PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 17.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 24, 2017
Lessening Regulatory Costs and Establishing a Federal Regulatory Budget Act of 2017
This bill requires federal agencies to: (1) designate regulatory reform officers to oversee reduction, cost control, planning, review, and termination of regulatory programs; and (2) establish task forces to recommend, within a five-year period, the repeal or amendment of regulations that eliminate or inhibit jobs, impose costs exceeding benefits, create inconsistency, interfere with regulatory reform, are inconsistent with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines, were made to implement executive orders or presidential directives subsequently rescinded or modified, or are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.
Any new incremental cost of a new significant regulatory action must be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulatory actions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must set a net amount of incremental costs allowed for each agency in issuing new significant regulatory actions and repealing regulatory actions for the each fiscal year. If an agency does not exhaust all the incremental cost allowance for a fiscal year, that remaining balance may be included in the incremental allowance for the subsequent fiscal year.
Before proposing a significant regulatory action during FY2018, an agency must identify at least two regulatory actions for repeal. Total incremental cost of all such new significant regulatory actions and any repealed regulatory action must be: (1) no greater than zero, or (2) consistent with an OMB waiver.
Agencies must submit an annual regulatory plan to the OMB about: (1) the costs of proposed or finalized regulations, and (2) the economic effects and the net effect on jobs considered when drafting significant regulatory actions.
The bill prohibits issuance of a significant regulatory action if it was not included in the most recent version of the published unified agenda of regulations under development or review, unless it was approved by the OMB.
People & committees
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC-11] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2623 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2623 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2623 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2623 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.