PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 9, 2014
Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act of 2013 [sic]- Amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to: (1) require regulatory impact analyses for rules that do not involve a legislative mandate and for final rules that do not have a prior notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) require federal agencies to prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial and final regulatory impact analysis prior to promulgating any proposed or final rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year by state, local, and tribal governments; (3) require such agencies to identify and consider regulatory alternatives before promulgating any proposed or final rule and select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative; (4) define "cost" as the cost of compliance and any reasonably foreseeable indirect cost resulting from agency rulemaking; (5) exempt rules concerning monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee from provisions of such Act relating to regulatory accountability and reform, review of federal mandates, and judicial review; and (6) expand provisions relating to judicial review of regulatory impact analyses.
Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to require independent regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses.
People & committees
Rep. Yoder, Kevin [R-KS-3] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and the Budget, 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 Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and the Budget, 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 Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and the Budget, 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 Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and the Budget, 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.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.4655 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.4655 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.4655 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.4655 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.