Category: US Congressional Budget Office

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

H.R. 1736 would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to report to the Congress annually on the threat of terrorism posed by the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). Generative AI uses computer models that learn from existing data to develop novel output, including images, video, and audio, based on input provided by a user. The bill’s reporting requirement would end six years after enactment.

H.R. 1736 also would require DHS to review and disseminate information gathered by the national network of fusion centers that is related to threats of terrorism posed by the use of generative AI. Fusion centers are state-owned entities that combine intelligence, resources, and expertise across federal, state, local, and tribal agencies within each state or major urban area.

Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1736 would cost less than $500,000 over the 2026-2030 period, primarily for the bill’s reporting requirements. Any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Because DHS already receives information from fusion centers and disseminates such information, CBO expects that any costs related to implementing that requirement would be insignificant.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeremy Crimm. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

H.R. 5181 would reauthorize the Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Act, which authorizes funding for public and charter K-12 schools in the District of Columbia and scholarships to attend private K-12 schools for students who reside in the District of Columbia and meet additional criteria. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $60 million annually through 2032 and change the percentage of funds allocated for scholarships and support of schools. The bill also would amend the scholarship program to include pre-kindergarten students and allow funds to cover tutoring services, among other changes.

CBO expects that H.R. 5181 will be enacted by the end of 2025. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $300 million over the 2026-2030 period and an additional $120 million after 2030, assuming the appropriation of the authorized amounts.

The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 5181 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation primarily fall within budget function 500 (education, training, employment, and social services).

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Garrett Quenneville. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

Bill Summary

S. 688 would reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program until September 30, 2031. In addition, the bill would authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other federal agencies to expand enforcement of regulations against illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing and establish and maintain a blacklist of foreign vessels involved in those activities. The bill would increase sanctions and penalties for violators and would require agencies to track the use of forced labor on those vessels.

Estimated Federal Cost

The estimated budgetary effect of S. 688 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

Basis of Estimate

CBO assumes that S. 688 will be enacted by the end of calendar year 2025 and that the authorized and necessary amounts will be available in each year.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $587 million over the 2026-2030 period.

National Sea Grant College Program. S. 688 would authorize the appropriation of $112 million annually from 2026 through 2031 for the National Sea Grant College Program. That program is a partnership between NOAA and 34 universities that focuses on research, conservation, and the effective use of U.S. coastal resources. In 2024, the Congress provided $80 million for the program. CBO estimates that implementing the provision would cost $489 million over the 2026-2030 period and $175 million after 2030, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.

Enforcement of Illegal-Fishing Regulations and Blacklisting Violators. S. 688 would authorize the appropriation of $20 million annually from 2026 through 2030 for NOAA, in coordination with Customs and Border Protection, and the Departments of Labor and State, to expand enforcement of regulations against IUU fishing.

Under the bill, NOAA would maintain and publish a blacklist of foreign vessels that violate IUU‑fishing regulations and that are identified as using forced labor in those activities. The agency also would be directed to issue regulations for adding vessels to and removing them from the list.

S. 688 also would authorize $4 million for the National Academy of Sciences to study the use of forced labor in IUU fishing, the costs to the global economy of those activities, and the effectiveness of strategies for deterring them.

CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $91 million over the 2026‑2030 period and $12 million after 2030, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.

Administrative Costs. Using information from the agencies, CBO estimates that implementing S. 688 would cost NOAA $4 million in the first year to develop a strategy to increase IUU-fishing inspection and enforcement programs, to coordinate with other federal agencies and regional fisheries management organizations, and to collect and analyze data and prepare reports. Thereafter, costs would total about $1 million annually for enforcement and increased screening of seafood imports. CBO estimates that those activities would cost a total of $7 million over the 2026‑2030 period; any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Direct Spending and Revenues

S. 688 would allow the Administration to impose sanctions on any foreign persons or entities engaging in IUU fishing. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have an insignificant effect on direct spending and revenues over the 2026-2035 period stemming from the sanctions the bill would authorize.

Under current law, the Administration can sanction foreign persons and entities that engage in corruption, including IUU fishing. If the enactment of S. 688 leads the Administration to broaden those sanctions, more people would be denied visas by the Department of State, resulting in an insignificant decrease in revenues from visa fees. Although most visa fees are retained by the Department of State and spent, some collections are deposited in the Treasury as revenues. Denying foreign nationals entry into the United States also would reduce direct spending on federal benefits (emergency Medicaid or federal subsidies for health insurance, for example) for which those people might otherwise be eligible.

The bill would block transactions involving certain assets either in the United States or under the control of people or entities in the United States. Under the bill, any person or entity violating those prohibitions would be subject to civil or criminal monetary penalties. Such penalties are recorded as revenues, and a portion can be spent without further appropriation.

Using data from similar sanctions, CBO estimates that any additional sanctions imposed under the bill would affect a small number of people. Thus, enacting S. 688 would have insignificant effects on revenues and direct spending, and would, on net, reduce deficits by insignificant amounts over the 2026-2035 period.

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would change direct spending and revenues by less than $500,000 over the 2026‑2035 period.

Increase in Long-Term Net Direct Spending and Deficits

CBO estimates that enacting S. 688 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

Mandates

S. 688 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by expanding the scope of authority for the Administration to regulate transactions between entities in the United States and foreign entities and officials of foreign governments who would be subject to sanctions under the bill. That expansion would result in additional burdens on individuals and entities, such as banks, in the United States that are required to monitor and report on foreign transactions and to block access to certain assets owned by sanctioned entities. Such an expansion also would prohibit transactions between entities in the United States and sanctioned parties that otherwise would be permitted under current law.

The cost of the mandate would be any income or profit lost as a result of the bill’s enactment. CBO expects that because a small number of people or entities would be affected, the loss of income from any incremental increase in restrictions imposed by the bill would be small as well. CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($206 million in 2025, adjusted annually for inflation).

S. 688 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.

Federal Costs: Aurora Swanson

Mandates: Erich Dvorak and Brandon Lever

Estimate Reviewed By

Ann E. Futrell
Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit

Kathleen FitzGerald
Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit

H. Samuel Papenfuss
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis

Phillip L. Swagel

Director, Congressional Budget Office

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

S. 911 would extend eligibility for death, disability, and education benefits provided by the Public Safety Officers’ Benefit (PSOB) Program to retired public safety officers and their beneficiaries if a retired officer dies or becomes permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of an injury sustained from an attack that was motivated because of their service. The act would apply retroactively to officers who die or become permanently disabled on or after January 1, 2012.

Background

The PSOB Program is administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide cash benefits to federal, state, and local public safety officers and their beneficiaries in the event of death or permanent and total disability resulting from physical injuries. The program also provides benefits for certain mental health conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Education benefits are available to eligible spouses and children of officers who die or become disabled in the line of duty. Public safety officers include firefighters and those working in law enforcement, emergency management, and emergency medical services.

Direct Spending

The PSOB Program pays a onetime death benefit to spouses and children or other designated beneficiaries of officers who die in the line of duty. The cost of that death benefit is classified in the budget as direct spending and, under current law, the benefit amount is adjusted annually to account for inflation. In 2025, the benefit was $448,575.

CBO is aware of one claim that would be eligible under S. 911 and expects the number of future claims filed and approved under the act to be small. Based on the time that CBO estimates it would take DOJ to process each claim and accounting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that enacting S. 911 would increase direct spending by $1 million over the 2026-2035 period.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

By expanding the scope of qualifying deaths and injuries, S. 911 also would increase the number of claimants eligible for disability and education benefits under the PSOB Program. Using information from DOJ on the types of claims and their approval rates, CBO expects that, under the legislation, fewer claims would be filed for disability and education benefits than would be filed for death benefits. CBO estimates that implementing S. 911 would cost less than $500,000 over the 2026-2030 period; any related spending for education and disability benefits would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Uncertainty

CBO’s cost estimate for S. 911 is subject to significant uncertainty. In particular, limited data are available to estimate the number of people who would be eligible to file claims for benefits. If the number of eligible claimants is larger or smaller than CBO expects, the costs of enacting the act could be higher or lower than estimated.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeremy Crimm. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

Bill Summary

H.R. 3843 would require the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) to accept additional evidence from claimants when the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (CAVC) remands certain appeals for veterans’ benefits. BVA is a component of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that hears appeals on matters affecting VA benefits. Further, the bill would prohibit VA from rejecting appeals of claims for veterans’ benefits solely because the appellant does not submit new or relevant evidence. Finally, the bill would extend the reduction of pension payments for veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes.

Estimated Federal Cost

The estimated budgetary effects of HR 3834 are shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget functions 550 (health) and 700 (veterans benefits and services).

Basis of Estimate

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 3834 will be enacted early in fiscal year 2026 and that outlays will follow historical patterns for affected programs.

Direct Spending

Provisions of H.R. 3834 would affect direct spending by requiring BVA to consider additional evidence in appeals for veterans’ benefits, which CBO estimates would result in an increase in the number of people receiving disability compensation from VA. It also would reduce pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes. In addition, the bill would require BVA to hear certain appeals, which would increase that agency’s workload. (That provision also would affect spending subject to appropriation.)

CBO estimates that, in total, enacting the bill would reduce net direct spending by $39 million over the 2026- 2035 period (see Table 2).

Table 2. Estimated Changes in Direct Spending Under H.R. 3834
	By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars
	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033	2034	2035	2026-2030	2026-2035
Additional Evidence
Estimated Budget Authority	2	3	5	7	9	11	13	15	17	19	26	101
Estimated Outlays	2	3	5	7	9	11	13	15	17	19	26	101
Pensions and Medicaid
Estimated Budget Authority	0	0	0	0	0	0	-40	-48	-48	-12	0	-148
Estimated Outlays	0	0	0	0	0	0	-40	-48	-48	-12	0	-148
Claims Workload
Estimated Budget Authority	*	*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	8
Estimated Outlays	*	*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	8
Total Changes
Budget Authority	2	3	6	8	10	12	-26	-32	-30	8	29	-39
Estimated Outlays	2	3	6	8	10	12	-26	-32	-30	8	29	-39

Additional Evidence. H.R. 3834 would allow claimants to submit additional evidence when appealing certain decisions. Claimants can appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) if BVA denies an initial appeal of a VA decision that denies a claim. Each year, CAVC remands about 7,250 appeals back to BVA. In many cases, CAVC directs BVA to reconsider its evaluation of the original evidence submitted in the claim. Under current law, appellants generally are not permitted to submit additional evidence to BVA when it considers a remanded case. Under the bill, appellants in such cases may submit additional evidence to support their claims within 90 days.

CBO estimates that, under the bill, about 1,000 veterans each year would submit additional evidence related to claims for disability compensation to BVA, and that about 100 would have their claims decided in their favor.Using information about the disability ratings of appellants, CBO estimates that about 25 veterans would newly receive disability compensation each year at an average annual amount of $16,000. CBO estimates that the remaining 75 veterans would have their disability rating increased and receive an additional $18,800 per year. In total, considering additional evidence during appeals would increase direct spending by $101 million over the 2026-2035 period, CBO estimates.

Pensions and Medicaid. Under current law, VA reduces pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes to $90 per month. That required reduction expires November 30, 2031. Section 3 would extend that reduction for 38 months, through January 30, 2035. CBO estimates that extending that requirement would reduce VA benefits by about $10 million per month. (Those benefits are paid from mandatory appropriations and are therefore considered direct spending.) As a result of that reduction in beneficiaries’ income, Medicaid would pay more of the cost of their care, increasing spending for that program by about $6 million per month. Thus, enacting section 3 would reduce net direct spending by $148 million over the 2026-2035 period.

Claims Workload. As discussed below under the heading “Provisions that Affect Spending Subject to Appropriation and Direct Spending,” CBO estimates that BVA’s workload would increase as a result of the bill’s requirement to hear each appeal on the merits of the claim, even if new and relevant evidence is not submitted. Some of the cost of that additional workload would be paid from the Toxic Exposures Fund, a mandatory appropriation. Direct spending for that requirement would total $8 million, CBO estimates.

Provisions that Affect Spending Subject to Appropriation and Direct Spending

H.R. 3834 would require BVA to consider an appeal for VA benefits in cases where the appellant does not submit new evidence to support the claim. Under current law, applicants for VA benefits who receive an unfavorable decision on their initial claim from the VA may appeal by filing a supplemental claim in which they submit additional evidence to VA to support their appeal. The submitted evidence must be considered new and relevant; otherwise, VA denies the appeal. Claimants may then appeal the decision directly to BVA. However, BVA typically also denies appeals in cases where a claim lacks new and relevant evidence.

The bill would require BVA to consider an appeal on the merits of the claim, regardless of whether new and relevant evidence is submitted. CBO anticipates that requiring BVA to consider such appeals would not affect the outcomes because claims would include the same information that resulted in the initial decision. However, considering those appeals would increase BVA’s workload. Using information on the number of claims that are denied for lack of new and relevant evidence, CBO estimates the additional workload would be equivalent to that of 50 full-time attorneys. Those attorneys would receive an average total compensation of about $250,000, for a total cost of $26 million over the 2026-2035 budget window, CBO estimates.

CBO expects that some of the costs of implementing the bill would be paid from the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF) established by Public Law 117-168, the Honoring our PACT Act. The TEF is a mandatory appropriation that VA uses to pay for health care, disability claims processing, medical research, and IT modernization that benefit veterans who were exposed to environmental hazards. Additional spending from the TEF would occur if legislation increases the costs of similar activities that benefit veterans with such exposure. Thus, in addition to increasing spending subject to appropriation, enacting the bill would increase amounts paid from the TEF, which are classified as direct spending.

CBO projects that the proportion of costs paid by the TEF will grow over time based on the amount of formerly discretionary appropriations that CBO expects will be provided through the mandatory appropriation as specified in the Honoring our PACT Act. CBO estimates that over the 2026-2035 period, implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by $18 million and direct spending by $8 million.

Uncertainty

CBO’s estimate of the bill’s costs is subject to uncertainty about the number of veterans whose appeals would be adjudicated in their favor because they were able to submit additional evidence to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Costs could differ if the number of veterans who become eligible for benefits is greater or less than CBO estimates.

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 1.

Increase in Long-Term Net Direct Spending and Deficits

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3834 would not increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3834 would not increase on‑budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

Mandates

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Federal Costs: Logan Smith

Mandates: Brandon Lever

Estimate Reviewed By

David Newman
Chief, Defense, International Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs Cost Estimates Unit

Kathleen FitzGerald 
Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit

Christina Hawley Anthony
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

To provide the Congress with a comprehensive review of its work, the Congressional Budget Office publishes quarterly reports that highlight the agency’s recent publications and summarize its work in progress. Over the past three months, CBO has produced a variety of budget and economic analyses, fulfilling the agency’s core mission of supporting the Congress during each stage of the legislative process. The agency’s work takes many forms, including technical assistance to committees and Members when they are crafting legislation, cost estimates of legislation, testimonies, reports, and other analytical products.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

S. 909 would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to convey approximately 3,400 acres of land at fair market value to La Paz County, Arizona, subject to valid existing rights, if the county requests the land.

In January 2025, BLM granted a 30-year right-of-way on that parcel of federal land in La Paz County to an energy developer and approved the construction of a solar energy project. Under the act, that land would be conveyed to the county. Based on information from BLM, CBO expects the county would request to purchase the land specified in the act. That sale and its effect on the approved solar energy project would, on net, increase direct spending.

The costs of the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

Land Conveyance

Based on typical time frames for federal land conveyances, CBO expects that the transfer would take about three years to complete. Proceeds from the land sale would be recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts, that is, as reductions in direct spending. Those receipts would be deposited in the Federal Land Disposal Account where they could be spent without further appropriation to purchase eligible land; thus, CBO estimates that the net effect on direct spending from conveying the land would be negligible because the proceeds would be spent shortly thereafter.

Additionally, La Paz County would be required to pay for all costs associated with the conveyance under S. 909. However, CBO expects that some administrative costs incurred to update maps would not be reimbursed by the county. We estimate those costs would be insignificant; any related spending for such administrative expenses would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Energy Right-of-Way

Using information from BLM, CBO estimates that the energy project will begin producing in 2027 and the right-of-way will generate an average of $4 million in receipts annually beginning in that year. Under current law, Arizona and La Paz County would receive one-quarter of those receipts each; the other half would be recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts (that is, as reductions in direct spending) and would not be available to spend.

Because the land conveyance would be subject to valid existing rights, the solar energy project would continue to move forward; however, La Paz County would receive the receipts from the right-of-way as the owner of the land with the right-of-way. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting S. 909 would increase net direct spending by $13 million over the 2026-2035 period.

Previous CBO Estimate

On October 8, 2025, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1043, the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on September 11, 2025. The two bills are similar, and CBO’s estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lilia Ledezma. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

S. 1453 would confirm the acceptability of the University of Utah’s ongoing use of a 594‑acre parcel of land. In 1968, the Department of the Interior conveyed the land to the university under the condition that it be used for public purposes. The university established and is currently operating an academic research park on the land, which houses technology, education, and medical facilities. The bill also would allow the university to develop student housing and a transit hub on the land and to use the area for other purposes related to the research park. Because those uses would have no cost to the federal government, CBO estimates that enacting S. 1453 would have no effect on the federal budget.

On August 13, 2025, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2876, the University of Utah Research Park Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 25, 2025. The two bills are similar, and CBO’s estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Katherine Chou. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

S. 1442 would require the Department of Transportation (DOT) to add a representative from a state department of transportation to its Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking. The Secretary of Transportation would need to appoint this member within nine months of enactment. Members of the committee serve without pay but may be reimbursed for travel and daily expenses.

Based on the costs of similar advisory committees, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1442 would cost less than $500,000 over the 2026-2030 period; any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Willow Latham-Proença. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

Source: US Congressional Budget Office

Bill Summary

H.R. 3379 would require the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to recommend changes to the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, commonly referred to as the CAMELS rating system. This system is used by the federal regulators to evaluate the soundness of financial institutions.

Among other requirements, the FFIEC would need to establish criteria for assessing each CAMELS component and ensure that ratings are determined based on a transparent methodology. The bill would direct the member agencies of the FFIEC—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—to jointly issue rules to implement the changes.

Estimated Federal Cost

The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 3379 is discussed below. The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and housing credit).

Basis of Estimate

CBO expects that H.R. 3379 will be enacted by the end of 2025. The FFIEC is funded by its member agencies. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO expects that each member agency would need one employee in 2026 and 2027 to implement the bill’s requirements.

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3379 would increase direct spending by $1 million, decrease revenues by $1 million, and decrease the federal deficit by $2 million over the 2026-2035 period. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by $1 million over the same period.

Direct Spending

The administrative costs of the FDIC, NCUA, and OCC are classified in the federal budget as direct spending. CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase gross direct spending by $2 million over the 2026-2035 period. However, the NCUA and OCC collect fees from financial institutions to offset their costs; those fees are treated as reductions in direct spending. After accounting for those fees, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending by $1 million over the same period.

Revenues

Costs incurred by the Federal Reserve reduce remittances to the Treasury, which are recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3379 would decrease revenues by $1 million over the 2026-2035 period.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

Under current law, the CFPB is permanently authorized to spend amounts transferred from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve in an amount necessary to carry out its responsibilities, subject to a statutory cap that was lowered by the 2025 reconciliation act. CBO expects that the CFPB will spend all the transferred funds up to its cap in each year over the 2026-2035 period. Thus, CBO treats any costs for the CFPB to implement H.R. 3379 as contingent on future appropriations; CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by $1 million.

Uncertainty

The changes made to the CAMELS rating system under H.R. 3379 could affect fees collected by the FDIC. The FDIC charges a risk-based assessment fee that uses an institution’s CAMELS rating to determine the rate. CBO estimated only the additional administrative costs of enacting H.R. 3379 and did not estimate any other budgetary effects. CBO cannot predict the magnitude or direction of any budgetary effects because they depend on uncertain factors, including what types of changes are recommended and how many institutions would be affected by those changes.

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3379 would increase direct spending by $1 million and decrease revenues by $1 million over the 2026-2035 period.

Increase in Long-Term Net Direct Spending and Deficits

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3379 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

Mandates

If federal financial regulators increase annual fees to offset the costs of implementing the bill, H.R. 3379 would increase the costs of an existing private-sector mandate on entities required to pay those fees. CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) for private-sector mandates ($206 million in 2025, adjusted annually for inflation).

The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.

Revenues: Nathaniel Frentz

Mandates: Rachel Austin

Estimate Reviewed By

Justin Humphrey
Chief, Finance, Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit

Joshua Shakin
Chief, Revenue Projections Unit

Kathleen FitzGerald
Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit

H. Samuel Papenfuss 
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis