Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

114th Congress    }                                  {    Rept. 114-011
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                  {           Part 1

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



 
       UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

February 2, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Chaffetz, 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 without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     2
Section-by-Section...............................................     7
Explanation of Amendments........................................    10
Committee Consideration..........................................    10
Roll Call Votes..................................................    10
Correspondence...................................................    12
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    18
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    18
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    18
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    18
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    18
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    18
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    18
Earmark Identification...........................................    19
Committee Estimate...............................................    19
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...    19
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    19
Minority Views...................................................    37

                     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. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act of 2015, 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. The bill accomplishes this 
objective 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 was enacted to relieve much of the burden placed upon 
nonfederal entities by Congress and federal agencies through 
unfunded mandates. 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.''\2\ 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.\3\ 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Government Accountability Office (GAO), Unfunded Mandates: Views 
Vary About Reform Act's Strengths, Weaknesses, and Options for 
Improvement, GAO-05-454, Mar. 2005.
    \3\Id.
    \4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 50 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. 50 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. 50 accomplishes this in multiple ways.
    To bring awareness to federal mandates imposed on entities 
pursuant to a condition of grant aid, H.R. 50 allows a chairman 
or ranking member of any Congressional committee to request the 
Congressional Budget Office (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. 50 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 CBO, which 
advised the Committee on how best to provide information about 
conditions of grant aid without overburdening CBO.
    H.R. 50 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.\5\ CBO has 
stated that its own UMRA analyses already take these factors 
into account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\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. 50 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 Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Susan 
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.\6\ Moreover, 
former OIRA Administrator Cass 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.''\7\ To 
ensure that agencies regulate responsibly, H.R. 50 codifies 
most of those regulatory principles outlined in Executive Order 
12866, and reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\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).
    \7\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. 50 prevents an 
agency from completing 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\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. 50 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. 50 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.\9\ For example, OIRA previously included 
an appendix in its annual report to Congress, which provided 
examples of agency consultation with state and local 
governments.\10\ However, in recent years, the annual report 
has ceased to include any evidence concerning how consultation 
is being carried out.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\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.
    \10\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.
    \11\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.
    \12\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. 50 formally transfers 
responsibilities from the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to the Administrator of OIRA. OMB has long 
delegated its responsibilities under UMRA to OIRA.\13\ H.R. 50 
would cement that relationship, while also extending OIRA's 
role beyond certifying and reporting on agency regulatory 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\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. 50 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.\14\ 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.\15\ 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.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\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).
    \15\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).
    \16\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. 50 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.\17\ 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.''\18\ 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.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\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).
    \18\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).
    \19\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. 50 makes reforms addressing key deficiencies 
in the law identified by experts and regulated entities.

                          Legislative History

    H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 
Act of 2015, was introduced on January 6, 2015 by Rep. Virginia 
Foxx (R-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 January 27, 2015, the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform ordered H.R. 50 favorably reported, without 
amendment. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) is an original 
cosponsor.
    The legislation has passed the House on three prior 
occasions: as Title IV of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and 
Small Business Job Creation Act, in the 112th Congress and as 
both a standalone bill (H.R. 899) and as a subsection of H.R. 
4, the Jobs for America Act, in the 113th Congress.
    During the 113th Congress, H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates 
Information and Transparency Act of 2013, was introduced on 
February 28, 2013 by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-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 considered 
H.R. 899 and it was favorably reported out of Committee.
    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.
    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.
    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.''\20\ 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?''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\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).
    \21\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 2015

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.

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; and 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

    Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) offered an 
amendment to remove the provision that provides for 
consultation with impacted parties within the private sector, 
including small businesses. The amendment would instead require 
consultation with veterans, law enforcement officers, and 
religious groups (who are already covered under H.R. 50). The 
Cummings amendment was not adopted.

                        Committee Consideration

    On January 27, 2015, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 50, by roll call 
vote, a quorum being present.

                            Roll Call Votes

    There was one recorded vote during consideration of H.R. 
50:


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

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    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 Committee estimates that enacting this bill 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 
Mandate 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

    This bill 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)(1) 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 
this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(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 of 
1974. The Committee has requested but not received a cost 
estimate for this bill from the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office. Based on cost estimates from similar legislation 
from the 113th Congress, however, the Committee believes that 
enactment of this bill would result in no net effect on direct 
spending over the 2015-2024 period. Assuming the appropriation 
of necessary amounts, the Committee estimates that the 
legislation would also have a discretionary cost of less than 
$5 million over the 2015-2019 period.

     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 requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee believes 
that this bill does not contain any new budget authority, 
spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or 
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

         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) 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.--
          (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 practicable, 
                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 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.
          (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--
                                  (I) to comply with or carry 
                                out all applicable Federal, 
                                State, local, and tribal laws 
                                and regulations in effect at 
                                the time of the adoption of the 
                                Federal mandate for the same 
                                activity as is affected by that 
                                Federal mandate; or
                                  (II) to comply with or carry 
                                out State, local, and tribal 
                                governmental programs, or 
                                private-sector business or 
                                other activities in effect at 
                                the time of the adoption of the 
                                Federal mandate for the same 
                                activity as is affected by that 
                                mandate; or
                          (ii) expenditures to the extent that 
                        such expenditures will be offset by any 
                        direct savings to the State, local, and 
                        tribal governments, or by the private 
                        sector, as a result of--
                                  (I) compliance with the 
                                Federal mandate; or
                                  (II) other changes in Federal 
                                law or regulation that are 
                                enacted or adopted in the same 
                                bill or joint resolution or 
                                proposed or final Federal 
                                regulation and that govern the 
                                same activity as is affected by 
                                the Federal mandate.
          (4) Direct savings.--The term ``direct savings'', 
        when used with respect to the result of compliance with 
        the Federal mandate--
                  (A) in the case of a Federal 
                intergovernmental mandate, means the aggregate 
                estimated reduction in costs to any State, 
                local, or tribal government as a result of 
                compliance with the Federal intergovernmental 
                mandate; and
                  (B) in the case of a Federal private sector 
                mandate, means the aggregate estimated 
                reduction in costs to the private sector as a 
                result of compliance with the Federal private 
                sector mandate.
          (5) Federal intergovernmental mandate.--The term 
        ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' means--
                  (A) any provision in legislation, statute, or 
                regulation that--
                          (i) would impose an enforceable duty 
                        upon State, local, or tribal 
                        governments, except--
                                  (I) a condition of Federal 
                                assistance; or
                                  (II) a duty arising from 
                                participation in a voluntary 
                                Federal program, except as 
                                provided in subparagraph (B); 
                                or
                          (ii) would reduce or eliminate the 
                        amount of authorization of 
                        appropriations for--
                                  (I) Federal financial 
                                assistance that would be 
                                provided to State, local, or 
                                tribal governments for the 
                                purpose of complying with any 
                                such previously imposed duty 
                                unless such duty is reduced or 
                                eliminated by a corresponding 
                                amount; or
                                  (II) the control of borders 
                                by the Federal Government; or 
                                reimbursement to State, local, 
                                or tribal governments for the 
                                net cost associated with 
                                illegal, deportable, and 
                                excludable aliens, including 
                                court-mandated expenses related 
                                to emergency health care, 
                                education or criminal justice; 
                                when such a reduction or 
                                elimination would result in 
                                increased net costs to State, 
                                local, or tribal governments in 
                                providing education or 
                                emergency health care to, or 
                                incarceration of, illegal 
                                aliens; except that this 
                                subclause shall not be in 
                                effect with respect to a State, 
                                local, or tribal government, to 
                                the extent that such government 
                                has not fully cooperated in the 
                                efforts of the Federal 
                                Government to locate, 
                                apprehend, and deport illegal 
                                aliens;
                  (B) any provision in legislation, statute, or 
                regulation that relates to a then-existing 
                Federal program under which $500,000,000 or 
                more is provided annually to State, local, and 
                tribal governments under entitlement authority, 
                if the provision--
                          (i)(I) would increase the stringency 
                        of conditions of assistance to State, 
                        local, or tribal governments under the 
                        program; or
                          (II) would place caps upon, or 
                        otherwise decrease, the Federal 
                        Government's responsibility to provide 
                        funding to State, local, or tribal 
                        governments under the program; and
                          (ii) the State, local, or tribal 
                        governments that participate in the 
                        Federal program lack authority under 
                        that program to amend their financial 
                        or programmatic responsibilities to 
                        continue providing required services 
                        that are affected by the legislation, 
                        statute, or regulation.
          (6) Federal mandate.--The term ``Federal mandate'' 
        means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal 
        private sector mandate, as defined in paragraphs (5) 
        and (7).
          (7) Federal private sector mandate.--The term 
        ``Federal private sector mandate'' means any provision 
        in legislation, statute, or regulation that--
                  (A) would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
                private sector except--
                          (i) a condition of Federal 
                        assistance; or
                          (ii) a duty arising from 
                        participation in a voluntary Federal 
                        program; or
                  (B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of 
                authorization of appropriations for Federal 
                financial assistance that will be provided to 
                the private sector for the purposes of ensuring 
                compliance with such duty.
          (8) Local government.--The term ``local government'' 
        has the same meaning as defined in section 6501(6) of 
        title 31, United States Code.
          (9) Private sector.--The term ``private sector'' 
        means all persons or entities in the United States, 
        including individuals, partnerships, associations, 
        corporations, and educational and nonprofit 
        institutions, but shall not include State, local, or 
        tribal governments.
          (10) Regulation; rule.--The term ``regulation'' or 
        ``rule'' (except with respect to a rule of either House 
        of the Congress) has the meaning of ``rule'' as defined 
        in section 601(2) of title 5, United States Code.
          (11) Small government.--The term ``small government'' 
        means any small governmental jurisdictions defined in 
        section 601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any 
        tribal government.
          (12) State.--The term ``State'' has the same meaning 
        as defined in section 6501(9) of title 31, United 
        States Code.
          (13) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal 
        government'' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or 
        other organized group or community, including any 
        Alaska Native village or regional or village 
        corporation as defined in or established pursuant to 
        the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688; 
        43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) which is recognized as eligible 
        for the special programs and services provided by the 
        United States to Indians because of their special 
        status as Indians.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 425. LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO POINT OF ORDER.

  (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or 
the House of Representatives to consider--
          (1) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by 
        a committee unless the committee has published a 
        statement of the Director on the direct costs of 
        Federal mandates in accordance with section 423(f) 
        before such consideration, except this paragraph shall 
        not apply to any supplemental statement prepared by the 
        Director under section 424(d); and
          (2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
        conference report that would increase the direct costs 
        of [Federal intergovernmental mandates] Federal 
        mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds 
        specified in section 424(a)(1) 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 authorizing 
                        committees of Congress of the 
                        determination and submit either--
                                  (aa) a statement that the 
                                agency has determined, based on 
                                a re-estimate of the direct 
                                costs of such mandate, after 
                                consultation with State, local, 
                                and tribal governments, that 
                                the amount appropriated is 
                                sufficient to pay for the 
                                direct costs of such mandate; 
                                or
                                  (bb) legislative 
                                recommendations for either 
                                implementing a less costly 
                                mandate or making such mandate 
                                ineffective for the fiscal 
                                year;
                          (II) provides for expedited 
                        procedures for the consideration of the 
                        statement or legislative 
                        recommendations referred to in 
                        subclause (I) by Congress no later than 
                        30 days after the statement or 
                        recommendations are submitted to 
                        Congress; and
                          (III) provides that such mandate 
                        shall--
                                  (aa) in the case of a 
                                statement referred to in 
                                subclause (I)(aa), cease to be 
                                effective 60 days after the 
                                statement is submitted unless 
                                Congress has approved the 
                                agency's determination by joint 
                                resolution during the 60-day 
                                period;
                                  (bb) cease to be effective 60 
                                days after the date the 
                                legislative recommendations of 
                                the responsible Federal agency 
                                are submitted to Congress under 
                                subclause (I)(bb) unless 
                                Congress provides otherwise by 
                                law; or
                                  (cc) in the case that such 
                                mandate that has not yet taken 
                                effect, continue not to be 
                                effective unless Congress 
                                provides otherwise by law.
  (b) Rule of Construction.--The provisions of subsection 
(a)(2)(B)(iii) shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise 
restrict a State, local, or tribal government from voluntarily 
electing to remain subject to the original Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, complying with the programmatic or 
financial responsibilities of the original Federal 
intergovernmental mandate and providing the funding necessary 
consistent with the costs of Federal agency assistance, 
monitoring, and enforcement.
  (c) Committee on Appropriations.--
          (1) Application.--The provisions of subsection (a)--
                  (A) shall not apply to any bill or resolution 
                reported by the Committee on Appropriations of 
                the Senate or the House of Representatives; 
                except
                  (B) shall apply to--
                          (i) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        intergovernmental mandate contained in 
                        any bill or resolution reported by the 
                        Committee on Appropriations of the 
                        Senate or House of Representatives;
                          (ii) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        intergovernmental mandate contained in 
                        any amendment offered to a bill or 
                        resolution reported by the Committee on 
                        Appropriations of the Senate or House 
                        of Representatives;
                          (iii) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        intergovernmental mandate in a 
                        conference report accompanying a bill 
                        or resolution reported by the Committee 
                        on Appropriations of the Senate or 
                        House of Representatives; and
                          (iv) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        intergovernmental mandate contained in 
                        any amendments in disagreement between 
                        the two Houses to any bill or 
                        resolution reported by the Committee on 
                        Appropriations of the Senate or House 
                        of Representatives.
          (2) Certain provisions stricken in senate.--Upon a 
        point of order being made by any Senator against any 
        provision listed in paragraph (1)(B), and the point of 
        order being sustained by the Chair, such specific 
        provision shall be deemed stricken from the bill, 
        resolution, amendment, amendment in disagreement, or 
        conference report and may not be offered as an 
        amendment from the floor.
  (d) Determinations of Applicability to Pending Legislation.--
For purposes of this section, in the Senate, the presiding 
officer of the Senate shall consult with the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, to the extent practicable, on questions 
concerning the applicability of this part to a pending bill, 
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report.
  (e) Determinations of Federal Mandate Levels.--For purposes 
of this section, in the Senate, the levels of Federal mandates 
for a fiscal year shall be determined based on the estimates 
made by the Committee on the Budget.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


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.
  (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.
  (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 [Federal 
intergovernmental mandates] Federal mandates.
  (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.
  [(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--
          (1) State, local, and tribal governments, in the case 
        of a rule containing a Federal intergovernmental 
        mandate; and
          (2) the private sector, in the case of a rule 
        containing a Federal private sector mandate.
  (b) Exception.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply 
unless--
          (1) the head of the affected agency publishes with 
        the final rule an explanation of why the least costly, 
        most cost-effective or least burdensome method of 
        achieving the objectives of the rule was not adopted; 
        or
          (2) the provisions are inconsistent with law.
  (c)  [OMB] Certification.--No later than 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the [Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget] 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) 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[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.
          (4) Certain information as part of record.--Any 
        information generated under sections 202 and 203(a) (1) 
        and (2) that is part of the rulemaking record for 
        judicial review under the provisions of any other 
        Federal law may be considered as part of the record for 
        judicial review conducted under such other provisions 
        of Federal law.
          (5) Application of other federal law.--For any 
        petition under paragraph (2) the provisions of such 
        other Federal law shall control all other matters, such 
        as exhaustion of administrative remedies, the time for 
        and manner of seeking review and venue, except that if 
        such other Federal law does not provide a limitation on 
        the time for filing a petition for judicial review that 
        is less than 180 days, such limitation shall be 180 
        days after a final rule is promulgated by the 
        appropriate agency.
          (6) Effective date.--This subsection shall take 
        effect on October 1, 1995, and shall apply only to any 
        agency rule for which a general notice of proposed 
        rulemaking is promulgated on or after such date.
  (b) Judicial Review and Rule of Construction.--Except as 
provided in subsection (a)--
          (1) any estimate, analysis, statement, description or 
        report prepared under this Act, and any compliance or 
        noncompliance with the provisions of this Act, and any 
        determination concerning the applicability of the 
        provisions of this Act shall not be subject to judicial 
        review; and
          (2) no provision of this Act shall be construed to 
        create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 
        enforceable by any person in any administrative or 
        judicial action.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]