Cost-of-living Emergency Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 27, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a comprehensive, government-wide framework to address the cost-of-living crisis through executive action, regulatory oversight, and congressional policy recommendations, significantly expanding the federal government's role in managing economic costs.
What it actually does
This bill declares a national emergency regarding the high cost of living in the United States for 180 days, which can be extended by Congress. It mandates the Council of Economic Advisers to prioritize cost-of-living issues, establish a White House Cost Cutting Council, and appoint Special Advisors for various cost sectors. It also requires federal agencies to include household budget impact statements in major regulatory actions, establishes a joint DOJ-FTC task force for emergency price gouging enforcement, and directs the President to use Defense Production Act authorities to expand the supply of basic household necessities. Finally, it creates a bipartisan Congressional Cost-of-Living Commission to recommend policies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides a necessary and urgent response to the escalating cost of living, which disproportionately affects low- and middle-income families. They contend that it empowers the executive branch to take decisive action against corporate profiteering and supply chain bottlenecks, while also fostering bipartisan solutions through the Congressional Commission. Supporters believe these measures are crucial to stabilize household budgets and ensure economic fairness.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that declaring an economic emergency is an overreach of executive power and that the proposed interventions, such as price gouging enforcement and the expanded use of the Defense Production Act, could distort markets, stifle production, and lead to unintended consequences like shortages. Critics may also raise concerns about increased bureaucracy, the potential for politicizing regulatory review, and the bill's impact on business operations and investment.
The bill is moderately complex due to its multiple new entities and mandates, but its structure is clear. An informed reader can understand its core provisions within the estimated reading time, allowing for a substantive evaluation.
Section 3
Declaration of Emergency with Respect to Cost of Living
This section formally declares an emergency regarding the high cost of living in the United States. This declaration is set to last for 180 days but can be extended by a joint resolution of Congress. The declaration triggers the various executive and legislative actions outlined in the subsequent sections of the bill.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a formal declaration of emergency is essential to underscore the severity of the cost-of-living crisis and to provide the necessary legal and political impetus for a coordinated, aggressive government response. They believe it signals a commitment to prioritize the economic well-being of average American families.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that declaring an 'emergency' for economic conditions is an overreach, potentially setting a precedent for executive actions that bypass normal legislative processes. They may argue that economic fluctuations, while challenging, do not always warrant emergency powers and could lead to market distortions.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the perceived urgency of the economic situation and the potential for expanding executive authority beyond traditional bounds. While it enables rapid action, it also risks politicizing economic policy and potentially bypassing standard checks and balances.
Section 4
Actions by the Council of Economic Advisers
This section mandates the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) to update its advisory mandate to prioritize the affordability of basic household necessities, economic pressures on low- and middle-income families, and the distributional consequences of federal policy. It establishes a White House Cost Cutting Council and designates six Special Advisors to the President for specific cost areas (e.g., groceries, housing, healthcare, wages). These advisors are tasked with leading inter-agency task forces, preparing weekly reports, hosting regional listening sessions, and testifying to Congress. The CEA must also submit quarterly 'State of Household Budgets' reports.
Section 5
Household Budget Impact Statements for Major Regulatory Actions
This section requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to mandate that federal agencies include a 'household budget impact statement' for any major regulatory action. These statements must detail the estimated effects on an average U.S. household, regional cost variations, estimated benefits for large corporations, and an analysis comparing benefits for households versus large corporations. These statements must be made publicly available unless national security prohibits disclosure.
Section 6
Emergency Enforcement of Price Gouging Laws
This section establishes a 'Joint Task Force on Consumer Costs' composed of the Attorney General and the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as co-chairs, along with staff from DOJ's Antitrust Division and FTC's Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection. The Task Force is mandated to coordinate federal efforts to prevent and prosecute price gouging and other anticompetitive practices during the emergency. Its duties include monitoring prices, sharing information, investigating business practices, initiating joint investigations, providing guidance to State attorneys general, and creating a public portal for consumer reports. It can utilize all existing authorities under the Federal Trade Commission Act, Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and other fraud/hoarding statutes.
Section 7
Mandatory Utilization of Defense Production Act Authorities for Basic Necessities
This section mandates the President to use authorities under Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) to expand the productive capacity and supply of basic household necessities. Crucially, this use is authorized 'without regard to any requirement of that Act that the exercise of such authorities be for the national defense.' It requires a strategic plan for DPA fund expenditures, continuous economic impact analysis to identify supply chain bottlenecks, and an evidentiary requirement that any DPA project must be proven to reduce retail or wholesale costs of a specific necessity within 180 days. Authorized actions include loan guarantees/loans to small- and medium-sized businesses, purchase commitments, and production cost offsets for raw materials.
Section 8
Congressional Cost-of-Living Commission
This section establishes a 12-member bipartisan Cost-of-Living Commission within Congress, composed of Members of Congress and outside experts. The Commission is tasked with identifying policies to improve the cost-of-living situation in the short- and medium-term and achieve sustainable long-term economic growth. It must consider recommendations from congressional committees, hold public hearings, and submit interim and final reports with legislative language. Approval of reports and legislative language requires a bipartisan majority (at least two members from each major party). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to provide estimates for the Commission's proposed legislative language.
This subsection explicitly states that the President shall exercise the authorities provided under Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) 'without regard to any requirement of that Act that the exercise of such authorities be for the national defense.'
Section 7(d)
Why it matters:This provision fundamentally redefines the scope of the DPA, shifting its application from national defense to general economic emergencies. This is a significant expansion of executive power and a reinterpretation of a national security statute, which could be politically sensitive. Placing it as a concluding subsection might make it less prominent.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this exemption is crucial for the DPA to be an effective tool in addressing a cost-of-living emergency. They contend that without it, the President's hands would be tied, unable to direct industrial capacity towards civilian goods despite a clear economic need, thereby making the entire DPA section ineffective for the bill's stated purpose.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this provision represents a dangerous expansion of executive power, repurposing a national security law for broad economic intervention. They might contend that it blurs the lines between national defense and economic policy, potentially leading to the misuse of emergency powers and setting a precedent for future administrations to bypass normal legislative processes for economic matters.
Estimated impact: This provision dramatically broadens the President's authority to direct private industry for purposes beyond national defense, potentially impacting a wide range of industries involved in producing basic household necessities.