[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 18, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3141-H3160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAPERWORK AND REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 645 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2432.
{time} 1705
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2432) to amend the Paperwork Reduction Act and titles 5 and 31,
United States Code, to reform Federal paperwork and regulatory
processes, with Mr. Aderholt in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
There can be little question that sometime in the last decade, the
United States entered a new and very different phase of its economic
history. In this new phase of global competitiveness, this Nation is
being challenged to step up once again and set new standards for
innovation and efficiency. At the outset, it should be said that this
country welcomes this challenge and we are confident that we have the
tools necessary to succeed in this new economy that was largely created
at our insistence.
The Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2004 is designed to
give Congress the tools it needs to respond to the challenge of a
global open economy. This bill was originally sponsored by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and is the result of 4 years of
ongoing and consistent oversight by his Subcommittee on Energy Policy,
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs under the leadership of the
gentleman from California. Oftentimes this work has been done with
little fanfare, but his consistent hard work has borne great fruit. So
before I say anything about the bill, I want to commend the gentleman
from California for his commitment and dedication to great legislative
oversight.
There is no doubt that the Nation's regulatory regime can achieve a
great deal of good in the areas of environmental protection and worker
health and safety. Beyond that, government has a legitimate need to
know a great deal about the corporate and, to a degree, even the
personal financial activity of the Nation. Consequently, there will
always be paperwork and regulatory demands.
However, when we look at the vast system of paperwork and regulatory
demands that exist today, we see that this system is biased in favor of
the good we hope to achieve and against the cost of achieving that good
to society. Every rule or reporting requirement has a cost, but
Congress is severely hampered in its efforts to understand these costs.
We in the Congress have grown comfortable throwing around huge
statistics listing millions of hours to describe the paperwork burden
government places on the Nation. But we seem to forget that these hours
are spent one by one. It is as if we cannot see the forest for the
regulatory trees. We may be numb to the burden we have created, but
individuals and businesses are not.
When an American businesswoman spends several hours filling out a tax
form, that is time she is not spending on her family or her clients.
When a business has to hire an environmental specialist to complete an
overly complicated, required report, that revenue is not spent in
research and development or expansion of the business and hiring more
people. These millions of hours are not just hours taken out of the
business day; they are hours taken out of people's lives, and the loss
of these hours should be taken seriously.
In the decades before the open global economy, Congress could lay
these new burdens, one over the other, on the American worker with
little concern about what the overall effect would be. But those days
are gone. As the world has gradually opened its markets, this country
has asked our workers to compete head to head on a global basis with
highly skilled and motivated workers from all around the world.
This is a good thing. This competition will require our corporate
community to be as efficient and as competitive as ever. But global
competition requires our government to be more efficient as well. If we
are going to ask the workers of this Nation to compete globally, then
we must free them to be as competitive as possible.
Congress has an obligation to do the hard work to understand the
costs of regulation as realistically as possible. This bill will give
us some of the tools we need to make better decisions on the paperwork
and regulatory burdens we place on our workers and businesses.
The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to submit
a report to Congress identifying specific actions that the Internal
Revenue Service can take to reduce the tax paperwork burden on small
businesses. It assists Congress in its review of agency rules by
establishing a permanent analytical function in the General Accounting
Office to review proposed and final rules for consistency with
congressional intent and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of
agency accompanying analyses.
Lastly, the bill requires a study to determine the feasibility of
regulatory budgeting as a better way to manage regulatory burdens on
the public.
The gentleman from California, the subcommittee chairman, has put in
many years working on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to
manage that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to address H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory
Improvements Act of 2004. We are talking about this bill today because
House Republicans are concerned that they are being criticized for the
millions of jobs that have been lost under this administration.
House Republicans have decided that instead of taking action to
create jobs, they would make a plan to talk about taking action to
create jobs. Each week they have a different theme. This week they are
talking about cutting red tape. The bill we are considering, however,
does nothing to cut red tape.
As we will hear later from the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), this bill does nothing to reduce the hours that Americans
spend filling out paperwork. In fact, the hours Americans must spend
filling out paperwork has increased dramatically under the Bush
administration.
This bill will also do nothing to improve the regulations issued by
the Bush administration. In fact, some provisions of the bill will
actually make the regulatory process worse.
I have a letter that I would like to enter into the Record to appear
after my statement, Mr. Chairman, from the League of Conservation
Voters opposing this bill. This letter states, ``At best, this bill
would result in a waste of money at a time when Federal resources are
shrinking; at worst, it would contribute to a loss of vital protections
for millions of Americans.''
The League of Conservation Voters also expresses in their letter
support for an amendment the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and
I are offering that would establish an independent commission of
distinguished experts to investigate the politicization of science in
the regulatory process. The League of Conservation Voters thinks this
is such an
[[Page H3142]]
important issue that Members may find their votes in the League of
Conservation Voters scorecard.
Leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates, have said the
political and ideological distortion of science is a major block to
effective government action on a wide range of health and environmental
issues. This administration is injecting itself into the regulatory
process to manipulate science and to manipulate agency regulations to
suit industry.
Over and over we hear about agency proposals that are rewritten by
the Office of Management and Budget to fit the needs of industry
without regard to the expertise of agency scientists and other experts.
The administration's proposal on mercury pollution is one recent
example. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) will describe these
particular problems in more detail at a later time.
We should not be here just talking about cutting red tape, Mr.
Chairman. We should not be passing legislation that will weaken
important regulatory protections that aim to ensure a safe and healthy
environment for our children. What we should be doing is taking
positive steps to make the regulatory process better for all Americans.
League of Conservation Voters,
May 18, 2004.
Re: Oppose H.R. 2342, Support the Waxman (D-CA)/Tierney (D-
MA) Amendment
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental
community. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
Members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the press.
LCV urges you to oppose H.R. 2432, which would require the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to assess the
feasibility of imposing regulatory budgeting on major
agencies. Regulatory budgeting is a misguided concept that
elevates the interests of regulated industries over all other
considerations. At best, this bill would result in a waste of
money at a time when federal resources are shrinking; at
worst, it would contribute to a loss of vital protections for
millions of Americans.
Regulatory budgeting caps the costs that government can
impose on the private sector each year, regardless of the
need for public protections. Under this system, once the
``budgeted'' cap has been reached, agencies must cease
fulfilling their mandates--polluters get a free pass,
workplaces go unprotected, and hazardous foods move into
commerce.
OMB should be directed to account for actions that have
taken place over the past three years as scores of critical
safeguards have been weakened, rescinded, or abandoned in
progress. LCV has noted with alarm the accumulating threat to
public health and the environment caused by the rollback of
regulations intended, to prevent destruction of the ozone
layer, reduce air pollution, prevent neurological harm to
children, reduce public exposure to toxins and contaminants,
preserve crucial habitat for endangered species, ensure clean
drinking water.
LCV supports the Waxman-Tierney Amendment to create a
Commission on Politicization of Science in the Regulatory
Process. The Commission would evaluate regulatory activities
to determine the extent to which political considerations
have undermined the quality and use of the science, and
report within 18 months. This commission will address
concerns among scientists and government professionals that
political considerations are unduly influencing regulatory
decisions.
Americans expect that the science used in development of
regulations is not colored by politics. Please oppose H.R.
2432 and support the Waxman Amendment. LCV's Political
Advisory Committee may consider including votes on this issue
in compiling LCV's 2003 Scorecard. If you need more
information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office at (202)
785-8683.
Sincerely,
Deb Callahan,
President.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to start by expressing my thanks to Chairman Davis for his
kind remarks and for his generosity in allowing us to proceed on this
work. I want to add the compliments to my good friend and ranking
member from Massachusetts, who has endured the past number of years
through hearing after hearing after hearing and whose insights and
suggestions have been most helpful. I am grateful to Chairman Davis for
his becoming an original cosponsor of this bill.
As I mentioned in my support for today's rule, last June, with
bipartisan cosponsorship, I introduced this bill. It makes incremental
improvements in the existing processes governing paperwork and
regulations instead of fundamentally changing the role of Congress in
its oversight of agency rules.
As to the bill itself, it includes the following legislative changes.
First, it seeks to ensure reduction in tax paperwork burdens on small
business. It seeks to assist Congress in its review of agency
regulatory proposals. And it seeks to improve public and congressional
understanding of the true costs and benefits of regulations. My
manager's amendment makes no changes to sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the
reported bill.
{time} 1715
I will discuss the changes to sections 5 and 6, which I included
based on specific requests from the General Accounting Office and the
Office of Management and Budget.
As to section 3, let me offer that the overall burden of Federal
paperwork and regulatory requirements is staggering and it is a real
drain on job growth, productivity, and American competitiveness.
Incredibly, Federal paperwork and regulatory burdens have increased,
not decreased, in each of the last 8 years. This occurs irrespective of
who is in the White House and who is in control of Congress. Currently,
the Internal Revenue Service accounts for 80 percent of the total
government-wide paperwork burden on the public of over 8 billion hours;
that is billion with a ``b.'' To reduce paperwork, section 3 requires
that OMB, after consultation with the IRS and two other identified
Federal offices, review and report to Congress on actions that the IRS
can take to reduce the paperwork burden imposed on small business. For
example, the IRS could introduce thresholds below which reporting is
not required, they change existing threshold levels, or they could
change the reporting frequency, the periodicity at which reports must
be submitted.
Section 5 provides for assistance to Congress in its review of agency
regulatory proposals. It permanently establishes a regulatory analysis
function in the General Accounting Office. In the Truth in Regulating
Act of 2000, Congress authorized a 3-year pilot test for this
regulatory analysis function, but unfortunately it was never funded.
This was partly due to the fact that GAO intended to use contractors
instead of in-house expert staff during the test period, which is
understandable. They did not want to tool up and then have the pilot
test not be funded in the future; so they chose, frankly, a more
prudent manner in doing it. The problem is the work never got done
because it never got funded. This bill would ensure that the GAO has
the in-house expertise comparable to the expertise in the OMB's Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs and that such services can be
provided to Congress as proposals come forward.
On the eve of last Wednesday's full committee markup, GAO submitted a
letter requesting various changes in the bill. I did not include these
changes in my manager's amendment during the markup because GAO had not
provided certain information that my subcommittee had previously
requested and which was important to the bill.
OMB's current line item budget for OIRA is $7 million. That is an
annual budget. But OIRA has multiple functions besides review of agency
paperwork and regulatory proposals and analyses. For example, OIRA is
responsible for government-wide statistical policy, information policy,
and information technology policy. Since GAO had not provided
information about the share of OIRA's budget devoted to regulatory
analysis activities, after the full committee markup I asked OMB what
proportion of its budget is devoted to review of agency paperwork and
regulatory proposals and the related regulatory analyses. The estimate
came back at 65 to 70 percent.
As a consequence, my manager's amendment authorizes $5 million in
fiscal year 2005 and each year thereafter for GAO to perform its
independent evaluations at the request of Congress of certain
economically significant rules. GAO will be reviewing the various
agency analyses such as its regulatory impact analysis and its
regulatory flexibility analysis, the regulatory alternatives considered
by the
[[Page H3143]]
agency, and the legislative history to ensure that the proposed and
final agency rules are consistent with congressional intent.
In addition, GAO asked me to include a delayed effective date of 90
days after enactment, and this provision is included in a new section
5(b).
Section 6 requires certain changes to improve regulatory accounting.
In 1996 Congress required OMB to submit its first regulatory accounting
report. In 1998 and 2000, Congress enacted additional legislation to
make OMB's regulatory accounting reports more useful. Currently, OMB is
required to estimate the total annual costs and benefits for all
Federal rules and paperwork in the aggregate, by agency, by agency
program, and by major rule, and to prepare an associated report on the
impacts of Federal rules and paperwork on certain groups such as small
business.
To date, OMB has issued six final and a seventh draft regulatory
accounting report. Each of the seven did not meet one or more of the
content requirements under current statute. Part of the reason for this
incompleteness is that OMB has not requested agency estimates, as it
does annually for its Information Collection Budget for paperwork and
for the President's budget, the fiscal budget of the United States.
Section 6(a) requires Federal agencies to annually submit estimates of
the costs and benefits associated with the Federal rules and paperwork
for each of their agency programs. The caveat for agency input to be
provided ``to the extent feasible'' was added to ensure that no further
burden on or cost to the agencies occurred.
Currently, the economic impacts of Federal regulation receive much
less scrutiny than programs in the fiscal budget. Both the introduced
and reported bill versions of H.R. 2432 required OMB to integrate its
annual regulatory accounting statement into the fiscal budget so that
Congress can review simultaneously both the on-budget and off-budget
costs associated with each Federal agency imposing regulatory or
paperwork burdens on the public.
Current law requires OMB to submit its regulatory accounting report
``with'' the budget instead of ``as part of'' the budget. However, OMB
has never submitted its final accounting statement with the budget. In
fact, only once has OMB even published its draft in the Federal
Register on the same day as the budget was submitted to Congress. Not
submitting the regulatory accounting statement at the same time as the
budget or publishing it separately from the budget in the Federal
Register has precluded a timely side-by-side comparison for analytic
purposes of the on-budget and off-budget costs associated with each
major regulatory agency and each of its regulatory programs.
Last July, OMB's OIRA administrator testified that ``OMB believes it
could be feasible to issue a separate volume with the budget that
contains the final regulatory accounting report and perhaps some
related budget information for comparison purposes.''
Nonetheless, at the insistence of OMB, in a letter submitted
yesterday to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), my
manager's amendment reluctantly removes the integration requirement,
taking from it the ``as part of'' language and leaving it as the
``with'' language. Congress still expects OMB to comply with the law,
that is, to issue its final regulatory accounting statement and
associated report at the same time as and in a document that
accompanies the fiscal budget documents. The House report accompanying
H.R. 2432, which is this legislation, provides ample justification for
integration, including witness testimony in support of integration and
my 9-page April 22, 2004, comment letter to OMB on its draft seventh
regulatory accounting report.
Section 6(b) requires OMB to designate not less than three agencies,
or perhaps offices within an agency, to participate in a study of
regulatory accounting for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and then report to
Congress on this study. These test will determine if agencies can
better manage regulatory burdens on the public. My manager's amendment
ensures that OMB will consult with key congressional committees, the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Government Reform in the
House and the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs in the
Senate.
H.R. 2432 focuses on process and should result in needed paperwork
and regulatory relief especially for small business, and it will help
Congress fulfill its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of
government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that claims to
improve Federal regulations, reduce red tape and paperwork.
Unfortunately, the substance and the timing of this bill make it clear
that we are engaged not in public policy but in public relations.
This bill is part of the congressional Republicans' Hire Our Workers
plan, also called the HOW plan. This is a public relations strategy
designed to make the public think that Republicans in Congress have a
plan to increase jobs and revive the economy, but in reality the plan
is all show and no substance.
My Republican colleagues are going to spend a lot of time today
talking about their opposition to paperwork, but here is what they will
not tell us. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress have
presided over record increases in paperwork. President Bush
consistently rails against paperwork. He urged paperwork reductions as
a Presidential candidate, as President-elect, in every year of his
administration, and on at least seven separate occasions thus far this
year. Just 2 months ago, President Bush said: ``We need to stop
harassing small business owners and entrepreneurs with endless amounts
of regulation and paperwork.''
So how do his policies match up? Last year Americans spent 700
million more hours filling out government forms than they did during
the last year of the Clinton administration. This was not an accident,
and it was not the product of an out-of-control bureaucracy. Most of
the increase came from legislation supported by the administration and
passed by the Republican majority in the Congress. In fact, the major
culprits are the tax bills that President Bush promoted and Congress
passed.
The administration and the Republican leadership are putting this
bill before the Congress so they proclaim they are doing something
about governmental red tape.
They are doing something. They are increasing record levels of the
amount of paperwork that we have to deal with.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I released a
reported today that documents how paperwork has increased under the
Bush administration, and I am going to insert this report with my
comments today. What is happening on paperwork is just like what has
happened on so many other issues. The President says he is a fiscal
conservative, but he has driven our Nation deep into debt. The
President says he is behind education, he is the Education President,
but he will not fund the No Child Left Behind Act.
And with this bill we see that when the President says he will cut
paperwork, what actually happens is that he increases paperwork.
This public relations campaign on paperwork is especially distressing
because there are real regulatory problems this Congress is ignoring.
These include the increased politicization of science and the undue
influence of special interests. But unless we adopt the amendment that
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I will be offering,
this bill will do nothing to address these fundamental problems. This
legislation will not improve the economy, reduce paperwork, or enhance
the well-being of this country. It will only make it harder for
agencies to carry out their mandates to protect public health, the
environment, and other values. This Congress should be taking real
action to address real problems.
I urge my colleagues to vote for our amendment when we offer it later
in the debate.
[[Page H3144]]
House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform--Minority
Staff, Special Investigations Division, Revised May 2004
Government Paperwork Burdens Have Increased Substantially Under the
Bush Administration
(Prepared for Representative John F. Tierney, Representative Henry A.
Waxman)
Executive Summary
President Bush has made reducing the burdens of completing
government paperwork a key item in his economic agenda. In
speech after speech, he emphasizes that ``we must reduce
unnecessary government regulation and red tape so businesses
can focus on consumers and customers, not paperwork.''
Contrary to the President's rhetoric, however, total
government paperwork has increased substantially under the
Bush Administration to an estimated 8.1 billion hours in
fiscal year 2003. Last year, Americans spent over 700 million
more hours filing out government paperwork than in the last
year of the Clinton Administration. The largest annual
increase in paperwork burden ever measured occurred under the
Bush Administration in fiscal year 2002.
Government paperwork increased again in fiscal year 2003.
In its most recent data on paperwork burdens, the Bush
Administration relies on ``adjustments'' to show a nominal
reduction in the federal paperwork burden in fiscal year
2003. However, adjustments in agency paperwork estimates do
not necessarily reflect any actual reduction in the number of
hours that Americans spend filling out paperwork. Focusing on
the real impacts on Americans, GAO reports that ``[d]uring
fiscal year 2003, the total paperwork burden, exclusive of
adjustments, increased again by about 72 million burden
hours.''
Statutory changes promoted by President Bush and enacted by
Congress, particularly to the tax code, are among the largest
sources of the increased paperwork burden. The Administration
is also pursuing new regulatory changes that will impose
additional paperwork burdens on Americans, including
increased paperwork requirements for low-income families.
I. President Bush's Promises To Reduce Paperwork
President George W. Bush has frequently criticized the
amount of ``paperwork'' required by the federal government.
From the very outset of his campaign for the presidency,
President Bush emphasized his commitment to reduce government
paperwork. In an address in Los Angeles in September 1999,
for example, President Bush said:
``The only thing we know for sure is that federal money
comes with a lot of regulations and paperwork. By one
estimate, this consumes about 50 million hours each year--the
equivalent of 25,000 full-time employees just to process the
forms. . . . New layers of federal mandates and procedures
have been added to the old until their original purpose is
long forgotten. It is a sad story of high hopes, how
achievement, grand plans, and unmet goals. My administration
will do things differently.''
Since being elected, President Bush has continued to
promise to reduce government paperwork burdens. He argues
that paperwork ``stifle[s] innovation and the entrepreneurial
spirit,'' and he has said that ``we must reduce unnecessary
government regulation and red tape so businesses can focus on
consumers and customers, not paperwork.''
In a speech last December, President Bush stated:
``And a lot of times government has a tendency to over-
regulate, which is a non-productive cost to these small
business owners who would rather be employing people and
making it easier for somebody to find work, than filling out
reams of paperwork that probably doesn't get read anyway.''
President Bush has repeatedly stated his commitment to
reducing federal paperwork requirements and he made doing so
a key element of his ``Six-Point Plan for the Economy.'' In
September 2003, President Bush stated: ``We need to
continue to work for regulatory relief on small and large
businesses, so that instead of filing needless paperwork,
you're working to make your work force more productive and
to meet the needs of your customers.'' In November 2003,
he stated: ``We've got to cut useless government
regulations. We need to do it at the federal level. . . .
We need to make sure our entrepreneurs are focused on job
creation, not filling out needless paperwork.'' In March
2004, President Bush reiterated these points:
I bet you spend a lot of time filling out paperwork. I bet
not much of your paperwork is ever read. The government needs
to let you focus on your business, on developing goods and
services. It needs to let you focus on hiring people, rather
than spending hours filling out paperwork. In order for us to
keep jobs here at home and expand the job base, we need
better regulatory policy at the federal, state, and local
level.
Just over a month ago, President Bush said: ``We need to
stop harassing small business owners and entrepreneurs with
endless amounts of regulation and paperwork.''
President Bush has also touted actions he has taken to
reduce paperwork. In May 2003, he highlighted the
establishment of a task force on reducing paperwork:
To enhance economic security for working people throughout
the economy we must reduce the burden of regulation and
litigation on small businesses as well. Employers don't want
to spend their time and resources filling out forms or
fighting junk lawsuits. They want to be out on the shop floor
or behind the cash register creating profits and jobs. And
that is why this administration has launched a task force to
find ways to reduce paperwork and small-business owners in
America. We must enact regulatory and lawsuit reforms so that
our business owners can do what they do best: create jobs.
In June 2003, President Bush took credit for an executive
order that purported to reduce paperwork burdens, stating:
``I'm concerned and mindful about what paperwork and
regulations do to small businesses. So I put down an
executive order that requires all federal regulatory agencies
to minimize the burden on our small businesses.''
II. Paperwork increase under the Bush Administration
There is a large gap between President Bush's rhetoric
about the need for paperwork reduction and the performance of
his Administration. According to data from the General
Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget,
the burden of government paperwork on American citizens has
actually increased substantially under the Bush
Administration. At the same time as President Bush has been
promising to reduce paperwork burdens, Americans are actually
spending more time doing paperwork than ever before.
A. The Requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
The primary tool for measuring and controlling paperwork
requirements imposed by federal law and regulations is the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Collecting information is essential
for the government to collect taxes, administer programs, and
enforce laws. The Paperwork Reduction Act aims to make these
information collections as efficient as possible. It requires
agencies to estimate the time it will take to fill out a form
or otherwise provide information to the government, obtain
approvals of larger information collection requests from the
Office of Management and Budget, and reduce the overall hours
of paperwork by a given percent each year.
Each agency is required to submit a report each year
providing the number of paperwork burden hours that the
agency imposed during the previous year. The annual PRA
reports from each federal agency provide a picture of the
total hours of paperwork required by the federal government.
For the past several years, GAO has analyzed these reports
annually at Congress' request. This report relies on the
analyses provided by GAO, as well as data provided to
Congress from the Office of Management and Budget.
B. Total Paperwork Burdens
The annual paperwork burden today is over 700 million
burden hours higher than it was when President Bush took
office. In fiscal year 2000, the annual paperwork burden
imposed by the federal government was measured at about 7.4
billion hours. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the annual
paperwork burden stood at 8.1 billion burden hours. This is
an increase of nearly 10%.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accounts for more
paperwork than any other federal agency, with 81% of the
total paperwork hours. In contrast, EPA currently accounts
for only 1.8% of federal paperwork burden, and the Department
of Labor, including OSHA, accounts for only 2.0% of federal
paperwork burden.
C. A Record Increase in Paperwork Burdens in Fiscal Year 2002
The first two years of the Bush Administration saw large
increases in the number of hours of paperwork burden. In
fiscal year 2001, the federal government required 7.6 billion
hours of paperwork, an increase of 290 million hours from the
year before.
In fiscal year 2002, the increase in the paperwork burden
was approximately 570 million hours. Almost 300 million hours
of this increase was due to program changes that added or
reinstated paperwork obligations. This was the largest
increase in paperwork since the Paperwork Reduction Act was
amended in 1995. The total paperwork burden for fiscal year
2002 was 8.2 billion hours.
D. Increases in Paperwork Burdens in Fiscal Year 2003
This year, the Administration is reporting a small decline
in the overall number of reported paperwork burden hours from
last year's record high of 8.2 billion hours to 8.1 billion
hours.
According to the General Accounting Office, however,
``[t]his year, the story, while on the surface may appear
encouraging, is not.'' GAO's analysis reveals that the
purported drop in government paperwork is entirely due to
``adjustments'' that ``are not the result of direct federal
government action but rather are caused by factors such as .
. . agency reestimates of the burden associated with a
collection of information.'' GAO concludes that ``[d]uring
fiscal year 2003 the total paperwork burden, exclusive of
adjustments, increased again by about 72 million burden
hours.''
E. Causes of the Paperwork Increases
Much of the increases in paperwork burden since fiscal year
2000 has been driven by statutory changes proposed by the
Administration and passed by Congress.
The largest sources of statutory increases in paperwork
have been the recent tax law changes, which have introduced
substantial additional complexity and burden for individuals
and small businesses in filling out
[[Page H3145]]
their tax forms. For example, Americans spent an additional
330 million hours filling out tax paperwork in fiscal year
2002, with the implementation of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and other IRS regulations.
Similarly, the IRS reports that its implementation of the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
``generated an estimated 113.9 million additional hours of
burden.''
One example of the increased paperwork is the changes to
the taxation of capital gains in the Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. To implement these
provisions, the IRS made numerous changes to Form 1040, Form
1040A, and associated schedules. Among other changes, the IRS
added 13 extra lines to Schedule D, which taxpayers must file
to report their capital gains and losses. Overall, just this
portion of the paperwork changes driven by the Jobs and
Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 increased the
paperwork burden for individual taxpayers by over 16 million
hours in fiscal year 2003. For families with modest incomes
and few capital gains, the increased paperwork burdens
significantly offset any benefit from the capital gains tax
reductions.
The paperwork increases have also hit small businesses.
Together the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003 and the 2000 Community Renewal Act added complexity to
Form 1120S and its associated schedules. These forms are used
by S corporations, which are often small businesses or the
self-employed. Due to these added complexities, S corporation
filers spent almost 12 million additional hours filling out
tax forms in fiscal year 2003.
F. Increases in Future Paperwork Burdens
Additional paperwork increases are likely in fiscal year
2004 and future years under policies being pursued by the
Bush Administration. For example, the Bush Administration
will require labor unions to report extensive new financial
information starting in fiscal year 2004. Under the new rule,
all unions with annual receipts of at least $250,000 will be
required to report almost all of their receipts and
disbursements. It is estimated that roughly 4,500 labor
organizations will have to comply with this requirement, only
65 of which are large international unions. One union, the
Airline Pilots Association, estimates that the required
reports will produce 15,863 pages, or about five-and-a-half
feet of paper, each year.
Based on a survey of unions, the new reporting requirements
were estimated to cost unions somewhere in the range of $700
million to $1.1 billion per year. The same report estimated
that fullfilling the new reporting requirements would require
on average, roughly 353 hours per union employee, per year.
The Bush Administration is also currently testing new
paperwork requirements for low- and moderate-income families
to demonstrate their eligibility for the Child Tax Credit
portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is an important
tax credit for workers in low wage jobs and the recently
unemployed who have children to support.
Under the pilot program that applies to 50,000 individuals,
persons seeking the credit must supply proof from a third
party that the child they are claiming under the Earned
Income Tax Credit lived with them for more than six months in
that year. The individual must produce official records
meeting the proof requirements, an affidavit from a third
party, signed under penalty of perjury, or a letter on
official letterhead from a third party, such as a landlord or
social service agency employee. The IRS estimates that this
new requirement imposes an additional 40 minutes of paperwork
burden for each person filling out these forms.
III. Conclusion
As a candidate, George Bush railed against government
paperwork burdens and promised that ``[m]y administration
will do things differently.'' As President, Mr. Bush
continues to urge reductions in government paperwork burdens.
But in practice, the Bush Administration has actually
increased paperwork burdens. Today, Americans are filling out
far more paperwork under the Bush Administration than ever
before.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for bringing this bill to the floor.
As we look at our efforts to be more competitive as a society, we
clearly have to look at the regulations imposed by government and be
sure that any of those regulations, any of that paperwork, is
justified.
The cost of paperwork and regulatory constraints have been steadily
increasing in America. America's small business owners are feeling the
pinch; and they believe, along with those who support this bill, it is
time to do something about it.
Tax relief is not the problem; but we do need a simpler, fairer tax
system because all of these things we put into law do require different
levels of compliance.
What this bill attempts to do is find out what those compliant costs
are. Paperwork and regulatory burdens cost small business of fewer than
20 employees $6,975 per employee just to fill out the paperwork and
comply with federally imposed regulatory burdens. That is nearly 60
percent more per employee than if they have more than 500 employees in
their business. So the burden is disproportionate on small business
though it is not insignificant on all of our businesses as we create
jobs and make an effort to compete in a world economy.
Mr. Chairman, we can loosen the chokehold of paperwork and
regulation. To do so, we need to be fully informed on the true cost of
these regulations.
{time} 1730
H.R. 2432 would require the Office of Management and Budget to seek
agency input on the cost and benefits of agency regulatory programs
when creating the annual regulatory accounting report.
The bill offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)
authorizes that the Office of Management and Budget designate not less
than three agencies or offices within an agency to participate in a 2-
year regulatory budgeting study and report the results to Congress. We
can then use that information to determine if regulatory budgeting is a
useful tool for managing regulatory burdens on the public.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Ose bill, the
Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act. It is an excellent and
important first step in reducing the hidden job tax, levied on small
businesses particularly, and consumers across the country.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, but more specifically
I want to speak in support of the Waxman-Tierney amendment. The
amendment should garner the support of every Member of this body,
because this body authorizes and funds the activities of CDC, of EPA,
of FDA and every other Federal agency.
We have an oversight role, and under our watch, science is being
subverted to promote political and ideological goals. Advisory goals
are being stripped of scientific experts and seeded with industry
representatives and ideologues. Reports are being censored and data is
being manipulated to promote the administration's political and
ideological objectives.
This is a dangerous, dangerous precedent. This did not happen with
President Bush, Sr., it did not happen with President Clinton, it did
not happen with President Reagan, it did not happen with Republican or
Democratic Presidents the way that it is happening today under this
very politicized, very partisan, very ideologically driven White House.
The Federal Government has no business hiding from the facts, much
less suppressing them. That means the Federal Government should not
turn over science, real science, to ideology, to industry
representatives, to corporate interests.
In February of this year, 20 Nobel Laureates and dozens of other
leading U.S. scientists issued an unprecedented statement of concern
about the misuse of science by the Bush administration. This is not a
Democrat on the House floor saying this, this is 20 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists and dozens of other leading scientists.
``When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with the
political goals, the Bush administration has manipulated the process
through which science enters into its decisions.''
These are Nobel Laureates and other scientists talking.
``This has been done in the Bush administration by placing people who
are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest
in official posts and on scientific advisory committees, by disbanding
existing advisory committees, by censoring and suppressing reports by
the government's own scientists, and by simply not seeking independent
scientific advice.'' That is from 20 Nobel Laureates, not from a bunch
of Democrats complaining about it.
To prove the point that these are not our words, the Director of the
National
[[Page H3146]]
Bureau of Standards in the Nixon administration, another Republican who
played it straight, did not have this ideologically driven agenda, Dr.
Lewis Branscomb of the Nixon administration, said, ``I am not aware
that President Nixon ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory
committees or dismissed from advisory committees well-qualified people
if he didn't like their views. I don't think we have had this kind of
cynicism that we see today with respect to objective scientific advice
since I have been watching government, which is quite a long time.''
The Bush administration is manufacturing reality to fit its beliefs,
and then they have the nerve, they have the gall, to call it sound
science. That is not science, it is censorship. This Nation cannot
afford it, this body should not abide it. I urge my colleagues to pass
this amendment. Regardless of our political affiliation, we should not
be afraid of the truth, nor should we permit its subversion.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I
congratulate him for bringing this important legislation to the floor
today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2432, the
Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act. Today, Federal paperwork and
regulations are stifling American business. The Small Business
Administration estimates that Americans spend over 8 billion hours a
year on Federal paperwork, costing our economy an estimated $843
billion, an amount far exceeding Canada's GDP and even the pretax
profits of all U.S. corporations.
Small businesses are especially hard hit. Those businesses employing
20 people or less face regulatory costs of almost $7,000 per employee,
compared to $4,500 for larger companies, SBA data shows.
In 2002, the Federal Register topped 80,000 pages, one of the highest
totals ever, leading the Cato Institute to affectionately refer to
these regulations as the 10,000 commandments.
Instead of making it easier for our economy to create and sustain
good paying jobs, burdensome Federal regulations are an incentive for
U.S. companies, large and small, to find other ways to do business,
including relocating to places with less burdensome regulations. This
wasted time and money is hurting America's ability to compete in the
global marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, let us make sure Federal agencies are not placing an
unnecessary burden on workers and businesses. Let us make sure Congress
has the tools and information it needs to hold regulatory agencies
accountable.
This Congress has a responsibility to get the Federal Government out
of the way of private enterprise and let it do what it does best,
create jobs. Let us pass the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, today our Republican colleagues are talking about
reforming government regulation. There is a big problem with government
regulation, and especially environmental regulation under the Bush
administration.
This administration has turned regulatory decision-making over to big
campaign donors with polluting industries. We all know what happens to
public health and the environment when industry writes rules.
I want to mention three areas: the utility industry, the livestock
industry and industrial laundries.
Consider the EPA's recently proposed rule on mercury pollution from
power plants. A few years ago, EPA set up a process to involve all of
the interested parties, States and localities, public health
representatives, fish and wildlife advocates, power plant owners and
others. These stakeholders worked for over a year. They gave EPA a set
of regulatory recommendations, and they were working on other technical
recommendations.
Then last spring, EPA halted the process and went behind closed
doors. Nine months later, EPA emerged with an entirely new proposal
based on another section of the Clean Air Act, and it allows many power
plants to do nothing to control mercury emissions, perhaps for years,
perhaps even for decades.
Now, as we now know, key parts of this deregulatory proposal were
actually written by the power industry, which is one of President
Bush's largest donors. The EPA Inspector General is now looking into
the proposal and the new administrator has promised to go back to do
further analysis. This is simply not the way agencies are supposed to
do regulation.
Yesterday, we learned from the Chicago Tribune that livestock
industry lobbyists are also setting environmental policy. The livestock
industry sold the EPA on a proposal to let factory farms off the hook
for air pollution violations. In exchange, the industry would conduct
some monitoring, and monitoring only. Livestock lobbyists did not just
come up with the idea; they also worked on all the details. EPA then
publicly presented the proposal using, as EPA materials, slides that
had been prepared by the lobbyists. The livestock industry is also an
important source of campaign contributions to Republicans.
On the same day as the Chicago Tribune story, the Washington Post
detailed how industrial laundry lobbyists influenced an EPA rule on
hazardous waste disposal. The key company in this industry is owned by
a Bush Pioneer who had raised at least $100,000 for the President's
2000 campaign.
The Post reports that EPA gave industrial laundry lobbyists an
advance copy of a portion of the proposed rule, the lobbyist edited the
rule and EPA adopted the changes. EPA did not grant such access to any
other interested parties, which included environmental advocates, a
labor union, hazardous waste landfill operators and competitive
industries.
These are not accidents or isolated incidents. The Bush
administration defends these proposals. Apparently, the administration
sees nothing wrong with providing special access to large donors who
own or represent polluting industries. But when industry buys the
regulatory process, all Americans pay the bills. The prices are health,
polluted air, dirty water, poisoned land, tainted fish and dying
forests.
We do need regulatory reform, but this bill would only make the real
problems worse.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just remind Members that this bill does not
speak to any agency in specificity, but only to process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Schrock), who also happens to be the distinguished vice chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory
Affairs.
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2432, and
I am glad to be a cosponsor of the very sensible bill offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. Chairman, small businesses and the public need relief from the
burdensome and costly impact of Federal rules and paperwork. In 2001,
the Small Business Administration found that firms employing fewer than
20 employees face an annual regulatory burden of $6,975 per employee.
The SBA also found that Federal regulations and paperwork compose $843
billion in compliance costs on small businesses.
As the chairman of the Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on
Regulatory Affairs and Oversight and as a member of the Subcommittee on
Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs chaired by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), I have heard on numerous occasions
the testimony of small business owners about how regulations cost our
small businesses time and money.
This bill will provide relief to small businesses by reducing the tax
paperwork for small business. It will improve the completeness and
timeliness of the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory
accounting reports, and it provides for a study of the feasibility of
regulatory budgeting that is desperately needed to better manage the
huge regulatory burdens on the public, especially small business.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because, in
the end, it will free up more time and money for small businesses that,
in turn, can reinvest in new technologies, new research and additional
development.
[[Page H3147]]
Most importantly, this bill will also allow businesses to create more
jobs for America's families.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted, under this administration, we have had the
largest increases in the number of hours of paperwork burden ever.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs.
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in support of the Waxman-Tierney amendment to establish a
Commission on Politicization of Science in the Regulatory Process. We
need this commission because Congress and the administration have
failed to do their jobs adequately. We also need this commission
because scientific information has become politicized more and more
recently, and this really has to change.
We have all read and heard of the allegations that politics has been
used as a litmus test for the appointment of scientists to the Federal
science advisory panels and that interpretation of scientific
information has been skewed to emphasize uncertainties and justify
inaction.
When 20 Nobel Laureates sign a letter stating that their belief is in
the existence of a problem, we should take notice and examine the
allegations. Yet Congress has failed to hold any hearings on this
issue.
Dr. Marburger, the President's chief science advisor, does little
more than issue a rebuttal to the Union of Concerned Scientist's
report, denying that any problem exists.
It is true that the plural of anecdote is not data. However, at some
point a series of anecdotes begins to look like a pattern. The pattern
is disturbing and threatens to undermine our ability to rely on
scientific and technical information as we weigh alternative policies.
{time} 1745
At a minimum, the number of cases and the range of scientific issues
they encompass create the perception that the Federal science advisory
process has been undermined by politics. The perception alone is
damaging. Policymakers and the public must have confidence in
scientific information and scientific advice provided by experts.
Policy and regulatory decisions are political. Science can inform our
decisions and help us to understand the likely outcomes associated with
different policy choices. However, science does not determine policy
choices. This is our job.
We must examine the processes we use to incorporate scientific
information into our policy decisions, and we need constructive
suggestions about how to ensure that political influence over the
development of scientific information is minimized. It appears the
current system is ripe for manipulation, and reform is needed. There
are steps we can and should take to make it more difficult to
politicize science. The commission can help us to identify these steps.
I urge support of this amendment. It is too costly and too misleading
for us to depend on hearsay and ideology to substitute for the truth in
scientific findings.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has 8 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has 13
minutes remaining.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R.
2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvement Act, of which I am a co-
sponsor. This important legislation will enable Congress to take
responsibility for the laws and regulations imposed on this Nation.
Over the past 20 years, the costs and impacts of regulations have
increased dramatically. We routinely authorize executive branch
agencies to issue rules implementing the laws we pass in Congress. Just
as Congress needs a Congressional Budget Office to check and balance
the executive branch in the budget process, it also needs an analytic
capability to check and balance the executive branch in the regulatory
process. Our delegation of authority to the agencies does not relieve
us of our duty to ensure the responsiveness and effectiveness of those
agency regulations. Agency rules and regulations have the force and
effect of law. They spew forth from the agencies more than 3 or 4,000
rules and regulations every 2 years, and Congress rightly should have
better oversight.
Since the 104th Congress, I have led the fight for a Congressional
Office of Regulatory Analysis resulting in the passage of the Truth in
Regulating Act of 2000. That statute authorized a 3-year pilot project,
adding a function at the General Accounting Office to respond to
Congress' request for an independent evaluation of selective
economically significant proposed rules, including an evaluation of the
proposals that are consistent with congressional intent. Instead of
using their own experts, GAO planned to hire outside contractor experts
for the 3-year pilot test. As a consequence Congress did not fund this
approach.
Today it is regrettable that despite the passage of TIRA, we still do
not have an independent analysis of the various agencies regulatory
analyses required by law or by executive order. H.R. 2432 would
permanently authorize this function within GAO, ensuring full-time
agency expertise within GAO. More importantly, the GAO's analysis would
allow us to submit more informed and more influential comments on the
cost, scope, and content of proposed rules during the public comment
period.
Clearly it is time to increase the transparency of important
regulatory decisions, promote effective congressional oversight,and
increase the accountability of agencies. The government is accountable
to the people and must take responsibilities for the rules established
under the laws Congress passes.
Passage of H.R. 2432 would be one step toward Congress meeting its
regulatory responsibilities. It is long past time for us to stop trying
to change the subject and politicizing good public policy for small
businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, which is a
small step towards giving some agencies the oversight they require.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleague to stay around for the
amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I will
present to talk about politicization of particular projects and
policies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-
Tierney amendment, which would create an expert commission to study the
politicization of science and make recommendations on how to protect
science from political interference in the decision-making process.
This is an extremely important bill. It should have bipartisan
support. We need our decisions to be based on science, not politics.
Yet too often the decisions that are coming forward really overrule the
recommendations of the scientists for a political goal or a certain
ideology. For one example, 2 weeks ago, the FDA denied an application
to allow the sale of Plan B emergency contraception and give it over-
the-counter status. In this case, the science was very, very clear; and
the FDA's own advisory panel voted 27 to zero that Plan B could be
safely sold as an over-the-counter medication.
It then voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the FDA approve the
application to make it available over the counter, but the FDA's
commissioner ignored this determination and overruled the opinion of
his own expert panelists. He was in conflict with the science and the
experts.
I must say that according to the New England Journal of Medicine, the
FDA's decision has no scientific basis. Editors wrote that ``a
treatment for any other condition, from hangnail to headache to heart
disease, with a similar record of safety would be approved quickly and
immediately.''
So this really is a horrific decision. It flies in the face of
science.
Mr. Chairman, the following are several news articles that have
appeared in major newspapers and letters of support from Planned
Parenthood and NARAL in support of the Waxman-Tierney amendment.
[[Page H3148]]
Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc.,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
Dear Representative: Today, Representatives Waxman and
Tierney will offer an amendment to H.R. 2432, the Paperwork
and Regulatory Improvements Act. The amendment would create
an expert commission to study the politicization of science
and make recommendations on how to protect science from
political and ideological manipulation and interference.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America strongly urges you
to support this amendment.
Over the past few years an alarming amount of decisions
that should have been decided on scientific merits have been
politicized. Ideology has crept into all aspects of the
government's decision-making on science. Some of the most
egregious offenses have affected women's health and well-
being. The most recent example is the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA), the gold-standard for scientific
integrity, denial of Plan B emergency contraception's (EC)
over-the-counter status. This major public health setback was
politics at its worst. There is no scientific reason to
restrict access to this safe, effective backup method of
contraception. This decision flied in the face of a joint
hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committees recommendation of 23 to 4
that the FDA make EC available over the counter. Virtually
all major medical and health care organizations, including
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
support making EC available without a prescription.
In addition, in October 2002 Department of Health and Human
Services web sites removed medically accurate information
about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link
between abortion and breast cancer. Then in November 2002,
the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site posts a
``revised'' that suggests an unproved link between abortion
and breast cancer, a link that has been soundly refuted.
These attempts to replace science with ideology deserve
investigation and Representatives Waxman and Tierney's
amendment to set-up an expert commission to do just that
deserves your support.
Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. Please
do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you may
have.
Sincerely,
Gloria Feldt,
President.
____
NARAL Pro-Choice America,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Later today, when the House considers
H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, an
important public-health issue is expected to arise. Reps.
Henry Waxman and John Tierney will offer an amendment to
establish an independent, bi-partisan commission to study
whether political considerations have undermined the quality
and use of science in the executive branch, and to make
suggestions for how science can be protected from
politicization. NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly supports
the Waxman-Tierney amendment and urges lawmakers' support.
Since the first days of the Bush administration, public
health and sciences have been politicized and subverted in
favor of an ideological agenda:
Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research has been
slowed to a trickle because of severe restrictions imposed
for ideological reasons--bringing potentially life-saving
science to a virtual standstill;
The Food and Drug Administration two weeks ago refused an
application allowing over-the-counter sale of Plan B, an
emergency contraceptive pill--overriding the recommendations
of its own hand-picked advisory panels, its own scientist-
experts, and scores of medical and public-health
organizations;
Respected federal agencies, including the National Cancer
Institute and the centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
have censored public-health information and scientific
research from their Web sites in order to satisfy the demands
of fringe anti-choice activists;
Risky and unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs have been
promoted at the expense of proven-effective approaches to
teen-pregnancy reduction like traditional sex-education
programs and better funding for contraceptive services
through the Title X program;
Individuals with questionable scientific credentials but
robust anti-choice and political connections have been
appointed to key federal panels that make recommendations on
public-health policy;
Federal health-care reports have been ``edited'' to remove
mention of information that could be potentially embarrassing
to the administration;
Federally funded researchers who study contraception and
related topics have been added to a ``hit list,'' triggering
the National Institutes of Health to warn the scientists that
they could be subjected to special political scrutiny; and
Financial support for a long-standing, non-partisan public-
health conference was rescinded because the diverse list of
speakers and audience members included representatives from
groups that do not share the Bush administration's choice
views.
These are only some of the examples in which science has
appeared to be subverted for political purposes. The American
public deserves a federal government that does not censor,
rewrite, or hide important health information, and one that
makes policy decisions based on sound science--not ideology.
This issue bears very close examination, and the Waxman-
Tierney amendment is an important step in the right
direction.
Attached is more information about the troubling pattern of
politics overriding science in the Bush administration. As
always, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Cavendish,
Interim President.
This commission, this independent commission would look at these
decisions and make sure that they are based on science. I am very
disturbed because over the past year an alarming number of decisions
that should have been decided on scientific merit have been
politicized. I cite the one 2 weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, the following are a series of other decisions that are
very, very questionable and do not rely on science.
[From USA TODAY, May 10, 2004]
Plan B Decision Called Political
(By Rita Rubin)
Now that the Food and Drug Administration has disregarded
their recommendation to make emergency contraception
available without a prescription, some members of two FDA
advisory committees say they've thought about resigning over
what they view as a political decision.
``E-mails suggesting mass resignations are already flying
around among people who were on this committee,'' says
Michael Greene, a Harvard OB-GYN who serves on the
Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. ``People are
just hopping mad. The decision is blatantly contrary to the
science and the facts, and so blatantly politicized.''
In December, Greene's panel and the Non-Prescription Drugs
Advisory Committee voted 23 to 4 in favor of selling Plan B,
a ``morning-after pill,'' over the counter. The FDA almost
always follows its outside experts' advice.
But Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, last week rejected Barr
Laboratories' plan to make Plan B a non-prescription drug. He
cited a lack of data about whether the drug can be safely
used by girls ages 11 to 15 without a doctor's supervision.
Critics of Galson's decision say that information, which
the FDA never previously required for a non-prescription
drug, is unnecessary and nearly impossible to get.
``There are no data that would convince this White House to
take this product over the counter,'' says James Trussell,
head of Princeton's Office of Population Research and a
voting consultant to the reproductive health drugs panel.
``The only way that this drug is going to be approved is if
we get a new administration.''
Vanderbilt drug expert Alastair Wood, of the non-
prescription panel, says, ``What's disturbing is that the
science was overwhelming here, and the FDA is supposed to
make decisions on science.''
In a news conference, Galson acknowledged that he overrode
the opinion of his staff as well as that of the advisory
committees but denied that anyone outside the FDA influenced
his decision. ``As is the case with a lot of these difficult
decisions, there may not be agreement among people who are
experts in data analysis,'' Galson said.
Frank Davidoff, who sits on the non-prescription drugs
advisory panel, calls Galson's comments ``disingenuous.''
Davidoff, editor emeritus of the Annals of Internal Medicine,
notes that 44 members of Congress wrote panel members to urge
them to reject Barr's plan.
Opponents of selling Plan B over the counter argue that
emergency contraceptive pills cause abortions and that easier
access will lead to increased promiscuity.
``The morning-after pill is a pedophile's best friend,''
Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Concerned Women of
America, a public policy organization, said in a statement
after learning of Galson's decision. ``Morning-after pill
proponents treat women like sex machines.''
Proponents of non-prescription sales of Plan B, most
effective when taken within 24 hours of unprotected
intercourse, say there is no evidence that it would increase
promiscuity. ``In fact, the evidence is to the contrary,''
says Davidoff. And Galson says the FDA believes Plan B
primarily prevents pregnancies rather than ends them.
Davidoff says he has thought about resigning from the
committee. ``But I don't think I will. There's always an
issue: Can you do more good by hanging in there?''
Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox says her company was encouraged
that the FDA left the door open. Barr has proposed selling
Plan B without a prescription to those over 15 and with one
to younger girls. That would be unprecedented, and Galson has
asked Barr how it would meet prescription and non-
prescription labeling requirements in one package.
Mr. Chairman, over 40 Nobel laureates have supported the idea of an
independent commission that makes sure that these decisions are not
based on politics, but on the merits.
[[Page H3149]]
We cannot afford to have our decisions, our scientific decisions
based on political manipulation which has certainly happened in these
cases. This is a tremendously important amendment, and I hope that my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Waxman-Tierney
amendment.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for taking this very bold step on regulatory
reform.
There is no question that we need regulatory reform. It has been
estimated that Americans pay more than $800 billion a year to comply
with regulatory burdens, and that amounts to about $8,000 per
household. I am talking to you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer out there.
The IRS alone accounts for about 80 percent of the paperwork burden
on the public. In the House budget language, and I serve on the
Committee on the Budget, I inserted some language on regulatory reform,
and I would like to read just part of it: ``It is the sense of this
House that Congress should establish a mechanism for reviewing Federal
agencies and their regulations with the express purpose of making
recommendations to Congress when agencies prove to be inefficient,
duplicative, outdated, irrelevant, or fail to accomplish their intended
purpose.''
Clearly, this will be the result of the gentleman from California's
(Mr. Ose) very fine bill. Obviously, in accordance with the language in
the House budget resolution, some of the provisions I would like to
detail are that they strengthen the Congressional Review Act by
providing Congress with more information much earlier in the process.
It also provides Congress with in-house expertise comparable to the
administration's experts at the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
Certainly, additional reforms are necessary. We need regulatory
reform that goes even further than this very fine bill. And I am sure
we will be seeing that later this year or next year. We must remember
that the Constitutional responsibility in article 1, section 8 ``to
make all laws which are necessary and proper'' rests with us.
Congress is elected by the people, for the people and is held
accountable to the people. Having a regulatory system that reflects
these principles are not only outlined in the Constitution but are
reflected in this bill.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to be amused by the railing on the other
side of all this paperwork burden as if they did not understand that
the cause of that was their own administration. The President ran on a
platform of cutting back the regulatory burden on businesses; and if
you go back in history during that period of time before 2000, you can
see speech after speech telling us how terrible the paperwork burden
was and what he was going to do to improve it. But the fact of the
matter is if you look at the report done for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and for me, it states clearly, ``The annual
paperwork hours today is over 700 million burden hours higher than it
was when President Bush took office.'' In the year 2000, it increased
by 7.4 billion hours. In 2003 it went up to 8.1 billion hours. It is an
increase of over 10 percent.
The Internal Revenue Service accounts for more paperwork than any
other Federal agency with 81 percent of the total paperwork burden
hours. Yet that is exactly where most of the increases came. The
largest sources of statutory increases in paperwork have been the
recent tax law changes. They have been introduced and made a
substantial additional complexity and burden for individuals and small
businesses in filling out their tax forms.
And that, Mr. Chairman, is the reason for the increase.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) as to whether he has additional speakers.
Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, I have additional speakers coming.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, we are down to 3 minutes on our side.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two more speakers on their way
over.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for an
additional 5 minutes for each side for the purpose of debate on this
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. That unanimous consent request is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OSE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Under the general rules
of debate within the Committee of the Whole, how might we address a
shortage of time here treating each side equally?
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee of the Whole does not have authority to
extend general debate time established by the House.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has 9
minutes remaining.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate some of the things I may have touched
on earlier and maybe one new point. The bill that we are talking about
here today really does not reduce paperwork or improve the regulatory
process. One of the problems it has, it talks about a study on
regulatory budgeting, but yet it does not define the term ``regulatory
budget.''
In prior hearings, the subcommittee chairman indicated he thought
this was going to set a cap on the cost that an agency's combined
regulations could impose on the public. An agency with a regulatory
budget would then face an arbitrarily set cap on how much its
regulations could cost industry in any given year; and under that
system, no consideration whatsoever would be given to why the
regulation was needed. Once the agency hit that cost cap, it cannot
issue any more regulations even if another regulation is needed to save
lives, prevent injuries, protect our environment, or improve homeland
security.
{time} 1800
One good example of this is the EPA recently announced its new clean
air, nonroad diesel rule that, according to the EPA, will cut emissions
from industrial and other diesel-powered equipment by over 90 percent.
If the EPA had a regulatory budget and had reached its cap for the
year, it would not have been able to issue that rule, no matter how
necessary the rule or how much pollution it would have cleaned up. That
essentially is one of the major problems with this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we cannot allow that type of a study to
even start down that path. We do not want to be measuring things just
on costs, without factoring in safety obligations and other
improvements in homeland security, our environment and preventing
injuries.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the Committee on Small
Business, we have held close to 60 hearings on the issue of the loss of
our manufacturing base in America, and much of that is centered on the
fact that we have a tremendous burden of regulations. These regulations
come from the people and agencies that issued the regulations,
regardless of who is in the White House.
What we are trying to do here today is to have a bipartisan approach
to cut away at these regulations and not concern ourselves as to who is
responsible for the promulgation.
H.R. 2432 permanently authorizes the General Accounting Office to
perform analyses of major rules proposed or issued by the Federal
agencies. This would have proven invaluable in responding to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's proposed regulations on
modifying real estate closing procedures.
HUD's analysis was woefully inadequate. An independent analysis by
GAO that accurately estimated the costs of the proposal on small
business
[[Page H3150]]
would have been helpful to the Committee on Small Business and other
Members of Congress as we considered actions needed to avert a
potential disaster for thousands of small businesses involved in
residential real estate settlement.
H.R. 2432 also addresses the problems of paperwork burdens imposed by
the IRS on small businesses. Our committee held a hearing on the IRS
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. At that hearing, the
IRS contended that many of its paperwork burdens are imposed by
statute. In reality, the Service imposes the reporting and record-
keeping requirements under various broad rule-making authorities
contained in the Internal Revenue Code. Leaving it up to the IRS to
determine how to reduce paperwork burdens it imposes on taxpayers is
akin to the fox guarding the hen house.
We would urge the House to adopt H.R. 2432.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the work he has
done on this bill and the work to point out the real problems with this
bill.
I must tell my colleagues, I would be in the corner of those who want
to control the regulatory process. I chaired the EEOC, completely
reformed the agency to reduce regulations, and one of the reasons I am
for controlling the regulatory process is because overregulation makes
people hate government. I do not hate government. I think government
does many good things.
I come to the floor to tell my colleagues one of the reasons why I
oppose this bill. During hearings we discussed so-called regulatory
budgeting. That is not defined in this bill, as it should be, but it
was clear during the hearings that the point was to set a limit on the
total costs of regulations. This limit is based on the gross costs, not
the net costs, which would account for benefits from social legislation
or regulations.
For example, we have seen lead in the water in D.C., and now we think
it is all over the United States. Who would not believe that in trying
to control lead in the water, even if it proved costly, we would not
know more if we knew what the benefits were.
Assuming we could ascertain that, let us look at how inconsistent my
good friends on the other side of the aisle are.
When it comes to tax cuts, they insist upon something called dynamic
scoring. I know of no reputable economist who believes in dynamic
scoring, but they say what we should count are the benefits from the
tax cuts as well as the expenditures or the costs to the government.
Well, if this is the case with tax cuts, why are we not counting the
benefits of regulations as well as their costs to get a fair estimate?
That is only one of the problems with this bill.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire, I believe I have but 1 minute
left?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Waxman-
Tierney amendment. This week we are debating regulatory reform.
However, I believe that the greatest threat facing our regulatory
system is the political manipulation of the scientific process.
Repeatedly, the Bush administration has been caught with their hands
in the cookie jar, removing, manipulating or ignoring findings of
credible scientists on the environment so we can promote the
regulations it believes makes political campaign donors and the
conservative right wing happy.
The pattern is there, and it is disturbing.
First, in August of 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services
replaced 15 of the 18 members on the advisory committee at the National
Center For Environmental Health. These scientific advisory positions
were filled with a number of people who were very closely related to
the industry that they were supposed to be regulating.
Can my colleagues imagine that political appointees at the Department
of Health and Human Services were also caught tampering and removing
information about the disparities that exist between racial and ethnic
minorities in health care?
Then, secondly, in June of 2003, the EPA published a comprehensive
report on the environment, while omitting information on global
warming. The threat to the community I represent is extraordinary,
longer droughts, more water shortages, tougher fire seasons. Last year,
our fire season was vicious, but in the EPA's report, no one would know
that those threats exist because the White House refuses to let the EPA
publish what the scientists consider to be the best available science.
Most recently, on April 29, 2004, EPA experts called attention to a
new Bush policy that will hamper accurate modeling of the effects of
power plants.
These examples are just a few of many the administration has done in
terms of removing, manipulating and ignoring the findings of credible
scientists. More than 20 Nobel Laureates, dozens of scholars, credible
scientific journals and many scientific organizations have expressed
concern about the impact this manipulation could have on the U.S.'s
role in the world as a leader in science.
We cannot create effective policy without the free input of qualified
scientific experts. We need to stop the manipulation of science and
restore integrity to the scientific process. Support this amendment.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-
Tierney amendment.
The biggest threat facing the regulatory system today is political
interference with the scientific process. The interference threatens
the integrity of the science-based agencies and hampers their ability
to apply the best possible information and expertise to regulatory
problems.
There is a rising concern in the scientific community and among
former agency administrators about the unprecedented political
interference with science occurring today.
In one egregious example, HHS released a heavily edited version of
the National Health Care Disparities Report, a major report requested
by Congress. This document hardly mentioned the word ``disparities,''
did not state that the disparities were a problem, and even said that
racial and ethnic groups had health advantages compared to the general
population.
Members of Congress then obtained a June 2003 copy of this same
report that was prepared by HHS scientists. The scientists had actually
found that racial and ethnic disparities in health care are ``national
problems'' that are ``pervasive in our health care system'' and carry a
significant ``personal and societal price.'' These important
conclusions had been censored from the final version by the political
appointees at HHS.
I, along with other Members of the Congress, wrote HHS Secretary
Thompson to protest the manipulation of science on health care
disparities and to request copies of all drafts and comments on the
disparities report. HHS initially defended its report saying that it
was just trying to show that the glass was half full. Deleting
scientists' conclusions about racial and ethnic disparities is not
public relations; it is the manipulation of science for political ends.
A month later HHS Secretary Thompson admitted that there was a
mistake made and released the scientists' version of the report, but we
still do not know what went wrong and never received any further
explanation for this false information.
An independent, bipartisan Commission on the Politicization of
Science is urgently needed to protect the public health from incidents
like this.
The Waxman-Tierney amendment will establish an independent,
bipartisan commission to investigate the politicization of science in
the regulatory process and make recommendations to restore scientific
integrity.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney) has 45 seconds remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) has 1 minute remaining.
[[Page H3151]]
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I have the right
to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I just say, Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard adequate reasons here
why this bill comes up short in what would be a help in any sense in
types of burden relief. It does have to be a situation where we are
concerned about who is responsible.
One of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle raised that
issue that we should not be, but hopefully, we need to enlist the
support of this administration and a majority here to help get the
burden down, and this administration has had record increases in
paperwork burdens, mostly because of the Internal Revenue Code changes
that they have made, which have substantially added to that situation.
Not only did it not address the recession and not address the job
losses, which have been historic, it also failed to do anything about
reducing paperwork burdens and, in fact, increased that substantially.
So I think that this debate has made that clear, Mr. Chairman. I
would advise folks to please read the report the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and I had done and introduced in the Record and
vote against this bill.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for the purpose of closing.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) for his leadership on this issue. It is really a great tribute to
all the work that he has done.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are talking about these days
is, how do we stop pushing jobs overseas? One of the problems we have
is, we are in the time of global competition, and our manufacturers and
our small businesses are really struggling to compete in the global
marketplace.
One of the ways in which we push jobs overseas is by making it more
expensive to do business in America and to hire people to build things
in America is the cost of regulations.
This bill, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, helps make
good on the promise that Congress is giving to the American people that
we are going to reduce the cost of regulations. Getting the essential
information on how the costs and benefits accumulate on our regulations
is a critical component to our agenda to reduce the cost that our
government imposes on businesses so they can be more competitive in the
global marketplace so that we can keep jobs in America.
This is about jobs. It is about common sense. I urge adoption of this
bill.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our chairman for his
work on H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, and I
rise today in support of this overdue legislation. I came to Congress
to support small businesses, and this is a step in the right direction.
We have all heard the saying--the road to ruin is paved with good
intentions. This is an appropriate statement to consider as we discuss
the purpose of the original Paperwork Reduction Act. In 1980 this
legislation was passed to ensure that government didn't place an undue
repetitive and duplicative paperwork burden on the Nation's businesses.
In 1995, Congress again took up the issue and amended PRA by
establishing additional paperwork reduction goals. Unfortunately, the
result has not been less paperwork.
Since 1995, the paperwork burden has consistently increased. In a
2002 report to Congress, OMB found that the Department of Labor alone
imposed over 181 million hours of paperwork in FY 2001. And OMB
estimated that processing the paperwork costs business $30 an hour--the
Labor Department's regulations alone, at that rate, are costing
American businesses $5.43 billion. And the total per-employee cost of
regulation can be as much as 60 percent greater for small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, time and again, at town halls and business roundtables
across my district, I'm hearing from business owners, small and large,
that they are frustrated and, quite frankly, they are tired of the
government costing them time and money for purposeless paperwork.
H.R. 2432 gives Congress the tools needed to effectively study and
gauge the value of particular regulations and make informed, cost-
benefit judgments on their worth. I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense legislation today.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Waxman/Tierney amendment to establish an independent commission on the
politicization of science in the regulatory process. As a family
physician and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health
Braintrust, I have made numerous appearances on this floor to remind my
congressional colleagues and this Nation about the gaping deficiencies
in our healthcare system. With these deficiencies being most salient in
minority communities, members have introduced and passed a number of
legislative proposals geared towards eliminating racial and ethnic
health disparities. Public Law 106-129 was one of these proposals and
required the Agency for Health care Quality and Research to produce
annual reports on the existing disparities in this Nation.
But the Bush administration, who seeks to evangelize individual
responsibility as the sole mechanism for redressing health disparities
and improving health care for the underserved, have produced policy
directives sought to downgrade proven programmatic efforts to eliminate
health disparities, and overtly question the reality of the health care
system's failings in the requested report entitled National Health Care
Disparities Report (NHDR).
The NHDR was published by Department of Health and Human Services'
Agency for Health Care Quality and Research in December of 2003 and
took the position that racial and ethnic minorities are in better
health than the general population. After an investigation was launched
at the request of Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and members of the
Congressional Minority Caucuses, it became apparent that there were two
starkly different versions of the report.
The June version of the report found ``significant inequality'' in
health care in the United States, referred to health care disparities
as ``national problems,'' emphasized that these disparities are
``pervasive in our health care system,'' and found that the disparities
carry a significant ``personal and societal price.'' The December
version of the report that was released, however, contains none of
these conclusions. Furthermore, the June versions of NHDR defined
``disparity'' as the condition or fact of being unequal, as in age,
rank, or degree, and included the term over the 30 times in the ``key
findings'' section of the executive summary. By contrast, the December
version leaves ``disparity'' undefined and deletes the uses of the
``disparity'' throughout the report.
After much political pressure and public embarrassment, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services retracted the December report and released
the June version. But after three months of aggressively defending and
justifying the December report it was clear the Administration's
understanding of death from health disparities and unequal treatment of
the underserved by the health care system based on ideological
perspective rather than science. Perspective-based policy making in
health care is problematic because its solutions hinge on its biases.
With over a century of science-based evidence available, such policy-
making appears not just partisan before activity harmful.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have time to allow political ideology to take
precedent over science. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/
Tierney amendment and put an end to politicization of science.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, please include the attached
exchange of letters between Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the Committee on
Agriculture, Chairman Jim Nussle of the Committee on the Budget and
myself in the Congressional Record at the end of the debate on H.R.
2432 under general leave.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2004.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This correspondence is in regard to H.R.
2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2003.
As you are aware, the Committee on Agriculture was granted a
sequential referral of H.R. 2432 because of its
jurisdictional interest in agriculture commodity programs
created and reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
Section 4 of H.R. 2432 amends the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) by eliminating
provisions that were inserted to ensure the farm bill
programs and payments would apply to the crops of the 2002
crop year.
Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation, I
will discharge H.R. 2432 from further consideration by the
Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the understanding that
by discharging the bill the Committee on Agriculture does not
waive any future jurisdictional claim over this or similar
measures. In addition, in the event a conference with the
Senate is requested on this matter, the Committee on
Agriculture reserves the
[[Page H3152]]
right to seek appointment of conferees, if one should become
necessary.
Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter and I
look forward to continued cooperation between our Committees
as we deal with these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2004.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Agriculture Committee's jurisdictional interest
in H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act.
Section 4 of H.R. 2432 repeals eight provisions within the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
171). Those eight provisions exempted certain farm programs
from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
I agree that the Committee on Agriculture does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 2432 or P.L. 107-171 by waiving
further consideration of the bill. In addition, I will
support your request for conferees from the Agriculture
Committee should a House-Senate conference on this or similar
legislation be convened.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response as
part of the Government Reform Committee's report and the
Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation
on the House floor. Thank you for your cooperation as we work
towards the enactment of H.R. 2432.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman: On May 10, 2004, the Committee on Government
Reform ordered reported H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and
Regulatory Improvements Act of 2004. As you know, the
Committee on the Budget was granted an additional referral
upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's
jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Because of your willingness to consult with this Committee,
and because of your desire to move this legislation
expeditiously as an individual bill, I have agreed that the
Committee will be discharged of the bill. However, the
Committee does not waive any part of its current
jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee reserves its
authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask
your commitment to support any request for conferees by the
Committee on H.R. 2432 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter and your response in
your Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House Floor. Thank
you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Jim Nussle,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
Hon. Jim Nussle,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Budget Committee's jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements act. The
bill was primarily referred to the Committee on Government
Reform and additionally to the Committee on the Budget.
Section 6 of H.R. 2432 requires the Office of Management and
Budget to study the feasibility of integrating of the
regulatory accounting statement into the President's budget.
The contents of the President's budget is within the Budget
Committee's rule X jurisdiction, and accordingly, the Speaker
additionally referred H.R. 2432 to your Committee.
I agree that the Committee on the Budget does not waive its
jurisdiction over H.R. 2432 by waiving further consideration
of the bill. In addition, I will support your request for
conferees from the Budget Committee should a House-Senate
conference on this or similar legislation be convened.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your
cooperation as we work towards the enactment of H.R. 2432.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2432
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 ``Paperwork and Regulatory
Improvements Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1980, in the Paperwork Reduction Act, Congress
established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA's
principal responsibility is to reduce the paperwork burden on
the public that results from the collection of information by
or for the Federal Government. In 2002, OIRA estimated that
the paperwork burden imposed on the public was 7.7 billion
hours, at a cost of $230 billion. The Internal Revenue
Service accounted for 83 percent of the paperwork burden.
(2) In 1995, Congress amended the Paperwork Reduction Act
and established annual governmentwide paperwork reduction
goals of 10 percent for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997,
and 5 percent for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, but
the paperwork burden increased, rather than decreased, in
each of those fiscal years and fiscal year 2002. Both the
Office of Management and Budget and the Internal Revenue
Service need to devote additional attention to paperwork
reduction.
(3) In 2002, the House Report accompanying the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2003 (House Report
107-575) stated, ``The Office of Management and Budget has
reported that paperwork burdens on Americans have increased
in each of the last six years. Since the Internal Revenue
Service imposes over 80 percent of these paperwork burdens,
the Committee believes that OMB should work to identify and
review proposed and existing IRS paperwork.''.
(4) One key to success in paperwork reduction is the Office
of Management and Budget's systematic review of every new and
revised agency paperwork proposal. Recent statutory
exemptions from that office's review responsibility,
especially those without any stated justification, should be
removed.
(5) In 2000, researchers Mark Crain of George Mason
University and Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester Institute of
Technology, in their October 2001 publication titled ``The
Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms'', estimated that
Americans spend $843 billion annually to comply with Federal
regulations. Congress has a responsibility to review major
rules (as defined by section 804 of title 5, United States
Code) proposed by agencies, especially regulatory
alternatives and the costs and benefits associated with each
of them. In 2000, in the Truth in Regulating Act, Congress
established new responsibility within the General Accounting
Office to assist Congress with this responsibility.
(6) In 1996, because of the increasing costs and
incompletely estimated benefits of Federal rules and
paperwork, Congress required the Office of Management and
Budget for the first time to submit an annual report to
Congress on the total costs and benefits to the public of
Federal rules and paperwork requirements, including an
assessment of the effects of Federal rules on the private
sector and State and local governments. In 1998, Congress
changed the annual report's due date to coincide with the due
date of the President's budget, so that Congress and the
public could be given an opportunity to simultaneously review
both the on-budget and off-budget costs associated with the
regulatory and paperwork requirements of each Federal agency.
In 2000, Congress made this a permanent annual reporting
requirement.
(7) The Office of Management and Budget requires agencies
to submit annual budget and paperwork burden estimates in
order to prepare certain required reports for Congress, but
it does not require agencies to submit estimates on costs and
benefits of agency rules and paperwork. The Office of
Management and Budget needs to require agencies to submit
such estimates on costs and benefits to help prepare the
annual accounting statement and associated report required
under section 624 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001.
SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF TAX PAPERWORK.
Section 3504 of title 44, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) In carrying out subsection (c)(3), the Director shall
(in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service and the
Office of Tax Policy of the Department of the Treasury and
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration)
conduct a review of the collections of information conducted
by the Internal Revenue Service to identify actions that the
Internal Revenue Service can take to reduce the information
collection burden imposed on small business concerns,
consistent with section 3520(c)(1) of this chapter. The
Director shall include the results of the review in the
annual report that the Director submits under section 3514 of
this chapter for fiscal year 2006.''.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF EXEMPTIONS FROM PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT,
ETC.
(a) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) are
repealed:
(1) Subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 1601(c)(2).
[[Page H3153]]
(2) Section 1601(c)(3).
(3) Section 2702(b)(1)(A).
(4) Section 2702(b)(2)(A).
(5) Section 2702(c).
(6) Subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 6103(b)(2).
(7) Section 6103(b)(3).
(8) Subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 10105(d)(2).
(9) Section 10105(d)(3).
(b) Effective Date.--The repeals of the provisions listed
in subsection (a) shall take effect 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. AMENDMENT OF TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT TO MAKE
PERMANENT PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.
The purpose of this section is to make permanent the
authority to request the performance of regulatory analysis
to enhance Congressional responsibility for regulatory
decisions developed under the laws enacted by Congress. The
Truth in Regulating Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-312; 5 U.S.C.
801 note) is amended--
(1) in the heading for section 4, by striking ``PILOT
PROJECT FOR'',
(2) by striking section 5 and redesignating section 6 as
section 5; and
(3) in section 5 (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``and duration of pilot
project'';
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Effective Date.--
''; and
(C) by striking subsections (b) and (c).
SEC. 6. IMPROVED REGULATORY ACCOUNTING.
(a) Requirement for Agencies To Submit Information on
Regulations and Paperwork to OMB.--Section 624 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-161),
is amended
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsection (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Agency Submissions to OMB.--To carry out subsection
(a), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall require each agency annually to submit to the Office of
Management and Budget an estimate of the total annual costs
and benefits of Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent
feasible--
``(1) for the agency in the aggregate; and
``(2) for each agency program.''.
(b) Integration of OMB Accounting Statement and Report Into
President's Budget.--Section 624 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by
Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-161) is further amended
in subsection (a), by striking ``with the budget'' and
inserting ``as part of the budget''.
(c) Regulatory Budgeting.--(1) Chapter 11 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 1120. Regulatory budgeting
``(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
after consultation with the head of each agency, shall
designate not less than three agencies (or offices within an
agency) to participate in a study on regulatory budgeting for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The designated agencies shall
include three regulatory agencies or offices from among the
following: the Department of Labor, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services,
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(b) The study shall address the preparation of regulatory
budgets. Such budgets shall include the presentation of the
varying estimated levels of benefits that would be associated
with the different estimated levels of costs with respect to
the regulatory alternatives under consideration by the agency
(or office within the agency).
``(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall include, in the accounting statement and associated
report submitted to Congress for calendar year 2006 under
section 624 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law
106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-161), a presentation of the
different levels of estimated regulatory benefits and costs
with respect to the regulatory alternatives under
consideration for one or more of the major regulatory
programs of each of the agencies designated under subsection
(a).
``(d) In the accounting statement and associated report
submitted to Congress for calendar year 2009 under section
624 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (as so enacted), the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall include a report on the study on
regulatory budgeting. The report shall--
``(1) assess the feasibility and advisability of including
a regulatory budget as part of the annual budget submitted
under section 1105;
``(2) describe any difficulties encountered by the Office
of Management and Budget and the participating agencies in
conducting the study; and
``(3) recommend, to the extent the President considers
necessary or expedient, proposed legislation regarding
regulatory budgets.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1120. Regulatory budgeting.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the committee amendment is
in order except those printed in part D of House Report 108-497. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
{time} 1815
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part D of
House Report 108-497.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ose
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Ose:
In section 5, insert ``(a) Permanent
Authority.--'' before ``The purpose''.
In section 5, strike paragraph (2) and the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) and insert the following:
(2) in section 5, by striking ``$5,200,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2002'' and inserting ``$5,000,000
for each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2004'';
and
(3) in section 6--
Add at the end of section 5 the following:
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
In section 6, strike subsection (b) and redesignate
subsection (c) as subsection (b).
In section 1120(d) of title 31, United States Code, as
proposed to be added by section 6(b) (as so redesignated), in
the matter preceding paragraph (1), insert after ``Management
and Budget'' the following: ``, after consultation with the
Committees on the Budget and on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget and
on Governmental Affairs of the Senate,''.
In section 1120 of title 31, United States Code, as
proposed to be added by section 6(b) (as so redesignated),
strike the closing quotation marks and second period at the
end and insert the following:
``(e) The report on the study on regulatory budgeting
required under subsection (d) shall also be submitted
directly to the Committees on the Budget and on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committees on
the Budget and on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment is technical in nature. It
conforms the text that was sent over from the committee to the
expectations of everybody here on the floor. Specifically, it changes
the applicable dates. In section 5, it changes the effective date of
the GAO requirement to 90 days after the date of enactment. It deletes
the integration requirement of the budget and regulatory accounting
statement, and it includes consultation with the Committee on the
Budget and the Committee on Government Reform of the House and the
Budget and Governmental Affairs Committees in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone claim the time in opposition to
the amendment?
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; and though
I rise to claim the time in opposition, we do not oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) will control the time in oppostion.
There was no objection.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, Congress did create a 3-year pilot program
in the Truth in Regulating Act, the so-called TIRA act, of 2000. That
required the General Accounting Office to report on economically
significant rules, if asked by the chairman or the ranking minority
member. Authorization for funding was included in the bill; but,
unfortunately, during the entire 3-year pilot program, Congress never
appropriated any money to fund the project. Because of this, the pilot
program never happened.
The bill before us today would make this pilot project permanent,
oddly enough. The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)
would provide authorization of $5 million each year to fund the
project; but the General Accounting Office has said it would need $8
million in actual funds,
[[Page H3154]]
not just promised funds, in order to perform the extra work required in
this provision.
What the General Accounting Office really supports is making this
provision a pilot project instead of making it permanent, which seems
to make eminent sense, given the fact that the original pilot program
was not able to be conducted. We should fund the pilot program and find
out whether it even works before we make it permanent.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a May 11, 2004, letter from the
General Accounting Office comptroller, David Walker, to the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). In this letter, Mr.
Walker writes, and I quote, ``If Congress wants TIRA to continue, we
believe it should do so as a pilot project rather than as permanent
authority.''
The entire letter is as follows, Mr. Chairman:
United States General
Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2004.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Truth in Regulating Act of 2000
(TIRA), Pub. L. No. 106-312, 114 Stat. 1248 (Oct. 17, 2000),
became effective on January 15, 2001. (Codified at 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 801 note.) TIRA contemplated a 3-year pilot project,
during which GAO would perform independent evaluations of
``economically significant'' agency rules when requested by a
chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction of
either House of Congress. The independent evaluation would
include an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the
potential benefits, potential costs, and alternative
approaches considered during the rulemaking proceeding. Under
TIRA, GAO was required to report on our evaluations within
180 calendar days after we received a committee request.
Section 6(b) of the Act, however, provided that the pilot
project would continue only if, in each fiscal year, ``a
specific annual appropriation not less than $5,200,000 or the
pro-rated equivalent thereof shall have been made for the
pilot project.'' Section 6(c) of the Act directed GAO to
submit to Congress, before the conclusion of the 3-year
period, ``a report reviewing the effectiveness of the pilot
project and recommending whether or not Congress should
permanently authorize the pilot project.'' During the 3-year
period contemplated for the pilot project, Congress did not
enact any specific appropriation to cover TIRA evaluations.
The authority for the 3-year pilot project expired on January
15, 2004.
On June 11, 2003, Congressman Ose introduced H.R. 2432
that, in section 5, would make TIRA's pilot permanent. In
August 2003, GAO provided staff of Congressman Ose with
amendments to H.R. 2432 to make clear that the same
limitation enacted in TIRA would continue if H.R. 2432 was
enacted, that is, GAO could not conduct any TIRA evaluations
without a specific appropriation enacted by Congress. (GAO's
proposed amendment enclosed.)
The GAO has conducted no TIRA evaluation. Therefore, in our
view, if Congress wants TIRA to continue, we believe it
should do so as a pilot project rather than as a permanent
authority. Moreover, we cannot support any proposal to make
TIRA permanent, such as H.R. 2432, without the inclusion of
language that makes clear that a specific appropriation must
be enacted before GAO can conduct TIRA reviews. In a recent
GAO report, we noted that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Analysis within the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has reviewed approximately 600 ``economically
significant'' rules a year since 1994. While realistically
GAO would only be asked to review selected rules, any
expansion of GAO's scope without additional dedicated
resources would pose a serious problem for us, especially in
light of what will likely be increasing budgetary
constraints. It would also likely serve to adversely affect
our ability to provide the same level of service to the
Congress in connection with our existing statutory
authorities.
TIRA evaluations will require a significant amount of
resources that cannot be absorbed within, for example, GAO's
fiscal year 2004 appropriation, given the substantial present
workload at GAO, our current backlog of pending requests, and
the anticipated need for contracting for specialized
expertise to assist us in our evaluations of particular
rules. Accordingly, we respectfully request that H.R. 24321
be amended to condition GAO's obligation to conduct
independent evaluations on the enactment of a separate and
specific annual appropriation. To cover the cost of such work
we propose an amendment to H.R. 2432 authorizing an annual
appropriation of $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely yours,
David M. Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States.
Enclosure.
amendments to the truth in lending regulating act
Section 5 of Public Law 106-312 is amending by striking
everything after the heading and inserting the following:
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the General
Accounting Office to carry out this Act $8,000,000 for fiscal
year 2005.
(b) For each fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized
to be appropriated an amount equal to the prior fiscal year's
authorization plus an amount calculated by multiplying the
prior year's authorization by the change in the Consumer
Price Index as prepared by the Department of Labor for that
fiscal year.
Section 6 of Public Law 106-312 is amended by striking
subsection (b) and inserting the following new subsection
(b):
(b)(1) Absent a specific annual line item appropriation in
the General Accounting Office's appropriation for fiscal year
2005 of not less than $8,000,000 for this purpose, the
General Accounting Office shall not conduct in fiscal year
2005 any independent evaluations as authorized by this Act.
(2) Absent a specific annual line item appropriation in the
General Accounting Office's appropriation for each fiscal
year thereafter of not less than the amount authorized for
that fiscal year by section 5(b) for that purpose, the
General Accounting Office shall not conduct in that fiscal
year any independent evaluations as authorized by this Act.
The underlying bill that we are considering has other problems also,
Mr. Chairman, and I will mention those briefly.
One is the provision that would require targeted agencies to
participate in a study on regulatory budgeting. And I talked a little
about this in the last session we had. An agency with a regulatory
budget faces an arbitrary cap on how much its regulations can cost
industry. The benefits of regulation, such as saving lives or
preventing injuries, are not even considered under such a regulatory
budget.
A study of regulatory budgeting may seem harmless enough, but it
actually is not. It is one step down the path of regulatory budgeting
that would be a step too far. The underlying bill requires every agency
to submit every year to the Office of Management and Budget the annual
costs and benefits of all rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible,
for the entire agency and every program.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned the committee report states this
provision, and I quote, ``requires Federal agencies to submit annual
estimates of the costs and benefits associated with the Federal rules
and paperwork for each of their agency programs.''
We have not offered an amendment to strike this provision because the
committee majority informed us before we considered the bill that this
provision is not intended to require agencies to conduct any extra
cost-benefit evaluation beyond that which they already prepare.
Expanding the use of cost-benefit analysis would divert resources from
the work that agencies are supposed to be doing to carry out their core
missions, and it would not add value or improve the quality of
decision-making in the regulatory process.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, with the problems in this bill; but the
bottom line is this bill does nothing to improve the regulatory process
and could, in fact, result in a worsening of the regulatory process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and his bill, the Paperwork and
Regulatory Improvements Act, and thank his staff as well for the fine
work they have done. This legislation is a needed addition and an
improvement of existing law. H.R. 2432 would increase the transparency
and effectiveness of government and lessen the burden associated with
taxation-related paperwork for small businesses.
In 1980, the Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act, which
established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The
principal responsibility of this office is to reduce the paperwork
burden from Federal regulations on the American public. The burden is
considerable.
According to a 2001 study, Americans spend an estimated $843 billion
annually to comply with Federal regulations. It is our responsibility
as Members of Congress to review the new agency rules and regulations.
Most importantly, it is our duty to find ways to reduce red tape. In
order to fulfill this responsibility, Congress needs detailed
information on the costs and benefits associated with each regulation.
The
[[Page H3155]]
Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act would ensure this information
is provided to Congress.
H.R. 2432 would do three things. It would require the Office of
Management and Budget to seek agency input for its annual regulatory
accounting report to Congress; permanently fund an independent
regulatory analysis function within the General Accounting Office; and
authorize OMB to designate at least three agencies to conduct a 2-year
study on regulatory budgeting.
Based on the results of this study, OMB will report to Congress on
the feasibility of regulatory budgeting. We can then determine if it is
a useful tool for managing regulatory burdens on the public.
Finally, this legislation addresses the challenges small businesses
face with regard to the paperwork burden. Small businesses spend an
extremely disproportionate amount of resources, time, and money on
compliance with regulations. The largest share, almost 80 percent of
the paperwork, is taxation-related paperwork.
H.R. 2432 would require the OMB and the Internal Revenue Service to
jointly develop specific solutions to reduce the paperwork burden on
small businesses. It is time Congress paid attention to this pressing
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge all of my colleagues here today to
support this sound piece of legislation.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time remains.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. OSE. If I understand correctly, the gentleman from Massachusetts
has the right to close on this? It is my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California, as the
proponent of the amendment for which there is no opposition, has the
right to close.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I will just use the couple of remaining moments to talk about
something that both of the last speakers raised.
I think it is important to note that while we are all concerned about
paperwork burdens, especially on small businesses, the Internal Revenue
Service accounts for more paperwork than any other Federal agency. It
is 81 percent of the total paperwork hours. In contrast, the
Environmental Protection Agency only accounts for 1.8 percent of
Federal paperwork burden; the Department of Labor, including OSHA, only
accounts for 2 percent of the Federal paperwork burden. So, again, we
get back to the point that if we really want to do something about
this, we could look at the tax bills that were passed by this
administration which increased the paperwork burden 290 million hours
in one year and 570 million in another year and continue to be going at
a record pace.
We should be concerned about that, and we should be concerned again
about the regulatory budget aspect that is being suggested in this
bill. Again, it does not do enough to take care of the issue of
regulations needing to be in place to save lives, to prevent injuries,
to protect our environment, or to improve homeland security. All of
those things must be factored in every bit as much as the dollar cost.
And this whole idea of regulatory budgeting would not allow for that.
It would in that sense be counterproductive and against the interests
of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Regarding the amendment at the desk, it is a technical amendment. It
conforms to the actual writing of the bill reported from the committee
to the representations we have made here on the floor.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind remarks on the
amendment, and I urge its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 2 printed in part D of House Report 108-497.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Waxman:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE II--COMMISSION ON POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE IN THE REGULATORY
PROCESS
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
There is established in the legislative branch the
Independent Commission on Politicization of Science in the
Regulatory Process (in this Act referred to as the
``Commission'').
SEC. 202. DUTIES.
The Commission shall carry out the following duties:
(1) Examine and evaluate executive branch regulatory
activities and associated decisions to determine the extent
to which political considerations have undermined the quality
and use of science. As part of this examination and
evaluation, the Commission shall consider the regulatory
activities and associated decisions listed in--
(A) ``Politics and Science in the Bush Administration,'' an
August 2003 report prepared by the minority staff of the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) ``Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,'' a March 2004
report prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which
was accompanied by a statement of concern signed by 20 Nobel
Laureates and other distinguished scientists.
(2) Report to Congress and the President on its findings
and conclusions, as well as make recommendations to Congress
and the President on measures that can be taken to enhance
the integrity of science in executive branch regulatory
activities and associated decisions.
SEC. 203. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.
(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10
members, of whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be jointly appointed by the minority
leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House of
Representatives, who shall serve as vice chairman of the
Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the Senate; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
(1) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to
the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the
Federal Government or any State or local government.
(2) Other qualifications.--Individuals that shall be
appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States
citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of
experience in scientific professions, governmental service,
and public administration.
(3) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the
Commission shall be appointed within 45 days following the
enactment of this Act.
(4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet and begin the
operations of the Commission as soon as practicable. After
its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call
of the chairman or a majority of its members.
(c) Quorum; Vacancies.--Six members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in
which the original appointment was made.
(d) Conflicts of Interest.--Each member appointed to the
Commission shall submit a financial disclosure report
pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978,
notwithstanding the minimum required rate of compensation or
time period employed.
SEC. 204. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings and Evidence.--The Commission or, on the
authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member
thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this title,
hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places,
take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer
such oaths as the Commission or such designated subcommittee
or designated member may determine advisable.
(b) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in
such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter
into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its
duties of this Act.
(c) Information From Federal Agencies.--
[[Page H3156]]
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission,
office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and
statistics for the purposes of this Act. Each department,
bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent
establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent
authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon
request made by the chairman, the chairman of any
subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any
member designated by a majority of the Commission.
(2) Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination.--
Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and
disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff
consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and
Executive Orders.
(d) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) General services administration.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis administrative support and other services
for the performance of the Commission's functions.
(2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the
assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and
agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission
such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support
services as they may determine advisable and as may be
authorized by law.
(e) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(f) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as departments and agencies of the United States.
SEC. 205. STAFF OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Appointment and compensation.--The chairman, in
consultation with vice chairman, in accordance with rules
agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the
compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as
may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its
functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the
equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Personnel as federal employees.--
(A) In general.--The staff director and any personnel of
the Commission who are employees shall be employees under
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of
chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
(B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to apply to members of the Commission.
(b) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be
detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the
Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights,
status, and privileges of his or her regular employment
without interruption.
(c) Consultant Services.--The Commission is authorized to
procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at
rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a
position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 206. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.
(a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be
compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of
the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at
level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that
member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of
the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or
regular places of business in the performance of services for
the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the
Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b)
of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 207. REPORTS OF COMMISSION; TERMINATION.
(a) Interim Reports.--The Commission may submit to Congress
and the President interim reports containing such findings,
conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures as
have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.
(b) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress and the President a final report containing such
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission
members.
SEC. 208. TERMINATION.
(a) In General.--The Commission, and all the authorities of
this Act, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the
final report is submitted under subsection (b).
(b) Administrative Activities Before Termination.--The
Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph
(1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including
providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its
reports and disseminating the final report.
SEC. 209. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated funds not to exceed $5,000,000 for
purposes of the activities of the Commission under this Act.
(b) Duration of Availability.--Amounts made available to
the Commission under subsection (a) shall remain available
until the termination of the Commission.
At the end of section 2, insert the following:
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PAPERWORK REDUCTION
Redesignate sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 as sections 101, 102,
103, and 104, respectively.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes of debate time.
H.R. 2432, the bill that is before us today, is intended to improve
the way that Federal agencies create and implement regulations, but in
its current form this legislation will do nothing to address the most
serious threat to the integrity of the regulatory process: political
interference with science.
Without good science for policymakers, we cannot make the best policy
judgments. We as policymakers or the regulatory agencies need good
science, science that has not been interfered with by politicians. That
is why the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I are
offering this amendment to establish an independent commission to
investigate whether science is being politicized and to make
recommendations to Congress to protect scientific integrity.
This amendment responds to the concerns of the scientific community.
Twenty Nobel Laureates, major scientific organizations, and leading
scientific and medical journals have protested a pattern of political
interference with science by the Bush administration. This pattern has
involved gagging scientists, suppressing research, and rewriting
reports to eliminate scientific answers that conflict with the
administration's political or ideological agenda. It has also involved
misleading the public and Congress on key scientific facts,
manipulating performance measures for ideologically favored programs,
and stacking advisory committees, scientific advisory committees
stacked with people who will come up with the right political answer.
The Bush administration's interference with science has undermined
efforts to protect the public's health, safeguard the environment, and
even provide accurate information about the war on terrorism. We have a
report that we have prepared called ``Politics and Science in the Bush
Administration,'' and it goes through a whole pattern of interference
with scientific decisions.
We have heard about the interference with scientific research at the
National Institutes of Health. We have heard about suppression of
information where the environmental scientist wanted to talk about the
global warming issue, but their report was taken out of the overall
category of information about environmental problems in this country.
We know that this administration favors the kinds of programs that
would talk about abstinence for sex for teenagers, and they do not want
to really talk about some of the other programs that have a broader
perspective, including family planning.
But even in the last couple of days, we have another example where we
even are seeing that accurate information that is needed for us to have
about the war on terrorism is being stopped. The State Department did a
report on patterns of global terrorism; and according to the report,
terrorist attacks fell to a record low in 2003. At the press conference
releasing the report, Deputy Secretary Armitage said: ``You will find
in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.''
{time} 1830
But this is a fabrication resulting from manipulation of the data. In
fact, significant terrorist attacks reached a 20-year high in 2003. It
is deplorable
[[Page H3157]]
that this administration would manipulate data to make it seem like
terrorism is less a threat than ever when, in reality, the very
opposite is true.
I ask my colleagues today to join me in supporting this amendment. It
is supported by a wide range of groups, including the League of
Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Respect for evidence and the scientific process is not a partisan
issue. I urge that we take the responsible step of supporting an
independent bipartisan commission to investigate the politicization of
science and restore scientific integrity across the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for 10 minutes.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the first iteration of this amendment we
have seen. We also saw this in committee. While I would describe its
purpose as well-meaning and well-intended, my position in the committee
and my position today are the same, and that is that this piece of
legislation dealing with regulatory processes and paperwork burden is
not the proper vehicle to establish a commission dealing with the
quality of science that this or any other administration might
otherwise wish to entertain.
I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) just for
clarification. The amendment mentions a report dated August 2003, and
yet I have a copy here that is updated November 13. Might I inquire as
to which report we are working off of?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the August report was updated on November
13, 2003. They are practically identical reports.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, are we working off the August report or the
November report?
Mr. WAXMAN. Whatever the amendment provides. It does not make too
much difference. It is the same report with the same substance
outlining the political interference with science by the Bush
administration.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, regardless of the date, I
would still register my opposition on the basis that this regulatory
process and paperwork reduction legislation is not the vehicle by which
we should properly discuss the quality of science that this or any
other administration might wish to use in the deliberative decisions
that they make.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this kind of
partisan language would not be appropriate in any legislation.
I assume the goal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is
not to politicize science and research, yet I respectfully suggest that
is what this amendment does. And the comments of the gentleman on the
floor were sort of blasting the Bush administration for some of the
things that they have done.
I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, and the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is the ranking member of that
subcommittee. In fact, all of the members on that committee,
Republicans and Democrats, and on the full Committee on Science work
very diligently to not politicize what we are doing in science and
research in this country.
This amendment requires that a commission be created to study the
politicization of science by the Bush administration. What we all sort
of agree is, politicizing this is what we are doing with this
amendment. I urge my colleagues, I urge the Democrats not to start,
even though it is an election year and we are approaching the election,
not to start politicizing.
We have references to the Committee on Government Reform. Regardless
of whether it is an August or November date, it is a minority staff
report that the majority had nothing to do with, and it is directing
the commission in this amendment. And by the way, this amendment, as I
count the pages, a 10-page amendment in a 9-page bill, otherwise
directs this new commission to take the minority report and study that
report that bashes the Bush administration.
The sponsor references the Union of Concerned Scientists and their
report; and the Union of Concerned Scientists, with all due respect, is
a left-wing organization which has been bashing the Bush administration
for the last 2 years.
So I think we need to be very careful of not politicizing what we are
doing in science and research in this country and in this Congress.
On the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Marburger, the scientific
adviser for the President, informs me that they have studied and
reacted to every point of suggested criticism in that report. If there
is additional review of the gentleman's minority report, I would be
glad to instigate it in our Subcommittee on Research because I think it
is important that we do not politicize. But it seems to me, and I would
respectfully and humbly suggest that passing this amendment does just
that, it politicizes by creating a commission that bashes the Bush
administration.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that science has already been
politicized by the Bush administration, and that is what our report has
pointed out. This report was favorably received in the leading
scientific journal Nature. It was cited dozens of times in scientific
and medical literature, including the New England Journal of Medicine
and Science.
The issue that we pointed out is named the fifth most important story
of 2003 by Discover magazine. When we point out how the Bush
administration has politicized science, we are accused of being
supporters of left-wing organizations and we should not politicize
science.
Let us get an independent, bipartisan commission to review whether
science has been manipulated and distorted and otherwise subjected to
political pressures by this administration.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand this ``Dear Colleague''
letter, one of several, actually, from the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman). This one is titled ``Keep Science Out of the `Political
and Ideological Shredder.' '' It goes on to quote articles in several
newspapers, including my own, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
This is what the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said about this
President. On the political censoring of a report on health care
disparities, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution concluded that, to
paraphrase rhythm and blues legend Sam Cooke, top aides in the Bush
administration do not know much biology, and I am old enough to
remember that song, I did not know much about trigonometry, or the
French he took, but he did know that 1 and 1 is 2. The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution very conveniently left that part of the verse out, that he
did know 1 and 1 is 2.
That cuts right to the matter. All of these rules and regulations and
all of this science they are talking about and the politicization of
it, what we are talking about is having rules and regulations based on
good science that makes sense. We hear from the other side and some of
the Members who are supporting this amendment this whole spring,
talking about outsourcing of jobs and all of the jobs that are lost by
this administration over the last 3 years; and they conveniently forget
that we are losing a lot of jobs because of these burdensome rules and
regulations, many of which, as Sam Cooke knew years ago when he wrote
that song, could be a little bit nonsensical.
But he did know 1 and 1 is 2, and that is what this President and
this administration knows, and that is why this bill, H.R. 2432, is a
good one and that is why this Waxman-Tierney amendment is a bad one.
The Waxman amendment would not result in paperwork reduction or
regulatory improvement. The amendment is purely a political attack on
the Bush administration and asserts that political considerations have
undermined the quality and use of science.
[[Page H3158]]
Listen to what President Bush's science adviser, Dr. Marburger,
recently stated, ``The President believes that policies should be made
with the best and most complete information possible and expects his
administration to conduct its business with integrity and in a way that
fulfills that belief.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and it is a bad amendment. I stand
to oppose the amendment and support the bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am always amazed to see how frightening
it is for our colleagues to be confronted with a nonpartisan study, and
that would be by a commission that was appointed by the President and
by members of that party and members of this party.
One of the speakers talked about this being political and partisan.
Basically, we are in an atmosphere here that is political by nature. It
is our obligation, if the President is putting a twist onto different
regulations and either avoiding their implementation or manipulating
them and missing science altogether, our obligation is to make sure
this is set right; and a commission should look at it to make sure that
all regulations are either enforced or implemented based on good, hard
science and not ideology and politics, as many are accusing the
President of doing.
We should not stop with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We should
go on to the New York Times that editorialized that ``the
administration belittled, misrepresented, altered, or quashed multiple
reports suggesting a clear link between greenhouse gas emissions and
the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil.''
The Chattanooga Free Press wrote that ``the Bush administration has
elevated its political agenda, ideology and vested interests over
substantive scientific concerns about the environmental and health
consequences of its policies.''
Citing the manipulation of data on caribou in the ANWR and the firing
of qualified experts from a lead poisoning advisory committee, the
Boston Globe concluded ``at a time when so many issues are grounded in
laboratory or field work, this corrupting of scientific evidence
misinforms lawmakers and the public and could make scientists unwilling
to work for the government.''
And the Philadelphia Inquirer concluded that ``the Bush
administration is risking public trust in vital government agencies by
putting scientific findings through a political and ideological
shredder.''
The Kansas City Star declared that ``it is time for a thorough
review.''
So it is not just the Democratic Party over here. I would assume
there are members in the Republican Party who are sensible enough to
want to have a good analysis of this done, and want to put aside all of
the political shenanigans of this administration.
Across the country, editorial page after editorial page acknowledges
this is the most political White House we have ever had on these
issues; and everybody wants it to stop, stop taking these regulations
and manipulating them to say something that is not true or accurate.
Let us get the science right.
This is the perfect bill for this to be brought forward in. We are
talking about regulations, and it is imperative that regulations are
implemented in a proper way based on scientific evidence and not
politics.
This White House has politicized this, not this party. I would think
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they have a shred of
desire to see the integrity of this institution maintained, would join
us and vote for this amendment.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) for this vital legislation, and I rise in support of the
gentleman's effort to reduce the paperwork and the regulatory costs
that do not provide health, protection and safety for people in America
today.
There is $843 billion that could be used to grow this economy, to
create jobs, to do the things that our workers need. We have to get
this study out of the way so we can do the right thing and make sure
that the regulations we have are transparent, they can be seen by the
people that write them, that are impacted by them, and make sure that
these regulations do what they are intended to do, not sap the economy,
not cut jobs.
I support the bill.
{time} 1845
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is no transparency when this administration appoints people to
a lead poisoning scientific committee and puts a person on who
represents the industry point of view, comes right from the industry,
and then comes in and recommends a level of lead that is harmful to
kids.
It is not transparency when references to global warming are taken
out at the insistence of the White House, the EPA administrator is
forced to drop it out of his or her analysis of overall problems.
It is not transparency when we have Web sites that say to women, you
should worry about having an abortion because it could lead to breast
cancer when there is no scientific basis for it.
What we have is continuous interference in scientific decisions by
the political people in this administration.
We need to respond to the concerns that have been raised by 20 Nobel
laureates, by Science Magazine, Nature Magazine, New England Journal of
Medicine, leading scientific organizations, including the American
Academy For the Advancement of Science, by making sure that we have
good scientific data, not politicized scientific data.
We are calling for a bipartisan commission to examine this
politicization of science that we are now seeing so frequently by this
administration, so that we can stop it and let the policymakers make
the decision based on good science.
Our country is losing its edge as a leader in science because
scientists do not want to work in an atmosphere where an administration
wants to just do favors for the right-wing religious extremists who
want to stop science that might offend their notions of what they think
is appropriate. And they do not want to work for an administration in
the scientific area where industry groups that reward this
administration with campaign contributions are rewarded by having the
science distorted to suit their needs.
I ask for support for the amendment.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just want to reiterate my rationale for not supporting the
amendment. If my colleagues look at the amendment, it refers to a
report put out by the minority staff entitled ``Politics and Science in
the Bush Administration.'' We have not had that report vetted. It was
issued by the minority staff. There has been no input by the majority
staff or review.
I daresay that that would be a very, very dangerous template to set
for this Congress, because who knows what other committees might adopt
majority or minority reports and then just jam them down the other
side's throat.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and instead seek
to have it discussed under the purview of the Committee on Science.
This particular piece of legislation dealing with regulatory process
and paperwork reduction is not the vehicle that should properly deal
with this issue. This may well be a very serious issue, but this is not
the vehicle where it should properly be discussed.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. We had a very similar measure at the committee markup and
defeated it there.
The amendment is supposed to create an expert commission to study the
politicization of science and make recommendations for how to protect
science in the regulatory process from political and ideological
manipulation and interference.
The problem with a commission like this is it is designed to find a
problem and highlight it. Whether the problem is real or serious the
commission fails if it finds nothing at all.
This is the kind of unfair fishing expedition that can only harm and
destroy public faith in the Federal rulemaking process.
Even worse than being unnecessary, the commission is expensive and
duplicative, and
[[Page H3159]]
its powers are questionable. It will cost $5 million. The commission
will also duplicate the work of the permanent congressional office of
regulatory affairs the base bill creates. And, the commission would
have the authority to enter into contracts, but it is unclear if such
contracts could be awarded without any competition. Certainly my
colleague didn't intend to provide sole source authority to the
commission.
There is no question that the Bush administration is surpassing
previous administrations in its commitment to good science. Under this
administration, OMB has issued the first information quality guidelines
that establish rigorous quality standards for using science when
developing regulations.
Mr. Chairman, it does not make sense to fund an unneeded commission
with a predetermined finding that will misrepresent the good work of
this administration. I'm opposed to this amendment and I ask that all
Members vote to defeat it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlemen's
amendment.
Knowledge is power, or as Francis Bacon used to say ``Nam et ipsa
scientia potestas est.'' Bacon inspired both this observation and what
we have come to know as the scientific method, the underpinning of
modern science. Whatever the inspiration for his famous quote, it
appears that from the very beginning, science and politics mixed.
Here in Congress we rely on scientists to inform policy, since the
term congressional ``expert'' is really an oxymoron--like ``Jumbo
Shrimp'' or ``Jobless Recovery.'' Scientists tell us whether Yucca
Mountain can be used to safely store nuclear waste for a hundred
thousand years, how fast global warming is occurring, and whether
therapeutic cloning is possible.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has taken its relentless drive
to weaken the environmental regulations of this country to a whole new
level, and it has politicized the scientific process in a way we
haven't seen since Galileo was tried and jailed by the Inquisition.
Lead is one of the most dangerous and potent toxins to the brains of
young children. A year and a half ago, I learned that the Bush
administration had rejected the CDC staff nominations of three renowned
scientists to its Advisory Panel on Preventing Childhood Lead
Poisoning. In their place, individuals with clear ties to the lead
industry were nominated--including one who had actually been nominated
by the lead industry, and another who was an expert witness for the
lead industry, testifying that lead posed very little health risk in
lawsuits brought against it. Clearly, the lead industry was unhappy
with the CDC panel, which was considering revising the safe blood lead
levels downward. So it decided to perform a little policy alchemy by
compromising the advisory committee process. I tried to head it off by
issuing a report entitled ``Turning Lead into Gold: How the Bush
Administration is Poisoning the Lead Advisory Committee at the CDC.''
While one of the nominees admitted her conflict of interest and bowed
out, the other industry nominees serve on that panel today.
The lead industry seems to have gotten its way for now. This same
committee just recently decided not to lower the lead level of concern,
despite a clear finding by a CDC working group that there are adverse
health effects at the lower level.
To add insult to injury, the President is proposing a $35 million cut
in funds for lead abatement in low-income homes. In the face of
significant national drinking water needs--illustrated by the shocking
revelations of extremely high lead levels in the Washington, DC,
water--the President's budget also proposes to cut water quality
funding by $822 million. This all adds up to a policy that counts
politics more than all of the science on the adverse effects of lead on
young children.
Vote ``yes'' on the Waxman-Tierney amendment to restore integrity to
the government's scientific process.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 226, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 187]
AYES--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--226
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
DeMint
Deutsch
Hayworth
Hunter
Leach
Tauzin
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter) (during the vote). Members
are advised 2 minutes are remaining in this vote.
[[Page H3160]]
{time} 1911
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey and Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. DeGETTE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bonner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2432) to amend the Paperwork Reduction Act and titles 5 and 31, United
States Code, to reform Federal paperwork and regulatory processes,
pursuant to House Resolution 645, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by 5-minute votes on H.R. 2731,
by the yeas and nays; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 4176,
by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 373,
nays 54, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 188]
YEAS--373
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--54
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Dingell
Engel
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
Meehan
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tierney
Van Hollen
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--6
DeMint
Deutsch
Hayworth
Leach
Smith (MI)
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonner) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1931
Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. RUSH and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BECERRA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________