0
Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2023
1/4/2025, 11:17 AM
Summary of Bill HR 3230
The bill requires federal agencies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of any proposed mandate that would cost state, local, or tribal governments more than $50 million. This analysis must be submitted to Congress and made publicly available before the mandate can be implemented. Additionally, the bill requires agencies to consult with affected entities during the development of the mandate to ensure that their concerns and perspectives are taken into account.
Furthermore, the bill establishes a point of order in Congress against legislation that imposes unfunded mandates exceeding the $50 million threshold. This point of order can be raised by any member of Congress during the consideration of the legislation and would require a three-fifths majority vote to waive. Overall, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act seeks to promote greater accountability and transparency in the federal government's imposition of mandates on state, local, and tribal governments. By requiring cost-benefit analyses and consultation with affected entities, the bill aims to ensure that mandates are justified and that the entities responsible for implementing them are not burdened with excessive costs.
Congressional Summary of HR 3230
Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act
This bill revises rulemaking requirements with respect to unfunded mandates.
Specifically, the bill requires federal agencies to prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial and final regulatory impact analysis prior to promulgating any proposed or final major rule. The analysis must include regulatory alternatives to the rule.
Major rule means a rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines is likely to cause
- an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
- a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies, or geographic regions; or
- significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Before promulgating any proposed or final major rule, an agency shall select the regulatory alternative that maximizes net benefits, taking into consideration only the costs and benefits that arise within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the rulemaking, with exceptions.
The bill prohibits Congress from considering a bill that increases private sector costs more than a certain amount unless certain conditions are met.
Read the Full Bill
Current Status of Bill HR 3230
Bipartisan Support of Bill HR 3230
Total Number of Sponsors
4Democrat Sponsors
0Republican Sponsors
4Unaffiliated Sponsors
0Total Number of Cosponsors
18Democrat Cosponsors
9Republican Cosponsors
9Unaffiliated Cosponsors
0Policy Area and Potential Impact of Bill HR 3230
Primary Policy Focus
Government Operations and PoliticsPotential Impact Areas
Alternate Title(s) of Bill HR 3230
Comments
Kye Hutchinson
11 months ago
This bill is so dumb, I can't believe they are even considering it. It's gonna mess everything up and make things worse for everyone. They need to stop this nonsense and focus on real issues. It's gonna be a disaster, mark my words. Short term, this bill will cause chaos and confusion for everyone involved.
Ahmad Baldwin
11 months ago
This bill good for us. It make sure government not make us pay for stuff without telling us. It important for our money.
