39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–352 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND 

TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013 

FEBRUARY 14, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ISSA, 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. 899] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 899) to provide for additional safeguards 

with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 7 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 9 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 9 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 10 

Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 12 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 19 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 19 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 19 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 19 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 19 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 19 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 19 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 19 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 20 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 20 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 23 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 2 U.S.C. § 1501. 

2 CRS Report 

3Government Accountability Office (GAO), Unfunded Mandates: Views Vary About Reform 

Act’s Strengths, Weaknesses, and Options for Improvement, GAO–05–454, Mar. 2005. 4 Id. 5 Id. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 was enacted to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress 

and federal agencies concerning the appropriateness of federal 

mandates and to ‘‘retain competitive balance between the public 

and private sectors.’’ 1 In accord with UMRA’s original intent, H.R. 

899 aims to improve the quality of Congressional deliberations and 

to enhance the ability of Congress, federal agencies, and the public 

to identify federal mandates that may impose undue harm on state, 

local, and tribal governments and the private sector by providing 

more complete information about the cost of such mandates and by 

holding Congress and federal agencies accountable for imposing unfunded mandates. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

UMRA’s enactment was celebrated as a major legislative accomplishment that would relieve much of the burden placed upon nonfederal entities by Congress and federal agencies through unfunded 

mandates.2 It has become apparent over time, however, that 

UMRA—despite its good intentions and noble purpose—failed to 

curtail substantially the imposition of unfunded mandates. The 

several loopholes, exemptions and exclusions embedded in the law 

are largely to blame. A 2005 Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report found that ‘‘[m]ost parties from the state and local 

governments, federal, business, and academic/think tank sectors 

vie[w] UMRA’s narrow coverage as a major weakness that leaves 

out many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal parties.’’ 3 Interviewed parties agreed that 

UMRA’s definitions, as well as exclusions and exemptions in the 

law that allow Congress and federal agencies to continue to place 

burdens upon state, local and tribal governments and private sector entities should be revisited.4 Multiple parties also informed 

GAO that the consultation process between agencies and affected 

nonfederal entities concerning regulatory mandates was inconsistent and in need of improvement.5

H.R. 899 is a product of a thorough examination of UMRA during 

the 112th Congress by the Subcommittee on Technology Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, 

chaired by Rep. James Lankford (R–OK). The Subcommittee examined the effectiveness of UMRA via three hearings featuring recognized experts on unfunded mandates, as well as representatives of 

states, localities and the private sector. Witnesses highlighted 

UMRA’s narrow coverage, exemption and loopholes as serious 

flaws, and suggested that legislative remedies to the UMRA statute 

would make it a more effective instrument to reduce unfunded legislative and regulatory mandates. H.R. 899 enhances UMRA’s utility as a tool to promote informed and deliberate decisions by ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:43 Feb 19, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR352P1.XXX HR352P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

6See CBO letter 

7 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on 

Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. 

Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Raymond Keating, 

Chief Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council). 8 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW 

Regulatory Studies). 

gress and federal agencies concerning the appropriateness of federal mandates. H.R. 899 accomplishes this in multiple ways. 

To bring awareness to federal mandates imposed on entities pursuant to a condition of grant aid, H.R. 899 allows a chairman or 

ranking member of any Congressional committee to request CBO 

conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding 

in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any 

changes to a condition of federal assistance being imposed on state, 

local, or tribal governments participating in the federal assistance 

program. The National Conference of State Legislatures is among 

those entities advocating that more light be shed on the cost of implementing assistance programs such as No Child Left Behind programs and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block 

Grant. Such programs impose significant costs on participating 

states, but are not considered unfunded mandates under UMRA. 

H.R. 899 does not expand the definition of what constitutes an unfunded mandate, but it does allow the cost of certain excluded programs to be assessed. This provision was crafted in consultation 

with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which advised the 

Committee on how best to provide information about conditions of 

grant aid without overburdening CBO.6

H.R. 899 amends the definition of ‘‘direct costs’’ in UMRA to ensure that federal agencies are accounting in their UMRA analyses 

for such costs of federal mandates as forgone business profits, costs 

passed onto consumers or other entities, and behavioral changes. 

The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council testified to the 

Subcommittee that regulatory costs impacting prices, risk-taking, 

economic growth and employment need to be considered in agency 

cost estimates.7 CBO has stated that its own UMRA analyses already take these factors into account. 

To close one of UMRA’s loopholes, H.R. 899 subjects independent 

regulatory agencies to the statute. Under current law, independent 

regulatory agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau, the Securities Exchange Commission, the National Labor 

Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and 

the Federal Communications Commission, can impose significant 

costs and burdensome requirements with little meaningful accountability and oversight. 

In testimony before the Subcommittee, former OIRA Administrator Dudley recommended that UMRA be aligned with Executive 

Order 12866. She opined that the analytical requirements of Executive Order 12866 are a more effective mechanism for holding 

agencies accountable for the objectives expressed in UMRA.8 Moreover, former OIRA Administrator Sunstein wrote in previous scholarship that executive orders are not ‘‘sufficient for real change;’’ 

and ‘‘a thoroughgoing reform effort would require legislative reVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:43 Feb 19, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR352P1.XXX HR352P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

9 Robert W. Hahn & Cass R. Sunstein, A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 1489 (2002). 10 U.S. General Accountability Office, Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Often Published Final Action Without Proposed Rules, August 31, 1998. 11 National Conference of State Legislatures, Policy Position on Federal Mandate Relief, effective through August 2011, available at http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabID=773&tabs= 

855,20,632#FederalMandate. 12 U.S. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2008 Report 

to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, 

and Tribal Entities, January 2009. 13 U.S. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2009, 2010 

and 2011 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded 

Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, 2009, 2010, 2011. 14 Cass Sunstein email response to Chairman Lankford (July 22, 2011). 15 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW 

Regulatory Studies). 

forms, not merely executive action.’’ 9 To ensure that agencies regulate responsibly, H.R. 899 codifies most of those regulatory principles outlined in Executive Order 12866, and reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563. 

To close another loophole in UMRA, H.R. 899 no longer allows 

an agency to forego UMRA analyses simply because the agency 

publishes a rule without first issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. GAO has found that nearly half of final rules are not first 

published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking. Currently, rules that do have a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register qualify for an automatic UMRA exemption.10

To put the private sector on equal footing with the public sector, 

H.R. 899 requires agencies to consult with regulated private sector 

entities during the development of significant federal regulatory 

mandates. This consultation requirement now applies only with respect to state, local, and tribal governments. Existing OIRA guidelines on agency execution of this requirement are codified in H.R. 

899 and OIRA is required to include an Appendix detailing agency 

consultation activities with state, local, and tribal governments and 

the private sector in its annual report to Congress on agency compliance with UMRA. This will help remedy what the National Conference of State Legislatures has described as a ‘‘haphazard’’ consultation process.11 For example, OIRA previously included an appendix in its annual report to Congress, which provided examples 

of agency consultation with state and local governments.12 However, in recent years, the annual report has ceased to include any 

evidence concerning how consultation is being carried out.13 In response to a July 2011 inquiry from the Subcommittee, OIRA conceded it had unilaterally decided to remove the appendix, even 

though this arguably constituted a failure to satisfy its current-law 

reporting requirements.14

To ensure that meaningful oversight over unfunded regulatory 

mandates is enabled and remains consistent with other regulatory 

oversight, H.R. 899 formally transfers responsibilities from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA). OMB has long delegated its responsibilities under UMRA 

to OIRA.15 H.R. 899 would cement that relationship, while also extending OIRA’s role beyond certifying and reporting on agency regulatory actions. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

16 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Denise Fantone, Government 

Accountability Office). 17 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. 

on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. 

Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Raymond Keating, 

Chief Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council). 18See, Cass Sunstein, Memo for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and of 

Independent Regulatory Agencies re. Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (February 2, 2011). 19 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW 

Regulatory Studies). 20 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. 

on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. 

Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Raymond Keating, 

Chief Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council). 21 Robert W. Hahn & Cass R. Sunstein, A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 1489 (2002). 

To ensure that agencies continue the ‘‘look back’’ process, H.R. 

899 also allows a chairman or ranking member of any congressional committee to request any agency conduct a retrospective 

analysis of an existing federal regulatory mandate. The retrospective analysis provision aims to educate Congress about the impact 

of a rule after it has been in effect. It will incentivize agencies to 

perform a proper analysis when first proposing regulations. Before 

the Subcommittee, GAO testified that parties they interviewed advocated for an evaluation of existing rules to better assess the effectiveness of UMRA.16 The Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

Council’s testimony supported an after the fact evaluation of the effectiveness and the true cost of existing regulations and mandates.17 President Obama has also stated that each agency, ‘‘should 

periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine 

whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ 18

To enhance accountability, H.R. 899 extends judicial review to 

the selection of the least costly or least burdensome regulatory alternative, and to the principles of Executive Order 12866. In her 

testimony, former OIRA Administrator Dudley advocated for expanding judicial review in this way to give agencies a greater incentive to carefully consider the ‘‘least costly, most cost-effective or 

least burdensome alternative’’ when regulating.19 The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council testified that the current judicial review provision included in UMRA ‘‘lacks teeth’’ and ‘‘offers no 

real incentives to challenge agencies or for agencies to deal more 

legitimately with UMRA requirements.’’ 20 Further, former OIRA 

Administrator Sunstein wrote in previous scholarship that materials generated under executive order should be subject to judicial 

review to the extent that they are relevant to an agency’s decision 

under the relevant statute. He noted this would only ‘‘slightly 

comprom[ise] the interests of the Executive in favor of the interests 

of the public as a whole.’’ 21

In sum, H.R. 899 makes reforms addressing key deficiencies in 

the law identified by experts and regulated entities. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

22 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (statement of Rep. Gerald Connolly). 23 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 

Act of 2013, was introduced on February 28, 2013 by Rep. Virginia 

Foxx (NC) and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The bill was also referred to the Committee on 

Rules, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on the Judiciary. On July 24, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform marked-up H.R. 899 and it was favorably reported 

out of Committee. 

Prior to the 113th Congress, similar bills to H.R. 899 were introduced to reform UMRA. In the 110th Congress, Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC) introduced H.R. 6964, the Unfunded Mandates 

Information and Transparency Act of 2008, to subject more unfunded mandates to UMRA and enhance reporting requirements. 

In the 111th Congress, Representative Foxx and Representative 

Scott Garrett (R–NJ) introduced H.R. 2255, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2009, and H.R. 5818, 

the Mandate Prevention Act of 2010, respectively. H.R. 2255 was 

a reintroduction of H.R. 6964, and H.R. 5818 allowed a point of 

order to be raised if a private sector mandate exceeded the UMRA 

threshold. 

In the 112th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 373, 

the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2011, which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and subsequently, the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform. The Subcommittee on Technology, Information 

Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, 

chaired by Rep. James Lankford (R–OK), examined the effectiveness of UMRA via three hearings featuring recognized experts on 

unfunded mandates, as well as representatives of states, localities 

and the private sector. These witnesses highlighted UMRA’s narrow coverage, exemptions and loopholes as serious flaws, and suggested that legislative remedies to the UMRA statute would make 

it a more effective instrument to reduce unfunded legislative and 

regulatory mandates. 

On February 15, 2011, at a hearing entitled, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach,’’ the Subcommittee heard testimony from former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) Administrator Susan Dudley; GAO Director Denise 

Fantone; the Mayor of Edmond, Oklahoma, Patrice Douglas; and 

Fairfax County, Virginia County Executive, Anthony Griffin. At the 

hearing, Subcommittee Ranking Member Gerald Connolly (D–VA) 

recognized that UMRA ‘‘did not fully stem the tide of unfunded 

mandates’’ because it was ‘‘written in a manner that exempted bills 

that imposed significant costs on localities.’’ 22 Full Committee 

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D–MD) asked the Mayor of 

Edmond, ‘‘What can the federal government do to help locals to 

plan better with regard to so-called unfunded mandates?’’ 23


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (statement of Ranking Member Elijah Cummings). 

On March 30, 2011, at a hearing entitled, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates 

and Regulatory Overreach Part II,’’ the Subcommittee heard testimony from South Dakota State Senator Joni Cutler; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Chief Economist Raymond 

Keating; and the Founder and CEO of the Small Business Majority, John Arensmeyer. These witnesses testified about the impact 

of unfunded mandates on states and small businesses and suggested possible reforms to UMRA. 

On May 25, 2011, at a hearing entitled, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates, 

Regulatory Burdens and the Role of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs,’’ the Subcommittee heard testimony from OIRA 

Administrator Cass Sunstein about the Obama Administration’s efforts to reform the regulatory system through executive order. This 

included what the Obama Administration views as an unprecedented ‘‘look back’’ at regulations to identify those that may be outdated, unnecessary, or duplicative, in order to pave the way for efforts to repeal, modify, or streamline them. Administrator Sunstein 

also testified about UMRA’s applicability to the public and the private sector. 

After a thorough examination of UMRA through these hearings, 

Subcommittee Chairman Lankford held a markup on September 

21, 2011, in the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, at which 

time H.R. 373 was reported with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute. The bill was then reported from the full Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee, with another amendment in 

the nature of a substitute. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1: Short title 

Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2013 

Section 2: Purpose 

The purpose of this legislation is to improve the quality of deliberations of Congress with respect to proposed federal mandates and 

to enhance the ability of Congress and the public to identify federal 

mandates that may impose undue harm on consumers, workers, 

employers, small businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments by providing Congress and the public more complete information about the effects of such mandates. 

Section 3: Providing for Congressional Budget Office studies on 

policies involving changes in conditions of grant aid 

Provides for a Committee chairman or ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes to a 

condition of Federal assistance being imposed on state, local, or 

tribal governments. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Section 4: Clarifying the definition of direct costs to reflect Congressional Budget Office practice 

Amends the definition of ‘‘direct costs’’ to codify current CBO 

practice and ensures that federal agencies account for the costs of 

federal mandates, such as forgone business profits, costs passed 

onto consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes. 

Section 5: Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include 

regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies 

Requires independent regulatory agencies to comply with UMRA 

with the exception of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee. 

Section 6: Amendments to replace Office of Management and Budget with Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Transfers responsibility for ensuring agency compliance with 

UMRA from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). 

Section 7: Applying substantive point of order to private sector mandates 

Subjects to a point of order a private sector legislative mandate 

exceeding the UMRA threshold ($146 million in 2012). 

Section 8: Regulatory process and principles 

Clarifies that agencies must conduct UMRA analyses unless a 

law ‘‘expressly’’ prohibits them from doing so; requires agencies to 

adhere to the principles of regulation in Section 1 of Executive 

Order 12866 and reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563 when conducting regulatory actions; defines ‘‘regulatory action’’ as ‘‘any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal 

Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking and notices of proposed rulemaking.’’ 

Section 9: Expanding the scope of statements to accompany significant regulatory actions 

Requires federal agencies to measure a proposed or final rule’s 

annual effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, if the rule may result in an effect of $100,000,000 or 

more in any one year. This language aligns UMRA with Executive 

Order 12866 and requires agencies to assess such costs as forgone 

profits, costs passed onto consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes. 

Closes an existing loophole allowing agencies to forego UMRA 

analyses of a final rule that is not preceded by a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM). If a NPRM is not issued, the agency must 

conduct an UMRA analysis before promulgating the final rule or 

within six months after promulgating the final rule. 

Further aligns UMRA with Executive Order 12866 by removing 

the words ‘‘adjusted annually for inflation’’ when determining the 

threshold for UMRA analysis, and by adopting cost-benefit analysis 

requirements. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

Requires that the descriptions and summaries an agency must 

complete under UMRA be ‘‘detailed.’’ 

Section 10: Enhanced stakeholder consultation 

The existing requirement in UMRA that agencies receive meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory mandates 

from state, local, and tribal governments is extended to include private sector input. OIRA policies instructing agencies how to execute this requirement are codified. 

Section 11: New authorities and responsibilities for Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Gives OIRA oversight responsibility for determining whether 

agencies have drafted their regulations in accordance with the regulatory principles adopted in this bill, and whether cost-benefit 

analyses are performed adequately. If OIRA determines the agency 

has not met these requirements, OIRA is to notify the agency and 

request compliance before a regulation is finalized. 

Requires OIRA include in its annual report to Congress an appendix detailing agency compliance with UMRA’s requirement for 

consultation with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 

Section 12: Retrospective analysis of existing Federal regulations 

Requires federal agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of 

an existing federal regulation at the request of a Committee chairman or ranking minority member. It is to be submitted to the requesting member and to Congress, and is to include: a copy of the 

federal regulation; the continued need for the federal regulation; 

the nature and comments or complaints received concerning the 

federal regulation; an explanation of the extent to which the mandate may duplicate another federal regulation; a description of the 

degree to which technology or economic conditions have changed in 

the area affecting the federal regulation; an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the federal regulation that considers 

studies done outside the government; and a history of legal challenges to the federal regulation. 

Section 13: Expansion of judicial review 

Extends judicial review to an agency’s selection of the least costly/least burdensome regulatory alternative, and permits a court to 

stay, enjoin, or invalidate a rule if an agency fails to complete the 

required UMRA analysis or to adhere to the regulatory principles. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments were adopted. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On July 24, 2013 the Committee met in open session and ordered 

reported favorably the bill, H.R. 899, by roll call vote, a quorum 

being present. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

ROLL CALL VOTES

There were two record votes during consideration of H.R. 899: 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

113TH CONGRESS—RATIO (23–18)

ROLL CALL

Meeting on: Full Committee Markup Vote #9 Date: 7/24/13 

Vote on: H.R. 899—amendment (#2) Connolly—regarding treatment 

of corporations and individuals 

Republicans Aye No Present Democrats Aye No Present 

Mr. Issa (CA) (Chairman) ....... ......... X ............. Mr. Cummings (MD) (Ranking) X ......... .............

Mr. Mica (FL) ........................... ......... X ............. Mrs. Maloney (NY) ..................... X ......... .............

Mr. Turner (OH) ....................... ......... X ............. Ms. Norton (DC) ......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Duncan (TN) ...................... ......... ......... ............. Mr. Tierney (MA) ........................ X ......... .............

Mr. McHenry (NC) .................... ......... X ............. Mr. Clay (MO) ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Jordan (OH) ....................... ......... X ............. Mr. Lynch (MA) .......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) .................... ......... X ............. Mr. Cooper (TN) ......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Walberg (MI) ..................... ......... X ............. Mr. Connolly (VA) ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Lankford (OK) .................... ......... X ............. Ms. Speier (CA) ......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Amash (MI) ....................... ......... X ............. Mr. Cartwright (PA) ................... X ......... .............

Dr. Gosar (AZ) ......................... ......... X ............. Mr. Pocan (WI) ........................... X ......... .............

Mr. Meehan (PA) ..................... ......... X ............. Mrs. Duckworth (IL) ................... X ......... .............

Dr. DesJarlais (TN) .................. ......... X ............. Ms. Kelly (IL) ............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ....................... ......... X ............. Mr. Davis (IL) ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Farenthold (TX) ................. ......... X ............. Mr. Welch (VT) ........................... X ......... .............

Mr. Hastings (WA) ................... ......... X ............. Mr. Ca ́rdenas (CA) ..................... X ......... .............

Mrs. Lummis (WY) ................... ......... X ............. Mr. Horsford (NV) ...................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Woodall (GA) ..................... ......... X ............. Ms. Lujan Grisham (NM) ........... X ......... .............

Mr. Massie (KY) ....................... ......... X .............

Mr. Collins (GA) ....................... ......... X .............

Mr. Meadows (NC) ................... ......... X .............

Mr. Bentivolio (MI) .................. ......... X .............

Mr. DeSantis (FL) .................... ......... X .............

Roll Call Totals: Ayes 17; Nays 22. Voice Vote: Failed X. 

[Quorum to bring up bill = 14; Quorum to report bill = 21] 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

113TH CONGRESS—RATIO (23–18)

ROLL CALL

Meeting on: Full Committee Markup Vote #10 Date: 7/24/13 

Vote on: H.R. 899—Final passage 

Republicans Aye No Present Democrats Aye No Present 

Mr. Issa (CA) (Chairman) ....... X ......... ............. Mr. Cummings (MD) (Ranking) ......... X .............

Mr. Mica (FL) ........................... X ......... ............. Mrs. Maloney (NY) ..................... ......... X .............

Mr. Turner (OH) ....................... X ......... ............. Ms. Norton (DC) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Duncan (TN) ...................... ......... ......... ............. Mr. Tierney (MA) ........................ ......... X .............

Mr. McHenry (NC) .................... X ......... ............. Mr. Clay (MO) ............................ ......... X .............

Mr. Jordan (OH) ....................... X ......... ............. Mr. Lynch (MA) .......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) .................... X ......... ............. Mr. Cooper (TN) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Walberg (MI) ..................... X ......... ............. Mr. Connolly (VA) ....................... ......... X .............

Mr. Lankford (OK) .................... X ......... ............. Ms. Speier (CA) ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Amash (MI) ....................... X ......... ............. Mr. Cartwright (PA) ................... ......... X .............

Dr. Gosar (AZ) ......................... X ......... ............. Mr. Pocan (WI) ........................... ......... X .............

Mr. Meehan (PA) ..................... X ......... ............. Mrs. Duckworth (IL) ................... ......... X .............

Dr. DesJarlais (TN) .................. X ......... ............. Ms. Kelly (IL) ............................. ......... X .............


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Republicans Aye No Present Democrats Aye No Present 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ....................... X ......... ............. Mr. Davis (IL) ............................ ......... X .............

Mr. Farenthold (TX) ................. X ......... ............. Mr. Welch (VT) ........................... ......... X .............

Mr. Hastings (WA) ................... X ......... ............. Mr. Ca ́rdenas (CA) ..................... ......... X .............

Mrs. Lummis (WY) ................... X ......... ............. Mr. Horsford (NV) ...................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Woodall (GA) ..................... X ......... ............. Ms. Lujan Grisham (NM) ........... ......... X .............

Mr. Massie (KY) ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Collins (GA) ....................... X ......... .............

Mr. Meadows (NC) ................... X ......... .............

Mr. Bentivolio (MI) .................. X ......... .............

Mr. DeSantis (FL) .................... X ......... .............

Roll Call Totals: Ayes 22; Nays 17. Voice Vote: Passed. 

[Quorum to bring up bill = 14; Quorum to report bill = 21] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 15 here HR352.001

Hon01,'able Darrell 

Chairman 

Government" 

Building 

On July 24,2013, the Committee on Oversight and GClvernrnellt 

899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 

Committee on Rules was granted an additional 

Committee's jurisdiction under X 

and joint rules of the House, 

Because of your willingness to 

cm1Si,ler"tic.n of the bill by the Rnles 

reported 

consideration 

bill, the Rules Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H,R. R99.1n addition, the 

Committee on Rules reserves authority to seek conferees on provisions of the bill that 

within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate cOllfereoce that may be cOllvened Oll this 

legislation. I commitment to support any request by the on Rules for 

conferees on H.R. 899 or rclated legislation. 

request that YOll include this letter and your response as part of your committee's 

the bill the Congressional Record during consideratioll of tbe legislation on tbe House 

floor. 

Thank you for your attelltion to these matters. 
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR352.002

lAW!'tf.'1CEJ.BiMOY 

STAFFOH'lECTOR 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

~ongre1i1i ot tbe Wniteb ~tate1i 

~OUll't of i\tprtll'entatlbell' 

COMMITIEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REfORM 

2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143 

February 11,2014 

The Honorable Pete Sessions 

Chainnan 

Committee on Rules 

U,S, House of Representatives 

Washington, D,C. 20515 

Dear Mr, Chainnan: 

ELIJAH E, CUMMJNGS, MI\.F!VlANO 

RANKING MINORITY M£MBER 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, N~W YORK 

m~~1t7g~~~~~t!'~~~ JOHN F. TIE1INEV, MASSIlCHUSfTTS 

WM. LACY CLAY. M!SSOU~! 

$TE-l"HH< F. LYNCH, MASSACHUSHTS 

JIM COOPER, rENNfSSU G~RALO E. CONNOUY, V!IIG)N!A 

JACKIESI't'!ER,CAlII'ORNlA 

MAntl~W A. CART'MlIGHT, PENNSYLVANIA 

MARK POCAN, WISCONSIN 

L.TAMMYOUCKWORTH,ILLI/<fOI$ 

A06lNL.KHlY,!LUN01$ 

OANNYI(.OA'''!$,ILtJNO!S 

~~1~: ~~~N~RJ!~~~RNIA STeVEN A. HOASFOfIO. ~~~VAbA 

MICHElU LUJAN GRISHAM. N~W MEX!CO 

Thank you for your letter regarding the Rules Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 

899, the "Unfunded Mandates Infonnation and Transparency Act of2013," and your willingness 

to forego consideration ofH,R, 899 by your committee, 

I agree that the Committee on Rules has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain 

provisions of H,R, 899 and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by 

your decision to forego consideration ofH.R. 899, As you have requested, I will support your 

request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of 

a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened. 

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report 

and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for 

your cooperation. 

~lJSSa Chainnan 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House 

The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Minority Member 

The Honorable Louise Slaughter, Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Rules 

Mr. Tom Wickham, Parliamentarian 
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR352.003

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

[ongress of the tinitcd ~tatcs 

The Honorable Darrelllssa 

Chairman 

tlousr of 'Rrprrscntatiucs COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216 

225-3951 

February 11,2014 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman Issa, 

JOHNCONVERS.JR,M,eh'II"" 

RANKINOMtMB£R 

I am writing concerning RR. 899, the "Unfunded Mandates Information and 

Transparency Act of 2013," which your Committee ordered reported on July 24, 2013. 

As you know, the Committee on the Judiciary was given an additional referral on this 

measure upon introduction. As a result of your having consulted with the Judiciary Committee 

concerning provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I to agree to discharge 

the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration ofRR. 899. The Judiciary 

Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of 

H.R. 899 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this 

or similar legislation, and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 

bill or similar legislation moves forward. Our committee also reserves the right to seek 

appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 

this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. 

I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would 

request that you include a copy of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and in 

the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in advance for 

your cooperation. 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner, Speaker 
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR352.004

The Honorable John Conyers 

The lIonorable Elijah Cummings 

The Honorable Thomas J. Wickham, Jr., Parliamentarian 
16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR352.005

DA~Rn~ E. ISSA, CAL1FOf\!\IA 

tAWR(;:NCfJ aMDY 

STM~DIIIECT(lR 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

(!tongrtl)l) of tbt 1tnittb ~tattl) 

J4!oUlSt of !\tprelScntatibtlS 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143 

February 11,2014 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

Chainnan 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

EllJAHf,CUMMINGS,MMl'lANO 

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 

Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional 

interest in H.R. 899, the "Unfunded Mandates Infonnation and Transparency Act of2013," and 

your willingness to forego consideration ofH.R. 899 by your committee. 

1 agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain 

provisions of H.R. 899 and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by 

your decision to forego consideration ofH.R. 899, As you have requested, I will support your 

request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of 

a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened. 

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report 

and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for 

your cooperation. 

Chairman 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House 

The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Minority Member 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Mr. Tom Wickham, Parliamentarian 
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HR352.006

PAUl RYAN, WISCONSIN 

CHAIRMAN 

AUSTlNSMYTk£.STAffDIRfCTOfl 

!~M)2<6-7170 

m.~. j!)OUl)C of l\cprescntlltibcs 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa 

COMMITIEE ON THE BUDGET 

1OOllMbington, 'Ill1!C 20515 

February 11,2014 

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Issa: 

THOMAS S KAHN. MINORITY STAFF OIR~CTOR 

IlW):,,&-noo 

I am writing to you concerning H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 

Transparency Act of2013. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within 

Rule Xjurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. 

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor 

consideration of this bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do 

so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Budget Committee does 

not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall 

within its jurisdiction. 

Please include a copy of this letter and any response in the committee report on H.R. 899 

as well as in the Congressional Record during any floor consideration of this bill. Thank you for 

the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our 

respective committees. 

(202) 22&-7270 

fj./) 

Chairman 

paUlRyan~ 

207 Cannon House Office Building e-malt: budget@maiLhotlse.gov 
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here HR352.007

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

~ongrt5'5' of tbt Wnittb $tatt5' 

~oulie of ~tprtlirntati\Jtli 

COMMITIEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASH1NGTON, DC 20515-6143 

lAWRHICEJ.SRADY 

STAH'Dtf'lfCT011 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Chainnan 

Committee on the Budget 

U,S, House of Representatives 

Washington, D,C, 20515 

Dear Me Chainnan: 

February 1 J, 2014 

EUJAHE.CUMM!NGS,MAl'iYlANI) 

I'IANl(lNG M!NORI"Y MEMBER 

CAROLYN S. MA10NliY. NEW YORK 

(LEANOR HOLMES NOI'ITON. 

l)ISTmCTQFCOLUMSIA 

.JOHN f. TIERN[Y,MA$SACHUS£1'TS 

'11M. u<CY ClAY, MISSOUR! STEPHl'.NF,lYNCltMASSACHusrns 

J!MCOOf'~J\'. TENNESSE~ 

GERAlD£.CONNOUY.V!I'IQINIA 

JAC!(IES/'EIER.CAUfOIlN1A 

MATTHEW A, CARTWRIGHT, PENNSYlVANIA MAliK POCAN, WISCONS!N 

l.TAMMYOLICKWORTttllLINOI$ 

ROSINL KEU .. Y. IlLINOIS 

DANNYIC DAVIS, Il,mOIS 

f'H"ERWElCH,VtRMQI>;t 

roNY CAR!)CNA$, CAUfORNIA 

STEVEN A- 1l0RS~OAO. NSVAOA 

MlCHHU;- WJAN GRISHAM, N~W M.XICO 

Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional interest 

in H.R, 899, the "Unfunded Mandates Infonnation and Transparency Act of 20 13," and your 

willingness to forego consideration of H,R, 899 by your committee, 

J agree that the Committee on Rules has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain 

provisions ofH,R, 899 and that the Corrunittee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by 

your decision to forego consideration ofH.R, 899. As you have requested, J will support your 

request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of 

a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened, 

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Corrunittee Report 

and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for 

your cooperation, 

~ arrellissa 

Chainnan 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House 

The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Minority Member 

The Honorable Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Minority Member 

Corrunittee on the,Budget 

Mr, Tom Wickham, Parliamentarian 

-
19 

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 enhances UMRA’s utility 

as a tool to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress 

and federal agencies concerning the appropriateness of federal 

mandates. As such this bill does not relate to employment or access 

to public services and accommodations. 

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 

descriptive portions of this report. 

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 and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 899 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. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 899 does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether 

the provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 899 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 899. 

However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 899 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 1, 2013. 

Hon. DARRELL ISSA, 

Chairman , Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: 

The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost 

estimate for H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 

Transparency Act of 2013. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Ramirez-Branum. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 899—Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act 

of 2013 

Summary: H.R. 899 would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) to increase the information available to 

the Congress and the public with respect to federal mandates contained in proposed legislation and federal regulations. Enacting 

this legislation would codify in UMRA many practices currently required of most federal agencies when analyzing the potential impact of regulations. The bill also would require independent regulatory agencies to perform broad analyses (including costs and benefits) of regulations by requiring those agencies to comply with 

standards established in UMRA relating to the rulemaking process. 

The legislation would amend the Congressional Budget Act to establish a point of order, which a Member of Congress may raise, 

against legislation that creates a private-sector mandate with costs 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

24The intergovernmental and private-sector thresholds established in UMRA were $50 million 

and $100 million, respectively in 1996, adjusted annually for inflation. In 2013, the thresholds 

are $75 million for intergovernmental mandates and $150 million for private-sector mandates. 

above the threshold established in UMRA.24 In addition, the legislation would require CBO to conduct assessments of costs to state, 

local, and tribal governments resulting from any changes to conditions of certain federal assistance programs. 

CBO estimates that the new requirements placed on independent 

regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), would require additional resources to carry out. 

Expenses of the FDIC are classified as direct spending; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because costs incurred by the 

FDIC would be offset by premiums collected from insured depository institutions, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 899 would result in no net effect on direct spending over the 2014–2023 period. 

Assuming the appropriation of necessary amounts, the legislation 

also would have a discretionary cost of $4 million over the 2014– 

2018 period, CBO estimates. 

CBO expects that several independent agencies would increase 

fees to offset the costs of implementing the additional regulatory 

activities required by the bill; thus, H.R 899 would increase the 

costs of existing mandates on public and private-sector entities that 

would be required to pay those fees. Based on information from the 

affected agencies, CBO estimates that the additional costs of those 

mandates would be small and would fall well below the annual 

thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 899 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 370 (advancement of 

commerce) and other budget functions that contain spending for 

salaries and expenses. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014– 

2018 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONa

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................... * 1 1 1 1 4 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ * 1 1 1 1 4 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

a CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 899 would result in additional direct spending totaling less than $500,000 annually. Because we expect FDIC premiums to increase to cover those costs, we estimate that net direct spending would not be significant. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted late in 2013, that fees and premiums will be 

levied to cover the additional administrative costs incurred by some 

regulatory agencies, that the necessary amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year, and that spending patterns will follow historical patterns for regulatory analysis activities. 

H.R. 899 would amend UMRA to codify certain practices currently required under several executive orders, including Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563. (Those instructions require agencies in 

the executive branch to analyze the effects of regulations on state, 

local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For significant 

rules with an estimated annual effect on the economy of $100 milVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:43 Feb 19, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR352P1.XXX HR352P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

lion or more, agencies must prepare detailed cost-benefit analyses.) 

The legislation also would codify Executive Order 13579 and remove a provision in current law that exempts independent regulatory agencies, such as the FDIC, from complying with standards 

established in UMRA relating to the rulemaking process. Based on 

information from several agencies, CBO expects that the new requirements would increase the workload of independent regulatory 

agencies, requiring them to devote more resources to prepare 

broader analyses of regulations and to support judicial reviews and 

hearings pertaining to agency regulations. 

Spending subject to appropriation: To meet the regulatory standards established in H.R. 899, CBO estimates that at least 12 independent regulatory agencies would face an increased workload and 

would eventually incur annual costs of about $500,000, on average, 

per agency. We expect that it would take a few years to reach that 

level of effort, resulting in gross costs of $18 million over the 2014– 

2018 period. Under current law, four of those agencies, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, are authorized to collect fees sufficient 

to offset their appropriation each year. CBO assumes that future 

appropriations would direct agencies to exercise that authority. 

Thus, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have a net 

discretionary cost of $1 million in 2014 and $4μmillion over the 

2014–2018 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

H.R. 899 also would require CBO, at the request of any Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a committee, to conduct an 

assessment of costs to state, local, and tribal governments resulting 

from any changes to conditions of federal assistance programs. 

CBO estimates that the costs to conduct any one such an assessment would probably not be significant; however, a sizable number 

of assessments prepared in any given year would increase administrative costs. Any such costs would be subject to the availability of 

appropriated funds. 

Direct spending: CBO also estimates that the FDIC would incur 

additional costs totaling less than $500,000 annually to implement 

H.R. 899. FDIC has the authority to collect premiums from insured 

depository institutions to support administrative expenses; therefore, CBO estimates that those increased costs would be offset over 

the over the 2014–23 period. 

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. Expenses of 

the FDIC are classified as direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. Because costs incurred by the FDIC would be offset by premiums collected from insured depository institutions 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 899 would result in no net effect 

on direct spending over the 2014–2023 period. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 899 would increase the costs of existing mandates on public and private entities 

that are required to pay fees assessed by certain independent agencies. The bill would expand the scope of analyses that independent 

agencies are required to conduct when they issue regulations. Some 

of those independent agencies are authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of their regulatory activities. Because we exVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:43 Feb 19, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR352P1.XXX HR352P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

pect some of those agencies to increase fees to offset the costs of 

their additional regulatory activities, the bill would increase the 

costs of existing mandates by requiring public and private entities 

to pay higher fees. 

Based on information from the independent agencies, the cost of 

implementing the additional regulatory activities would not be significant. Therefore, CBO estimates that any additional costs would 

be small and would fall well below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($75 million and $150 million in 2013 respectively, adjusted 

annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Daniel Hoople, Marin Burnett, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, and Susan Willie; Impact on State, 

local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle; Impact on 

the private sector: Marin Burnett. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

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 italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

* * * * * * * 

DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS

SEC. 202. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) STUDIES.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) ADDITIONAL STUDIES.—At the request of any Chairman or 

ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the Senate 

or the House of Representatives, the Director shall conduct an 

assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill 

or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any 

changes to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on 

State, local, or tribal governments participating in the Federal 

assistance program concerned or, in the case of a bill or joint 

resolution that authorizes such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated level of funding compared to such 

costs. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

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 Codeø, but 

does not include independent regulatory agencies¿, except it 

does not include the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System or the Federal Open Market Committee. 

* * * * * * * 

(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 incur or be required to spend or would be prohibited from raising in revenues in order to comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate; or 

* * * * * * * 

(B) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate, 

means the aggregate estimated amounts that the private 

sector will be required to spend or could forgo in profits, 

including costs passed on to consumers or other entities 

taking into account, to the extent practicable, behavioral 

changes, in order to comply with the Federal private sector 

mandate; 

* * * * * * * 

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) * * * 

(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would increase the direct costs of øFederal 

intergovernmental mandates¿ Federal mandates by an amount 

that causes the thresholds specified in section 424(a)(1) or 

424(b)(1) to be exceeded, unless— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT OF 1995 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—LEGISLATIVE 

ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

SEC. 103. COST OF REGULATIONS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) COOPERATION OF øOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET¿ OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.—At the request 

of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the øDirector of 

the Office of Management and Budget¿ Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide data and cost 

estimates for regulations implementing an Act containing a Federal 

mandate covered by part B of title IV of the Congressional Budget 

and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as added by section 101 of 

this Act). 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—REGULATORY 

ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM 

øSEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS. 

øEach agency shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess 

the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that 

such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in 

law).¿ 

SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Each agency shall, unless otherwise expressly 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on 

State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector (other 

than to the extent that such regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law) in accordance with the following 

principles: 

(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it intends to 

address (including, if applicable, the failures of private markets 

or public institutions that warrant new agency action) as well 

as assess the significance of that problem. 

(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing regulations 

(or other law) have created, or contributed to, the problem that 

a new regulation is intended to correct and whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively. 

(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing information upon which 

choices can be made by the public. 

(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective manner to achieve 

the regulatory objective. In doing so, each agency shall consider 

incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, the costs of 

enforcement and compliance (to the government, regulated entities, and the public), flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits 

of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and 

benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation, 

unless expressly prohibited by law, only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 

costs. 

(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation. 

(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of 

regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, specify performance 

objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must adopt. 

(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are inconsistent, 

incompatible, or duplicative with its other regulations or those 

of other Federal agencies. 

(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize the 

costs of the cumulative impact of regulations. 

(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and 

easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential 

for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty. 

(b) REGULATORY ACTION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘regulatory action’’ means any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking and notices of proposed rulemaking. 

SEC. 202. STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY 

ACTIONS. 

ø(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— 

ø(1) an identification of the provision of Federal law under 

which the rule is being promulgated; 

ø(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— 

ø(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 

ø(B) the extent to which there are available Federal resources to carry out the intergovernmental mandate; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

ø(3) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the 

agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, of— 

ø(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; 

and 

ø(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; 

ø(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 

ø(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; 

ø(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 

ø(C) a summary of the agency’s evaluation of those comments and concerns.¿ 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by law, 

before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking or 

any final rule, or within six months after promulgating any final 

rule that was not preceded by a general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal 

mandate that may result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of 

$100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare a 

written statement containing the following: 

(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the need for the 

proposed rulemaking or final rule and an explanation of how 

the proposed rulemaking or final rule will meet that need. 

(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the 

proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an explanation of 

the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or final rule is 

consistent with a statutory requirement and avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise 

of their governmental functions. 

(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including the 

underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the proposed 

rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of the efficient 

functioning of the economy and private markets, the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of discrimination or 

bias). 

(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including the 

underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the proposed 

rulemaking or final rule (such as the direct costs both to the 

Government in administering the final rule and to businesses 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

and others in complying with the final rule, and any adverse 

effects on the efficient functioning of the economy, private markets (including productivity, employment, and international 

competitiveness), health, safety, and the natural environment); 

(5) 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. 

(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the agency’s prior 

consultation with the private sector and elected representatives 

(under section 204) of the affected State, local, and tribal governments. 

(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that 

were presented by the private sector and State, local, or tribal 

governments either orally or in writing to the agency. 

(C) A detailed summary of the agency’s evaluation of those 

comments and concerns. 

(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with each 

of the regulatory principles described in section 201. 

(b) 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 detailed summary of the information contained in the statement. 

* * * * * * * 

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 governments (or their designated employees with 

authority to act on their behalf), and impacted parties within the 

private sector (including small business), to provide meaningful and 

timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing 

significant øFederal intergovernmental mandates¿ Federal mandates. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

(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 business), 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) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) øOMB¿ CERTIFICATION.—No later than 1 year after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, the øDirector of the Office of Management and Budget¿ Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs 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. 206. ASSISTANCE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE. 

The øDirector of the Office of Management and Budget¿ Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 208. ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE. 

øNo 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 shall provide meaningful guidance and 

oversight so that each agency’s regulations for which a written statement is required under section 202 are consistent with the principles 

and requirements of this title, as well as other applicable laws, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

do not conflict with the policies or actions of another agency. If the 

Administrator determines that an agency’s regulations for which a 

written statement is required under section 202 do not comply with 

such principles and requirements, are not consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the policies or actions of another 

agency, the Administrator shall identify areas of non-compliance, 

notify the agency, and request that the agency comply before the 

agency finalizes the regulation concerned. 

(b) ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE.—The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs annually 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, a written report detailing compliance by each 

agency with the requirements of this title that relate to regulations 

for which a written statement is required by section 202, including 

activities undertaken at the request of the Director to improve compliance, during the preceding reporting period. The report shall also 

contain an appendix detailing compliance by each agency with section 204. 

SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 

(a) REQUIREMENT.—At the request of the chairman or ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of the House of 

Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal regulation promulgated by an 

agency. 

(b) REPORT.—Each agency conducting a retrospective analysis of 

existing Federal regulations pursuant to subsection (a) shall submit 

to the chairman of the relevant committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered by the analysis— 

(1) a copy of the Federal regulation; 

(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation; 

(3) the nature of comments or complaints received concerning 

the Federal regulation from the public since the Federal regulation was promulgated; 

(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; 

(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or 

other factors have changed in the area affected by the Federal 

regulation; 

(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs and 

benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies done 

outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such costs 

or benefits; and 

(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal regulation. 

SEC. ø209.¿ 210. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

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 øsections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)¿ 

sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1) and (2), and 205(a) and (b) shall 

be subject to judicial review øonly¿ in accordance with this section. 

(2) LIMITED REVIEW OF AGENCY COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE.—(A) Agency compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of øsections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)¿ sections 201, 

202, 203(a)(1) and (2), and 205(a) and (b) shall be subject to 

judicial review øonly¿ under section 706(1) of title 5, United 

States Code, and øonly¿ 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 øsection 202 or the written plan under 

section 203(a) (1) and (2), a court may compel the agency to 

prepare such written statement.¿ section 202, prepare the written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 

205(a) and (b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such 

written statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with 

such section. 

(3) REVIEW OF AGENCY RULES.—In any judicial review under 

any other Federal law of an agency rule for which a øwritten 

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¿ 

written statement under section 202, a written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2), or compliance with sections 201 and 

205(a) and (b) is required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare 

such statement (including the inadequacy or failure to prepare 

any estimate, analysis, statement, or description), to prepare 

such written plan, or to comply with such section may be used 

as a basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating or otherwise affecting such agency rule. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(32) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 

Act, would be an assault on health, safety, and environmental protections. This legislation would erect new barriers to slow down the 

regulatory process and would give corporations an unfair advantage in the regulatory process. 

Section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes independent regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with the exception of the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open 

Market Committee. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

is responsible for overseeing the UMRA process. Since the independent agencies would be under the direction of OMB for purposes of UMRA compliance, this could compromise the independence of those agencies. 

Section 7 of H.R. 899 would create a new point of order in the 

House of Representatives for legislation containing an unfunded 

mandate, making it more difficult to enact legislation. 

Section 8 would incorporate a cost-benefit requirement from Executive Order 12866, but it would not include language from the 

same Executive Order directing agencies to perform these assessments ‘‘to the extent feasible.’’ 

Section 10 would require agencies to provide impacted parties in 

the private sector—but not other stakeholders—with an advance 

opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations. It would require agencies to conduct consultations with private sector businesses ‘‘as early as possible, before the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.’’ Expanding this consultation requirement only 

to the private sector could allow businesses to have an advantage 

over other stakeholders in the development of regulatory proposals. 

During consideration of this bill by the Committee, Representatives Gerry Connolly and Tammy Duckworth offered an amendment that stated: ‘‘Any opportunities or rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be afforded to any interested 

individual.’’ The amendment was rejected. 

Section 11 would codify the role of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in reviewing agency regulations and require that if the OIRA Administrator finds that an agency did not 

comply with UMRA’s requirements, the Administrator must request that the agency comply before the regulation is finalized. 

Section 12 would require that, ‘‘at the request of the chairman 

or ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of 

the House of Representatives or Senate, an agency shall conduct a 

retrospective analysis of an existing Federal regulation issued by 

an agency.’’ This provision would require agencies to divert resources toward conducting these analyses and away from fulfilling 

their missions. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

Section 13 would expand judicial review under UMRA. The judicial review section would allow a court to review the ‘‘inadequacy 

or failure’’ of an agency to prepare a written statement under 

UMRA. Allowing judicial review of the adequacy of an agency’s 

UMRA statement would give judges the ability to second-guess the 

expertise of agencies. This process could be abused by regulated industries taking agencies to court over regulations they view as unfavorable. 

During Committee consideration of this bill Representative Stephen Lynch offered an amendment to require agencies as part of 

their evaluation of any disproportionate budgetary effects of a federal mandate to include an evaluation of ‘‘any effects from sequestration on the agency’s operations.’’ The amendment was rejected. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, 

Ranking Member. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS