under the Fair Labor

Standards Act

Added as an amendment to 

S. 625 (the bankruptcy reform bill

listed below) in the Senate and

passed; on the calendar in the

House

Private-Sector Mandatesa

Bankruptcy Reform Changes procedures for administering

bankruptcy estates

Passed by the Senate

China's Normal Trade

Relations

Increases tariff rates on importers of

Chinese goods

Failed passage in the House

Health Information

Confidentiality

Imposes new requirements on the use and

disclosure of personal health information

Referred to the Senate Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions

Milk Price Structure Changes the method by which minimum

prices are established for fluid milk in

different regions of the country

Placed on the Senate calendar

Minimum Wageb Increases the minimum wage paid by

employers covered under the Fair Labor

Standards Act

Added as an amendment to 

S. 625 (the bankruptcy reform bill

listed above) in the Senate and

passed; on the calendar in the

House

Patients' Bill of Rights Imposes new requirements on group- and

employer-sponsored health plans and on

health insurance issuers

Placed on the Senate calendar

Steel Imports Limits the volume of imported steel

products

Cloture vote failed in the Senate

Taxpayer Relief and

Tax Extenders

Changes or imposes taxes to raise

revenues to offset costs imposed by other

provisions in a bill

Several provisions passed in Public

Law 106-170c, d

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 4

TABLE 2. CONTINUED

Topic Mandate Status at End of 1999

Private-Sector Mandatesa

 (Continued)

Work Incentives

Improvement

Contains two tax provisions used as

revenue offsets

Portions of the bill passed in Public

Law 106-170 (but not the two tax

mandates)c

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.

NOTE: The mandates in this table are those identified by the Congressional Budget Office when a bill was reported by

an authorizing or conference committee or when CBO was asked to do a formal review. In some cases, more than

one formal CBO statement was issued for each mandate topic.

a. The thresholds are $50 million a year (in 1996 dollars) for intergovernmental mandates and $100 million a year (in 1996

dollars) for private-sector mandates. Those amounts are adjusted annually for inflation.

b. Each of the various legislative proposals to increase the minimum wage would impose federal mandates with costs above

the statutory thresholds.

c. The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-170) was signed into law on December

17, 1999.

d. Ten tax provisions that were mandates in other bills passed in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act

of 1999. The three largest of those mandates would repeal the installment method for most taxpayers using the accrual

basis, change the treatment of income and services provided by taxable subsidiaries of real estate investment trusts, and

prevent the conversion of ordinary income or short-term capital gains into income eligible for long-term capital gains

tax rates.

The 20 bills that CBO identified as having private-sector mandates over the

threshold contained nine separate mandates covering a wide range of topics:

bankruptcy reform, confidentiality in the use of patients' information, new methods

to determine minimum milk prices, increases in the minimum wage, limits on

imports of steel products, a patients' bill of rights, and various provisions that would

change existing taxes or tariffs or impose new ones. (Eight of those 20 bills involved

requirements to pay taxes or tariffs.) 

In 1999, the Congress proposed using several tax provisions, in various

combinations, to raise revenues in order to offset other provisions in bills that would

increase federal spending or reduce federal revenues. The Joint Committee on

Taxation identified seven bills with some combination of revenue provisions that

would impose private-sector mandates with total costs above the statutory threshold.

Ten of those revenue-raising tax provisions were enacted as part of the Ticket to

Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The rest were still pending

before the Congress at the end of 1999.
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 5

CBO determined that another 33 bills (almost 6 percent of last year's total) were

either wholly or partially excluded from UMRA’s procedures—generally because

they contained provisions that would enforce the constitutional rights of individuals;

would establish or enforce certain statutory rights prohibiting discrimination; would

relate to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance programs under title II of

the Social Security Act; would be necessary for national security; or would be

required for the ratification or implementation of treaty obligations. Those and other

exclusions are spelled out in section 4 of UMRA. In most cases, they apply to both

intergovernmental and private-sector mandates. 

Intergovernmental Mandates

Of the three intergovernmental mandates in 1999 whose costs would exceed the

threshold, two would affect state and local governments as part of a larger mandated

community—as health care providers in the case of health confidentiality, and as

employers in the case of minimum wage legislation. In those instances, state and

local governments would face roughly the same costs as other members of the

mandated groups.

Health Information Confidentiality. In October 1999, CBO analyzed a legislative

proposal called the Health Information Confidentiality Act of 1999 (HICA) for the

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. HICA was a

compromise proposal based on three bills referred to that committee: the Medical

Information Privacy and Security Act (S. 573); the Health Care Personal Information

Nondisclosure Act of 1999 (S. 578); and the Medical Information Protection Act of

1999 (S. 881). HICA would grant people various rights to their personal health

information and limit the unauthorized use and disclosure of that information by

others. 

CBO determined that HICA would impose mandates on all entities that create,

maintain, or receive medical records, including health care providers, health insurance plans, health researchers, health oversight agencies, public health authorities,

employers, law enforcement officials, life insurers, schools, and state health

programs. The requirements governing the gathering, use, and disclosure of health

information could result in significant administrative and procedural costs, especially

during the first year of implementation. Because of the broad scope of the

legislation, CBO estimated that the costs to both intergovernmental and privatesector entities would exceed the thresholds specified in UMRA, at least during the

first year. At the end of1999, HICA was still awaiting markup by the Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

Internet Gambling. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (S. 692), as

reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on June 17, 1999, would prohibit
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 6

gambling over the Internet or through an interactive computer service. Such a

prohibition would impose mandates on state, local, or tribal governments in at least

two ways—which together would cost more than the statutory threshold starting in

the first year after the bill's enactment. 

First, S. 692 defines an interactive computer service as any information service,

system, or provider of access software that gives multiple users access to a computer

server. That definition is sufficiently broad that it would probably encompass the

systems that tribal governments use to offer linked bingo and progressive slot

machines. Linked bingo occurs when several tribes, either within a state or across

many states, use an interactive computer service to simultaneously play one bingo

game, thereby increasing the potential payoff to participants. Assuming that the bill

would prohibit tribes from operating those games, the prohibition would constitute

an intergovernmental mandate as defined by UMRA.

Progressive slot machines allow several tribes to link their slot machines using

technology that apparently would also be prohibited by S. 692. As with linked bingo,

slot machines are linked to increase the winnings available to participants. Because

the legality of that practice is unclear under current law, CBO could not determine

whether the prohibition in S. 692 would apply to it and thus constitute a new

intergovernmental mandate or whether that practice is already prohibited. 

Second, the prohibition on gambling over the Internet would constitute a

mandate because state, local, and tribal governments would not be allowed to provide

access to gaming or lottery sites that use the Internet. The bill also would preempt

certain state liability laws as they apply to providers of interactive computer services.

The Senate passed an amended version of S. 692 that included a new section

designed to alleviate many of the concerns about linked bingo and progressive slot

machines that were raised in CBO's mandate statement. That version of the bill

specified that under certain circumstances, the prohibition on Internet gambling using

an interactive computer service to perform some classes of gambling, such as bingo

and slot machines, would not apply to activities taking place as of September 9,

1999. Thus, the cost of the mandates in the amended bill would be unlikely to

exceed the threshold in any one year.

Minimum Wage. CBO reviewed two bills in 1999 that would increase the federal

minimum wage—currently $5.15 per hour—by $1 per hour. The Fair Minimum

Wage Act of 1999 (S. 192), introduced by Senator Kennedy, would raise the

minimum wage in two annual steps of 50 cents each. The Wage and Employment

Growth Act of 1999 (H.R. 3081), as ordered reported by the House Committee on

Ways and Means, would raise the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour by April 2002.
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 7

CBO determined that both bills would impose intergovernmental and privatesector mandates because they would force employers covered under the Fair Labor

Standards Act—including state, local, and tribal governments—to pay higher

minimum wages than current law requires. The direct costs of the mandates in both

bills would exceed the statutory thresholds for intergovernmental and private-sector

mandates. CBO estimated that over five years, S.192 would cost governments (as

employers) almost $1.2 billion, and H.R. 3081 would cost them almost $0.9 billion.

The direct cost to private-sector employers during the first five years would be about

$17.2 billion under S. 192 and about $13.3 billion under H.R. 3081, CBO estimated.

Neither of the bills has been enacted into law, although a similar provision was

incorporated into S. 625 and passed by the Senate in early February 2000.

Private-Sector Mandates

Nine of the mandates that the Congress considered in 1999 would impose costs of

$100 million or more a year on the private sector, in CBO's view. Two of those mandates—relating to the minimum wage and health information confidentiality—would

affect the private sector and state, local, and tribal governments in similar ways and

are discussed in the previous section. Of the rest, four would impose new requirements on various segments of the private sector, and three would involve taxes or

tariffs. In addition, the Congress considered several bills that contained privatesector mandates whose costs CBO could not determine. 

Bankruptcy Reform. During 1999, the Congress examined proposals to address the

abuse of the bankruptcy system by people who can afford to pay some portion of

their debts. CBO prepared mandate statements for two reform bills: the Bankruptcy

Reform Act of 1999 (H.R. 833), as reported by the House Committee on the

Judiciary, and the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 (S. 625), as reported by the Senate

Committee on the Judiciary. Although the House and Senate bills differ, they both

would incorporate means-testing in the bankruptcy system. In other words, people

with income over a certain level could be required to repay debt over time out of their

future income rather than immediately discharging certain debt and leaving their

future income unencumbered. 

Both bills would impose new private-sector mandates on bankruptcy attorneys

and creditors. The largest potential costs are associated with the mandates on

attorneys. Bankruptcy attorneys would be required to make reasonable inquiries to

confirm that the information in documents they submitted to courts or bankruptcy

trustees was not misrepresented. To avoid sanctions and potential civil penalties,

they would need to verify the information they received from clients about lists of

creditors, assets and liabilities, and income and expenditures. CBO estimated that

complying with that requirement would cost attorneys between $190 million and

$640 million in fiscal year 2000 under H.R. 833 and S. 625. However, CBO expects
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 8

that bankruptcy attorneys would pass those costs on to debtors, reducing the pool of

funds available to creditors. The Senate passed an amended version of S. 625 in

early February 2000.

Milk Price Structure. H.R. 1402, as reported by the House Agriculture Committee

in June 1999, would require the Secretary of Agriculture to modify final rulemaking

procedures to change the way minimum prices are set for fluid milk in different

regions of the country. Specifically, the bill would require formal rulemaking

procedures to develop pricing methods—known as marketing orders—for milk used

in manufactured dairy products (cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk). In addition, the

bill would modify the formula for setting minimum cheese prices, pending a final

rule. H.R. 1402 would impose a private-sector mandate by requiring milk handlers

that are regulated by federal marketing orders to pay a higher price for milk than they

would have to otherwise. Based on projections of milk production, CBO estimated

that the bill would require handlers to pay milk producers about $140 million more

per year. 

Patients' Bill of Rights. The Congress considered at least two bills in 1999 that

would establish federal standards for managed care and other forms of health

insurance. CBO prepared mandate cost estimates for the Patients' Bill of Rights Act

(S. 326), as introduced by Senator Jeffords and ordered reported by the Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and for the Patients' Bill of Rights Act

of 1999 (S. 6), as introduced on January 19, 1999. In general, the provisions in those

bills would improve access to emergency and specialty care, provide information to

consumers, expand point-of-service options, and require grievance and appeals

processes. S. 6 and S. 326 would also impose new functions and operating practices

on private insurers and health plans that would create private-sector mandates. Some

differences exist in the details of the two bills' provisions. Nevertheless, CBO

estimated that the direct costs of the private-sector mandates in each bill would total

about $56 billion over five years. 

Steel Imports. H.R. 975, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Ways and

Means in March 1999, would impose private-sector mandates by temporarily limiting

imports of steel and steel products into the United States and establishing a

notification and monitoring program for those imports. In effect, the bill would

prohibit imports of certain steel products in excess of the average volume of such

products that was imported monthly into the United States during the three-year

period before July 1997. That limit would reduce the availability of imported steel

and raise the prices that U.S. importers face. Just how much prices would rise is

uncertain, but based on published estimates of demand elasticities for steel products,

CBO estimated the increased cost to importers at nearly $400 million in fiscal year

2000, $340 million in 2001, and $150 million in 2002. H.R. 975 would also require

importers of certain products to obtain a steel import notification certificate from the

Department of Commerce. CBO estimated that doing so would cost importers about
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 9

$500,000 annually. H.R. 975 reached the floor of the Senate but failed to pass a

cloture vote.

Tax Offset Provisions as Mandates. The Taxpayer Relief and Refund Act of 1999

(H.R. 2488), originally called the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, contained several

provisions that the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) identified as private-sector

mandates because they would change the tax code to increase revenues. (In effect,

those provisions were included in the bill as an offset for provisions that would

increase spending or reduce revenues.) The primary purpose of the bill was to

provide a set of tax cuts estimated to total $792 billion over 10 years. President

Clinton vetoed H.R. 2488 in September 1999. However, a majority of the tax offset

provisions in the bill that were identified as mandates appeared in six other bills

related to extending expiring tax and tariff provisions (see Table 3). 

The JCT also identified two revenue offsets in an early version of the Work

Incentives Improvement Act (S. 331) as private-sector mandates with costs above the

threshold. Later versions of that bill did not include the provisions, and the mandate

costs in those versions of S. 331 fell below the threshold. The bill was enacted in

December 1999 as a part of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement

Act (P.L. 106-170). 

Tariff Provisions as Mandates. House Joint Resolution 57—rejecting the extension

of nondiscriminatory (or most-favored-nation) treatment to imports from the People's

Republic of China—would terminate China's normal trade relations status. CBO

estimated that by raising tariff rates on goods imported from China, the resolution

would cost the private sector more than $500 million in fiscal year 2000. The

resolution failed passage in the House.

Mandates with Uncertain Costs. For 13 of the 105 bills with private-sector mandates

that were identified last year, CBO could not determine whether their costs would

exceed the threshold. That uncertainty arose for one or more reasons: 

o Uncertainty about whom the bill's provisions would affect, 

o Ambiguous language in UMRA about how to treat extensions of existing

mandates, 

o Dependence of costs on future regulations, or 

o Lack of essential information. 

In a few cases, CBO could not determine accurately how many people would

be affected by a proposed mandate. For example, the Collections of Information

Antipiracy Act (H.R. 354) would impose a mandate by granting copyright-like
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 10

TABLE 3. BILLS BEFORE THE CONGRESS IN 1999 THAT CONTAINED TAX OFFSET

PROVISIONS CONSTITUTING PRIVATE-SECTOR MANDATES THAT

WOULD EXCEED THE STATUTORY THRESHOLD

Bill Number Name and Major Purposes

Tax Offset Provisions

Identified as Mandates

(See notes on next page)

H.R. 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22

Provides $792 billion tax cut over 10 years;

expands tax-advantaged education savings

accounts; extends expiring tax benefit

provisions

S. 331 Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 12, 16

Expands health care coverage for disabled

workers

S. 1134 Affordable Education Act of 1999 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 22

Expands tax-advantaged education savings

accounts

S. 1429 Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, 18, 20, 21, 22 Provides $792 billion tax cut over 10 years;

extends expiring research and development

tax credit

S. 1792 Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,

Extends expiring tax benefit provisions 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

S. 1388 A bill to extend the Generalized System of

Preferences

17, 20

Extends certain expired trade preferences

S. 1389 United States-Caribbean Basin Trade

Enhancement Act

17, 20

Provides tariff and quota advantages to

certain products of beneficiary countries

under the Carribean Basin Initiative trade

program

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.

NOTES: The statutory threshold for private-sector mandates is $100 million a year (in 1996 dollars), adjusted annually

for inflation.

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) determines mandates and their costs for provisions that affect the tax

code. The mandates in this table are those identified by JCT when a bill was reported by an authorizing or

conference committee.

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 11

TABLE 3. CONTINUED

Tax offset provisions:

1. Add certain vaccines against streptococcus pneumoniae to the list of taxable vaccines.*

2. Change the tax treatment of prohibited allocations of stock in an employee stock ownership plan of a subchapter S

corporation.

3. Change the treatment of income and services provided by taxable subsidiaries of real estate investment trusts.

4. Clarify the definition of "subject to" liabilities.

5. Clarify the tax treatment of income and losses on derivatives.*

6. Deny charitable contribution deductions for transfers associated with split-dollar insurance arrangements.*

7. Exclude like-kind exchange property from nonrecognition treatment on the sale of a personal residence.

8. Impose a 10 percent vote or value test.*

9. Impose a 1.5 percent surtax on wholesale dealers of distilled spirits.

10. Impose a limit on prefunding of certain employee benefits.

11. Limit distributions of stock in another corporation by a partnership to a corporate partner.*

12. Limit the use of the nonaccrual experience method of accounting.

13. Limit taxpayers' ability to convert the character of income from constructive ownership transactions; prevent the

conversion of ordinary income or short-term capital gains into income eligible for long-term capital gains rates.*

14. Modify antiabuse rules related to the assumption of liabilities.

15. Modify the estimated tax rules of closely held real estate investment trusts.*

16. Modify the foreign tax credit carryback and carryover periods.

17. Modify the pledge rule for dispositions of property.*

18. Modify the treatment of certain closely held real estate investment trusts.

19. Prevent duplication or acceleration of loss through assumption of certain liabilities.

20. Repeal the installment method for most taxpayers using the accrual basis.*

21. Require consistent treatment and provide basis-allocation rules for transfers of intangibles in certain

nonrecognition transactions.

22. Require reporting of information about cancellation of indebtedness by nonbank financial institutions.*

* A form of this provision was enacted in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999

(Public Law 106-170).
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 12

protection to certain collections of information that are not protected by copyright

law. Firms that commercially exploited such collections without first obtaining the

permission of the owners would have to pay license fees to the owners or excise the

infringing materials from their products. CBO could not estimate the costs of that

mandate, however, because it did not have enough information to determine the

scope and impact of the new protections. 

For two bills, the NRC Fairness in Funding Act of 1999 (S. 1627) and the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (H.R.

2531), CBO was unable to say whether the mandates would exceed the cost threshold

because they were extensions of an existing mandate—the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's authority to charge annual license fees to offset its general fund

appropriation. Ambiguity in UMRA's definition of direct costs makes it unclear

whether CBO should measure the change in the cost of an extended mandate from

the current level or from the level that would exist if the mandate was allowed to

expire (usually zero). If the former, a mandate extended with no changes would

result in no additional costs. If the latter, the extended mandate would be treated as

a new mandate, and all costs above those that would be incurred anyway would be

attributed to the legislation.

In another case, CBO could not estimate the costs of a mandate because those

costs would depend on specific regulations that would be developed and issued some

time in the future. The East Timor Self-Determination Act of 1999 (S. 1568) would

prohibit the export or delivery to Indonesia of items on the U.S. Munitions List

unless those items were designated for international peacekeeping forces or

humanitarian assistance. The State Department is in the final stages of issuing

guidelines on prohibitions of defense-related exports to Indonesia. Based on

information from government sources, CBO expected that the prohibitions in S. 1568

would be more restrictive than the rules likely to be issued. But without more

specific information about the State Department guidelines, CBO had no basis for

estimating how costly the loss of income from S. 1568 would be to the private sector.

In addition, CBO was unable to estimate the costs of some mandates because

reliable data were not available. The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act

(H.R. 775) and two other versions of that bill would create private-sector mandates

on prospective plaintiffs and attorneys in disputes related to Y2K computer problems.

Projecting the costs of those mandates proved impossible because CBO had no basis

for predicting the number of lawsuits related to Y2K problems. (A version of H.R.

775 was signed into law on July 20, 1999, as P.L. 106-37.)

A similar estimation problem occurred in CBO's analysis of private-sector

mandates in the Worker Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 2434). That bill would require

labor organizations that have union security agreements—which require union and

nonunion members to pay dues or fees to the union as a condition of employment—
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 13

to obtain written authorization from workers before using any portion of those

payments for activities other than representing employees. The cost of that mandate

would depend on the number of workers from whom authorization was requested and

the average cost to the union of requesting an authorization. Little information exists

about either of those quantities. Moreover, the prevalence and magnitude of unions'

spending on nonrepresentation activities, which could be used as a basis for

estimating both of those quantities, is also unknown.

COSTS TO STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

FROM 1999 LEGISLATION

Of the 170 public laws enacted in 1999, fewer than 1 percent (13 laws) contained an

intergovernmental mandate as UMRA defines it (see Table 4). Moreover, none of

those mandates would impose annual costs on state, local, or tribal governments

exceeding the statutory threshold, CBO estimates. Only two laws enacted in 1999

contained mandates that CBO had not reviewed at some point during the legislative

process. In both of those cases, the mandates were part of appropriation bills, which

CBO does not review for mandates unless specifically requested to.

Not all of the impact that Congressional action has on state and local budgets

is the result of mandates. More than 60 bills reviewed in 1999 contained provisions

that would impose additional costs on state, local, or tribal governments through

vehicles other than mandates, as defined by UMRA. Almost all of those provisions

dealt with conditions for receiving federal aid or for participating in voluntary federal

programs, which UMRA does not consider mandates. About half of those bills

would impose significant costs on participating state or local governments. For

example, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1999

(S. 655), as reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in June 1999, contained no intergovernmental mandates, according to CBO,

but would place added requirements on states that chose to participate in the National

Motor Vehicle Title Information System. Additional costs to those states would

include one-time costs to modify vehicle titles and print new forms as well as higher

annual operating expenses. Such costs could reach into the millions of dollars for

participating states.

In the other direction, CBO identified more than 140 bills that would provide

net benefits or result in budgetary savings for state, local, or tribal governments.

Such bills covered a wide range of activities—from conveying land and assets to

public entities at no cost to creating grant and loan assistance programs.
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 14

TABLE 4. LAWS ENACTED IN 1999 THAT CONTAINED INTERGOVERNMENTAL

MANDATES

Public Law Name Mandate

Does Law

Contain a

Mandate Not

Reviewed by

CBO?

Do

Costs

Exceed

Threshold?

106-37 Y2K Act Imposes strict guidelines on state

courts for managing Year 2000

liability lawsuits; limits punitive

damages that states can receive

when they act as plaintiffs

No No

106-40 Chemical Safety

Information, Site Security

and Fuels Regulatory

Relief Act

Preempts state and local freedomof-information laws by imposing

federal guidelines for the release of

some information contained in riskmanagement plans

No No

106-66 A bill to direct the

Secretaries of Agriculture

and Interior to convey

certain lands in San Juan

County, New Mexico, to

San Juan College

Requires San Juan College to pay

for a land survey

No No

106-69 Department of

Transportation and Related

Agencies Appropriations

Act, 2000

Prohibits states from selling

information about drivers to

marketers without the drivers'

express consent

No No

106-74 Departments of Veterans

Affairs and Housing and

Urban Development,

Independent Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2000

Preempts state housing regulations Yes No

106-78 Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and

Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2000;

Livestock Mandatory

Reporting Act of 1999

Title IX of this law (the Livestock

Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999)

preempts any state or local law that

is in addition to, or inconsistent

with, any of this law's requirements

No No

106-81 Wireless Communications

and Public Safety Act of

1999

Requires states to provide an equal

standard of liability for users,

providers, and dispatchers of

wireless and wireline 911 services

No No

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 15

TABLE 4. CONTINUED

Public Law Name Mandate

Does Law

Contain a

Mandate Not

Reviewed by

CBO?

Do 

Costs

Exceed

Threshold?

106-98 District of Columbia

College Access Act of

1999

Imposes administrative

requirements on the mayor of the

District of Columbia

No No

106-102 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Preempts state banking, insurance,

and securities laws; requires a

majority of states to adopt uniform

licensing requirements for

insurance sales

No No

106-113 An act making

consolidated

appropriations for the

fiscal year ending

September 30, 2000, and

for other purposes

Imposes various mandates on the

mayor, the school district, and the

University of the District of

Columbia; imposes restrictions on

the use of land owned by certain

Indian tribes

Yes No

106-117 Veterans Millennium

Health Care and Benefits

Act

Prohibits public hospitals from

suing veterans for payment

No No

106-159 Motor Carrier Safety

Improvement Act of 1999

Requires states to conform to

specific procedures when issuing

commercial driver's licenses

No No

106-170 Ticket to Work and Work

Incentives Improvement

Act of 1999

Preempts state privacy laws by

deeming certain practices of the

Social Security Administration as

meeting state laws; increases some

excise taxes paid by state and local

entities

No No

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.

NOTE: The threshold for intergovernmental mandates is $50 million a year (in 1996 dollars), adjusted annually for

inflation.
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 16

RECENT CHANGES TO UMRA

The Congress considered two proposals during 1999 to change the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act. One was enacted and the other is pending. The Congress

amended UMRA to require authorizing committees and CBO to provide more

information in committee reports and mandate statements for bills that would affect

certain large entitlement programs. In addition, the House considered but did not

pass a proposal that would expand the definition of intergovernmental mandates and

make procedural changes to UMRA as it relates to private-sector mandates. 

In other changes, CBO altered its procedures for determining whether a bill is

excluded from consideration under UMRA. CBO began implementing that change

in January 2000. 

A Legislative Change: UMRA and Large Entitlement Grant Programs

In 1999, the Congress amended UMRA for the first time since the law was enacted

four years ago. The State Flexibility Clarification Act (P.L. 106-141) requires

authorizing committees and CBO to provide more information in committee reports

and mandate statements for legislation that would “place caps upon, or otherwise

decrease, the federal government’s responsibility to provide funding to state, local,

or tribal governments” under various large entitlement grant programs (such as

Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Food Stamps). Under that

amendment, if a bill or joint resolution would cap or reduce federal spending for such

a program, the authorizing committee must state specifically how it intends for the

states to implement the change and to what extent the legislation provides additional

flexibility, if any, to offset states' costs.

The new information that CBO must provide depends on whether a bill would

provide flexibility to states. If it would cap or reduce federal spending for a large

entitlement grant program but not also provide additional flexibility to states to offset

that reduction, CBO must describe whether and how states can offset the reduction

under existing law. If the legislation would provide additional flexibility, CBO must

estimate whether the resulting savings would offset the reductions included in the

bill, assuming that states take full advantage of the flexibility. 

The effect of those new requirements will be to increase the amount of

information provided to the Congress for authorizing bills that alter federal spending

for various large entitlement programs. The number of bills affected by that change

is likely to be small, however, so CBO does not expect its workload to increase

significantly. (In 1999, five bills that addressed entitlement programs would have

been affected by the new provisions.)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 17

A Proposed Change: The Mandates Information Act

In 1999, not a single intergovernmental mandate with costs above the UMRA

threshold became law. That apparent success of UMRA in raising Congressional

consciousness about unfunded intergovernmental mandates has prompted some

Members to propose expanding the act's provisions for private-sector mandates. In

addition, despite the newly enacted State Flexibility Clarification Act, state and local

governments remain concerned that future legislation could limit or reduce federal

spending for large entitlement programs, possibly leaving them to make up the

difference. Their concern has resulted in efforts to amend UMRA’s definition of a

mandate as it relates to such programs. 

The Mandates Information Act of 1999 (H.R. 350), sponsored by Congressman

Condit and others, would address both of those issues. It would establish new

procedural hurdles for private-sector mandates, direct CBO to furnish additional

types of cost information about them, and change the definition of intergovernmental

mandates in the context of large entitlement programs. A companion bill (S. 427)

introduced by Senator Abraham contains similar provisions for private-sector

mandates. H.R. 350 passed the House in February 1999; the Senate has taken no

action on the companion bill, however. 

Consideration of Private-Sector Mandates. UMRA permits Members of the House

and Senate to raise a point of order on any bill that they believe contains an intergovernmental mandate with costs exceeding the statutory threshold. (Unless waived

by a majority vote, a point of order prohibits further floor action on the bill.) In the

case of private-sector mandates, however, although UMRA directs CBO to estimate

whether such mandates exceed their cost threshold, it does not permit a point of order

if they do. 

The Mandates Information Act would establish a point of order against

considering bills that contain private-sector mandates with annual costs of more than

$100 million (in 1996 dollars). The new point of order could be overcome in both

Houses by a majority vote, just like the point of order on intergovernmental mandates. Thus, it would not be an insurmountable obstacle to a bill's passage, but it

would raise the stakes in deliberating about private-sector mandates. It could also

increase the demand for cost information about such mandates earlier in the legislative process, as drafters tried to avoid having their bill subject to it.

For the purpose of determining whether a point of order applied to a bill, the

House version of the Mandates Information Act would exclude mandate costs

attributable to tax or tariff provisions if those provisions, taken together, would not

raise net revenues over the first five fiscal years they were in effect. In other words,

H.R. 350 would change how costs in a bill were evaluated against the statutory

threshold. For example, a bill containing tax or tariff provisions that exceeded the
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 18

$100 million threshold for private-sector mandates in a given year but resulted in an

overall net reduction of tax or tariff revenue over a five-year period would not be

subject to a point of order (provided it did not include other non-revenue-related

private-sector mandates above the threshold). Supporters of that provision say it

would avoid the problem of triggering a point of order when a tax increase was

proposed to offset some tax cut. 

Opponents of the provision disagree with the special treatment that it would

afford to tax bills. They argue that a measure increasing taxes on one economic sector

might be subject to a point of order under UMRA if it dedicated the new revenues to

any other purpose than the relief of tax burdens on another sector. They would prefer

to see either no special exclusion for tax provisions or an exclusion that also granted

special treatment to mandatory spending. 

Both the House and Senate versions of the Mandates Information Act would

also require CBO to provide expanded cost information for private-sector mandates

with costs over the threshold. That information would include the mandates' effects

on consumer prices; on workers' wages, benefits, and employment opportunities; and

on the profitability of small businesses—including any disproportionate impact in

particular regions or industries. Such indirect effects occur when the costs of a

mandate imposed on one party are passed along to other parties in the form of higher

prices for finished goods or lower prices for intermediate inputs, including lower

wages for workers. Those effects go beyond the direct costs of complying with a

federal mandate, which CBO is now required to estimate. However, CBO included

information about significant indirect effects in some of its cost statements for

private-sector mandates last year, the most notable example being its estimates for

minimum wage legislation.

Redefining Some Intergovernmental Mandates. Section 5 of H.R. 350 would change

the definition of an intergovernmental mandate as it relates to large entitlement grant

programs, which it defines as “federal programs under which $500 million or more

is provided annually to state, local, and tribal governments under entitlement

authority.” Those programs include Medicaid, Food Stamps, the federal foster care

program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Services Block Grants,

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, Adoption Assistance and Independent Living,

the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program, and Child Support

Enforcement. 

By UMRA's current definition, an increase in the stringency of grant conditions

or a decrease in federal funding for an entitlement program is a mandate only if the

state or local governments that administer the program lack the flexibility to make

changes to offset the new costs or the decrease in funding. For most such changes

proposed over the past four years, CBO has estimated that states could avoid additional costs by reducing either the amount of money they spend or the services they
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 19

1. Sections 2(3)(A) and 2(4) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501, 109 Stat. 48.

provide at their option. The major exceptions have occurred with the Food Stamp

and foster care programs, because states lack flexibility under current law to change

those programs' parameters to offset higher costs.

Under H.R. 350, by contrast, changes to entitlement programs that imposed new

conditions on states or decreased federal funding by more than the threshold would

always constitute an intergovernmental mandate unless the bill making the change

also gave states and localities new flexibility within the program to offset the new

cost. Under that definition, the fact that states have significant flexibility under

current law to reduce or eliminate optional services in most of those programs would

not be considered in determining whether a mandate existed. 

The revised definition would pose several challenges for the Congress. To

avoid a point of order, lawmakers would need to pair new grant conditions or funding

caps with new cost-saving options or relaxations of existing grant conditions. That

requirement would apply even for block-grant programs that already have few or no

conditions attached to them and even for programs (such as Medicaid) in which a

large percentage of spending is at the discretion of the states. 

A Procedural Change: CBO's Interpretation of the National Security Exclusion

Not all reported legislation is subject to UMRA. The act excludes bills or provisions

that enforce the constitutional rights of individuals; establish or enforce statutory

rights that prohibit discrimination; require compliance with certain accounting

procedures; provide emergency assistance at the request of state, local, or tribal governments; are necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation

of international treaty obligations; are emergencies as designated by the President and

the Congress; or relate to certain programs of the Social Security Act. But how

broadly or narrowly should those exclusions be interpreted? The basic purposes of

UMRA are to provide "for the development of information about the nature and size

of mandates in proposed legislation" and "to promote informed and deliberate

decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of federal mandates in any particular

instance.”1

 Applying the exclusions broadly would limit the information provided

to the Congress and could defeat those purposes. For that reason—and on the basis

of discussions with Congressional staff who were involved in the development and

passage of UMRA—CBO believes that the Congress intended for all of the

exclusions to be applied narrowly and only in cases in which budget considerations,

such as who should bear the costs of legislation, should not be part of the debate. 
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 20

In general, CBO has had little trouble applying the exclusions narrowly. But

in the case of bills or provisions that are “necessary for the national security,” CBO

has become increasingly uncertain about what qualifies, especially since UMRA's

language and legislative history provide little guidance on what that phrase means.

For example, scores of bills reported each year establish foreign policy priorities,

provide direction and authority to the executive branch for international involvement,

authorize the purchase of equipment for the armed forces, or provide benefits to

current service members or veterans. Although national security considerations

(among other things) certainly motivate the development of such legislation, a great

deal of disagreement often occurs about whether a provision or bill is "necessary" for

those purposes. By applying or not applying the national security exclusion, CBO

is in effect making a judgment about necessity. The agency believes that such a

judgment should, to the greatest extent possible, be left to the Congress.

To ensure that lawmakers receive as much information as possible about

potential mandates and to limit occasions when CBO must decide what is necessary

for national security, CBO will now interpret “necessary for the national security” to

refer only to bills or provisions that are immediately necessary to protect vital

national security interests. Under that change, most of the bills relating to defense,

international relations, and veterans' affairs that were excluded in 1999 or earlier

would be reviewed for mandates if they came up now, because they would not satisfy

the narrow interpretation. That does not mean CBO believes such bills are not

necessary for national security. Rather, the agency believes that the Congress

originally intended to have the exclusions interpreted narrowly, so any contrary

interpretation should come from the Congress. CBO will determine that and other

exclusions on a case-by-case basis.
APPENDIX A: LIST OF BILLS IN 1999 THAT CONTAINED

INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES

This appendix expands on the information provided in the main text and in earlier

tables by listing legislation reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1999 that

would impose federal mandates on state, local, or tribal governments—regardless of

whether the estimated costs of those mandates would be more or less than $50

million per year (in 1996 dollars) and regardless of whether the legislation was

enacted. Table A-1 lists those bills in numerical order, including various versions of

the same bill considered by different committees.
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 22

TABLE A-1. BILLS REVIEWED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE IN 1999

THAT CONTAINED INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Exceeding the Statutory Threshold

H.R. 3081 Wage and Employment Growth Act of

1999

Increases the minimum wage paid by

employers covered under the Fair Labor

Standards Act

S. 192 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1999 Increases the minimum wage paid by

employers covered under the Fair Labor

Standards Act

S. 692 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of

1999

Prohibits gambling over the Internet,

including certain tribal casino games

Unnumbered

Senate proposal

Health Information Confidentiality Act

of 1999

Preempts health privacy law and imposes

new requirements on entities handling

patients' health records

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold

H.R. 2 Student Results Act of 1999 Preempts state laws that prevent or restrict

liability protection for teachers

H.R. 10 Financial Services Act of 1999 Preempts state banking, insurance, and

securities laws 

H.R. 45 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 Preempts any state law that conflicts with

the act; increases the costs of existing

mandates in Nevada

H.R. 354 Collections of Information Antipiracy

Act

Preempts state laws protecting collections

of information

H.R. 416 Federal Retirement Coverage

Corrections Act

Requires the District of Columbia to 

(Government correct errors in its retirement system

Reform)

H.R. 416 Federal Retirement Coverage

Corrections Act

Requires the District of Columbia to

(Ways and correct errors in its retirement system

Means)

H.R. 438 Wireless Communications and Public

Safety Act of 1999

Requires states, after two years and in the

absence of state legislation, to provide an

equal standard of liability for users and

providers of wireless and wireline 911

services

H.R. 462 An act to clarify that governmental

pension plans of the possessions of the

United States shall be treated in the same

manner as state pension plans

Prohibits territories from taxing

nonresidents' pensions

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 23

TABLE A-1. CONTINUED

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold (Continued)

H.R. 562 An act to approve and ratify certain

transfers of land and natural resources by

or on behalf of the Delaware Nation of

Indians and for other purposes

Extinguishes land claims of Delaware

tribes

 H.R. 695 An act to direct the Secretary of

Agriculture and the Secretary of the

Interior to convey an administrative site

in San Juan County, New Mexico, to San

Juan College

Requires San Juan College to pay for a

land survey

H.R. 775 Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility

Act

Imposes strict guidelines on state courts

for managing Year 2000 lawsuits; limits

punitive damages that states can receive

when they act as plaintiffs

H.R. 833 Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 Preempts certain state contract laws

H.R. 850 Security and Freedom Through

Encryption (SAFE) Act

Preempts state requirements for use of

(International encryption

Relations)

H.R. 850 Security and Freedom Through

Encryption (SAFE) Act

Preempts state requirements for use of

(Commerce) encryption

H.R. 850 Security and Freedom Through

Encryption (SAFE) Act

Preempts state requirements for use of

(Judiciary) encryption

H.R. 851 Save Our Satellites Act of 1999 Imposes reporting requirements on public

television stations

H.R. 858 District of Columbia Court Employees

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999

Amends statutes of the District of

Columbia

H.R. 858 District of Columbia Court Employees

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999

Amends statutes of the District of

(Senate) Columbia

H.R. 940 Lackawanna Valley National Heritage

Area Act of 1999

Requires a public authority to develop a

management plan

H.R. 974 District of Columbia College Access Act Imposes administrative requirements on

the mayor of the District of Columbia

H.R. 974 District of Columbia College Access Act Imposes administrative requirements on

(Senate) the mayor of the District of Columbia

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 24

TABLE A-1. CONTINUED

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold (Continued)

H.R. 1000 Aviation Investment and Reform Act for

the 21st Century

Preempts state liability and counseling

laws

H.R. 1027 Copyright Compulsory License

Improvement Act

Imposes reporting requirements on public

television stations

H.R. 1300 Recycle America's Land Act of 1999 Preempts certain state liability laws

H.R. 1401 National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000

Increases the burden on state and local

governments for paying the health care

costs of their employees

H.R. 1714 Electronic Signatures in Global and

National Commerce Act

Preempts state laws that regulate interstate

(Judiciary) electronic commerce transactions

H.R. 1714 Electronic Signatures in Global and

National Commerce Act

Preempts state laws that regulate interstate

(Commerce) electronic commerce transactions

H.R. 1752 Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999 Preempts state firearm laws by permitting

judicial officers of the United States to

carry a firearm without a state permit;

requires certain employees of state and

local governments to be available for jury

duty

H.R. 1802 Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 Preempts state privacy laws by deeming

certain practices of the Social Security

Administration as meeting state laws

H.R. 1832 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act Requires state boxing commissions to

establish procedures to regulate the

activities of certain suspended boxers

H.R. 1858 Consumer and Investor Access to

Information Act of 1999

Preempts state laws protecting collections

of information

H.R. 2005 Workplace Goods Job Growth and

Competitiveness Act of 1999

Preempts state statutes of repose that limit

when certain law suits may be filed

H.R. 2084 Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

2000

Prohibits states from selling information

about drivers to marketers without the

drivers' express consent

H.R. 2116

(Introduced

version)

Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act Prohibits public hospitals from suing

veterans for payment; preempts state laws

regarding certain payment recovery

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 25

TABLE A-1. CONTINUED

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold (Continued)

H.R. 2116

(Veterans

Affairs)

Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act Prohibits public hospitals from suing

veterans for payment; preempts state laws

regarding certain payment recovery

H.R. 2130 Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention

Drug Act of 1999

Imposes reporting requirements on public

hospitals for drugs placed on controlled

substance schedule

H.R. 2260 Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 Preempts Oregon's law on assisted suicide

(Commerce)

H.R. 2260 Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 Preempts Oregon's law on assisted suicide

(Judiciary)

H.R. 2434 Worker Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 Imposes requirement to post notices

informing employees of certain rights

H.R. 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 Increases certain taxes paid by state and

local entities

H.R. 2531 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

Imposes fees on nuclear power plants

H.R. 2547 Chugach Alaska Natives Settlement

Implementation Act of 1999

Results in a taking of property owned by

Alaska native village corporations

H.R. 2580 Land Recycling Act of 1999 Preempts certain state liability laws

H.R. 2634 Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 Preempts certain state narcotics laws

H.R. 2679 Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999 Requires states to conform to specific

procedures when issuing commercial

driver's licenses

H.R. 2681 Rail Passenger Disaster Family

Assistance Act of 1999

Preempts certain state liability and

counseling laws

H.R. 2923 An act to amend the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 to extend expiring

provisions, to fully allow the

nonrefundable personal credits against

regular tax liability, and for other

purposes

Increases certain taxes paid by state and

local entities

H.R. 3002 Resources Reports Restoration Act Requires territorial governments to submit

a report to the Congress

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 26

TABLE A-1. CONTINUED

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold (Continued)

H.R. 3244 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of

1999

Preempts state laws regarding the

forfeiture of property for individuals

convicted of trafficking in people

S. 82 Air Transportation Improvement Act Prohibits Alaska and Hawaii from

collecting passenger facility charges

S. 96 Y2K Act Preempts state court procedures and

liability laws

S. 293 An act to direct the Secretaries of

Agriculture and Interior to convey

certain lands in San Juan County, 

New Mexico, to San Juan College

Requires San Juan College to pay for a

land survey

S. 305 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act Requires state boxing commissions to

establish procedures to regulate the

activities of certain suspended boxers

S. 326 Patients' Bill of Rights Act Requires public entities to allow people to

inspect their medical records

S. 385 Safety Advancement for Employees

(SAFE) Act of 1999

Preempts state laws relating to voluntary

drug and alcohol testing

S. 461 Year 2000 Fairness and Responsibility

Act

Preempts state court procedures and

liability laws 

S. 486 Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act

of 1999

Preempts state laws relating to use of

detoxification drugs

S. 613 Indian Tribal Economic Development

and Contract Encouragement Act of

1999

Requires a statement on sovereign

immunity for some tribal contracts

S. 624 Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water

System Act of 1999

Requires a tribe and a local water district

to develop a water conservation plan

S. 720 Serbia Democratization Act of 1999 Prohibits trade with Serbia

S. 761 Third Millennium Electronic Commerce

Act

Preempts state laws that regulate interstate

electronic commerce transactions

S. 798 Promote Reliable On-line Transactions

to Encourage Commerce and Trade

(PROTECT) Act of 1999

Preempts certain state encryption laws

prospectively

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 27

TABLE A-1. CONTINUED

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold (Continued)

S. 800 Wireless Communications and Public

Safety Act of 1999

Preempts certain state liability laws

S. 880 Fuels Regulatory Relief Act Preempts state freedom-of-information

laws

S. 900 Financial Services Modernization Act of

1999

Preempts state banking, insurance, and

securities laws

S. 905 Lackawanna Valley National Heritage

Area Act of 1999

Requires a public authority to develop a

management plan

S. 1052 Northern Mariana Islands Covenant

Implementation Act

Preempts immigration laws of the

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana

Islands by imposing a cap on alien

workers

S. 1134 Affordable Education Act of 1999 Increases certain taxes paid by state and

local entities

S. 1232 Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage

Corrections Act

Requires the District of Columbia to

continue retirement coverage for certain

employees

S. 1386 An act to amend the Trade Act of 1974

to extend the authorization for trade

adjustment assistance

Increases certain excise taxes paid by state

and local entities

S. 1429 Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 Increases certain excise taxes paid by state

and local entities

S. 1627 NRC Fairness in Funding Act of 1999 Requires publicly owned nuclear power

plants to pay certain fees

S. 1672 Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of

1999

Preempts state and local laws regulating

livestock pricing

S. 1712 Export Administration Act of 1999 Preempts certain state and local laws

boycotting foreign countries

S. 1769 Continued Reporting of Intercepted

Wire, Oral, and Electronic

Communications Act

Requires states to report information to the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

S. 1792 Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999 Increases certain taxes paid by state and

local entities

(Continued)
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 28

TABLE A-1. CONTINUED

Bill Number

(Committee/

Chamber) Name Mandate

Intergovernmental Mandates with Costs Below the Statutory Threshold (Continued)

S. 1877 Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset

Act Amendments of 1999

Imposes reporting requirements on state

governments and the District of Columbia

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.

NOTE: The statutory threshold for intergovernmental mandates is $50 million a year (in 1996 dollars), adjusted

annually for inflation.
APPENDIX B: PRIMARY CONTRIBUTORS TO 

CBO'S ANALYSES OF MANDATES

Intergovernmental Mandates

Budget Analysis Division

Theresa Gullo Chief, state and local government cost estimates

Ernestine McNeil Secretarial support

Shelley Finlayson Environment, commerce

Leo Lex State tax issues, health

Marjorie Miller Natural resources, agriculture

Susan Sieg Tompkins Banking, housing, education

Private-Sector Mandates

Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division

Patrice Gordon Coordinator, natural resources and commerce

Rae Wiseman Secretarial support

John Harris Governmental affairs, justice

Keith Mattrick Energy, natural resources, international affairs

Jean Wooster Agriculture, commerce, transportation

Health and Human Resources Division

Bruce Vavrichek Coordinator, health and human resources

Ron Moore Secretarial support

Nabeel Alsalam Education, labor

Jennifer Bullard Health

Sandra Christensen Health

Stuart Hagen Health

Karuna Patel Labor, health

Ralph Smith Labor, income security

Judy Wagner Health

National Security Division

Bill Thomas Coordinator, national security

Debbie Clay-Mendez Defense issues
AN ASSESSMENT OF UMRA IN 1999 30

Tax Analysis Division

Mark Booth Coordinator, tax analysis

Hester Grippando Revenues

Office of the General Counsel

Jennifer Smith Acting General Counsel