H. Rept. 113-352 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)
February 14, 2014, As Reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 113-352 - UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013




[House Report 113-352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress  }                                       { Rept. 113-352
  2d Session    }       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        {        Part 1

=======================================================================

 
       UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013 

                                _______
                                

 February 14, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Issa, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 899]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 899) to provide for additional 
safeguards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     2
Section-by-Section...............................................     7
Explanation of Amendments........................................     9
Committee Consideration..........................................     9
Roll Call Votes..................................................    10
Correspondence...................................................    12
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    19
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    19
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    19
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    19
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    19
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    19
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    19
Earmark Identification...........................................    19
Committee Estimate...............................................    20
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...    20
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported.............    23
Minority Views...................................................    32

                     Committee Statement and Views


                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 was enacted 
to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress and 
federal agencies concerning the appropriateness of federal 
mandates and to ``retain competitive balance between the public 
and private sectors.''\1\ In accord with UMRA's original 
intent, H.R. 899 aims to improve the quality of Congressional 
deliberations and to enhance the ability of Congress, federal 
agencies, and the public to identify federal mandates that may 
impose undue harm on state, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector by providing more complete information about 
the cost of such mandates and by holding Congress and federal 
agencies accountable for imposing unfunded mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\2 U.S.C. Sec. 1501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    UMRA's enactment was celebrated as a major legislative 
accomplishment that would relieve much of the burden placed 
upon nonfederal entities by Congress and federal agencies 
through unfunded mandates.\2\ It has become apparent over time, 
however, that UMRA--despite its good intentions and noble 
purpose--failed to curtail substantially the imposition of 
unfunded mandates. The several loopholes, exemptions and 
exclusions embedded in the law are largely to blame. A 2005 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 
``[m]ost parties from the state and local governments, federal, 
business, and academic/think tank sectors vie[w] UMRA's narrow 
coverage as a major weakness that leaves out many federal 
actions with potentially significant financial impacts on 
nonfederal parties.''\3\ Interviewed parties agreed that UMRA's 
definitions, as well as exclusions and exemptions in the law 
that allow Congress and federal agencies to continue to place 
burdens upon state, local and tribal governments and private 
sector entities should be revisited.\4\ Multiple parties also 
informed GAO that the consultation process between agencies and 
affected nonfederal entities concerning regulatory mandates was 
inconsistent and in need of improvement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\CRS Report
    \3\Government Accountability Office (GAO), Unfunded Mandates: Views 
Vary About Reform Act's Strengths, Weaknesses, and Options for 
Improvement, GAO-05-454, Mar. 2005.
    \4\Id.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 899 is a product of a thorough examination of UMRA 
during the 112th Congress by the Subcommittee on Technology 
Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement 
Reform, chaired by Rep. James Lankford (R-OK). The Subcommittee 
examined the effectiveness of UMRA via three hearings featuring 
recognized experts on unfunded mandates, as well as 
representatives of states, localities and the private sector. 
Witnesses highlighted UMRA's narrow coverage, exemption and 
loopholes as serious flaws, and suggested that legislative 
remedies to the UMRA statute would make it a more effective 
instrument to reduce unfunded legislative and regulatory 
mandates. H.R. 899 enhances UMRA's utility as a tool to promote 
informed and deliberate decisions by Congress and federal 
agencies concerning the appropriateness of federal mandates. 
H.R. 899 accomplishes this in multiple ways.
    To bring awareness to federal mandates imposed on entities 
pursuant to a condition of grant aid, H.R. 899 allows a 
chairman or ranking member of any Congressional committee to 
request CBO conduct an assessment comparing the authorized 
level of funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective 
costs of carrying out any changes to a condition of federal 
assistance being imposed on state, local, or tribal governments 
participating in the federal assistance program. The National 
Conference of State Legislatures is among those entities 
advocating that more light be shed on the cost of implementing 
assistance programs such as No Child Left Behind programs and 
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant. Such 
programs impose significant costs on participating states, but 
are not considered unfunded mandates under UMRA. H.R. 899 does 
not expand the definition of what constitutes an unfunded 
mandate, but it does allow the cost of certain excluded 
programs to be assessed. This provision was crafted in 
consultation with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which 
advised the Committee on how best to provide information about 
conditions of grant aid without overburdening CBO.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See CBO letter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 899 amends the definition of ``direct costs'' in UMRA 
to ensure that federal agencies are accounting in their UMRA 
analyses for such costs of federal mandates as forgone business 
profits, costs passed onto consumers or other entities, and 
behavioral changes. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
Council testified to the Subcommittee that regulatory costs 
impacting prices, risk-taking, economic growth and employment 
need to be considered in agency cost estimates.\7\ CBO has 
stated that its own UMRA analyses already take these factors 
into account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II: Hearing 
Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. 
Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Raymond Keating, Chief 
Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To close one of UMRA's loopholes, H.R. 899 subjects 
independent regulatory agencies to the statute. Under current 
law, independent regulatory agencies, such as the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, the Securities Exchange 
Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Communications 
Commission, can impose significant costs and burdensome 
requirements with little meaningful accountability and 
oversight.
    In testimony before the Subcommittee, former OIRA 
Administrator Dudley recommended that UMRA be aligned with 
Executive Order 12866. She opined that the analytical 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 are a more effective 
mechanism for holding agencies accountable for the objectives 
expressed in UMRA.\8\ Moreover, former OIRA Administrator 
Sunstein wrote in previous scholarship that executive orders 
are not ``sufficient for real change;'' and ``a thoroughgoing 
reform effort would require legislative reforms, not merely 
executive action.''\9\ To ensure that agencies regulate 
responsibly, H.R. 899 codifies most of those regulatory 
principles outlined in Executive Order 12866, and reaffirmed in 
Executive Order 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 
and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 
112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW 
Regulatory Studies).
    \9\Robert W. Hahn & Cass R. Sunstein, A New Executive Order for 
Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis, 
150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1489 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To close another loophole in UMRA, H.R. 899 no longer 
allows an agency to forego UMRA analyses simply because the 
agency publishes a rule without first issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. GAO has found that nearly half of final 
rules are not first published in the Federal Register as a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Currently, rules that do have a 
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register qualify 
for an automatic UMRA exemption.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\U.S. General Accountability Office, Federal Rulemaking: 
Agencies Often Published Final Action Without Proposed Rules, August 
31, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To put the private sector on equal footing with the public 
sector, H.R. 899 requires agencies to consult with regulated 
private sector entities during the development of significant 
federal regulatory mandates. This consultation requirement now 
applies only with respect to state, local, and tribal 
governments. Existing OIRA guidelines on agency execution of 
this requirement are codified in H.R. 899 and OIRA is required 
to include an Appendix detailing agency consultation activities 
with state, local, and tribal governments and the private 
sector in its annual report to Congress on agency compliance 
with UMRA. This will help remedy what the National Conference 
of State Legislatures has described as a ``haphazard'' 
consultation process.\11\ For example, OIRA previously included 
an appendix in its annual report to Congress, which provided 
examples of agency consultation with state and local 
governments.\12\ However, in recent years, the annual report 
has ceased to include any evidence concerning how consultation 
is being carried out.\13\ In response to a July 2011 inquiry 
from the Subcommittee, OIRA conceded it had unilaterally 
decided to remove the appendix, even though this arguably 
constituted a failure to satisfy its current-law reporting 
requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\National Conference of State Legislatures, Policy Position on 
Federal Mandate Relief, effective through August 2011, available at 
http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabID=773&tabs= 
855,20,632#FederalMandate.
    \12\U.S. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, 2008 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits 
of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 
Entities, January 2009.
    \13\U.S. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Report to Congress on the 
Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on 
State, Local, and Tribal Entities, 2009, 2010, 2011.
    \14\Cass Sunstein email response to Chairman Lankford (July 22, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To ensure that meaningful oversight over unfunded 
regulatory mandates is enabled and remains consistent with 
other regulatory oversight, H.R. 899 formally transfers 
responsibilities from the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OMB has long 
delegated its responsibilities under UMRA to OIRA.\15\ H.R. 899 
would cement that relationship, while also extending OIRA's 
role beyond certifying and reporting on agency regulatory 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 
and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 
112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW 
Regulatory Studies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To ensure that agencies continue the ``look back'' process, 
H.R. 899 also allows a chairman or ranking member of any 
congressional committee to request any agency conduct a 
retrospective analysis of an existing federal regulatory 
mandate. The retrospective analysis provision aims to educate 
Congress about the impact of a rule after it has been in 
effect. It will incentivize agencies to perform a proper 
analysis when first proposing regulations. Before the 
Subcommittee, GAO testified that parties they interviewed 
advocated for an evaluation of existing rules to better assess 
the effectiveness of UMRA.\16\ The Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Council's testimony supported an after the 
fact evaluation of the effectiveness and the true cost of 
existing regulations and mandates.\17\ President Obama has also 
stated that each agency, ``should periodically review its 
existing significant regulations to determine whether any such 
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 
repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective 
or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory 
objectives.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 
and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 
112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Denise Fantone, Government 
Accountability Office).
    \17\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II: Hearing 
Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. 
Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Raymond Keating, Chief 
Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council).
    \18\See, Cass Sunstein, Memo for the Heads of Executive Departments 
and Agencies, and of Independent Regulatory Agencies re. Executive 
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (February 
2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To enhance accountability, H.R. 899 extends judicial review 
to the selection of the least costly or least burdensome 
regulatory alternative, and to the principles of Executive 
Order 12866. In her testimony, former OIRA Administrator Dudley 
advocated for expanding judicial review in this way to give 
agencies a greater incentive to carefully consider the ``least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative'' 
when regulating.\19\ The Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
Council testified that the current judicial review provision 
included in UMRA ``lacks teeth'' and ``offers no real 
incentives to challenge agencies or for agencies to deal more 
legitimately with UMRA requirements.''\20\ Further, former OIRA 
Administrator Sunstein wrote in previous scholarship that 
materials generated under executive order should be subject to 
judicial review to the extent that they are relevant to an 
agency's decision under the relevant statute. He noted this 
would only ``slightly comprom[ise] the interests of the 
Executive in favor of the interests of the public as a 
whole.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 
and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 
112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW 
Regulatory Studies).
    \20\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II: Hearing 
Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. 
Reform, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Raymond Keating, Chief 
Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council).
    \21\Robert W. Hahn & Cass R. Sunstein, A New Executive Order for 
Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis, 
150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1489 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, H.R. 899 makes reforms addressing key deficiencies 
in the law identified by experts and regulated entities.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act of 2013, was introduced on February 28, 2013 
by Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC) and referred to the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. The bill was also referred to 
the Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On July 24, 2013, the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform marked-up H.R. 899 and it was 
favorably reported out of Committee.
    Prior to the 113th Congress, similar bills to H.R. 899 were 
introduced to reform UMRA. In the 110th Congress, 
Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced H.R. 6964, the 
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2008, to 
subject more unfunded mandates to UMRA and enhance reporting 
requirements. In the 111th Congress, Representative Foxx and 
Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced H.R. 2255, the 
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2009, and 
H.R. 5818, the Mandate Prevention Act of 2010, respectively. 
H.R. 2255 was a reintroduction of H.R. 6964, and H.R. 5818 
allowed a point of order to be raised if a private sector 
mandate exceeded the UMRA threshold.
    In the 112th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 
373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2011, which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, and subsequently, the Subcommittee on 
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and 
Procurement Reform. The Subcommittee on Technology, Information 
Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, 
chaired by Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), examined the 
effectiveness of UMRA via three hearings featuring recognized 
experts on unfunded mandates, as well as representatives of 
states, localities and the private sector. These witnesses 
highlighted UMRA's narrow coverage, exemptions and loopholes as 
serious flaws, and suggested that legislative remedies to the 
UMRA statute would make it a more effective instrument to 
reduce unfunded legislative and regulatory mandates.
    On February 15, 2011, at a hearing entitled, ``Unfunded 
Mandates and Regulatory Overreach,'' the Subcommittee heard 
testimony from former Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Susan Dudley; GAO Director Denise 
Fantone; the Mayor of Edmond, Oklahoma, Patrice Douglas; and 
Fairfax County, Virginia County Executive, Anthony Griffin. At 
the hearing, Subcommittee Ranking Member Gerald Connolly (D-VA) 
recognized that UMRA ``did not fully stem the tide of unfunded 
mandates'' because it was ``written in a manner that exempted 
bills that imposed significant costs on localities.''\22\ Full 
Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) asked the Mayor 
of Edmond, ``What can the federal government do to help locals 
to plan better with regard to so-called unfunded 
mandates?''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 
and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 
112th Congress (2011) (statement of Rep. Gerald Connolly).
    \23\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 
and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 
112th Congress (2011) (statement of Ranking Member Elijah Cummings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 30, 2011, at a hearing entitled, ``Unfunded 
Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part II,'' the Subcommittee 
heard testimony from South Dakota State Senator Joni Cutler; 
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Chief Economist 
Raymond Keating; and the Founder and CEO of the Small Business 
Majority, John Arensmeyer. These witnesses testified about the 
impact of unfunded mandates on states and small businesses and 
suggested possible reforms to UMRA.
    On May 25, 2011, at a hearing entitled, ``Unfunded 
Mandates, Regulatory Burdens and the Role of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs,'' the Subcommittee heard 
testimony from OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein about the Obama 
Administration's efforts to reform the regulatory system 
through executive order. This included what the Obama 
Administration views as an unprecedented ``look back'' at 
regulations to identify those that may be outdated, 
unnecessary, or duplicative, in order to pave the way for 
efforts to repeal, modify, or streamline them. Administrator 
Sunstein also testified about UMRA's applicability to the 
public and the private sector.
    After a thorough examination of UMRA through these 
hearings, Subcommittee Chairman Lankford held a markup on 
September 21, 2011, in the Subcommittee on Technology, 
Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement 
Reform, at which time H.R. 373 was reported with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The bill was then reported from 
the full Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with 
another amendment in the nature of a substitute.

                           Section-by-Section


Section 1: Short title

    Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2013

Section 2: Purpose

    The purpose of this legislation is to improve the quality 
of deliberations of Congress with respect to proposed federal 
mandates and to enhance the ability of Congress and the public 
to identify federal mandates that may impose undue harm on 
consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and state, 
local, and tribal governments by providing Congress and the 
public more complete information about the effects of such 
mandates.

Section 3: Providing for Congressional Budget Office studies on 
        policies involving changes in conditions of grant aid

    Provides for a Committee chairman or ranking member to 
request that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) perform an 
assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill 
or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any 
changes to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on 
state, local, or tribal governments.

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

    Amends the definition of ``direct costs'' to codify current 
CBO practice and ensures that federal agencies account for the 
costs of federal mandates, such as forgone business profits, 
costs passed onto consumers and other entities, and behavioral 
changes.

Section 5: Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include 
        regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies

    Requires independent regulatory agencies to comply with 
UMRA with the exception of the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee.

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

    Transfers responsibility for ensuring agency compliance 
with UMRA from the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to the Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

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

    Subjects to a point of order a private sector legislative 
mandate exceeding the UMRA threshold ($146 million in 2012).

Section 8: Regulatory process and principles

    Clarifies that agencies must conduct UMRA analyses unless a 
law ``expressly'' prohibits them from doing so; requires 
agencies to adhere to the principles of regulation in Section 1 
of Executive Order 12866 and reaffirmed in Executive Order 
13563 when conducting regulatory actions; defines ``regulatory 
action'' as ``any substantive action by an agency (normally 
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is 
expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or 
regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking 
and notices of proposed rulemaking.''

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

    Requires federal agencies to measure a proposed or final 
rule's annual effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or 
on the private sector, if the rule may result in an effect of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year. This language aligns UMRA 
with Executive Order 12866 and requires agencies to assess such 
costs as forgone profits, costs passed onto consumers and other 
entities, and behavioral changes.
    Closes an existing loophole allowing agencies to forego 
UMRA analyses of a final rule that is not preceded by a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). If a NPRM is not issued, the 
agency must conduct an UMRA analysis before promulgating the 
final rule or within six months after promulgating the final 
rule.
    Further aligns UMRA with Executive Order 12866 by removing 
the words ``adjusted annually for inflation'' when determining 
the threshold for UMRA analysis, and by adopting cost-benefit 
analysis requirements.
    Requires that the descriptions and summaries an agency must 
complete under UMRA be ``detailed.''

Section 10: Enhanced stakeholder consultation

    The existing requirement in UMRA that agencies receive 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
mandates from state, local, and tribal governments is extended 
to include private sector input. OIRA policies instructing 
agencies how to execute this requirement are codified.

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

    Gives OIRA oversight responsibility for determining whether 
agencies have drafted their regulations in accordance with the 
regulatory principles adopted in this bill, and whether cost-
benefit analyses are performed adequately. If OIRA determines 
the agency has not met these requirements, OIRA is to notify 
the agency and request compliance before a regulation is 
finalized.
    Requires OIRA include in its annual report to Congress an 
appendix detailing agency compliance with UMRA's requirement 
for consultation with state, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector.

Section 12: Retrospective analysis of existing Federal regulations

    Requires federal agencies to conduct a retrospective 
analysis of an existing federal regulation at the request of a 
Committee chairman or ranking minority member. It is to be 
submitted to the requesting member and to Congress, and is to 
include: a copy of the federal regulation; the continued need 
for the federal regulation; the nature and comments or 
complaints received concerning the federal regulation; an 
explanation of the extent to which the mandate may duplicate 
another federal regulation; a description of the degree to 
which technology or economic conditions have changed in the 
area affecting the federal regulation; an analysis of the 
retrospective costs and benefits of the federal regulation that 
considers studies done outside the government; and a history of 
legal challenges to the federal regulation.

Section 13: Expansion of judicial review

    Extends judicial review to an agency's selection of the 
least costly/least burdensome regulatory alternative, and 
permits a court to stay, enjoin, or invalidate a rule if an 
agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis or to 
adhere to the regulatory principles.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    No amendments were adopted.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 24, 2013 the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 899, by roll call 
vote, a quorum being present.

                            Roll Call Votes

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

              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     113TH CONGRESS--RATIO (23-18)

                               ROLL CALL

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

Vote on: H.R. 899--amendment (#2) Connolly--regarding treatment of 
        corporations and individuals

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Republicans               Aye       No     Present        Democrats         Aye       No     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Issa (CA) (Chairman).........  .......       X   .........  Mr. Cummings (MD)         X   .......  .........
                                                                 (Ranking).
Mr. Mica (FL)....................  .......       X   .........  Mrs. Maloney (NY)..       X   .......  .........
Mr. Turner (OH)..................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Norton (DC)....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Duncan (TN)..................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Tierney (MA)...       X   .......  .........
Mr. McHenry (NC).................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Clay (MO)......       X   .......  .........
Mr. Jordan (OH)..................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Lynch (MA).....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Cooper (TN)....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Walberg (MI).................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Connolly (VA)..       X   .......  .........
Mr. Lankford (OK)................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Speier (CA)....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Amash (MI)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Cartwright (PA)       X   .......  .........
Dr. Gosar (AZ)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Pocan (WI).....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Meehan (PA)..................  .......       X   .........  Mrs. Duckworth (IL)       X   .......  .........
Dr. DesJarlais (TN)..............  .......       X   .........  Ms. Kelly (IL).....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Gowdy (SC)...................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Davis (IL).....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Farenthold (TX)..............  .......       X   .........  Mr. Welch (VT).....       X   .......  .........
Mr. Hastings (WA)................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Cardenas (CA)..       X   .......  .........
Mrs. Lummis (WY).................  .......       X   .........  Mr. Horsford (NV)..  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Woodall (GA).................  .......       X   .........  Ms. Lujan Grisham         X   .......  .........
                                                                 (NM).
Mr. Massie (KY)..................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Collins (GA).................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Meadows (NC).................  .......       X   .........
Mr. Bentivolio (MI)..............  .......       X   .........
Mr. DeSantis (FL)................  .......       X   .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Roll Call Totals: Ayes 17; Nays 22. Voice Vote: Failed X.
    [Quorum to bring up bill = 14; Quorum to report bill = 21]

              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     113TH CONGRESS--RATIO (23-18)

                               ROLL CALL

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

Vote on: H.R. 899--Final passage

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Republicans               Aye       No     Present        Democrats         Aye       No     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Issa (CA) (Chairman).........       X   .......  .........  Mr. Cummings (MD)    .......       X   .........
                                                                 (Ranking).
Mr. Mica (FL)....................       X   .......  .........  Mrs. Maloney (NY)..  .......       X   .........
Mr. Turner (OH)..................       X   .......  .........  Ms. Norton (DC)....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Duncan (TN)..................  .......  .......  .........  Mr. Tierney (MA)...  .......       X   .........
Mr. McHenry (NC).................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Clay (MO)......  .......       X   .........
Mr. Jordan (OH)..................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Lynch (MA).....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Cooper (TN)....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Walberg (MI).................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Connolly (VA)..  .......       X   .........
Mr. Lankford (OK)................       X   .......  .........  Ms. Speier (CA)....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Amash (MI)...................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Cartwright (PA)  .......       X   .........
Dr. Gosar (AZ)...................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Pocan (WI).....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Meehan (PA)..................       X   .......  .........  Mrs. Duckworth (IL)  .......       X   .........
Dr. DesJarlais (TN)..............       X   .......  .........  Ms. Kelly (IL).....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Gowdy (SC)...................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Davis (IL).....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Farenthold (TX)..............       X   .......  .........  Mr. Welch (VT).....  .......       X   .........
Mr. Hastings (WA)................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Cardenas (CA)..  .......       X   .........
Mrs. Lummis (WY).................       X   .......  .........  Mr. Horsford (NV)..  .......  .......  .........
Mr. Woodall (GA).................       X   .......  .........  Ms. Lujan Grisham    .......       X   .........
                                                                 (NM).
Mr. Massie (KY)..................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Collins (GA).................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Meadows (NC).................       X   .......  .........
Mr. Bentivolio (MI)..............       X   .......  .........
Mr. DeSantis (FL)................       X   .......  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Roll Call Totals: Ayes 22; Nays 17. Voice Vote: Passed.
    [Quorum to bring up bill = 14; Quorum to report bill = 21]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill enhances UMRA's utility as a tool to promote informed 
and deliberate decisions by Congress and federal agencies 
concerning the appropriateness of federal mandates. As such 
this bill does not relate to employment or access to public 
services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions 
of this report.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 899 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 899 does not 
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the 
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to 
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has 
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included 
herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 899 does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 899. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that 
this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included 
in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for H.R. 899 from the Director of 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, August 1, 2013.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman , Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman:
    The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed 
cost estimate for H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information 
and Transparency Act of 2013.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Ramirez-
Branum.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 899--Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2013

    Summary: H.R. 899 would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (UMRA) to increase the information available to the 
Congress and the public with respect to federal mandates 
contained in proposed legislation and federal regulations. 
Enacting this legislation would codify in UMRA many practices 
currently required of most federal agencies when analyzing the 
potential impact of regulations. The bill also would require 
independent regulatory agencies to perform broad analyses 
(including costs and benefits) of regulations by requiring 
those agencies to comply with standards established in UMRA 
relating to the rulemaking process.
    The legislation would amend the Congressional Budget Act to 
establish a point of order, which a Member of Congress may 
raise, against legislation that creates a private-sector 
mandate with costs above the threshold established in UMRA.\24\ 
In addition, the legislation would require CBO to conduct 
assessments of costs to state, local, and tribal governments 
resulting from any changes to conditions of certain federal 
assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\The intergovernmental and private-sector thresholds established 
in UMRA were $50 million and $100 million, respectively in 1996, 
adjusted annually for inflation. In 2013, the thresholds are $75 
million for intergovernmental mandates and $150 million for private-
sector mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO estimates that the new requirements placed on 
independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), would require additional 
resources to carry out. Expenses of the FDIC are classified as 
direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 
Because costs incurred by the FDIC would be offset by premiums 
collected from insured depository institutions, CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 899 would result in no net effect on direct 
spending over the 2014-2023 period. Assuming the appropriation 
of necessary amounts, the legislation also would have a 
discretionary cost of $4 million over the 2014-2018 period, CBO 
estimates.
    CBO expects that several independent agencies would 
increase fees to offset the costs of implementing the 
additional regulatory activities required by the bill; thus, 
H.R 899 would increase the costs of existing mandates on public 
and private-sector entities that would be required to pay those 
fees. Based on information from the affected agencies, CBO 
estimates that the additional costs of those mandates would be 
small and would fall well below the annual thresholds 
established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector 
mandates.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 899 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 
(advancement of commerce) and other budget functions that 
contain spending for salaries and expenses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2014      2015      2016      2017      2018    2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONa

Estimated Authorization Level......................         *         1         1         1         1          4
Estimated Outlays..................................         *         1         1         1         1         4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
aCBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 899 would result in additional direct spending totaling less than
  $500,000 annually. Because we expect FDIC premiums to increase to cover those costs, we estimate that net
  direct spending would not be significant.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
legislation will be enacted late in 2013, that fees and 
premiums will be levied to cover the additional administrative 
costs incurred by some regulatory agencies, that the necessary 
amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal 
year, and that spending patterns will follow historical 
patterns for regulatory analysis activities.
    H.R. 899 would amend UMRA to codify certain practices 
currently required under several executive orders, including 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. (Those instructions require 
agencies in the executive branch to analyze the effects of 
regulations on state, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. For significant rules with an estimated annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, agencies must 
prepare detailed cost-benefit analyses.) The legislation also 
would codify Executive Order 13579 and remove a provision in 
current law that exempts independent regulatory agencies, such 
as the FDIC, from complying with standards established in UMRA 
relating to the rulemaking process. Based on information from 
several agencies, CBO expects that the new requirements would 
increase the workload of independent regulatory agencies, 
requiring them to devote more resources to prepare broader 
analyses of regulations and to support judicial reviews and 
hearings pertaining to agency regulations.
    Spending subject to appropriation: To meet the regulatory 
standards established in H.R. 899, CBO estimates that at least 
12 independent regulatory agencies would face an increased 
workload and would eventually incur annual costs of about 
$500,000, on average, per agency. We expect that it would take 
a few years to reach that level of effort, resulting in gross 
costs of $18 million over the 2014-2018 period. Under current 
law, four of those agencies, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, are authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset 
their appropriation each year. CBO assumes that future 
appropriations would direct agencies to exercise that 
authority. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 
have a net discretionary cost of $1 million in 2014 and $4 
million over the 2014-2018 period, subject to the availability 
of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 899 also would require CBO, at the request of any 
Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a committee, to conduct 
an assessment of costs to state, local, and tribal governments 
resulting from any changes to conditions of federal assistance 
programs. CBO estimates that the costs to conduct any one such 
an assessment would probably not be significant; however, a 
sizable number of assessments prepared in any given year would 
increase administrative costs. Any such costs would be subject 
to the availability of appropriated funds.
    Direct spending: CBO also estimates that the FDIC would 
incur additional costs totaling less than $500,000 annually to 
implement H.R. 899. FDIC has the authority to collect premiums 
from insured depository institutions to support administrative 
expenses; therefore, CBO estimates that those increased costs 
would be offset over the over the 2014-23 period.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. Expenses of the FDIC are classified as direct 
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because 
costs incurred by the FDIC would be offset by premiums 
collected from insured depository institutions CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 899 would result in no net effect on direct 
spending over the 2014-2023 period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 899 would 
increase the costs of existing mandates on public and private 
entities that are required to pay fees assessed by certain 
independent agencies. The bill would expand the scope of 
analyses that independent agencies are required to conduct when 
they issue regulations. Some of those independent agencies are 
authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of 
their regulatory activities. Because we expect some of those 
agencies to increase fees to offset the costs of their 
additional regulatory activities, the bill would increase the 
costs of existing mandates by requiring public and private 
entities to pay higher fees.
    Based on information from the independent agencies, the 
cost of implementing the additional regulatory activities would 
not be significant. Therefore, CBO estimates that any 
additional costs would be small and would fall well below the 
annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and 
private-sector mandates ($75 million and $150 million in 2013 
respectively, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Daniel Hoople, Marin 
Burnett, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, and Susan Willie; Impact on 
State, local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle; 
Impact on the private sector: Marin Burnett.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE II--CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                          DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS

  Sec. 202. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Studies.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Additional studies.--At the request of any 
        Chairman or ranking member of the minority of a 
        Committee of the Senate or the House of 
        Representatives, the Director shall conduct an 
        assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in 
        a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of 
        carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal 
        assistance being imposed on State, local, or tribal 
        governments participating in the Federal assistance 
        program concerned or, in the case of a bill or joint 
        resolution that authorizes such sums as are necessary, 
        an assessment of an estimated level of funding compared 
        to such costs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE FISCAL PROCEDURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Part B--Federal Mandates

SEC. 421. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this part:
          (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the same meaning 
        as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States 
        Code[, but does not include independent regulatory 
        agencies], except it does not include the Board of 
        Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal 
        Open Market Committee.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Direct costs.--The term ``direct costs''--
                  (A)(i) in the case of a Federal 
                intergovernmental mandate, means the aggregate 
                estimated amounts that all State, local, and 
                tribal governments would incur or be required 
                to spend or would be prohibited from raising in 
                revenues in order to comply with the Federal 
                intergovernmental mandate; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (B) in the case of a Federal private sector 
                mandate, means the aggregate estimated amounts 
                that the private sector will be required to 
                spend or could forgo in profits, including 
                costs passed on to consumers or other entities 
                taking into account, to the extent practicable, 
                behavioral changes, in order to comply with the 
                Federal private sector mandate;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 425. LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO POINT OF ORDER.

  (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or 
the House of Representatives to consider--
          (1) * * *
          (2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
        conference report that would increase the direct costs 
        of [Federal intergovernmental mandates] Federal 
        mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds 
        specified in section 424(a)(1) or 424(b)(1) to be 
        exceeded, unless--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT OF 1995

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. COST OF REGULATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Cooperation of [Office of Management and Budget] Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs.--At the request of the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the [Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget] Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide data 
and cost estimates for regulations implementing an Act 
containing a Federal mandate covered by part B of title IV of 
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(as added by section 101 of this Act).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

[SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS.

  [Each agency shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, 
assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, 
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other 
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
requirements specifically set forth in law).]

SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

  (a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise 
expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector (other than to the extent that such 
regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set 
forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
          (1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it 
        intends to address (including, if applicable, the 
        failures of private markets or public institutions that 
        warrant new agency action) as well as assess the 
        significance of that problem.
          (2) Each agency shall examine whether existing 
        regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed 
        to, the problem that a new regulation is intended to 
        correct and whether those regulations (or other law) 
        should be modified to achieve the intended goal of 
        regulation more effectively.
          (3) Each agency shall identify and assess available 
        alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
        economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, 
        such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
        information upon which choices can be made by the 
        public.
          (4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the 
        best available method of achieving the regulatory 
        objective, it shall design its regulations in the most 
        cost-effective manner to achieve the regulatory 
        objective. In doing so, each agency shall consider 
        incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, 
        the costs of enforcement and compliance (to the 
        government, regulated entities, and the public), 
        flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
          (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.

  [(a) In General.--Unless otherwise prohibited by law, before 
promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is 
likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any 
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final 
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement 
containing--
          [(1) an identification of the provision of Federal 
        law under which the rule is being promulgated;
          [(2) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the 
        anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate, 
        including the costs and benefits to State, local, and 
        tribal governments or the private sector, as well as 
        the effect of the Federal mandate on health, safety, 
        and the natural environment and such an assessment 
        shall include--
                  [(A) an analysis of the extent to which such 
                costs to State, local, and tribal governments 
                may be paid with Federal financial assistance 
                (or otherwise paid for by the Federal 
                Government); and
                  [(B) the extent to which there are available 
                Federal resources to carry out the 
                intergovernmental mandate;
          [(3) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent 
        that the agency determines that accurate estimates are 
        reasonably feasible, of--
                  [(A) the future compliance costs of the 
                Federal mandate; and
                  [(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects 
                of the Federal mandate upon any particular 
                regions of the nation or particular State, 
                local, or tribal governments, urban or rural or 
                other types of communities, or particular 
                segments of the private sector;
          [(4) estimates by the agency of the effect on the 
        national economy, such as the effect on productivity, 
        economic growth, full employment, creation of 
        productive jobs, and international competitiveness of 
        United States goods and services, if and to the extent 
        that the agency in its sole discretion determines that 
        accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that 
        such effect is relevant and material; and
          [(5)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's 
        prior consultation with elected representatives (under 
        section 204) of the affected State, local, and tribal 
        governments;
          [(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were 
        presented by State, local, or tribal governments either 
        orally or in writing to the agency; and
          [(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those 
        comments and concerns.]
  (a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by 
law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed 
rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after 
promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a general 
notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed rulemaking or 
final rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in an 
annual effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, in the aggregate of $100,000,000 or more in any 
1 year, the agency shall prepare a written statement containing 
the following:
          (1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or 
        final rule, together with a reasonably detailed 
        description of the need for the proposed rulemaking or 
        final rule and an explanation of how the proposed 
        rulemaking or final rule will meet that need.
          (2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits 
        of the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an 
        explanation of the manner in which the proposed 
        rulemaking or final rule is consistent with a statutory 
        requirement and avoids undue interference with State, 
        local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their 
        governmental functions.
          (3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, 
        including the underlying analysis, of benefits 
        anticipated from the proposed rulemaking or final rule 
        (such as the promotion of the efficient functioning of 
        the economy and private markets, the enhancement of 
        health and safety, the protection of the natural 
        environment, and the elimination or reduction of 
        discrimination or bias).
          (4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, 
        including the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated 
        from the proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the 
        direct costs both to the Government in administering 
        the final rule and to businesses and others in 
        complying with the final rule, and any adverse effects 
        on the efficient functioning of the economy, private 
        markets (including productivity, employment, and 
        international competitiveness), health, safety, and the 
        natural environment);
          (5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent 
        that the agency determines that accurate estimates are 
        reasonably feasible, of--
                  (A) the future compliance costs of the 
                Federal mandate; and
                  (B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of 
                the Federal mandate upon any particular regions 
                of the Nation or particular State, local, or 
                tribal governments, urban or rural or other 
                types of communities, or particular segments of 
                the private sector.
          (6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the 
        agency's prior consultation with the private sector and 
        elected representatives (under section 204) of the 
        affected State, local, and tribal governments.
          (B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns 
        that were presented by the private sector and State, 
        local, or tribal governments either orally or in 
        writing to the agency.
          (C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of 
        those comments and concerns.
          (7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied 
        with each of the regulatory principles described in 
        section 201.
  (b) Promulgation.--In promulgating a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which a statement under 
subsection (a) is required, the agency shall include in the 
promulgation a detailed summary of the information contained in 
the statement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR INPUT.

  (a) In General.--Each agency shall, to the extent permitted 
in law, develop an effective process to permit elected officers 
of State, local, and tribal governments (or their designated 
employees with authority to act on their behalf), and impacted 
parties within the private sector (including small business), 
to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of 
regulatory proposals containing significant [Federal 
intergovernmental mandates] Federal mandates.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) [OMB] Certification.--No later than 1 year after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the [Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget] 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 [Director of the Office of Management and Budget] 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs shall--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 208. ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE.

  [No later than 1 year after the effective date of this title 
and annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget shall submit to the Congress, including 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
Representatives, a written report detailing compliance by each 
agency during the preceding reporting period with the 
requirements of this title.]

SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                    RESPONSIBILITIES.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs 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.
  (b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--The 
Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
annually shall submit to Congress, including the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House 
of Representatives, a written report detailing compliance by 
each agency with the requirements of this title that relate to 
regulations for which a written statement is required by 
section 202, including activities undertaken at the request of 
the Director to improve compliance, during the preceding 
reporting period. The report shall also contain an appendix 
detailing compliance by each agency with section 204.

SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

  (a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or ranking 
minority member of a standing or select committee of the House 
of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall conduct a 
retrospective analysis of an existing Federal regulation 
promulgated by an agency.
  (b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective analysis 
of existing Federal regulations pursuant to subsection (a) 
shall submit to the chairman of the relevant committee, 
Congress, and the Comptroller General a report containing, with 
respect to each Federal regulation covered by the analysis--
          (1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
          (2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
          (3) the nature of comments or complaints received 
        concerning the Federal regulation from the public since 
        the Federal regulation was promulgated;
          (4) the extent to which the Federal regulation 
        overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal 
        regulations, and, to the extent feasible, with State 
        and local governmental rules;
          (5) the degree to which technology, economic 
        conditions, or other factors have changed in the area 
        affected by the Federal regulation;
          (6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct 
        costs and benefits of the Federal regulation that 
        considers studies done outside the Federal Government 
        (if any) estimating such costs or benefits; and
          (7) any litigation history challenging the Federal 
        regulation.

SEC. [209.] 210. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

  (a) Agency Statements on Significant Regulatory Actions.--
          (1) In general.--Compliance or noncompliance by any 
        agency with the provisions of [sections 202 and 
        203(a)(1) and (2)] sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1) and 
        (2), and 205(a) and (b) shall be subject to judicial 
        review [only] in accordance with this section.
          (2) Limited review of agency compliance or 
        noncompliance.--(A) Agency compliance or noncompliance 
        with the provisions of [sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and 
        (2)] sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1) and (2), and 205(a) 
        and (b) shall be subject to judicial review [only] 
        under section 706(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
        and [only] as provided under subparagraph (B).
          (B) If an agency fails to prepare the written 
        statement (including the preparation of the estimates, 
        analyses, statements, or descriptions) under [section 
        202 or the written plan under section 203(a) (1) and 
        (2), a court may compel the agency to prepare such 
        written statement.] 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 [written statement or plan is required under sections 
        202 and 203(a) (1) and (2), the inadequacy or failure 
        to prepare such statement (including the inadequacy or 
        failure to prepare any estimate, analysis, statement or 
        description) or written plan shall not] 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act, would be an assault on health, safety, and 
environmental protections. This legislation would erect new 
barriers to slow down the regulatory process and would give 
corporations an unfair advantage in the regulatory process.
    Section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes 
independent regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with the exception 
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the 
Federal Open Market Committee. The Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) is responsible for overseeing the UMRA process. 
Since the independent agencies would be under the direction of 
OMB for purposes of UMRA compliance, this could compromise the 
independence of those agencies.
    Section 7 of H.R. 899 would create a new point of order in 
the House of Representatives for legislation containing an 
unfunded mandate, making it more difficult to enact 
legislation.
    Section 8 would incorporate a cost-benefit requirement from 
Executive Order 12866, but it would not include language from 
the same Executive Order directing agencies to perform these 
assessments ``to the extent feasible.''
    Section 10 would require agencies to provide impacted 
parties in the private sector--but not other stakeholders--with 
an advance opportunity to provide input on proposed 
regulations. It would require agencies to conduct consultations 
with private sector businesses ``as early as possible, before 
the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.'' Expanding 
this consultation requirement only to the private sector could 
allow businesses to have an advantage over other stakeholders 
in the development of regulatory proposals.
    During consideration of this bill by the Committee, 
Representatives Gerry Connolly and Tammy Duckworth offered an 
amendment that stated: ``Any opportunities or rights afforded 
to a corporation under this section shall also be afforded to 
any interested individual.'' The amendment was rejected.
    Section 11 would codify the role of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in reviewing agency 
regulations and require that if the OIRA Administrator finds 
that an agency did not comply with UMRA's requirements, the 
Administrator must request that the agency comply before the 
regulation is finalized.
    Section 12 would require that, ``at the request of the 
chairman or ranking minority member of a standing or select 
committee of the House of Representatives or Senate, an agency 
shall conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal 
regulation issued by an agency.'' This provision would require 
agencies to divert resources toward conducting these analyses 
and away from fulfilling their missions.
    Section 13 would expand judicial review under UMRA. The 
judicial review section would allow a court to review the 
``inadequacy or failure'' of an agency to prepare a written 
statement under UMRA. Allowing judicial review of the adequacy 
of an agency's UMRA statement would give judges the ability to 
second-guess the expertise of agencies. This process could be 
abused by regulated industries taking agencies to court over 
regulations they view as unfavorable.
    During Committee consideration of this bill Representative 
Stephen Lynch offered an amendment to require agencies as part 
of their evaluation of any disproportionate budgetary effects 
of a federal mandate to include an evaluation of ``any effects 
from sequestration on the agency's operations.'' The amendment 
was rejected.

                                        Elijah E. Cummings,
                                                    Ranking Member.