Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 56 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3782-S3785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT OF 1999

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar 424, S. 1198.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1198) to amend chapter 8 of Title 5, United
States Code, to provide for a report by the General
Accounting Office to Congress on agency regulatory actions,
and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Governmental Affairs with
an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Regulating Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) increase the transparency of important regulatory
decisions;
(2) promote effective congressional oversight to ensure
that agency rules fulfill statutory requirements in an
efficient, effective, and fair manner; and
(3) increase the accountability of Congress and the
agencies to the people they serve.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the term--
(1) ``agency'' has the meaning given such term under
section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code;
(2) ``economically significant rule'' means any proposed or
final rule, including an interim or direct final rule, that
may have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities; and
(3) ``independent evaluation'' means a substantive
evaluation of the agency's data, methodology, and assumptions
used in developing the economically significant rule,
including--

[[Page S3783]]

(A) an explanation of how any strengths or weaknesses in
those data, methodology, and assumptions support or detract
from conclusions reached by the agency; and
(B) the implications, if any, of those strengths or
weaknesses for the rulemaking.

SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Request of review.--When an agency publishes an
economically significant rule, the Comptroller General of the
United States may review the rule at the request of a
committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress.
(2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
on each economically significant rule selected under
paragraph (4) to the committees of jurisdiction in each House
of Congress not later than 180 calendar days after a
committee request is received. The report shall include an
independent evaluation of the economically significant rule
by the Comptroller General.
(3) Independent evaluation.--The independent evaluation of
the economically significant rule by the Comptroller General
under paragraph (2) shall include--
(A) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential
benefits of the rule, including any beneficial effects that
cannot be quantified in monetary terms and the identification
of the persons or entities likely to receive the benefits;
(B) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential
costs of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot
be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the
persons or entities likely to bear the costs;
(C) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of alternative
approaches set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking and
in the rulemaking record, as well as of any regulatory impact
analysis, federalism assessment, or other analysis or
assessment prepared by the agency or required for the
economically significant rule; and
(D) a summary of the results of the evaluation of the
Comptroller General and the implications of those results.
(4) Procedures for priorities of requests.--The Comptroller
General shall have discretion to develop procedures for
determining the priority and number of requests for review
under paragraph (1) for which a report will be submitted
under paragraph (2).
(b) Authority of Comptroller General.--Each agency shall
promptly cooperate with the Comptroller General in carrying
out this Act. Nothing in this Act is intended to expand or
limit the authority of the General Accounting Office.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the General
Accounting Office to carry out this Act $5,200,000 for each
of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF PILOT PROJECT.

(a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Duration of Pilot Project.--The pilot project under
this Act shall continue for a period of 3 years, if in each
fiscal year, or portion thereof included in that period, a
specific annual appropriation not less than $5,200,000 or the
pro-rated equivalent thereof shall have been made for the
pilot project.
(c) Report.--Before the conclusion of the 3-year period,
the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report
reviewing the effectiveness of the pilot project and
recommending whether or not Congress should permanently
authorize the pilot project.

Amendment No. 3142

(Purpose: To provide that the chairman or ranking member of a
congressional committee with legislative or oversight jurisdiction may
request review of an economically significant rule.)

Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Levin has an amendment at the desk. I ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for Mr. Levin,
proposes an amendment numbered 3142.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 7, strike lines 15 through 19 and insert the
following:
(1) Request for review.--When an agency publishes an
economically significant rule, a chairman or ranking member
of a committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress
may request the Comptroller General of the United states to
review the rule.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has
passed by unanimous consent the ``Truth in Regulating Act.'' This
legislation would support Congressional oversight to ensure that
important regulatory decisions are efficient, effective, and fair.
The foundation of the ``Truth in Regulating Act'' is the right of
Congress and the people we serve to know about important regulatory
decisions. Through the General Accounting Office, which serves as
Congress' eyes and ears, this legislation will help us get access to
the cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and other key information
underlying important regulatory proposals. So, in a real sense, this
legislation not only gives people the right to know; it gives them the
right to see--to see how the government works, or doesn't. GAO will be
responsible for providing an evaluation of the analysis underlying a
proposed regulation, which will enable us to communicate better with
the agency up front. It will help us to ensure that the proposed
regulation ultimately is sensible and consistent with Congress' intent.
It will help improve the quality of important regulations. This will
contribute to the success of programs the public values and improve
public confidence in the Federal Government, which is a real concern
today.
Under the 3-year pilot project established by this legislation, a
chairman or ranking member of a committee with legislative or general
oversight jurisdiction, such as Governmental Affairs, may request the
GAO to provide an independent evaluation of the agency regulatory
analysis for any proposed economically significant rule. The
Comptroller General shall submit a report no later than 180 calendar
days after a committee request is received. The Comptroller General's
evaluation of the rule shall include the following: an evaluation of
the agency's analysis of the potential benefits of the rule; an
evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential costs of the rule;
an evaluation of the agency's analysis of alternative approaches as
well as of any cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, federalism
assessment, or other analysis prepared by the agency or required for
the rule; and a summary of the results of the evaluation and the
implications of those results.
Mr. President, it is my hope that the ``Truth in Regulating Act''
will encourage Federal agencies to make better use of modern
decisionmaking tools, such as benefit-cost analysis and risk
assessment. Currently, these important tools often are viewed simply as
options--options that aren't used as much or as well as they should be.
Over the years, the Governmental Affairs Committee has reviewed and
developed a voluminous record showing that our regulatory process is
not working as well as intended and is missing important opportunities
to achieve more cost-effective regulation. In April 1999, I chaired a
hearing in which we heard testimony on the need for this proposal. The
General Accounting Office has done important studies for Governmental
Affairs and other committees showing that agency practices--in cost-
benefit analysis, risk assessment, federalism assessments, and in
meeting transparency and disclosure requirements of laws and executive
orders--need significant improvement. Many other authorities support
these findings. All of us benefit when government performs well and
meets the needs of the people it serves.
A lot of effort and collaboration went into this legislation, which I
think is why the Senate can now approve it unanimously. S. 1198 was
originally the ``Congressional Accountability for Regulatory
Information Act of 1999,'' sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby with
Senators Lott and Bond. I sponsored S. 1244, the ``Truth in Regulating
Act of 1999,'' with Senators Lincoln, Voinovich, Kerrey, Breaux,
Landrieu, Inhofe, Stevens, Bennett, Robb, Hagel, and Roth. We
synthesized these two similar bills, and I negotiated certain changes
and clarifications with Joe Lieberman, the Ranking Member of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. On November 3, 1999, the negotiated
changes were offered as a Thompson/Lieberman substitute amendment to S.
1198, and the bill was reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee
by voice vote. Afterwards, I worked on clarifications with Senator
Levin. I thank my colleagues for pulling together to get the job done.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am supporting Senate passage of S.
1198, a bill to provide a three year pilot program for GAO review of
certain agency rule makings. These are rule makings where the Chairman
or Ranking Member of a committee of jurisdiction in the House or the
Senate has requested such a review after the rule has been published as
proposed.
As first introduced and considered in the Governmental Affairs
Committee, I

[[Page S3784]]

was opposed to this bill. I was concerned that it created a two track
rule making process, putting GAO in the shoes of the rule making agency
and having GAO carry out its own interpretation of the public comments,
scientific studies and economic analyses involved in the development of
the rule. But through the work of Senator Thompson and Senator
Lieberman, the bill has been reworked and refined to a point where it
may provide the agencies, Congress and the public with helpful
information in evaluating the work of a rule making in progress without
jeopardizing the separate and distinct roles played by the Executive
and Legislative branches in the regulatory process.
As most of my colleagues know, I, along with Senator Thompson, have
been fighting for years for a regulatory reform bill that would
establish clear cost-benefit analysis standards for federal rule making
agencies. I believe it is very important that federal agencies do a
reasonable and proficient job of assessing the potential costs and the
potential benefits of a proposed regulatory option and that they inform
the public and Congress of those costs and benefits and tell us whether
it's likely that the benefits of a proposed rule justify the costs. If
an agency can't make that determination or if an agency concludes that
the benefits of a rule don't justify the costs, then it should have the
obligation to tell us why it is going ahead with the regulation. That,
to me, is common sense. And it's particularly important in light of
recent studies which show that numerous rules issued by federal
agencies don't have benefits that justify the costs. We need to know
why and in the future, with that information, we can decide whether we
want to regulate under those circumstances. But Senator Thompson and I,
despite a wide ranging group of supporters and the commitment of the
Administration to sign the bill, have been frustrated in our efforts to
get such a bill passed.
I think passing The Regulatory Improvement Act, S. 746, should be our
first priority--getting the basic systems in place--and then once
passed, consider an evaluative role for GAO in reviewing what agencies
are doing in response to the requirements of that new law. But in the
face of entrenched opposition to the Regulatory Improvement Act, the
Governmental Affairs Committee has pushed ahead with the GAO bill, and
given the significant amendments made to the bill during the
Committee's markup and the amendment we are adopting here, on the
Senate floor, today, I am willing to help advance this legislation now.
The amendments to which I refer did several important things,
including: specifying that GAO's role is to review the work of the
agency and not the substance of the rule; beginning GAO's review after
the rule has been published as proposed; and ensuring the existing
discretion and authority of both the rule making agencies and the GAO.
Mr. President, I would like to confirm with the chairman and ranking
member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, if they would, my
understanding of certain provisions of this bill. First, I understand
from this legislation that the rule making agencies retain their
authority and discretion with respect to the issuance of rules. Nothing
in this bill is intended to alter an agency's authority or discretion
with respect to a rule making. Is that right?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. It is also my understanding that this legislation is not
intended to authorize any delay in the issuance of a rule.
Mr. THOMPSON. That's right.
Mr. LEVIN. And finally, it is my understanding that when GAO issues
its report on a rule pursuant to this legislation, that report, like
the audit reports GAO issues now, will allow for the subject agency to
respond to the findings and comments of GAO and will embody the
agency's response in the GAO report. Is that right?
Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. In short, then, this legislation neither expands or
contracts the authority of GAO in reviewing an agency's rule making nor
does it expand or contract a rule making agency's authority to develop
or issue a rule. The legislation establishes a process by which a
chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction can request
GAO after a proposed rule is published, to review the rule and report
to Congress within 180 days, and it gives GAO the staff resources to
carry those reviews out. Is that right?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from
Connecticut for their clarifications.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to,
the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be read
the third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related
to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3142) was agreed to.
The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1198), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:

S. 1198

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Regulating Act of
2000''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Request for review.--When an agency publishes an
economically significant rule, a chairman or ranking member
of a committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress
may request the Comptroller General of the United States to
review the rule.
(2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
on each economically significant rule selected under
paragraph (4) to the committees of jurisdiction in each House
of Congress not later than 180 calendar days after a
committee request is received. The report shall include an
independent evaluation of the economically significant rule
by the Comptroller General.
(3) Independent evaluation.--The independent evaluation of
the economically significant rule by the Comptroller General
under paragraph (2) shall include--
(A) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential
benefits of the rule, including any beneficial effects that
cannot be quantified in monetary terms and the identification
of the persons or entities likely to receive the benefits;
(B) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential
costs of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot
be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the
persons or entities likely to bear the costs;
(C) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of alternative
approaches set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking and
in the rulemaking record, as well as of any regulatory impact
analysis, federalism assessment, or other analysis or
assessment prepared by the agency or required for the
economically significant rule; and
(D) a summary of the results of the evaluation of the
Comptroller General and the implications of those results.
(4) Procedures for priorities of requests.--The Comptroller
General shall have discretion to develop procedures for
determining the priority and number of requests for review
under paragraph (1) for which a report will be submitted
under paragraph (2).
(b) Authority of Comptroller General.--Each agency shall
promptly cooperate with the Comptroller General in carrying
out this Act. Nothing in this Act is intended to expand or
limit the authority of the General Accounting Office.

[[Page S3785]]

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the General
Accounting Office to carry out this Act $5,200,000 for each
of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF PILOT PROJECT.

____________________