PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 10, 2017
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017
This bill amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to broaden the scope of the Act.
Under the Act, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) must study and report on the impact of federal mandates in legislation and estimate their direct costs to state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This bill requires CBO's estimates to include: (1) costs to state, local, or tribal governments participating in a federal assistance program for carrying out changes in conditions of federal assistance that are proposed by legislation, upon the request of certain members of Congress; (2) indirect costs to the private sector, such as foregone profits and costs passed onto consumers and other entities; and (3) costs of rules issued by independent regulatory agencies, except the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Open Market Committee, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In addition, Congress may raise a substantive point of order when considering legislation that would increase the direct cost of private sector mandates beyond certain limits.
The bill amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, including by: (1) transferring certain responsibilities from the Office of Management and Budget to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, (2) establishing criteria to guide agencies in assessing the effects of federal regulatory actions, (3) revising requirements for agency statements accompanying significant regulatory actions, (4) requiring agencies to develop a process that allows impacted private sector parties to provide input on regulatory proposals containing significant federal mandates, and (5) requiring agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing regulation upon the request of certain members of Congress.
People & committees
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.1523 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 S.1523 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 S.1523 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 S.1523 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.