79–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPT. 115–798 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND 

TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017 

JUNE 29, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOWDY, 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. 50] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 50) to provide for additional safeguards 

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

having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Summary and Purpose of the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 6 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 8 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 10 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 10 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 10 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 10 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 10 

Unfunded Mandates Statement .............................................................................. 10 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 10 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 10 

New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ........... 11 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 14 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 5 U.S.C. § 804(2). 

2Letter from Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Dec. 16, 

2016) (on file with the Committee). 3Letters on file with the Committee. 

4Letter from Bill Haslam, Governor, Tenn., to Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Jan. 20, 2017) (on file with the Committee). 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 17 

Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 36 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 42 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of the bill, add the following new section: 

SEC. 14. REAUTHORIZATION. 

Section 109 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1516) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the Congressional Budget Office 

$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2024 to carry out the provisions 

of this title.’’. 

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2017 (UMITA), H.R. 50, amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA) to improve regulatory processes and codify 

regulatory principles established in Executive Order 12866. H.R. 50 

extends the UMRA coverage to most independent agencies and all 

final rules, and increases early consultation requirements and retrospective regulatory reviews. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Enacted in 1995, UMRA limits unfunded mandates on state, 

local, and tribal governments and the private sector. An unfunded 

mandate is an obligation imposed on one or more state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector by a federal law or regulation without federal funding to offset the costs. Unfunded mandates 

push costs to implement federal programs onto state, local, and 

tribal governments, and the private sector. 

UMRA directs agencies to draft written statements for final rules 

that impose costs of $100 million or more (‘‘major rules’’) 1 on one 

or more state, local, or tribal government or the private sector. If 

a rule reaches this threshold amount, UMRA also requires agencies 

to consider less expensive alternatives to achieve the rule’s objective. UMRA also requires agencies solicit input of the regulated 

stakeholders in promulgating a final major rule. 

In December 2016, the Committee solicited input from state governors and legislators on the effects unfunded mandates have on 

their state, if any.2 The Committee received nearly 800 responses 

from states, U.S. territories, and organizations representing state 

and local governments. The responses identified numerous costly 

unfunded mandates on state, local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector.3 For example, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam 

wrote the EPA provided Tennessee with only 8 percent of the $32 

million it will cost the state to implement Clean Water Act programs.4 The U.S. Virgin Islands reported receiving just $5.4 million 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

5Letter from Kenneth Mapp, Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands, to Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. 

Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform. (Jan. 20, 2017) (on file with the Committee). 6 Unfunded Mandates: Examining Federally Imposed Burdens on State and Local Government: 

Hearing Before the Subc. on Intergovernmental Affairs of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t 

Reform, 115th Cong. (Apr. 26, 2017), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg26556/pdf/ 

CHRG-115hhrg26556.pdf [hereinafter Unfunded Mandates: Hearing (Apr. 26, 2017)]. 7 Id. at 14 (statement of Jim Davis, State Senator, North Carolina). 8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. at 28 (2017) (testimony of Hon. Gary Moore, Cnty. Exec., Boone Cnty., KY) (‘‘We often 

find that the agencies just want to check a box instead of having meaningful discussion with 

us as intergovernmental partners before and throughout the rulemaking cycle.’’); id. at 21 (statement of Wayne L. Niederhauser, Sen., Utah Sen. on behalf of Council of State Governments) 

(‘‘local governments have admirable goals also, more important to citizens, more likely to be effective, and less expensive.’’). 11 Unfunded Mandates: Hearing (Apr. 26, 2017) at 18 (statement of Gary Moore, Cnty. Executive, Boone Cnty., Kentucky). 12Federalism Implications of Treating States as Stakeholders: Hearing Before the H. Comm. 

on Oversight & Gov’t Reform, 115th Cong. (Feb. 27, 2018), https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/ 

federalism-implications-treater-states-stakeholders/. 13 Id. 

in federal aid to pay its $36 million in expenses to implement 

Clean Air Act regulations.5

During an April 2017 hearing, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs heard testimony from elected state and local government officials. The witnesses explained challenges federal unfunded 

mandates impose on governments and local businesses.6 North 

Carolina State Senator Jim Davis testified regarding the experience of a business owner from his district, in which a federal compliance officer required the business to reduce boiler system arsenic 

emissions from 12 parts per million (PPM) to 4 PPM.7 Senator 

Davis testified, ‘‘After spending over $200,000 on consultants, lawyers, and other experts . . . the business owner learned two things: 

One, the technology didn’t exist to reduce it to four, and secondly, 

arsenic occurs naturally in the air at 12 parts per million.’’ 8 It was 

one example of an unfunded federal mandate forcing a small business owner to waste money on compliance with nonsensical requirements, rather than investing in the business and its employees.9

The Subcommittee also heard testimony on federal officials’ apathetic attitude towards consulting with state and local officials during rulemaking.10 Kentucky County Executive Gary Moore testified 

on behalf of the National Association of Counties: 

Time and time again, we see major Federal regulations 

like Waters of the U.S., the ozone rule, and the Department of Labor’s overtime rule finalized with little or no 

consultation with State and local governments, even 

though these regulations have major practical and financial implications for counties.11

The Committee explored the lack of meaningful federal-state consultation at a Committee hearing held on February 27, 2018, held 

in collaboration with the Speaker’s Intergovernmental Task 

Force.12 During the hearing, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, Utah Governor Gary Herbert, and Idaho Governor Leroy 

‘‘Butch’’ Otter testified to a lack of partnership during federal agency rulemaking.13 The Governors testified a lack of communication 

between federal officials and their states precludes exploring more 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

14 Id. at 20 (testimony of Gary Herbert, Governor, Utah) (‘‘the States, which are closer to the 

people, much more responsive to the people, quicker to act, and doing it less expensively and 

more effectively, are where in fact we should be working. States are finding solutions and improving people’s lives.’’); id. at 62–63 (testimony of Leroy ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Governor, Idaho) 

(‘‘Nearly every public policy that we deal with in Idaho we have to factor in what the Federal 

Government wants us to do, as well as how much of the cost they want us to suffer. So I tell 

you when we establish public policy, we really need to see who it helps and who it harms. And 

sometimes there’s very little attention or care paid, especially from the Federal level.’’). 15 Id. at 54 (testimony of Susana Martinez, Governor, New Mexico). 16 Exec. Order No. 12,866, 3 C.F.R. § 638 (1994). 17 Id. 18See generally Peter Raven-Hansen, Making Agencies Follow Orders: Judicial Review of 

Agency Violations of Executive Order 12,291, 285 Duke L.J. (1983). 19 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., 

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

Oversight & Govt. Reform, 112th Congress (Feb. 15, 2011), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG112hhrg67172/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg67172.pdf [hereinafter Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory 

Overreach: Hearing (Feb. 15, 2011)]. 20 Id. at 41 (statement of Denise M. Fantone, Director Strategic Issues, Gov’t Accountability 

Office). 

efficient alternatives.14 Providing another example of the disparity 

between state government and federal government regulators, Governor Martinez testified New Mexico can review oil and gas permits in 10 days whereas it takes the U.S. Bureau of Land Management an average of 250 days. She testified this delay costs New 

Mexico $1.9 million per day.15 H.R. 50 enhances consultation requirements to give state, local, and tribal governments a greater 

voice in the federal rulemaking process. 

In 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12866 to provide federal agencies with additional requirements in the rulemaking process. The Executive Order recognized the private sector’s contribution to economic growth and the state, local, and tribal government role and relationship to the federal government.16 It 

requires federal agencies’ rulemaking processes be constrained to 

certain principles.17 However, federal agency compliance with the 

Executive Order may be limited by the nature of an executive order 

as executive branch policy, not law.18 H.R. 50 codifies most of these 

rulemaking guidelines, including exploring if intended results can 

be achieved through modifying current regulations, identifying alternatives to direct regulation, and using the best available information to make agency decisions. 

By updating UMRA and correcting agencies’ misinterpretation of 

the law, this bill will help give effect to Congress’s original intent 

in enacting UMRA two decades prior. In a 2011 hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and Procurement Reform, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified agency interpretation of UMRA’s 

cost definitions could prevent UMRA rules from being triggered.19

In written testimony, GAO stated, ‘‘a rule could reduce industry 

gross revenues by over $100 million in a single year, and therefore 

be economically significant, yet not trigger UMRA because it does 

not require expenditures above UMRA’s threshold in any year.’’ 20

H.R. 50 addresses this problem by expanding the federal mandate 

definition of ‘‘direct costs’’ to require agencies to account for variables such as foregone profits. 

In a 2012 report, GAO found agencies had not published a notice 

of proposed rulemaking for 35 percent of major rules—those rules 

with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

21GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–13–21, Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond to Public Comments, 7 (2012), https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/ 

651052.pdf; Id. at 8. 22 2 U.S.C. § 1532. 23 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing (Feb. 15, 2011) (testimony of 

Denise M. Fantone, Director Strategic Issues, Gov’t Accountability Office). 24 Exec. Order No. 13,563 § 6(a), 3 C.F.R. 215, 217 (2012), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. § 601 

(Supp. V 2011). 25 Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing (Feb. 15, 2011) (testimony of 

Denise M. Fantone, Director Strategic Issues, Gov’t Accountability Office). 26Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 2016 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 32 (2017), 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/ 

draft_2016_cost_benefit_report_12_14_2016_2.pdf. 27 Id. 

issued from 2003 to 2010.21 UMRA requires a written statement 

only for final rules ‘‘for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published.’’ 22 H.R. 50 requires each final rule impos- ing an annual cost of $100 million or more on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector be subject to UMRA’s requirements, regardless of whether a notice of proposed rulemaking 

was issued. 

At the 2011 hearing, the Subcommittee also heard from GAO 

about the impact current regulations have on stakeholders. GAO 

observed stakeholders it consulted ‘‘most frequently suggested 

agencies evaluate the effectiveness of mandates after they had been 

implemented . . . [and . . .] evaluation of existing rules through 

retrospective reviews has the potential of being able to better assess the effectiveness of UMRA, among other benefits.’’ 23

In January 2011, President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 also 

identified ‘‘retrospective analyses of existing rules’’ as an important 

component to improve regulation and regulatory review. Executive 

Order 13563 encouraged agencies to ‘‘modify, streamline, expand, 

or repeal’’ significant regulations that are ‘‘outmoded, ineffective, 

insufficient, or excessively burdensome.’’ 24 H.R. 50 provides for further retrospective analyses by requiring agencies to conduct retrospective analyses on their current regulations upon a request from 

the chair or ranking minority member of a congressional committee. 

In the 2011 hearing, GAO cited ‘‘among the most common reasons’’ for not complying with UMRA was ‘‘the rules were issues by 

independent regulatory agencies not covered by the act [UMRA].’’ 25

In its 2016 annual UMRA report to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) noted the importance of transparent 

rulemaking by independent agencies, which are exempt under 

UMRA.26 The report stated: 

We emphasize . . . for the purposes of informing the 

public and obtaining a full accounting, it would be highly 

desirable to obtain better information on the benefits and 

costs of the rules issued by independent agencies. The absence of such information is a continued obstacle to transparency, and it might also have adverse effects on public 

policy. Consideration of costs and benefits is a pragmatic 

instrument for ensuring that regulations will improve social welfare; an absence of information on costs and benefits can lead to inferior decisions.27

H.R. 50 requires most independent agencies to comply with UMRA. 

H.R. 50 also subjects those agencies to the principles in Executive 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

Order 12866, which means the agencies are required to conduct 

cost-benefit analyses of their rulemakings. 

H.R. 50 aims to promote informed and deliberate decisions by 

Congress and federal agencies concerning the appropriateness of 

federal mandates. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In accordance 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 

previous section. 

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 goal or objective of this bill is to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On January 3, 2017, Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC) introduced H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017, with Representative Henry Cuellar (D–TX). 

H.R. 50 was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with additional referrals to the Committee on the 

Budget, Committee on Rules, and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform considered 

H.R. 50 at a business meeting on March 15, 2018 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported, as amended, by a recorded vote of 20 ayes 

to 10 nays. 

On April 26, 2017, at a hearing entitled Unfunded Mandates: Examining Federally Imposed Burdens on State and Local Government, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, heard testimony from 

Utah State Senator Wayne Niederhauser, North Carolina State 

Senator Jim Davis, Boone County Executive Gary Moore, Kansas 

City Councilman Jermaine Reed, and Supervisor of Fairfax County 

Board of Supervisors Jeff McKay. The witnesses highlighted specific examples of how unfunded federal mandates limit budgetary 

flexibility and impact their business communities. They provided 

suggestions as to how federal objectives can continue to be advanced without burdening states and local governments. 

In the 114th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 50, 

the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2015, a nearly identical bill to H.R. 50. On January 27, 2015, the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 50 

favorably reported by a recorded vote of 20 ayes to 13 nays, and 

on February 4, 2015, the House passed the bill by a recorded vote 

of 250 ayes to 173 nays. 

In the 113th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 899, 

the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2014, a nearly identical bill to H.R. 50. On July 24, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 899 favorably reported by a recorded vote of 22 ayes to 17 nays, and on 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

February 28, 2014, the House passed the bill by a recorded vote of 

234 ayes to 176 nays. 

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

the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2011, a nearly identical bill to H.R. 50. On September 21, 2011, the 

Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform considered H.R. 373, and forwarded the bill, as amended, to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform by a recorded vote of 5 ayes to 4 nays. On November 17, 2011, the Committee ordered the bill favorably reported, as amended, by a recorded vote of 22 ayes 12 nays. H.R. 

373 was included in H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small 

Business Job Creation Act, which the House passed on July 26, 

2012, by recorded vote of 245 ayes to 172 nays. 

The Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform held three hearings 

in the 112th Congress regarding unfunded mandates. On February 

15, 2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, Unfunded 

Mandates and Regulatory Overreach; a hearing entitled, Unfunded 

Mandates and Regulatory Overreach on March 30, 2011; and a 

hearing entitled, Unfunded Mandates, Regulatory Burdens and the 

Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, on May 

25, 2011. 

In the 111th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 

2255, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act 

of 2009, a substantially similar bill to H.R. 50. 

In the 110th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 

6964, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act 

of 2008, a substantially similar bill to H.R. 50. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 15, 2018, the Committee met in open session and, 

with a quorum being present, ordered the bill favorably reported, 

as amended, by a roll call vote of 20 ayes to 10 nays. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
8 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here HR798P1.001
9 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here HR798P1.002
10 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative Foxx offered an amendment to reauthorize funding of $1.5 million to the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) each year from 2018 to 2024 to 

perform duties required under UMRA. This reduces funding by $3 

million originally authorized under UMRA, and funds them according to CBO’s actual expenditures. The Committee adopted the Foxx 

amendment by voice vote. 

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 provides for additional 

safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates. As such, 

this bill does not relate to employment or access to public services 

and accommodations. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In accordance with clause 2(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision of this 

bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program, a program that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public 

Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The bill does not direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of section 551 of title 5, United States 

Code. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds the legislation does not establish or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the definition of Section 5(b) of the appendix to title 5, United States Code. 

UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT

Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (Pub. L. 113–67) the Committee has included a letter received from the Congressional Budget Office 

below. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

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

XXI of the House of Representatives. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
11 

1The intergovernmental and private-sector cost thresholds established in UMRA were $50 

million and $100 million, respectively, in 1996; they are adjusted annually for inflation. In 2018, 

the thresholds are $80 million for intergovernmental mandates and $160 million for private-sector mandates. 

Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 23, 2018. 

Hon. TREY GOWDY, 

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. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl. 

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY

(For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 50—Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2017 

Summary: H.R. 50 would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA) to increase the information available to the 

Congress and the public concerning federal mandates in proposed 

legislation and regulations. Enacting the bill would codify many 

current practices of federal agencies as they analyze the potential 

effects of proposed regulations. The bill also would broaden the coverage of UMRA to require independent regulatory agencies to comply with standards relating to rulemaking and to allow judicial review of regulatory actions that fail to comply with that law. Under 

current law, independent regulatory agencies are exempt from complying with UMRA. 

H.R. 50 also would amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to establish a point of order that 

a Member of Congress may raise against legislation that creates a 

private-sector mandate with costs above the threshold established 

in UMRA.1 The bill also would require CBO, upon request, to assess the costs to state, local, and tribal governments resulting from 

legislation that would change conditions that must be met to receive federal assistance. 

CBO estimates that carrying out the new requirements placed on 

independent regulatory agencies would require additional resources. Assuming the appropriation of necessary amounts, CBO 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
12 

estimates implementing the bill would have a net discretionary 

cost of $6 million over the 2019–2023 period. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 50 would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any net change in direct spending would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 50 would not significantly increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 

consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

H.R. 50 would increase the costs of existing mandates on public 

and private-sector entities to pay fees, but CBO estimates that the 

additional costs would be small and would fall well below the annual thresholds for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates 

established in UMRA ($80 million and $160 million in 2018, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 50 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of the legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and 

housing credit). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019– 

2023 

INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION a

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................. 0 * 1 1 2 2 6 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................... 0 * 1 1 2 2 6 

a In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would require increased spending by some agencies that have permanent spending 

authority under current law. However, CBO estimates that the legislation would not have a significant effect on direct spending because CBO 

expects that those agencies would offset the bill’s new costs by collecting additional fees. 

Components may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = between zero and $500,000. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 50 

will be enacted near the end of 2018, that the necessary amounts 

will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year beginning in 

2019, and that spending patterns will follow historical patterns for 

regulatory analysis activities. 

H.R. 50 would amend UMRA to codify certain current practices, 

including those listed in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Those 

orders require federal agencies to analyze the effects of regulations 

on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector 

and to prepare detailed cost-benefit analyses of rules that would result in total economic effects estimated at $100 million or more annually. In addition, H.R. 50 would codify Executive Order 13579 

and remove a current-law provision that exempts independent regulatory agencies from complying with rulemaking standards established in UMRA. 

Under current law, the adequacy of certain federal analyses and 

statements developed in accordance with UMRA is not subject to 

judicial review. Under H.R. 50, such products of the regulatory 

process could be challenged in the courts. CBO cannot predict the 

frequency or outcome of such challenges, but any resulting costs 

probably would be borne primarily by the Department of Justice. 

Any additional costs for litigation stemming from this provision 

would be subject to the availability of appropriations. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
13 

Discretionary costs 

Assuming the appropriation of necessary amounts, CBO estimates implementing the bill would have a net discretionary cost of 

$6 million over the 2019–2023 period. 

Independent Regulatory Agencies. Fifteen independent agencies 

would be affected by H.R. 50, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), 

and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

On the basis of information from several affected agencies, CBO 

expects that the bill’s requirements would increase the workload of 

independent regulatory agencies. They would be required to devote 

more resources to broader analyses of regulations and to support 

judicial reviews and hearings pertaining to agency regulations. 

CBO estimates that at least 11 independent regulatory agencies 

that receive discretionary appropriations would face an increased 

workload under H.R. 50. Annual costs per agency would vary depending on their size and the number of major rules they review 

each year. CBO estimates that each agency would require, on average, 1 to 3 additional staff to comply with the bill’s requirements 

(depending on its size and the number of major rules that it issues 

each year) and that annual salary and benefits for each staff member would total about $150,000 (based on compensation levels in recent years). 

Under current law, four of those agencies—the FCC, the SEC, 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—are authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset their annual appropriations. CBO estimates that those four 

agencies would incur gross costs of about $16 million over the 

2019–2023 period, and we assume that future appropriations would 

direct those agencies to offset those costs with fees. CBO also estimates that agencies not authorized to collect fees would eventually 

incur additional annual costs of less than $500,000 each, resulting 

in a total cost of $5 million over the 5-year period. 

Other Agencies. H.R. 50 also would require the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to provide guidance and oversight to the independent agencies to ensure that their regulations 

are consistent with the requirements of UMRA. Using information 

from the agency, CBO expects that OIRA ultimately would require 

one new staff member to handle the additional workload. Using an 

average salary of $150,000, CBO estimates the requirement would 

cost about $1 million over the 2019–2023 period, assuming availability of appropriated funds. 

Finally, H.R. 50 would require CBO, at the request of any Chair 

or Ranking Member of a Congressional committee, to assess costs 

to state, local, and tribal governments resulting from legislation 

that would change conditions that must be met to receive federal 

assistance. CBO estimates that the costs of a single assessment 

would not be significant; however, if CBO were required to prepare 

a sizable number of assessments, the agency’s administrative costs 

would increase. CBO estimates that those costs in any given year 

would total well below $500,000, and any such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
14 

Mandatory costs 

Four independent regulatory agencies that would be required to 

meet the new regulatory standards under H.R. 50 have permanent 

spending authority. CBO estimates that the affected agencies, including the FDIC and the OCC, each would incur additional annual 

costs of $1 million, on average, to fulfill the bill’s requirements. 

Those agencies collect fees from the industries they regulate to 

cover administrative expenses. CBO estimates that such collections 

would largely offset the costs of implementing the bill over the 

2019–2028 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. CBO estimates 

that the net effects of H.R. 50 on direct spending would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 50 would not significantly increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

Mandates: H.R. 50 would increase the costs of existing mandates 

on public and private entities that 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. Such a change would increase their workload and annual operating costs. Some independent agencies collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of their regulatory activities. Because those 

agencies are expected to raise fees to offset the costs of their additional workload, CBO estimates that the bill would increase the 

cost of existing mandates on public and private entities that would 

be required to pay those higher fees. 

Using information from the independent agencies, CBO estimates that the cost of implementing the additional regulatory activities would not be significant. Therefore, any additional cost to 

public and private entities would be small and would fall well 

below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($80 million and $160 million 

in 2018 respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jon Sperl; Mandates: Jon 

Sperl. 

Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Unit; Susan Willie, Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for Budget 

Analysis. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill. 

Sec. 2. Purpose 

Section 2 describes the purposes of the bill. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
15 

Sec. 3. Providing for Congressional Budget Office studies on policies 

involving changes in conditions of grant aid 

Section 3 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by requiring the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to perform, upon request by the Chair or Ranking Minority Member of a Standing 

Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, 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. 

Sec. 4. Clarifying the definition of direct costs to reflect Congressional Budget Office practice 

Section 4 amends the definition of ‘‘direct costs’’ in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to codify current CBO practice—calculating the costs state, local, and tribal governments ‘‘incur’’ as a result of mandates. The definitional change also ensures federal 

agencies account for private sector variables, such as future loss of 

business profits, costs passed onto consumers and other entities, 

and the private sector’s behavioral changes. 

Sec. 5. Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include 

regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies 

Section 5 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by requiring independent regulatory agencies to comply with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), with the exception 

of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Open Market Committee, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Sec. 6. Amendments to replace Office of Management and Budget 

with Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Section 6 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 by 

transferring responsibility for agency compliance with UMRA requirements from the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

Sec. 7. Applying substantive point of order to private sector mandates 

Sections 7 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by adding a point of order for legislative mandates that exceed the UMRA 

threshold with regard to the private sector, unless budgetary expenses are allocated. 

Sec. 8. Regulatory process and principles 

Section 8 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 by 

implementing a series of principles for all ‘‘regulatory actions’’ in 

accordance with the principles set out in Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563. Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by law, each 

agency must consider the effect of a potential regulation on state, 

local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Specifically, 

each agency must: 

1. Clearly identify the problem the regulation addresses and 

its significance; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
16 

2. Determine whether existing regulations should be modified to achieve the intended goal more effectively; 

3. Identify and assess alternatives to direct regulation, such 

as economic incentives; 

4. When a regulation is necessary, enact the regulation in 

the most cost-effective manner possible, considering total cost 

of compliance, innovation incentives, and other factors; 

5. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of a contemplated regulation and only promulgate a regulation if the benefits outweigh 

the costs; 

6. Base each regulatory decision on the best reasonably 

available data; 

7. Consider alternative forms of the regulation and show 

preference for performance-based regulations rather than prescriptive regulation; 

8. Avoid promulgating a regulation that duplicates or conflicts with an existing regulation; 

9. Author each regulation in a way that minimize its cumulative costs; and 

10. Draft each regulation in simple, easily understood language. 

This section also defines ‘‘regulatory action.’’ 

Sec. 9. Expanding the scope of statements to accompany significant 

regulatory actions 

Section 9 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to 

require federal agencies prepare a written statement, including 

several specific elements, before publishing a proposed or final rule 

that has an effect on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the 

private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. This section 

aligns UMRA with Section 3 of Executive Order 12866 by removing 

the words ‘‘adjusted annually for inflation’’ from the dollar threshold. 

The section also requires agencies to assess new private sector 

costs, such as lost future profits, costs passed onto consumers and 

other entities, and behavioral changes. 

Section 9 also requires agencies publish the previously described 

written statement within six months of promulgating a final rule 

if the rule was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking. 

This ensures agencies cannot avoid conducting the required analysis by foregoing a notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Sec. 10. Enhanced stakeholder consultation 

Section 10 extends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995’s 

existing requirement that agencies receive meaningful and timely 

input during the development of regulatory mandates from state, 

local, and tribal governments to include the private sector. This 

section codifies policies instructing agencies on how to effectuate 

this requirement: consultations occur early in the process; a variety 

of state, local, and private sector input is considered in computing 

costs and benefits; compliance costs are addressed during consultations; and input is solicited on alternative methods of compliance, 

flexibility, and whether the contemplated regulation will duplicate 

or conflict with similar law in other levels of government. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
17 

Sec. 11. New authorities and responsibilities for Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Section 11 requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to determine if an agency’s regulation, in which a 

written statement is required, is consistent with this bill and other 

laws, and does not conflict with other agencies’ policies or actions. 

If OIRA determines the agency has not met these requirements, 

OIRA must notify the agency and request compliance before the 

regulation is finalized. Section 11 also requires OIRA submit an 

annual report to Congress detailing agency compliance with sections 202 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Section 12. Retrospective analysis of existing federal regulations 

Section 12 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

to require each federal agency to conduct a retrospective analysis 

of an existing federal regulation, upon request by the Chair or 

Ranking Minority Member of a Standing or Select Committee of 

the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. The analysis 

must include: a copy of the regulation; the regulation’s continued 

necessity; the nature of comments or complaints received concerning the regulation; an explanation of the extent to which the 

mandate duplicates or conflicts with any other regulation or rule; 

a description of the degree to which technology or economic conditions have changed in the area affected by the federal regulation; 

analysis of retrospective direct costs and benefits, including any 

study conducted outside the Federal government; and litigation history challenging the regulation. 

Sec. 13. Expansion of judicial review 

Section 13 extends judicial review to determine an agency’s 

choice of least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome regulatory alternative. This section permits a court to stay, enjoin, or 

invalidate a rule if an agency fails to complete the required UMRA 

analysis or to adhere to its regulatory principles. 

Sec. 14. Reauthorization 

Section 14 reauthorizes funding for the Congressional Budget Office to complete its requirements under UMRA. 

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, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
18 

DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS

SEC. 202. (a) ASSISTANCE TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.—It shall be 

the primary duty and function of the Office to provide to the Committees on the Budget of both Houses information which will assist 

such committees in the discharge of all matters within their jurisdictions, including (1) information with respect to the budget, appropriation bills, and other bills authorizing or providing new budget authority or tax expenditures, (2) information with respect to 

revenues, receipts, estimated future revenues and receipts, and 

changing revenue conditions, and (3) such related information as 

such Committees may request. 

(b) ASSISTANCE TO COMMITTEES ON APPROPRIATIONS, WAYS AND

MEANS, AND FINANCE.—At the request of the Committee on Appropriations of either House, the Committee on Ways and Means of 

the House of Representatives, or the Committee on Finance of the 

Senate, the Office shall provide to such Committee any information 

which will assist it in the discharge of matters within its jurisdiction, including information described in clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a) and such related information as the Committee may request. 

(c) ASSISTANCE TO OTHER COMMITTEES AND MEMBERS.— 

(1) At the request of any other committee of the House of 

Representatives or the Senate or any joint committee of the 

Congress, the Office shall provide to such committee or joint 

committee any information compiled in carrying out clauses (1) 

and (2) of subsection (a), and, to the extent practicable, such 

additional information related to the foregoing as may be requested. 

(2) At the request of any committee of the Senate or the 

House of Representatives, the Office shall, to the extent practicable, consult with and assist such committee in analyzing 

the budgetary or financial impact of any proposed legislation 

that may have— 

(A) a significant budgetary impact on State, local, or 

tribal governments; 

(B) a significant financial impact on the private sector; 

or 

(C) a significant employment impact on the private sector. 

(3) At the request of any Member of the House or Senate, the 

Office shall provide to such member any information compiled 

in carrying out clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a), and, to the 

extent available, such additional information related to the 

foregoing as may be requested. 

(d) ASSIGNMENT OF OFFICE PERSONNEL TO COMMITTEES AND

JOINT COMMITTEES.—At the request of the Committee on the Budget of either House, personnel of the Office shall be assigned, on a 

temporary basis, to assist such committee. At the request of any 

other committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress, personnel of the Office may be assigned, on a temporary 

basis, to assist such committee or joint committee with respect to 

matters directly related to the applicable provisions of subsection 

(b) or (c). 

(e) REPORTS TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
19 

(1) On or before February 15 of each year, the Director shall 

submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a report for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year, with respect to fiscal policy, 

including (A) alternative levels of total revenues, total new 

budget authority, and total outlays (including related surpluses 

and deficits), (B) the levels of tax expenditures under existing 

law, taking into account projected economic factors and any 

changes in such levels based on proposals in the budget submitted by the President for such fiscal year, and (C) a statement of the levels of budget authority and outlays for each program assumed to be extended in the baseline, as provided in 

section 257(b)(2)(A) and for excise taxes assumed to be extended under section 257(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Such report shall also 

include a discussion of national budget priorities, including alternative ways of allocating new budget authority and budget 

outlays for such fiscal year among major programs or functional categories, taking into account how such alternative allocations will meet major national needs and affect balanced 

growth and development of the United States. 

(2) The Director shall from time to time submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate such further reports (including reports revising the report required by paragraph (1)) as may be necessary or appropriate to provide such Committees with information, data, and 

analyses for the performance of their duties and functions. 

(3) On or before January 15 of each year, the Director, after 

consultation with the appropriate committees of the House of 

Representatives and Senate, shall submit to the Congress a report listing (A) all programs and activities funded during the 

fiscal year ending September 30 of that calendar year for 

which authorizations for appropriations have not been enacted 

for that fiscal year, and (B) all programs and activities for 

which authorizations for appropriations have been enacted for 

the fiscal year ending September 30 of that calendar year, but 

for which no authorizations for appropriations have been enacted for the fiscal year beginning October 1 of that calendar 

year. 

(f) USE OF COMPUTERS AND OTHER TECHNIQUES.—The Director 

may equip the Office with up-to-date computer capability (upon approval of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of 

the Senate), obtain the services of experts and consultants in computer technology, and develop techniques for the evaluation of 

budgetary requirements. 

(g) STUDIES.— 

(1) CONTINUING STUDIES.—The Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office shall conduct continuing studies to enhance comparisons of budget outlays, credit authority, and tax expenditures. 

(2) FEDERAL MANDATE STUDIES.— (A) 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, to the extent pracVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
20 

ticable, conduct a study of a legislative proposal containing 

a Federal mandate. 

(B) In conducting a study on intergovernmental mandates under subparagraph (A), the Director shall— 

(i) solicit and consider information or comments 

from elected officials (including their designated representatives) of State, local, or tribal governments as 

may provide helpful information or comments; 

(ii) consider establishing advisory panels of elected 

officials or their designated representatives, of State, 

local, or tribal governments if the Director determines 

that such advisory panels would be helpful in performing responsibilities of the Director under this section; and 

(iii) if, and to the extent that the Director determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, 

include estimates of— 

(I) the future direct cost of the Federal mandate 

to the extent that such costs significantly differ 

from or extend beyond the 5-year period after the 

mandate is first effective; and 

(II) any disproportionate budgetary effects of 

Federal mandates upon particular industries or 

sectors of the economy, States, regions, and urban 

or rural or other types of communities, as appropriate. 

(C) In conducting a study on private sector mandates 

under subparagraph (A), the Director shall provide estimates, if and to the extent that the Director determines 

that such estimates are reasonably feasible, of— 

(i) future costs of Federal private sector mandates to 

the extent that such mandates differ significantly from 

or extend beyond the 5-year time period referred to in 

subparagraph (B)(iii)(I); 

(ii) any disproportionate financial effects of Federal 

private sector mandates and of any Federal financial 

assistance in the bill or joint resolution upon any particular industries or sectors of the economy, States, regions, and urban or rural or other types of communities; and 

(iii) the effect of Federal private sector mandates in 

the bill or joint resolution on the national economy, including the effect on productivity, economic growth, 

full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and 

services. 

(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 asVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
21 

sessment of an estimated level of funding compared to such 

costs. 

* * * * * * * 

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, the Federal Open Market Committee, or the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau. (2) AMOUNT.—The term ‘‘amount’’, with respect to an authorization of appropriations for Federal financial assistance, 

means the amount of budget authority for any Federal grant 

assistance program or any Federal program providing loan 

guarantees or direct loans. 

(3) DIRECT COSTS.—The term ‘‘direct costs’’— 

(A)(i) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental mandate, means the aggregate estimated amounts that all 

State, local, and tribal governments would incur or be required to spend or would be prohibited from raising in revenues in order to comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate; or 

(ii) in the case of a provision referred to in paragraph 

(5)(A)(ii), means the amount of Federal financial assistance 

eliminated or reduced; 

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

means the aggregate estimated amounts that the private 

sector will be required to spend 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; 

(C) shall be determined on the assumption that— 

(i) State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector will take all reasonable steps necessary to 

mitigate the costs resulting from the Federal mandate, 

and will comply with applicable standards of practice 

and conduct established by recognized professional or 

trade associations; and 

(ii) reasonable steps to mitigate the costs shall not 

include increases in State, local, or tribal taxes or fees; 

and 

(D) shall not include— 

(i) estimated amounts that the State, local, and tribal governments (in the case of a Federal intergovernmental mandate) or the private sector (in the case of 

a Federal private sector mandate) would spend— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
22 

(I) to comply with or carry out all applicable 

Federal, State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in effect at the time of the adoption of the 

Federal mandate for the same activity as is affected by that Federal mandate; or 

(II) to comply with or carry out State, local, and 

tribal governmental programs, or private-sector 

business or other activities in effect at the time of 

the adoption of the Federal mandate for the same 

activity as is affected by that mandate; or 

(ii) expenditures to the extent that such expenditures will be offset by any direct savings to the State, 

local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, 

as a result of— 

(I) compliance with the Federal mandate; or 

(II) other changes in Federal law or regulation 

that are enacted or adopted in the same bill or 

joint resolution or proposed or final Federal regulation and that govern the same activity as is affected by the Federal mandate. 

(4) DIRECT SAVINGS.—The term ‘‘direct savings’’, when used 

with respect to the result of compliance with the Federal mandate— 

(A) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental mandate, 

means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs to any 

State, local, or tribal government as a result of compliance 

with the Federal intergovernmental mandate; and 

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

means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs to the 

private sector as a result of compliance with the Federal 

private sector mandate. 

(5) FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATE.—The term 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ means— 

(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 

that— 

(i) would impose an enforceable duty upon State, 

local, or tribal governments, except— 

(I) a condition of Federal assistance; or 

(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program, except as provided in 

subparagraph (B); or 

(ii) would reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization of appropriations for— 

(I) Federal financial assistance that would be 

provided to State, local, or tribal governments for 

the purpose of complying with any such previously 

imposed duty unless such duty is reduced or eliminated by a corresponding amount; or 

(II) the control of borders by the Federal Government; or reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including 

court-mandated expenses related to emergency 

health care, education or criminal justice; when 

such a reduction or elimination would result in inVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
23 

creased net costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing education or emergency health 

care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens; except 

that this subclause shall not be in effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, to the 

extent that such government has not fully cooperated in the efforts of the Federal Government to 

locate, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens; 

(B) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 

that relates to a then-existing Federal program under 

which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 

local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority, 

if the provision— 

(i)(I) would increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance to State, local, or tribal governments under 

the program; or 

(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, 

the Federal Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding to State, local, or tribal governments under 

the program; and 

(ii) the State, local, or tribal governments that participate in the Federal program lack authority under 

that program to amend their financial or programmatic responsibilities to continue providing required services that are affected by the legislation, 

statute, or regulation. 

(6) FEDERAL MANDATE.—The term ‘‘Federal mandate’’ means 

a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate, as defined in paragraphs (5) and (7). 

(7) FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATE.—The term ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ means any provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that— 

(A) would impose an enforceable duty upon the private 

sector except— 

(i) a condition of Federal assistance; or 

(ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program; or 

(B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization of appropriations for Federal financial assistance that 

will be provided to the private sector for the purposes of 

ensuring compliance with such duty. 

(8) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘local government’’ has 

the same meaning as defined in section 6501(6) of title 31, 

United States Code. 

(9) PRIVATE SECTOR.—The term ‘‘private sector’’ means all 

persons or entities in the United States, including individuals, 

partnerships, associations, corporations, and educational and 

nonprofit institutions, but shall not include State, local, or tribal governments. 

(10) REGULATION; RULE.—The term ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ (except with respect to a rule of either House of the Congress) has 

the meaning of ‘‘rule’’ as defined in section 601(2) of title 5, 

United States Code. 

(11) SMALL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘small government’’ 

means any small governmental jurisdictions defined in section 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
24 

601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any tribal government. 

(12) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the same meaning as defined in section 6501(9) of title 31, United States Code. 

(13) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘tribal government’’ 

means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group 

or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional 

or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688; 43 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their special status as Indians. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 425. LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO POINT OF ORDER. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the 

House of Representatives to consider— 

(1) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a committee unless the committee has published a statement of the 

Director on the direct costs of Federal mandates in accordance 

with section 423(f) before such consideration, except this paragraph shall not apply to any supplemental statement prepared 

by the Director under section 424(d); and 

(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would increase the direct costs of 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) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report provides new budget authority or new entitlement authority in the House of Representatives or direct spending authority in the Senate for each fiscal year 

for such mandates included in the bill, joint resolution, 

amendment, motion, or conference report in an amount 

equal to or exceeding the direct costs of such mandate; or 

(B) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report includes an authorization for appropriations 

in an amount equal to or exceeding the direct costs of such 

mandate, and— 

(i) identifies a specific dollar amount of the direct 

costs of such mandate for each year up to 10 years 

during which such mandate shall be in effect under 

the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report, and such estimate is consistent with 

the estimate determined under subsection (e) for each 

fiscal year; 

(ii) identifies any appropriation bill that is expected 

to provide for Federal funding of the direct cost referred to under clause (i); and 

(iii)(I) provides that for any fiscal year the responsible Federal agency shall determine whether there 

are insufficient appropriations for that fiscal year to 

provide for the direct costs under clause (i) of such 

mandate, and shall (no later than 30 days after the 

beginning of the fiscal year) notify the appropriate auVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
25 

thorizing committees of Congress of the determination 

and submit either— 

(aa) a statement that the agency has determined, based on a re-estimate of the direct costs 

of such mandate, after consultation with State, 

local, and tribal governments, that the amount appropriated is sufficient to pay for the direct costs 

of such mandate; or 

(bb) legislative recommendations for either implementing a less costly mandate or making such 

mandate ineffective for the fiscal year; 

(II) provides for expedited procedures for the consideration of the statement or legislative recommendations referred to in subclause (I) by Congress no later 

than 30 days after the statement or recommendations 

are submitted to Congress; and 

(III) provides that such mandate shall— 

(aa) in the case of a statement referred to in 

subclause (I)(aa), cease to be effective 60 days 

after the statement is submitted unless Congress 

has approved the agency’s determination by joint 

resolution during the 60-day period; 

(bb) cease to be effective 60 days after the date 

the legislative recommendations of the responsible 

Federal agency are submitted to Congress under 

subclause (I)(bb) unless Congress provides otherwise by law; or 

(cc) in the case that such mandate that has not 

yet taken effect, continue not to be effective unless 

Congress provides otherwise by law. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The provisions of subsection 

(a)(2)(B)(iii) shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict 

a State, local, or tribal government from voluntarily electing to remain subject to the original Federal intergovernmental mandate, 

complying with the programmatic or financial responsibilities of 

the original Federal intergovernmental mandate and providing the 

funding necessary consistent with the costs of Federal agency assistance, monitoring, and enforcement. 

(c) COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.— 

(1) APPLICATION.—The provisions of subsection (a)— 

(A) shall not apply to any bill or resolution reported by 

the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or the 

House of Representatives; except 

(B) shall apply to— 

(i) any legislative provision increasing direct costs of 

a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in 

any bill or resolution reported by the Committee on 

Appropriations of the Senate or House of Representatives; 

(ii) any legislative provision increasing direct costs 

of a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in 

any amendment offered to a bill or resolution reported 

by the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or 

House of Representatives; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
26 

(iii) any legislative provision increasing direct costs 

of a Federal intergovernmental mandate in a conference report accompanying a bill or resolution reported by the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or House of Representatives; and 

(iv) any legislative provision increasing direct costs 

of a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in 

any amendments in disagreement between the two 

Houses to any bill or resolution reported by the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or House of 

Representatives. 

(2) CERTAIN PROVISIONS STRICKEN IN SENATE.—Upon a point 

of order being made by any Senator against any provision listed in paragraph (1)(B), and the point of order being sustained 

by the Chair, such specific provision shall be deemed stricken 

from the bill, resolution, amendment, amendment in disagreement, or conference report and may not be offered as an 

amendment from the floor. 

(d) DETERMINATIONS OF APPLICABILITY TO PENDING LEGISLA- TION.—For purposes of this section, in the Senate, the presiding officer of the Senate shall consult with the Committee on Governmental Affairs, to the extent practicable, on questions concerning 

the applicability of this part to a pending bill, joint resolution, 

amendment, motion, or conference report. 

(e) DETERMINATIONS OF FEDERAL MANDATE LEVELS.—For purposes of this section, in the Senate, the levels of Federal mandates 

for a fiscal year shall be determined based on the estimates made 

by the Committee on the Budget. 

* * * * * * * 

UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT OF 1995 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—LEGISLATIVE 

ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 103. COST OF REGULATIONS. 

(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress 

that Federal agencies should review and evaluate planned regulations to ensure that the cost estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office will be carefully considered as regulations are 

promulgated. 

(b) STATEMENT OF COST.—At the request of a committee chairman or ranking minority member, the Director shall, to the extent 

practicable, prepare a comparison between— 

(1) an estimate by the relevant agency, prepared under section 202 of this Act, of the costs of regulations implementing 

an Act containing a Federal mandate; and 

(2) the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget 

Office for such Act when it was enacted by the Congress. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
27 

(c) COOPERATION OF øOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET¿ OF- FICE 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). 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 109. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

øThere are authorized to be appropriated to the Congressional Budget Office $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out the provisions of this 

title.¿ 

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Congressional 

Budget Office $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2024 

to carry out the provisions of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

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. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
28 

(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. 

(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— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
29 

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; 

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 environVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
30 

ment, 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 

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. 

(8) An assessment of the effects that the proposed rulemaking 

or final rule are expected to have on private property owners, 

including the use and value of affected property. 

(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. 

(c) PREPARATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER STATEMENT.— Any agency may prepare any statement required under subsection 

(a) in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement or analysis, provided that the statement or analysis satisfies the provisions of subsection (a). 

* * * * * * * 

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. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
31 

(b) MEETINGS BETWEEN STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL AND FEDERAL OFFICERS.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall 

not apply to actions in support of intergovernmental communications where— 

(1) meetings are held exclusively between Federal officials 

and elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments (or 

their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and 

(2) such meetings are solely for the purposes of exchanging 

views, information, or advice relating to the management or 

implementation of Federal programs established pursuant to 

public law that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental responsibilities or administration. 

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. 

(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) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), before 

promulgating any rule for which a written statement is required 

under section 202, the agency shall identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and from those alternatives 

select the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, for— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
32 

(1) State, local, and tribal governments, in the case of a rule 

containing a Federal intergovernmental mandate; and 

(2) the private sector, in the case of a rule containing a Federal private sector mandate. 

(b) EXCEPTION.—The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply unless— 

(1) the head of the affected agency publishes with the final 

rule an explanation of why the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome method of achieving the objectives of the 

rule was not adopted; or 

(2) the provisions are inconsistent with law. 

(c) 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) collect from agencies the statements prepared under section 202; and 

(2) periodically forward copies of such statements to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office on a reasonably timely basis after promulgation of the general notice of proposed 

rulemaking or of the final rule for which the statement was 

prepared. 

* * * * * * * 

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 

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. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
33 

(b) ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON AGENCY COMPLI- ANCE.—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. 

* * * * * * * 

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 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
34 

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

(2) LIMITED REVIEW OF AGENCY COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLI- ANCE.—(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. 

(4) CERTAIN INFORMATION AS PART OF RECORD.—Any information generated under sections 202 and 203(a) (1) and (2) 

that is part of the rulemaking record for judicial review under 

the provisions of any other Federal law may be considered as 

part of the record for judicial review conducted under such 

other provisions of Federal law. 

(5) APPLICATION OF OTHER FEDERAL LAW.—For any petition 

under paragraph (2) the provisions of such other Federal law 

shall control all other matters, such as exhaustion of administrative remedies, the time for and manner of seeking review 

and venue, except that if such other Federal law does not provide a limitation on the time for filing a petition for judicial review that is less than 180 days, such limitation shall be 180 

days after a final rule is promulgated by the appropriate agency. 

(6) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect on October 1, 1995, and shall apply only to any agency rule for 

which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is promulgated 

on or after such date. 

(b) JUDICIAL REVIEW AND RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Except as 

provided in subsection (a)— 

(1) any estimate, analysis, statement, description or report 

prepared under this Act, and any compliance or noncompliance 

with the provisions of this Act, and any determination conVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
35 

cerning the applicability of the provisions of this Act shall not 

be subject to judicial review; and 

(2) no provision of this Act shall be construed to create any 

right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any 

person in any administrative or judicial action. 

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
36 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 41 HR798P1.003
37 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 42 HR798P1.004
38 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 43 HR798P1.005
39 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 44 HR798P1.006
40 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 45 HR798P1.007
41 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 46 HR798P1.008
(42) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 

Act of 2017, is significantly flawed. The bill would be an assault 

on the nation’s health, safety, and environmental protections, erect 

new barriers to unnecessarily slow down the regulatory process, 

and give regulated industries an unfair advantage to water down 

consumer protections. 

Section 5 of the bill would repeal federal law 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. 50 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 10 would require agencies to provide private sector entities with an advance opportunity to affect proposed regulations. It 

would require agencies to consult with private sector entities ‘‘as 

early as possible, before the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue through the final rule stage, and be integrated 

explicitly into the rulemaking process.’’ 

Committee Democrats agree that agencies should consult with 

regulated industries regarding proposed rules that are expected to 

impact those entities, but regulated industries should not receive 

an advantage in the rulemaking process over other stakeholders. 

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, ‘‘[a]t 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.’’ This provision would require agencies to 

divert resources toward conducting these analyses and away from 

fulfilling their missions. 

Section 13 would expand judicial review under UMRA and 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. UMRA currently prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin, invaliVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:03 Jun 30, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR798P1.XXX HR798P1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
43 

date, or otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change the law by eliminating this prohibition. This process 

could be abused by regulated industries taking agencies to court 

over regulations they view as unfavorable. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, 

Ranking Member. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS