[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 122 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  S. 1198: THE TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. DAVID M. McINTOSH

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 4, 2000

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the House's passage yesterday of 
S. 1198, the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000. This bipartisan, good 
government bill establishes within the Legislative Branch a much needed 
regulatory analysis function. This function is intended to enhance 
congressional responsibility for regulatory decisions developed under 
the laws Congress enacts.
  I want to especially thank Small Business Subcommittee Chairwoman on 
Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction Sue Kelly for her initiation 
of this concept and her tenacious determination over a several year 
period to reach yesterday's successful result. Since 1998, the House 
Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, held two hearings and 
issued two House Reports (H. Rept. 105-441, Part 2 and H. Rept. 106-
772) in support of a Congressional office of regulatory analysis.
  Yesterday, during the floor debate on S. 1198, Vice Chairman Paul 
Ryan expressed Congressional intent for this bill and presented the 
multi-year House legislative history. I want to emphasize three points 
which Mr. Ryan made. Also, I want to express my differing view about 
two statements made by Subcommittee Ranking Member Dennis Kucinich.
  First, I agree with Mr. Ryan about the importance of the General 
Accounting Office's (GAO's) submitting timely comments on proposed 
rules during the public comment period, while there is still an 
opportunity to influence the cost, scope and content of an agency's 
regulatory proposal. S. 1198 does not require GAO to submit timely 
comments but neither does it preclude GAO for doing so. Second, I agree 
with Mr. Ryan about GAO's responsibility to examine non-agency (i.e., 
``public'') data and analyses in preparing its `independent evaluation' 
of an agency's regulatory proposal. Sometimes the best way to determine 
if an agency has ignored Congressional intent or failed to consider 
less costly or non-regulatory alternatives is to review non-agency 
analyses. S. 1198 does not require GAO to review public data but 
neither does it preclude GAO from doing so. Third, I agree with Mr. 
Ryan that GAO should comment substantively on an agency's regulatory 
proposal. S. 1198 does not require GAO to comment on the scope and 
content of an agency's regulatory proposal but neither does it preclude 
GAO from doing so.
  Mr. Kucinich stated his view that, ``Under this bill, GAO would 
retain its traditional role as auditor . . . [the bill] preserves GAO's 
traditional role as auditor.'' I do not agree with his view. Instead, 
S. 1198 requires GAO to prepare an independent evaluation or analysis 
of agency regulatory proposals. Evaluation is not equivalent to 
auditing; evaluation requires a thorough analysis, e.g., consideration 
of less costly or non-regulatory alternatives not presented in an 
agency's documents. Second, Mr. Kucinich stated, `Furthermore, [the 
bill] would not require the agency to conduct any new analysis.' GAO's 
independent evaluation should lead agencies to prepare missing cost/
benefit, small business impact, federalism impact, or any other missing 
analysis. S. 1198 does not require an agency to prepare a missing 
analysis but neither does it preclude an agency from doing so.

                          ____________________