[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6851-H6855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT OF 2000
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4924) to establish a 3-year pilot project for the
General Accounting Office to report to Congress on economically
significant rules of Federal agencies, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4924
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.
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 3502(1) of title 44, United States Code, except that
such term shall not include an independent regulatory agency,
as that term is defined in section 3502(5) of such title;
(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, or for which an agency has
prepared an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis
pursuant to section 603 or 604 of title 5, United States
Code; and
(3) ``independent evaluation'' means a substantive
evaluation of the agency's data, methodology, and assumptions
used in developing the economically significant rule,
including--
(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 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, or in the case of a committee
request for review of a notice of proposed rulemaking or an
interim final rulemaking, by the end of the period for
submission of comment regarding the rulemaking, if
practicable. 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 an 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 an 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 an 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 2001 through 2003.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF PILOT PROJECT.
(a) Effective Date.--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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
General Leave
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4924.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes.
(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000. It is a bipartisan,
good government bill. It establishes a regulatory analysis function
within the
[[Page H6852]]
General Accounting Office. This function is intended to enhance
congressional responsibility for regulatory decisions developed under
the laws Congress enacts.
It is a product of the leadership over the past few years by the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction of the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly), who will be joining us here in a minute.
The most basic reason for supporting this bill is constitutional.
Just as Congress needs a Congressional Budget Office to check and
balance the executive branch in the budget process, so it needs an
analytic capability to check and balance the executive branch in the
regulatory process. The GAO, or the General Accounting Office, is the
logical location, since it already has some regulatory review
responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act, otherwise known as
the CRA.
Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests all legislative
powers in the U.S. Congress. While Congress may not delegate its
legislative functions, it routinely authorizes the executive branch
agencies to issue rules and implement laws passed by Congress. Congress
has become increasingly concerned, however, about its responsibility to
oversee agency rule making, especially due to the extensive costs and
impacts of Federal Rules.
During the 105th Congress, the Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs, chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh), on which I serve as vice chairman, held a hearing on the
gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) earlier regulatory analysis
bill, H.R. 1704, which sought to establish a new freestanding
Congressional agency. The subcommittee then marked up and reported her
bill, H.R. 1704, and called for the establishment of a new legislative
branch Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis. We often refer to
this as CORA, most people refer to this as CORA legislation, to analyze
all major results and report to Congress on the potential costs,
benefits, and alternative approaches that could achieve the same
regulatory goals at lower costs.
This agency was intended to aid Congress in analyzing Federal
regulations. The committee report stated that ``Congress needs the
expertise that CORA would provide to carry out its duty under the
Congressional Review Act. Currently Congress does not have the
information it needs to carefully evaluate regulations. The only
analysis that it has to rely on are those provided by the agencies
which actually promulgate the rules. There is no official third party
analysis of new regulations.''
Unfortunately, CORA supporters in the 105th Congress could not
overcome the resistance of the defenders of the regulatory status quo.
Opponents argued against creating a new congressional agency on the
basis of fiscal conservatism, but by this logic, Congress ought to
abolish the CBO as an even more heroic demonstration of fiscal
conservatism. But, of course, most of us recognize that dismantling the
CBO would be penny wise and pound foolish.
In the 106th Congress, the chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the
Committee on Small Business chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory
Reform and Paperwork Reduction, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Kelly), sought to accommodate the prejudice against the free-standing
agency and introduced bills H.R. 3521 and H.R. 3669 respectively to
establish a CORA function within the General Accounting Office, which
is where we are now, which is an existing legislative branch agency
that has this kind of expertise. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) introduced
their bills in January and February of this year.
On May 10, the Senate passed its own regulatory analysis legislation,
S. 1198, the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000, by unanimous consent.
Like the bills of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the Senate legislation would
also establish a regulatory analysis function within the GAO.
During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Government Reform did not
hold a hearing specifically on this bill, but the Subcommittee on
National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs did
hold a June 14th hearing entitled, Does Congress delegate too much
power to agencies and what should be done about it?
Witnesses discussed the need for a CORA function that would assist
Congress in assuming more responsibility for agency rules now which
impose over $700 billion in off-budget costs to the American people
through regulations.
On June 26, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) introduced H.R. 4744, which made
several needed improvements to the Senate-passed bill along the lines
suggested by witnesses at the June 14 hearing. For example, whereas S.
1198 merely permits GAO to assist Congress in submitting timely
comments on proposed regulations during the public comment period, H.R.
4744 would require GAO to provide such assistance. This was a critical
improvement, because it is only by commenting on proposed rules during
the public comment period that Congress has any real opportunity to
influence the cost, the scope, and the content of regulation.
In addition, unlike the Senate bill, this bill would require GAO to
review not only the agency's data, but also the public's data, to
assure a more balanced evaluation, analyze not only the rules, costing
more than $100 million, but also the rules with a significant impact on
small businesses, and examine whether or not alternatives not
considered by the agencies might achieve the same goal in a more cost-
effective manner or with a greater net benefit.
On June 29, the Committee on Government Reform favorably reported out
H.R. 4744, with a very thorough discussion of issues in its
accompanying report.
H.R. 4924 introduced just yesterday, includes two, or more
accurately, one and a half of H.R. 4744's improvements to S. 1198. A,
the inclusion within the scope of GAO's purview of agency rules with a
significant impact on small businesses; and, B, a directive to the GAO
to submit its independent evaluation of proposed rules within the
public comment period, albeit only when doing so is practicable.
House Report 106-772 explains the basis for these improvements.
Nonetheless, I am deeply disappointed that we could not persuade the
honorable gentleman from California that timely comments on proposed
rules are better than untimely or late comments, but understand that in
politics, half a loaf, or in this case, a fraction of a loaf, may still
be better than none.
H.R. 4924 is, in my judgment, inferior to H.R. 4744, which is itself
a watered down version of the complete reform needed that the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) worked on in returning's
constitutional responsibility for regulatory oversight, but this bill
is a step in the right direction and it will give reformers something
to build on in the next Congress.
H.R. 4924 is truly a very modest bipartisan proposal. It does not
require or expect GAO to conduct any new regulatory impact analyses,
any new cost benefit analyses or other impacted analyses. However,
GAO's independent evaluation should lead the agencies to prepare any
missing cost-benefit analyses, small business impacts, federalism
impacts, or any other missing analysis.
For example, after the McIntosh subcommittee insisted that the
Department of Labor prepare a missing RIA for its Baby UI proposal,
they finally prepared one. Unfortunately, H.R. 4924 excludes from GAO's
purview major rules promulgated by the independent regulatory agencies,
such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulate
major sectors of the U.S. economy.
Since the analysis accompanying rules issued by the independent
regulatory agencies are often incomplete or inadequate, this omission
is unfortunate, and it makes the bill less useful
[[Page H6853]]
than its Senate counterpart or H.R. 4744.
Here is basically how the bill works. The chairman or ranking member
of a committee of jurisdiction may request that GAO submit an
independent evaluation to the committee on a major proposed rule during
the public comment period or on a final rule within 180 days. The GAO's
analysts shall include an evaluation of the potential benefits of the
rule, the costs, alternative approaches to the rule making and various
impact analyses.
Congress currently has two opportunities to review agency regulatory
action. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, Congress can comment
on agency-proposed and interim rules during the public comment period.
The APA says that public sector and private sector officials have the
same comment period. Late Congressional comments cannot be accepted,
anymore than late private comments. That is why it is important that
the GAO finishes its analysis within the public comment period, and to
do so just like any other entity that does so correctly under today's
law and under today's APA procedures.
Agencies can ignore comments filed by Congress after the end of the
public comment period, as the Department of Labor did with the Baby UI
rule. Therefore, since GAO cannot be given more time than any members
of the public to comment, they should clearly be able to complete their
review of agency regulatory proposals during the public comment period.
Under the CRA, Congress can disapprove an agency final rule after it
has promulgated, but before it is effective. That is a very important
point, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1500
Unfortunately, Congress has not been able to fully carry out its
responsibility under the CRA because it has neither all of the
information it needs to carefully evaluate agency regulatory proposals,
nor sufficient staff to carry out its function. In fact, since the
March 1996 enactment of the CRA, at that time, we have had no completed
congressional resolutions of disapproval. To assume oversight
responsibility for Federal regulations, Congress needs to be armed with
an independent evaluation.
What is needed is an analysis of legislative history to see if there
is a nondelegation problem, such as the FDA administration's proposed
rule on tobacco product regulation; the Baby UI rule which provides
paid family leave to small business employees even though Congress in
the Family Medical Leave Act said no to paid family and medical leave
for coverage of small business employees as well.
Sometimes the quickest way to find out that an agency has ignored a
congressional intent or failed to consider less costly regulatory
alternatives is to examine nonagency data and analysis. It is for that
reason, under H.R. 4744, the GAO would be required to consult the
public's data in the course of evaluating agency rules.
Although H.R. 4924 does not require the GAO to review public data,
neither does it forbid or preclude GAO from doing so. I bring this up
because some hope that H.R. 4924 implicitly contains a gag order
forbidding the GAO to consult any analysis or data except for those
supplied by the agency to be reviewed. This reading of H.R. 4924 would
defeat the whole purpose of the bill, which is to enable Congress to
comment knowingly and knowledgeably about agency rules from the
standpoint of a truly independent evaluation of those rules.
Instructed by GAO's independent evaluations, Congress will be better
equipped to review final agency rules under the CRA. More importantly,
Congress will be better equipped to submit timely and knowledgeable
comments on proposed rules during the public comment period. I say this
notwithstanding the words, where practicable, which some CORA foes hope
will ensure that the GAO analysis of proposed rules are untimely and
therefore relatively worthless. I am confident that despite the ``where
practicable'' language, GAO will want to please rather than annoy its
customers and employers and will not fail to help Members of Congress
submit timely comments on regulatory proposals.
Thus, even though a far cry from the original idea of an independent
CORA agency, and although inferior to the Kelly-McIntosh bill reported
by the Committee on Government Reform, H.R. 4924 will increase the
transparency of important regulatory decisions. It will promote the
effective congressional oversight and increase the accountability of
Congress. The best government is a government accountable for the
people. For America to have an accountable regulatory system, the
people's elected representatives must participate in and take
responsibility for the rules promulgated under the laws Congress
passes.
H.R. 4924 is a meaningful step toward Congress meeting its oversight
and its regulatory oversight capabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4924, the Truth in Regulating
Act. H.R. 4924 is similar to S. 1198, which passed by unanimous consent
in the Senate and which was introduced in the House by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Condit).
H.R. 4924 is a significant improvement over H.R. 4744, which narrowly
passed in the Committee on Government Reform on a party line vote. It
imposed costly obligations on the General Accounting Office and bogged
down the rule-making process.
I would like to commend the sponsors of this bill, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit),
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner), as well as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), for
working with us in order to achieve this compromise.
By working together, we can now see a 100 percent bipartisan bill on
the floor and have legislation that will actually be enacted into law.
This bill is sounder than the committee-passed bill. Unlike that
bill, this one only requires the GAO to evaluate an agency's analysis
of rules. It does not require the GAO to do its own cost-benefit or
cost-effectiveness analysis on rules.
In addition, unlike H.R. 4744, this bill does not require the GAO to
evaluate a rule by the end of the comment period if this is not
practicable. Therefore, if necessary, to ensure a high quality review,
the GAO could use 180 days to complete its evaluation of a rule and
finish after the time for commenting has expired.
This bill is not a major piece of legislation, but in one way it is
precedent setting. For the first time in at least 5 years, the
Committee on Government Reform has developed a consensus on regulatory
reform legislation. I hope any future regulatory reform initiatives are
approached with this same bipartisan spirit, and I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4924, the Truth in
Regulating Act of 2000. I would like to thank the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton); the ranking member, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman); the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly); and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for forging this compromise and
all their hard work on this issue.
I am confident that this proposal is similar enough to S. 1198, the
Truth in Regulating Act, which recently passed the Senate by unanimous
consent to ensure a quick conference. This is a straightforward
proposal to provide Members of Congress with an analytical, independent
evaluation of the cost proposal of major rules. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4924, the
Truth in Regulating Act of 2000. Transparency in government is
essential to our democracy. Many times our Federal agencies in their
zeal to carry out their mission create regulations that
[[Page H6854]]
can be overly burdensome to the public. As a Congress, we have a
responsibility to ensure that agency rules fulfill statutory
requirements in an open, efficient, effective and, most importantly, in
a fair manner.
Agencies must be accountable to the people they serve. This
legislation creates a 3-year pilot project in which at the request of
the committee of jurisdiction the General Accounting Office would
review proposed and final rules which have a significant impact on the
public.
Within 180 days, the GAO would independently evaluate the agency's
analyses of costs, benefits, alternatives, regulatory impact, and any
other analysis prepared by the agency.
I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly); the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit); the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton); the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh); the ranking member,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) for their leadership and willingness to work to craft a
compromise on this bill.
I am particularly pleased that the language was included which
clarifies that this bill only requires the GAO to audit the analyses
which were prepared by the agency pursuant to statutory authority as
opposed to requiring the GAO to do its own cost-benefit analysis.
I would hope that all parties to this compromise agree that it would
be impractical and an overwhelming burden to the GAO to perform another
separate, independent analysis.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good government bill; and I urge its passage
by the House.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the Truth in Regulating Act represents the
culmination of nearly 4 years of hard work and is an effort that will
provide Congress with a new resource for reviewing new government
regulations before they take effect.
This is not the bill I had hoped for, but I accept it as a good place
to begin. I first introduced this legislation during the 105th Congress
with the goal of giving Congress the tools it needs to oversee the
steady stream of new and often costly regulations coming from the
Federal Government.
Government regulations have an impact on every American, Mr. Speaker.
In most cases, regulations speak to a noble purpose and can often be
viewed as a measure of the value that we place in protecting such
things as human health, workplace safety, or the environment. Yet too
often government oversteps its bounds in an attempt to achieve these
goals, and we all pay the price as a consequence.
The price of regulations poses a particularly heavy burden on small
businesses and manufacturers, those entities which make up the very
thing that drives our economy forward. Estimates vary on the annual
cost of government regulations. The Office of Management and Budget
estimates $3 billion a year while other estimates run as high as $700
billion every year.
Congress has a special entity, the Congressional Budget Office, or
CBO, to help it grapple with our enormous Federal budget, and there is
growing sentiment that a similar office is needed within the
legislative branch to review and analyze the numerous government
regulations that are developed and issued every year.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) highlighted the
difference between the Senate version, S. 1198 and H.R. 4924. Let me
highlight one of the most important components of this compromise
legislation, the inclusion of small business.
As the vice chairman of the Committee on Small Business and
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, I know that small business owners are very familiar with the
burdens that Federal regulations place on them.
Some studies have shown that for small employers the cost of
complying with Federal regulations is more than double what it costs
their larger counterparts. Small businesses need help in addressing
this burden. A new mechanism to help Congress to control the regulatory
burden on small employers, H.R. 4924 provides such a mechanism.
This legislation authorizes GAO to study not only economically
significant rules but also rules that agencies identify as a
significant impact on small businesses. I think it is essential that
Congress have the tools to perform proper oversight of the Federal
regulatory process as it affects small firms in this country.
The bottom line, the Truth in Regulating Act, is about better
information. The purpose of this office is to ensure that Congress
exercises its legislative powers in the most informed manner possible.
Ultimately, this will lead to better and more finely tuned
legislation, as well as more effective agency regulations.
This legislation would provide Congress with reliable, nonpartisan
information and improve Congress' ability to understand burdens that
are placed on small businesses and the economy by excessive
regulations.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4924, because only through
active oversight can Congress ensure that the laws that it passes are
properly implemented. This is a responsibility that Congress must take
seriously, because as countless small business owners can attest, not
doing so can have dramatic implications.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) for his work on this legislation. I would like to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) for their support, and I would like to thank the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) for his ongoing support for this important
legislation.
Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton) and certainly my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan), for moving this legislation swiftly to the floor today and for
the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) on this
issue.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support me in this important effort.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 4924, the Truth
in Regulating Act of 2000. I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Condit) for introducing H.R. 4763 on which this bill is
based. I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of
the Committee on Government Reform; the ranking member of our
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) of the Subcommittee on National Economic
Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs; the gentleman from
California (Mr. Condit); and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Kelly), who have taken a leading role on this issue, and also my good
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), for working together
so that we can craft a bipartisan compromise that we can all support.
I think also it should be mentioned that staff has played a very
important role in helping to put this together, and we want to express
our appreciation to the staff as well.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the stated purposes of this bill:
first, to increase transparency of important regulatory decisions;
second, to promote congressional oversight to ensure that agencies
fulfill their statutory requirements in an efficient, effective and
fair manner; and, third, to increase the accountability of Congress.
Therefore, I am especially pleased that we were able to craft a
compromise that will likely become law because it addresses the serious
concerns raised during consideration of earlier versions of the bill.
{time} 1515
H.R. 4924, is substantially the same as the substitute amendment I
offered, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) when the
Committee on Government Reform considered H.R. 4744. That substitute
was H.R. 4763, a bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Condit). It was the same language that was passed by unanimous consent
in the Senate on May 9, 2000, without opposition from the Government
Accounting Office, public interest groups, or industry representatives.
[[Page H6855]]
H.R. 4924 creates a 3-year pilot project in which, at the request of
a committee of jurisdiction, the GAO would analyze economically
significant proposed and final rules. GAO would evaluate the agency's
analyses of cost benefits, alternatives, regulatory impact, federalism
impact, and any other analysis prepared by the agency or required to be
prepared by the agency. All of this analysis would be completed within
180 days of the committee's request.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4929 is the same as the Senate version of this
bill, except:
First, it clarifies that the bill only requires the GAO to analyze
agency analyses that were required by separate statute or executive
order. It does not require any new agency or GAO analysis.
Second, it exempts independent boards and commissions which are
exempt under similar requirements in the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act
and Executive Order 12866.
Third, it applies to committee requests for the review of a minor
rule if that rule has significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
And fourth, it requires GAO to complete its analyses of proposed and
interim rules within the comment period, if practicable.
In all other respects, it is the same as S. 1198, which passed the
Senate with unanimous consent.
When we considered an earlier version of the bill, GAO expressed
serious concerns about the scope of the analyses, the timing provided
for the conducting of the reviews, and the certainty of funding. Also,
public interest groups expressed concerns and opposed passage. The bill
we are considering today addresses those concerns.
Mr. Speaker, the most important change that has been made is that
under this bill, GAO would retain its traditional role as auditor and
evaluate only the agency's work. It would not be required to conduct
its own independent analyses. In addition, the bill clarifies that it
would not require the agency to conduct any analyses. It only reviews
analyses that are required by separate statute or executive order.
Another personality change is that H.R. 4924 requires GAO to complete
analyses within the comment period only when the shortened review
period is practicable. Although it is useful to have the GAO report
before the comment period is closed, we did not want to force the GAO
into doing shoddy work. We wanted to make sure the GAO had time to do a
complete review before implementing GAO safeguards for accuracy.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4924 because it sheds light on the
adequacy and usefulness of agencies' analyses, yet it ensures the GAO
has adequate time and resources to fulfill its new responsibilities. It
requires GAO to focus on the factors that Congress found to be the most
relevant, and preserves GAO's traditional role as auditor.
Mr. Speaker, I want to again express my appreciation to the Members
on the other side of the aisle. This shows what happens when we have a
concern on both sides, when we are able to negotiate and compromise, we
produce a bill I think that is good for the Congress and it is good for
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I simply just want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich), ranking member; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman),
ranking member of the full committee; the gentleman from California
(Mr. Condit); the gentlewoman from New York (Chairman Kelly); the
gentleman from Indiana (Chairman McIntosh); and the gentleman from
Indiana (Chairman Burton) for all of their hard work on this, for
coming together and putting together a good bipartisan product that we
are now passing here.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate one point, which is it is our
hope and intent that GAO does conduct this new analysis within the
public comment period, because then it helps us as Members of Congress
respond to our congressional responsibility which is to see that we as
legislators are writing the laws of this country. It is just a hope and
intent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4924.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________