PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-266.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 20, 2015
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015
States as the purposes of this Act to: (1) improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress with respect to proposed federal mandates by providing Congress and the public with more complete information about the effects of such mandates and by ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation on their effects; and (2) enhance the ability of Congress and the public to identify federal mandates that may impose undue harm on consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to: (1) require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at the request of the chairman or ranking member of a congressional committee, to conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in legislation to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes to a condition of federal assistance being imposed on state, local, or tribal governments participating in the federal assistance program; (2) modify the definition of "direct costs" to require CBO to consider, in accounting for the costs of federal mandates, forgone business profits, costs passed onto consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes; (3) eliminate the exemption of independent regulatory agencies (except the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee) from reporting requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA); and (4) make the raising of points of order in the consideration of congressional legislation applicable to legislation that would increase the direct cost of private sector mandates beyond limits established by UMRA.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends UMRA to: (1) transfer certain responsibilities under such Act from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; (2) set forth detailed criteria to guide agencies in assessing the effects of federal regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector; (3) revise requirements for agency statements accompanying significant regulatory actions to require an analysis of the annual effect of a proposed final rule on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector and to require all statements and summaries under UMRA to be detailed; and (4) extend to the the private sector (including small business) the requirement for consultation with agencies in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant federal mandates and set forth detailed guidelines for such consultation.
Revises UMRA reporting requirements to require: (1) the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to provide guidance and oversight so that agency regulations are consistent with the principles and policies of UMRA and do not conflict with the policies or actions of another agency; and (2) agencies to include in their annual compliance statements an appendix detailing consultation activities with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
Amends UMRA to require an agency, at the request of the chairman or ranking member of a standing or select House or Senate Committee, to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing regulation promulgated by such agency and submit to the chairman of the relevant committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report on such regulation.
Expands judicial review under UMRA to include review of provisions of such Act relating to agency assessment of the effects of the regulatory process and agency selection of the least costly or least burdensome alternative to a regulatory mandate. Grants courts expanded powers to compel agencies to comply with UMRA reporting requirements.
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.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-266.
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.189 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.189 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.189 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.189 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.