Overview
Title
To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish a limit for the total amount of additional unfunded regulatory costs that may be imposed in a fiscal year, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that before the government makes new rules that cost money, they have to set a limit on those costs each year, and explain why if they want to go over that limit. This is to keep everything fair and clear, like setting a budget so they don’t spend too much without asking permission.
Summary AI
The bill proposes changes to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 by requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to set limits on the amount of new unfunded regulatory costs that agencies can impose each fiscal year. This means that government agencies would need to get approval from Congress if they want to exceed these limits. Additionally, the bill requires agencies to report these costs and justify them if they exceed the established limits, ensuring greater accountability and transparency in federal regulations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill, formally known as the "Renewing Efficiency in Government by Budgeting Act of 2024," or the "REG Budgeting Act of 2024," aims to amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The core objective of this legislation is to establish a limit on the total amount of additional unfunded regulatory costs that federal agencies can impose in a fiscal year. The bill mandates the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to set these limits annually and requires congressional approval for any limit that permits additional unfunded costs. It includes provisions for reporting and transparency to ensure agencies adhere to these imposed limits.
Significant Issues
A prominent concern is the requirement for congressional approval before establishing these unfunded cost limits. This stipulation could lead to significant delays in the regulatory process, especially if there is legislative gridlock, which could postpone critical regulatory actions. The bill also allows exceptions for rules via Executive Order in emergencies or national security concerns, potentially undermining its intent by permitting broad criteria for bypassing these limits.
Another issue is the complexity of the bill's language. The detailed and technical terminology might be challenging for those without a legal background, raising concerns about transparency and accessibility. The documentation and reporting requirements imposed on federal agencies and the OMB could also create administrative burdens that divert resources away from substantive work.
The bill's provision requiring agency notification from the OMB Director before exceeding cost limits may introduce bureaucratic delays and procedural complications. Moreover, the lack of clarity in how the Director should assess exemptions could lead to inconsistent decision-making and potential legal disputes.
Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, the bill aims to control the imposition of unfunded mandates, which could be beneficial for state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as the private sector, by preventing unexpected regulatory costs. However, delays in implementation due to the need for congressional approval could stall important regulations, impacting public welfare negatively if crucial measures are deferred.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
State, Local, and Tribal Governments
These entities could benefit from the bill as it seeks to cap the additional costs they might have to bear due to new federal regulations. By limiting unfunded mandates, the legislation could ensure more predictable financial planning and less strain on local budgets.
Federal Agencies
For federal agencies, the bill could pose challenges by introducing more complex bureaucratic requirements. The need for notification and compliance with new limits can slow down the regulatory process and complicate rulemaking, leading to potential operational inefficiencies.
Congress
Congress's role in approving cost limits adds another layer of oversight. While this could enhance accountability, it also risks politicizing the regulatory budget process, with potential disputes affecting timely decision-making.
Private Sector
The private sector may see reduced regulatory burdens if unfunded mandates are limited. Businesses could experience fewer unexpected costs, which might aid in long-term financial planning and operational stability.
In summary, while the bill aims to introduce fiscal discipline in regulatory impositions, its procedural complexities and potential for implementation delays present various challenges that affect multiple stakeholders differently. The legislation necessitates a careful balancing act between regulatory control and timely governance.
Issues
The requirement for congressional approval before establishing a limit on unfunded regulatory costs (Section 2; SEC. 210(a)(1)(C)) could lead to delays in the regulatory process, potentially hindering timely implementation of necessary regulations. This could have significant political and economic implications if critical regulatory actions are postponed due to legislative gridlock.
The exception clause allowing rules to take effect via Executive Order in emergencies or for national security (Section 2; SEC. 210(b)(3)(ii)) may undermine the intent of regulatory cost limits, as it permits broad criteria under which exceptions can be made. This could lead to political controversy regarding executive power and the circumvention of legislative authority.
The complexity and density of the language used in the regulatory budgeting section (Section 2) may hinder understanding and implementation of the bill. Individuals without a legal background might struggle to comprehend the processes for determining unfunded regulatory cost limits and the associated reporting requirements, raising ethical concerns about transparency and accessibility.
The documentation and reporting requirements outlined in Section 2 may create significant administrative burdens for agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, potentially diverting resources from substantive regulatory activities and leading to inefficiencies within federal agencies.
The provision requiring agency notification from the Director before promulgating a rule that exceeds the cost limit (Section 2; SEC. 210(b)(2)) may introduce bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies, complicating the rulemaking process and potentially resulting in legal challenges regarding procedural fairness.
The lack of clarity regarding how the Director should assess whether an agency's rule should be finalized despite exceeding the cost limit (Section 2; SEC. 210(b)(3)) could lead to inconsistent decision-making. This raises legal concerns about arbitrary and capricious actions, opening up potential avenues for litigation or disputes over interpretations.
The potential strategic exploitation of the process for exceeding unfunded regulatory cost limits (Section 2) by agencies could enable contentious regulations to be pushed through without sufficient fiscal accountability, raising ethical and financial concerns over unchecked regulatory expansion.
There is insufficient clarity on the impact on state, local, or Tribal governments if cost limits are exceeded (Section 2; SEC. 210(e)), potentially resulting in unforeseen financial burdens and generating political and legal debates over unfunded mandates.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1 of the bill states that this law can be referred to as the “Renewing Efficiency in Government by Budgeting Act of 2024” or simply the “REG Budgeting Act of 2024.”
2. Regulatory budgeting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill introduces "Regulatory Budgeting," requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to set limits on how much new, unfunded regulatory costs agencies can impose each year. Agencies cannot exceed these limits without Congress's approval, and they must report any rule changes that could exceed the budget, explaining why and how they plan to manage costs.
210. Regulatory Budgeting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a process for setting and managing limits on additional unfunded regulatory costs that federal agencies can impose each year. It requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish these limits, report them to Congress, ensure that agencies comply, and provide exceptions only when Congress approves or in case of certain urgent situations, such as emergencies or national security concerns.