Report text available as:

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

115th Congress    }                                 {    Rept. 115-798
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                 {           Part 1

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



 
       UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017

                                _______
                                

 June 29, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany H.R. 50]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 50) to provide for additional 
safeguards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Summary and Purpose of the Legislation...........................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................     6
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     6
Legislative History..............................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Roll Call Votes..................................................     8
Explanation of Amendments........................................    10
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    10
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    10
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    10
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    10
Unfunded Mandates Statement......................................    10
Earmark Identification...........................................    10
Committee Estimate...............................................    10
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost 
  Estimate.......................................................    11
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    17
Correspondence...................................................    36
Minority Views...................................................    42

    The amendment is as follows:
  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 14. REAUTHORIZATION.

  Section 109 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1516) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Congressional Budget 
Office $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2024 to carry 
out the provisions of this title.''.

                   Summary and Purpose of Legislation

    The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2017 (UMITA), H.R. 50, amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (UMRA) to improve regulatory processes and codify 
regulatory principles established in Executive Order 12866. 
H.R. 50 extends the UMRA coverage to most independent agencies 
and all final rules, and increases early consultation 
requirements and retrospective regulatory reviews.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Enacted in 1995, UMRA limits unfunded mandates on state, 
local, and tribal governments and the private sector. An 
unfunded mandate is an obligation imposed on one or more state, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector by a federal 
law or regulation without federal funding to offset the costs. 
Unfunded mandates push costs to implement federal programs onto 
state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector.
    UMRA directs agencies to draft written statements for final 
rules that impose costs of $100 million or more (``major 
rules'')\1\ on one or more state, local, or tribal government 
or the private sector. If a rule reaches this threshold amount, 
UMRA also requires agencies to consider less expensive 
alternatives to achieve the rule's objective. UMRA also 
requires agencies solicit input of the regulated stakeholders 
in promulgating a final major rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 2016, the Committee solicited input from state 
governors and legislators on the effects unfunded mandates have 
on their state, if any.\2\ The Committee received nearly 800 
responses from states, U.S. territories, and organizations 
representing state and local governments. The responses 
identified numerous costly unfunded mandates on state, local, 
and tribal governments and the private sector.\3\ For example, 
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam wrote the EPA provided Tennessee 
with only 8 percent of the $32 million it will cost the state 
to implement Clean Water Act programs.\4\ The U.S. Virgin 
Islands reported receiving just $5.4 million in federal aid to 
pay its $36 million in expenses to implement Clean Air Act 
regulations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Letter from Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Gov't Reform (Dec. 16, 2016) (on file with the Committee).
    \3\Letters on file with the Committee.
    \4\Letter from Bill Haslam, Governor, Tenn., to Jason Chaffetz, 
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform (Jan. 20, 2017) (on file 
with the Committee).
    \5\Letter from Kenneth Mapp, Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands, to 
Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform. (Jan. 
20, 2017) (on file with the Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During an April 2017 hearing, the Subcommittee on 
Intergovernmental Affairs heard testimony from elected state 
and local government officials. The witnesses explained 
challenges federal unfunded mandates impose on governments and 
local businesses.\6\ North Carolina State Senator Jim Davis 
testified regarding the experience of a business owner from his 
district, in which a federal compliance officer required the 
business to reduce boiler system arsenic emissions from 12 
parts per million (PPM) to 4 PPM.\7\ Senator Davis testified, 
``After spending over $200,000 on consultants, lawyers, and 
other experts . . . the business owner learned two things: One, 
the technology didn't exist to reduce it to four, and secondly, 
arsenic occurs naturally in the air at 12 parts per 
million.''\8\ It was one example of an unfunded federal mandate 
forcing a small business owner to waste money on compliance 
with nonsensical requirements, rather than investing in the 
business and its employees.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Unfunded Mandates: Examining Federally Imposed Burdens on State 
and Local Government: Hearing Before the Subc. on Intergovernmental 
Affairs of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, 115th Cong. (Apr. 
26, 2017), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg26556/pdf/CHRG-
115hhrg26556.pdf [hereinafter Unfunded Mandates: Hearing (Apr. 26, 
2017)].
    \7\Id. at 14 (statement of Jim Davis, State Senator, North 
Carolina).
    \8\Id.
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee also heard testimony on federal officials' 
apathetic attitude towards consulting with state and local 
officials during rulemaking.\10\ Kentucky County Executive Gary 
Moore testified on behalf of the National Association of 
Counties:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id. at 28 (2017) (testimony of Hon. Gary Moore, Cnty. Exec., 
Boone Cnty., KY) (``We often find that the agencies just want to check 
a box instead of having meaningful discussion with us as 
intergovernmental partners before and throughout the rulemaking 
cycle.''); id. at 21 (statement of Wayne L. Niederhauser, Sen., Utah 
Sen. on behalf of Council of State Governments) (``local governments 
have admirable goals also, more important to citizens, more likely to 
be effective, and less expensive.'').

          Time and time again, we see major Federal regulations 
        like Waters of the U.S., the ozone rule, and the 
        Department of Labor's overtime rule finalized with 
        little or no consultation with State and local 
        governments, even though these regulations have major 
        practical and financial implications for counties.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Unfunded Mandates: Hearing (Apr. 26, 2017) at 18 (statement of 
Gary Moore, Cnty. Executive, Boone Cnty., Kentucky).

    The Committee explored the lack of meaningful federal-state 
consultation at a Committee hearing held on February 27, 2018, 
held in collaboration with the Speaker's Intergovernmental Task 
Force.\12\ During the hearing, New Mexico Governor Susana 
Martinez, Utah Governor Gary Herbert, and Idaho Governor Leroy 
``Butch'' Otter testified to a lack of partnership during 
federal agency rulemaking.\13\ The Governors testified a lack 
of communication between federal officials and their states 
precludes exploring more efficient alternatives.\14\ Providing 
another example of the disparity between state government and 
federal government regulators, Governor Martinez testified New 
Mexico can review oil and gas permits in 10 days whereas it 
takes the U.S. Bureau of Land Management an average of 250 
days. She testified this delay costs New Mexico $1.9 million 
per day.\15\ H.R. 50 enhances consultation requirements to give 
state, local, and tribal governments a greater voice in the 
federal rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Federalism Implications of Treating States as Stakeholders: 
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, 115th Cong. 
(Feb. 27, 2018), https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/federalism-
implications-treater-states-stakeholders/.
    \13\Id.
    \14\Id. at 20 (testimony of Gary Herbert, Governor, Utah) (``the 
States, which are closer to the people, much more responsive to the 
people, quicker to act, and doing it less expensively and more 
effectively, are where in fact we should be working. States are finding 
solutions and improving people's lives.''); id. at 62-63 (testimony of 
Leroy ``Butch'' Otter, Governor, Idaho) (``Nearly every public policy 
that we deal with in Idaho we have to factor in what the Federal 
Government wants us to do, as well as how much of the cost they want us 
to suffer. So I tell you when we establish public policy, we really 
need to see who it helps and who it harms. And sometimes there's very 
little attention or care paid, especially from the Federal level.'').
    \15\Id. at 54 (testimony of Susana Martinez, Governor, New Mexico).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12866 to 
provide federal agencies with additional requirements in the 
rulemaking process. The Executive Order recognized the private 
sector's contribution to economic growth and the state, local, 
and tribal government role and relationship to the federal 
government.\16\ It requires federal agencies' rulemaking 
processes be constrained to certain principles.\17\ However, 
federal agency compliance with the Executive Order may be 
limited by the nature of an executive order as executive branch 
policy, not law.\18\ H.R. 50 codifies most of these rulemaking 
guidelines, including exploring if intended results can be 
achieved through modifying current regulations, identifying 
alternatives to direct regulation, and using the best available 
information to make agency decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Exec. Order No. 12,866, 3 C.F.R. Sec. 638 (1994).
    \17\Id.
    \18\See generally Peter Raven-Hansen, Making Agencies Follow 
Orders: Judicial Review of Agency Violations of Executive Order 12,291, 
285 Duke L.J. (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By updating UMRA and correcting agencies' misinterpretation 
of the law, this bill will help give effect to Congress's 
original intent in enacting UMRA two decades prior. In a 2011 
hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information 
Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and Procurement Reform, 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified agency 
interpretation of UMRA's cost definitions could prevent UMRA 
rules from being triggered.\19\ In written testimony, GAO 
stated, ``a rule could reduce industry gross revenues by over 
$100 million in a single year, and therefore be economically 
significant, yet not trigger UMRA because it does not require 
expenditures above UMRA's threshold in any year.''\20\ H.R. 50 
addresses this problem by expanding the federal mandate 
definition of ``direct costs'' to require agencies to account 
for variables such as foregone profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the 
H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations & 
Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, 112th 
Congress (Feb. 15, 2011), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
112hhrg67172/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg67172.pdf [hereinafter Unfunded Mandates 
and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing (Feb. 15, 2011)].
    \20\Id. at 41 (statement of Denise M. Fantone, Director Strategic 
Issues, Gov't Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a 2012 report, GAO found agencies had not published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking for 35 percent of major rules--
those rules with an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more--issued from 2003 to 2010.\21\ UMRA requires a 
written statement only for final rules ``for which a general 
notice of proposed rulemaking was published.''\22\ H.R. 50 
requires each final rule imposing an annual cost of $100 
million or more on state, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector be subject to UMRA's requirements, regardless of 
whether a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-21, Federal Rulemaking: 
Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond to Public Comments, 7 
(2012), https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651052.pdf; Id. at 8.
    \22\2 U.S.C. Sec. 1532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the 2011 hearing, the Subcommittee also heard from GAO 
about the impact current regulations have on stakeholders. GAO 
observed stakeholders it consulted ``most frequently suggested 
agencies evaluate the effectiveness of mandates after they had 
been implemented . . . [and . . .] evaluation of existing rules 
through retrospective reviews has the potential of being able 
to better assess the effectiveness of UMRA, among other 
benefits.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing (Feb. 15, 
2011) (testimony of Denise M. Fantone, Director Strategic Issues, Gov't 
Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In January 2011, President Obama's Executive Order 13563 
also identified ``retrospective analyses of existing rules'' as 
an important component to improve regulation and regulatory 
review. Executive Order 13563 encouraged agencies to ``modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal'' significant regulations that 
are ``outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 
burdensome.''\24\ H.R. 50 provides for further retrospective 
analyses by requiring agencies to conduct retrospective 
analyses on their current regulations upon a request from the 
chair or ranking minority member of a congressional committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Exec. Order No. 13,563 Sec. 6(a), 3 C.F.R. 215, 217 (2012), 
reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 601 (Supp. V 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 2011 hearing, GAO cited ``among the most common 
reasons'' for not complying with UMRA was ``the rules were 
issues by independent regulatory agencies not covered by the 
act [UMRA].''\25\ In its 2016 annual UMRA report to Congress, 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) noted the importance 
of transparent rulemaking by independent agencies, which are 
exempt under UMRA.\26\ The report stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing (Feb. 15, 
2011) (testimony of Denise M. Fantone, Director Strategic Issues, Gov't 
Accountability Office).
    \26\Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 2016 Draft Report to Congress on the 
Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 32 (2017), https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/
legislative_reports/draft_2016_cost_benefit_report_12_14_2016_2.pdf.

          We emphasize . . . for the purposes of informing the 
        public and obtaining a full accounting, it would be 
        highly desirable to obtain better information on the 
        benefits and costs of the rules issued by independent 
        agencies. The absence of such information is a 
        continued obstacle to transparency, and it might also 
        have adverse effects on public policy. Consideration of 
        costs and benefits is a pragmatic instrument for 
        ensuring that regulations will improve social welfare; 
        an absence of information on costs and benefits can 
        lead to inferior decisions.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Id.

H.R. 50 requires most independent agencies to comply with UMRA. 
H.R. 50 also subjects those agencies to the principles in 
Executive Order 12866, which means the agencies are required to 
conduct cost-benefit analyses of their rulemakings.
    H.R. 50 aims to promote informed and deliberate decisions 
by Congress and federal agencies concerning the appropriateness 
of federal mandates.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the previous section.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goal or objective of this bill is to provide for additional 
safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates.

                          Legislative History

    On January 3, 2017, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) 
introduced H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act of 2017, with Representative Henry Cuellar (D-
TX). H.R. 50 was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, with additional referrals to the Committee 
on the Budget, Committee on Rules, and the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
considered H.R. 50 at a business meeting on March 15, 2018 and 
ordered the bill favorably reported, as amended, by a recorded 
vote of 20 ayes to 10 nays.
    On April 26, 2017, at a hearing entitled Unfunded Mandates: 
Examining Federally Imposed Burdens on State and Local 
Government, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, heard testimony from 
Utah State Senator Wayne Niederhauser, North Carolina State 
Senator Jim Davis, Boone County Executive Gary Moore, Kansas 
City Councilman Jermaine Reed, and Supervisor of Fairfax County 
Board of Supervisors Jeff McKay. The witnesses highlighted 
specific examples of how unfunded federal mandates limit 
budgetary flexibility and impact their business communities. 
They provided suggestions as to how federal objectives can 
continue to be advanced without burdening states and local 
governments.
    In the 114th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 
50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2015, a nearly identical bill to H.R. 50. On January 27, 2015, 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 
50 favorably reported by a recorded vote of 20 ayes to 13 nays, 
and on February 4, 2015, the House passed the bill by a 
recorded vote of 250 ayes to 173 nays.
    In the 113th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 
899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2014, a nearly identical bill to H.R. 50. On July 24, 2013, the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 899 
favorably reported by a recorded vote of 22 ayes to 17 nays, 
and on February 28, 2014, the House passed the bill by a 
recorded vote of 234 ayes to 176 nays.
    In the 112th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 
373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2011, a nearly identical bill to H.R. 50. On September 21, 
2011, the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform considered H.R. 
373, and forwarded the bill, as amended, to the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform by a recorded vote of 5 ayes to 
4 nays. On November 17, 2011, the Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported, as amended, by a recorded vote of 22 ayes 
12 nays. H.R. 373 was included in H.R. 4078, the Red Tape 
Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which the House 
passed on July 26, 2012, by recorded vote of 245 ayes to 172 
nays.
    The Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform held three 
hearings in the 112th Congress regarding unfunded mandates. On 
February 15, 2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach; a hearing entitled, 
Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach on March 30, 2011; 
and a hearing entitled, Unfunded Mandates, Regulatory Burdens 
and the Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, on May 25, 2011.
    In the 111th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 
2255, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2009, a substantially similar bill to H.R. 50.
    In the 110th Congress, Representative Foxx introduced H.R. 
6964, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
2008, a substantially similar bill to H.R. 50.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 15, 2018, the Committee met in open session and, 
with a quorum being present, ordered the bill favorably 
reported, as amended, by a roll call vote of 20 ayes to 10 
nays.


                       Explanation of Amendments

    During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative 
Foxx offered an amendment to reauthorize funding of $1.5 
million to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) each year from 
2018 to 2024 to perform duties required under UMRA. This 
reduces funding by $3 million originally authorized under UMRA, 
and funds them according to CBO's actual expenditures. The 
Committee adopted the Foxx amendment by voice vote.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill provides for additional safeguards with respect to 
imposing federal mandates. As such, this bill does not relate 
to employment or access to public services and accommodations.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    In accordance with clause 2(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision 
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

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

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

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

                      Unfunded Mandates Statement

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

                         Earmark Identification

    This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.

                           Committee Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

   New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 23, 2018.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 50, the Unfunded 
Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl.
            Sincerely,
                                             Mark P. Hadley
                                        (For Keith Hall, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 50--Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017

    Summary: H.R. 50 would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (UMRA) to increase the information available to the 
Congress and the public concerning federal mandates in proposed 
legislation and regulations. Enacting the bill would codify 
many current practices of federal agencies as they analyze the 
potential effects of proposed regulations. The bill also would 
broaden the coverage of UMRA to require independent regulatory 
agencies to comply with standards relating to rulemaking and to 
allow judicial review of regulatory actions that fail to comply 
with that law. Under current law, independent regulatory 
agencies are exempt from complying with UMRA.
    H.R. 50 also would amend the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to establish a point of order 
that a Member of Congress may raise against legislation that 
creates a private-sector mandate with costs above the threshold 
established in UMRA.\1\ The bill also would require CBO, upon 
request, to assess the costs to state, local, and tribal 
governments resulting from legislation that would change 
conditions that must be met to receive federal assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The intergovernmental and private-sector cost thresholds 
established in UMRA were $50 million and $100 million, respectively, in 
1996; they are adjusted annually for inflation. In 2018, the thresholds 
are $80 million for intergovernmental mandates and $160 million for 
private-sector mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO estimates that carrying out the new requirements placed 
on independent regulatory agencies would require additional 
resources. Assuming the appropriation of necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates implementing the bill would have a net discretionary 
cost of $6 million over the 2019-2023 period.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 50 would affect direct 
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, 
CBO estimates that any net change in direct spending would not 
be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 50 would not significantly 
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    H.R. 50 would increase the costs of existing mandates on 
public and private-sector entities to pay fees, but CBO 
estimates that the additional costs would be small and would 
fall well below the annual thresholds for intergovernmental and 
private-sector mandates established in UMRA ($80 million and 
$160 million in 2018, respectively, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of H.R. 50 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 370 
(commerce and housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023   2019-2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONa
 
Estimated Authorization Level........................       0       *       1       1       2       2         6
Estimated Outlays....................................       0       *       1       1       2       2        6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aIn addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would require increased spending by some agencies that
  have permanent spending authority under current law. However, CBO estimates that the legislation would not
  have a significant effect on direct spending because CBO expects that those agencies would offset the bill's
  new costs by collecting additional fees.
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = between zero and $500,000.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
50 will be enacted near the end of 2018, that the necessary 
amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year 
beginning in 2019, and that spending patterns will follow 
historical patterns for regulatory analysis activities.
    H.R. 50 would amend UMRA to codify certain current 
practices, including those listed in Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563. Those orders require federal agencies to analyze the 
effects of regulations on state, local, and tribal governments 
and on the private sector and to prepare detailed cost-benefit 
analyses of rules that would result in total economic effects 
estimated at $100 million or more annually. In addition, H.R. 
50 would codify Executive Order 13579 and remove a current-law 
provision that exempts independent regulatory agencies from 
complying with rulemaking standards established in UMRA.
    Under current law, the adequacy of certain federal analyses 
and statements developed in accordance with UMRA is not subject 
to judicial review. Under H.R. 50, such products of the 
regulatory process could be challenged in the courts. CBO 
cannot predict the frequency or outcome of such challenges, but 
any resulting costs probably would be borne primarily by the 
Department of Justice. Any additional costs for litigation 
stemming from this provision would be subject to the 
availability of appropriations.

Discretionary costs

    Assuming the appropriation of necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates implementing the bill would have a net discretionary 
cost of $6 million over the 2019-2023 period.
    Independent Regulatory Agencies. Fifteen independent 
agencies would be affected by H.R. 50, including the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency (OCC), and the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC).
    On the basis of information from several affected agencies, 
CBO expects that the bill's requirements would increase the 
workload of independent regulatory agencies. They would be 
required to devote more resources to broader analyses of 
regulations and to support judicial reviews and hearings 
pertaining to agency regulations.
    CBO estimates that at least 11 independent regulatory 
agencies that receive discretionary appropriations would face 
an increased workload under H.R. 50. Annual costs per agency 
would vary depending on their size and the number of major 
rules they review each year. CBO estimates that each agency 
would require, on average, 1 to 3 additional staff to comply 
with the bill's requirements (depending on its size and the 
number of major rules that it issues each year) and that annual 
salary and benefits for each staff member would total about 
$150,000 (based on compensation levels in recent years).
    Under current law, four of those agencies--the FCC, the 
SEC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission--are authorized to collect fees 
sufficient to offset their annual appropriations. CBO estimates 
that those four agencies would incur gross costs of about $16 
million over the 2019-2023 period, and we assume that future 
appropriations would direct those agencies to offset those 
costs with fees. CBO also estimates that agencies not 
authorized to collect fees would eventually incur additional 
annual costs of less than $500,000 each, resulting in a total 
cost of $5 million over the 5-year period.
    Other Agencies. H.R. 50 also would require the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to provide guidance 
and oversight to the independent agencies to ensure that their 
regulations are consistent with the requirements of UMRA. Using 
information from the agency, CBO expects that OIRA ultimately 
would require one new staff member to handle the additional 
workload. Using an average salary of $150,000, CBO estimates 
the requirement would cost about $1 million over the 2019-2023 
period, assuming availability of appropriated funds.
    Finally, H.R. 50 would require CBO, at the request of any 
Chair or Ranking Member of a Congressional committee, to assess 
costs to state, local, and tribal governments resulting from 
legislation that would change conditions that must be met to 
receive federal assistance. CBO estimates that the costs of a 
single assessment would not be significant; however, if CBO 
were required to prepare a sizable number of assessments, the 
agency's administrative costs would increase. CBO estimates 
that those costs in any given year would total well below 
$500,000, and any such costs would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.

Mandatory costs

    Four independent regulatory agencies that would be required 
to meet the new regulatory standards under H.R. 50 have 
permanent spending authority. CBO estimates that the affected 
agencies, including the FDIC and the OCC, each would incur 
additional annual costs of $1 million, on average, to fulfill 
the bill's requirements. Those agencies collect fees from the 
industries they regulate to cover administrative expenses. CBO 
estimates that such collections would largely offset the costs 
of implementing the bill over the 2019-2028 period.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. CBO estimates that the net effects of H.R. 50 on 
direct spending would not be significant. Enacting the bill 
would not affect revenues.
    Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 50 would not significantly 
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    Mandates: H.R. 50 would increase the costs of existing 
mandates on public and private entities that pay fees assessed 
by certain independent agencies. The bill would expand the 
scope of analyses that independent agencies are required to 
conduct when they issue regulations. Such a change would 
increase their workload and annual operating costs. Some 
independent agencies collect fees sufficient to offset the cost 
of their regulatory activities. Because those agencies are 
expected to raise fees to offset the costs of their additional 
workload, CBO estimates that the bill would increase the cost 
of existing mandates on public and private entities that would 
be required to pay those higher fees.
    Using information from the independent agencies, CBO 
estimates that the cost of implementing the additional 
regulatory activities would not be significant. Therefore, any 
additional cost to public and private entities would be small 
and would fall well below the annual thresholds established in 
UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($80 
million and $160 million in 2018 respectively, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jon Sperl; Mandates: 
Jon Sperl.
    Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and 
Physical Resources Unit; Susan Willie, Chief, Public and 
Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill.

Sec. 2. Purpose

    Section 2 describes the purposes of the bill.

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

    Section 3 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by 
requiring the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to perform, 
upon request by the Chair or Ranking Minority Member of a 
Standing Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives or the 
U.S. Senate, an assessment comparing the authorized level of 
funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of 
carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance 
being imposed on state, local, or tribal governments.

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

    Section 4 amends the definition of ``direct costs'' in the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to codify current CBO 
practice--calculating the costs state, local, and tribal 
governments ``incur'' as a result of mandates. The definitional 
change also ensures federal agencies account for private sector 
variables, such as future loss of business profits, costs 
passed onto consumers and other entities, and the private 
sector's behavioral changes.

Sec. 5. Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include 
        regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies

    Section 5 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by 
requiring independent regulatory agencies to comply with the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), with the exception 
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the 
Federal Open Market Committee, and the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.

Sec. 6. Amendments to replace Office of Management and Budget with 
        Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

    Section 6 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
by transferring responsibility for agency compliance with UMRA 
requirements from the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs.

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

    Sections 7 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by 
adding a point of order for legislative mandates that exceed 
the UMRA threshold with regard to the private sector, unless 
budgetary expenses are allocated.

Sec. 8. Regulatory process and principles

    Section 8 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
by implementing a series of principles for all ``regulatory 
actions'' in accordance with the principles set out in 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Unless otherwise expressly 
prohibited by law, each agency must consider the effect of a 
potential regulation on state, local, and tribal governments 
and the private sector. Specifically, each agency must:
          1. Clearly identify the problem the regulation 
        addresses and its significance;
          2. Determine whether existing regulations should be 
        modified to achieve the intended goal more effectively;
          3. Identify and assess alternatives to direct 
        regulation, such as economic incentives;
          4. When a regulation is necessary, enact the 
        regulation in the most cost-effective manner possible, 
        considering total cost of compliance, innovation 
        incentives, and other factors;
          5. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of a contemplated 
        regulation and only promulgate a regulation if the 
        benefits outweigh the costs;
          6. Base each regulatory decision on the best 
        reasonably available data;
          7. Consider alternative forms of the regulation and 
        show preference for performance-based regulations 
        rather than prescriptive regulation;
          8. Avoid promulgating a regulation that duplicates or 
        conflicts with an existing regulation;
          9. Author each regulation in a way that minimize its 
        cumulative costs; and
          10. Draft each regulation in simple, easily 
        understood language.
    This section also defines ``regulatory action.''

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

    Section 9 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
to require federal agencies prepare a written statement, 
including several specific elements, before publishing a 
proposed or final rule that has an effect on state, local, or 
tribal governments, or on the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year. This section aligns UMRA with Section 
3 of Executive Order 12866 by removing the words ``adjusted 
annually for inflation'' from the dollar threshold.
    The section also requires agencies to assess new private 
sector costs, such as lost future profits, costs passed onto 
consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes.
    Section 9 also requires agencies publish the previously 
described written statement within six months of promulgating a 
final rule if the rule was not preceded by a notice of proposed 
rulemaking. This ensures agencies cannot avoid conducting the 
required analysis by foregoing a notice of proposed rulemaking.

Sec. 10. Enhanced stakeholder consultation

    Section 10 extends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995's existing requirement that agencies receive meaningful 
and timely input during the development of regulatory mandates 
from state, local, and tribal governments to include the 
private sector. This section codifies policies instructing 
agencies on how to effectuate this requirement: consultations 
occur early in the process; a variety of state, local, and 
private sector input is considered in computing costs and 
benefits; compliance costs are addressed during consultations; 
and input is solicited on alternative methods of compliance, 
flexibility, and whether the contemplated regulation will 
duplicate or conflict with similar law in other levels of 
government.

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

    Section 11 requires the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to determine if an agency's 
regulation, in which a written statement is required, is 
consistent with this bill and other laws, and does not conflict 
with other agencies' policies or actions. If OIRA determines 
the agency has not met these requirements, OIRA must notify the 
agency and request compliance before the regulation is 
finalized. Section 11 also requires OIRA submit an annual 
report to Congress detailing agency compliance with sections 
202 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Section 12. Retrospective analysis of existing federal regulations

    Section 12 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
to require each federal agency to conduct a retrospective 
analysis of an existing federal regulation, upon request by the 
Chair or Ranking Minority Member of a Standing or Select 
Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. 
Senate. The analysis must include: a copy of the regulation; 
the regulation's continued necessity; the nature of comments or 
complaints received concerning the regulation; an explanation 
of the extent to which the mandate duplicates or conflicts with 
any other regulation or rule; a description of the degree to 
which technology or economic conditions have changed in the 
area affected by the federal regulation; analysis of 
retrospective direct costs and benefits, including any study 
conducted outside the Federal government; and litigation 
history challenging the regulation.

Sec. 13. Expansion of judicial review

    Section 13 extends judicial review to determine an agency's 
choice of least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome regulatory alternative. This section permits a court 
to stay, enjoin, or invalidate a rule if an agency fails to 
complete the required UMRA analysis or to adhere to its 
regulatory principles.

Sec. 14. Reauthorization

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

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

                    CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          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, the Federal 
        Open Market Committee, or the Consumer Financial 
        Protection Bureau.
          (2) Amount.--The term ``amount'', with respect to an 
        authorization of appropriations for Federal financial 
        assistance, means the amount of budget authority for 
        any Federal grant assistance program or any Federal 
        program providing loan guarantees or direct loans.
          (3) Direct costs.--The term ``direct costs''--
                  (A)(i) in the case of a Federal 
                intergovernmental mandate, means the aggregate 
                estimated amounts that all State, local, and 
                tribal governments would incur or be required 
                to spend or would be prohibited from raising in 
                revenues in order to comply with the Federal 
                intergovernmental mandate; or
                  (ii) in the case of a provision referred to 
                in paragraph (5)(A)(ii), means the amount of 
                Federal financial assistance eliminated or 
                reduced;
                  (B) in the case of a Federal private sector 
                mandate, means the aggregate estimated amounts 
                that the private sector will be required to 
                spend or could forgo in profits, including 
                costs passed on to consumers or other entities 
                taking into account, to the extent practicable, 
                behavioral changes, in order to comply with the 
                Federal private sector mandate;
                  (C) shall be determined on the assumption 
                that--
                          (i) State, local, and tribal 
                        governments, and the private sector 
                        will take all reasonable steps 
                        necessary to mitigate the costs 
                        resulting from the Federal mandate, and 
                        will comply with applicable standards 
                        of practice and conduct established by 
                        recognized professional or trade 
                        associations; and
                          (ii) reasonable steps to mitigate the 
                        costs shall not include increases in 
                        State, local, or tribal taxes or fees; 
                        and
                  (D) shall not include--
                          (i) estimated amounts that the State, 
                        local, and tribal governments (in the 
                        case of a Federal intergovernmental 
                        mandate) or the private sector (in the 
                        case of a Federal private sector 
                        mandate) would spend--
                                  (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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [There are authorized to be appropriated to the Congressional 
Budget Office $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996, 
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out the 
provisions of this title.]

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Congressional 
Budget Office $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 
2024 to carry out the provisions of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

[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.
          (8) An assessment of the effects that the proposed 
        rulemaking or final rule are expected to have on 
        private property owners, including the use and value of 
        affected property.
  (b) Promulgation.--In promulgating a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which a statement under 
subsection (a) is required, the agency shall include in the 
promulgation a detailed summary of the information contained in 
the statement.
  (c) Preparation in Conjunction With Other Statement.--Any 
agency may prepare any statement required under subsection (a) 
in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement or 
analysis, provided that the statement or analysis satisfies the 
provisions of subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *




                             MINORITY VIEWS

    H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 
Act of 2017, is significantly flawed. The bill would be an 
assault on the nation's health, safety, and environmental 
protections, erect new barriers to unnecessarily slow down the 
regulatory process, and give regulated industries an unfair 
advantage to water down consumer protections.
    Section 5 of the bill would repeal federal law that 
excludes independent regulatory agencies from the reporting 
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with 
the exception of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
and the Federal Open Market Committee. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) is responsible for overseeing the UMRA 
process. Since the independent agencies would be under the 
direction of OMB for purposes of UMRA compliance, this could 
compromise the independence of those agencies.
    Section 7 of H.R. 50 would create a new point of order in 
the House of Representatives for legislation containing an 
unfunded mandate, making it more difficult to enact 
legislation.
    Section 10 would require agencies to provide private sector 
entities with an advance opportunity to affect proposed 
regulations. It would require agencies to consult with private 
sector entities ``as early as possible, before the issuance of 
a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue through the final 
rule stage, and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking 
process.''
    Committee Democrats agree that agencies should consult with 
regulated industries regarding proposed rules that are expected 
to impact those entities, but regulated industries should not 
receive an advantage in the rulemaking process over other 
stakeholders.
    Section 11 would codify the role of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in reviewing agency 
regulations and require that if the OIRA Administrator finds 
that an agency did not comply with UMRA's requirements, the 
Administrator must request that the agency comply before the 
regulation is finalized.
    Section 12 would require that, ``[a]t the request of the 
chairman or ranking minority member of a standing or select 
committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, an 
agency shall conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing 
Federal regulation promulgated by an agency.'' This provision 
would require agencies to divert resources toward conducting 
these analyses and away from fulfilling their missions.
    Section 13 would expand judicial review under UMRA and 
allow a court to review the ``inadequacy or failure'' of an 
agency to prepare a written statement under UMRA. Allowing 
judicial review of the adequacy of an agency's UMRA statement 
would give judges the ability to second-guess the expertise of 
agencies. UMRA currently prohibits courts from using the law to 
stay, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule. 
H.R. 50 would fundamentally change the law by eliminating this 
prohibition. This process could be abused by regulated 
industries taking agencies to court over regulations they view 
as unfavorable.

                                   Elijah E. Cummings,
                                           Ranking Member.

                                  [all]