[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7261-7264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT OF 1999

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

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Request of review.--When an agency publishes an 
     economically significant rule, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States may review the rule at the request of a 
     committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress.
       (2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     on each economically significant rule selected under 
     paragraph (4) to the committees of jurisdiction in each House 
     of Congress not later than 180 calendar days after a 
     committee request is received. The report shall include an 
     independent evaluation of the economically significant rule 
     by the Comptroller General.
       (3) Independent evaluation.--The independent evaluation of 
     the economically significant rule by the Comptroller General 
     under paragraph (2) shall include--
       (A) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential 
     benefits of the rule, including any

[[Page 7262]]

     beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in monetary 
     terms and the identification of the persons or entities 
     likely to receive the benefits;
       (B) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential 
     costs of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot 
     be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the 
     persons or entities likely to bear the costs;
       (C) an evaluation of the agency's analysis of alternative 
     approaches set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking and 
     in the rulemaking record, as well as of any regulatory impact 
     analysis, federalism assessment, or other analysis or 
     assessment prepared by the agency or required for the 
     economically significant rule; and
       (D) a summary of the results of the evaluation of the 
     Comptroller General and the implications of those results.
       (4) Procedures for priorities of requests.--The Comptroller 
     General shall have discretion to develop procedures for 
     determining the priority and number of requests for review 
     under paragraph (1) for which a report will be submitted 
     under paragraph (2).
       (b) Authority of Comptroller General.--Each agency shall 
     promptly cooperate with the Comptroller General in carrying 
     out this Act. Nothing in this Act is intended to expand or 
     limit the authority of the General Accounting Office.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 3142

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

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

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

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

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

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has 
passed by unanimous consent the ``Truth in Regulating Act.'' This 
legislation would support Congressional oversight to ensure that 
important regulatory decisions are efficient, effective, and fair.
  The foundation of the ``Truth in Regulating Act'' is the right of 
Congress and the people we serve to know about important regulatory 
decisions. Through the General Accounting Office, which serves as 
Congress' eyes and ears, this legislation will help us get access to 
the cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and other key information 
underlying important regulatory proposals. So, in a real sense, this 
legislation not only gives people the right to know; it gives them the 
right to see--to see how the government works, or doesn't. GAO will be 
responsible for providing an evaluation of the analysis underlying a 
proposed regulation, which will enable us to communicate better with 
the agency up front. It will help us to ensure that the proposed 
regulation ultimately is sensible and consistent with Congress' intent. 
It will help improve the quality of important regulations. This will 
contribute to the success of programs the public values and improve 
public confidence in the Federal Government, which is a real concern 
today.
  Under the 3-year pilot project established by this legislation, a 
chairman or ranking member of a committee with legislative or general 
oversight jurisdiction, such as Governmental Affairs, may request the 
GAO to provide an independent evaluation of the agency regulatory 
analysis for any proposed economically significant rule. The 
Comptroller General shall submit a report no later than 180 calendar 
days after a committee request is received. The Comptroller General's 
evaluation of the rule shall include the following: an evaluation of 
the agency's analysis of the potential benefits of the rule; an 
evaluation of the agency's analysis of the potential costs of the rule; 
an evaluation of the agency's analysis of alternative approaches as 
well as of any cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, federalism 
assessment, or other analysis prepared by the agency or required for 
the rule; and a summary of the results of the evaluation and the 
implications of those results.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the ``Truth in Regulating Act'' 
will encourage Federal agencies to make better use of modern 
decisionmaking tools, such as benefit-cost analysis and risk 
assessment. Currently, these important tools often are viewed simply as 
options--options that aren't used as much or as well as they should be. 
Over the years, the Governmental Affairs Committee has reviewed and 
developed a voluminous record showing that our regulatory process is 
not working as well as intended and is missing important opportunities 
to achieve more cost-effective regulation. In April 1999, I chaired a 
hearing in which we heard testimony on the need for this proposal. The 
General Accounting Office has done important studies for Governmental 
Affairs and other committees showing that agency practices--in cost-
benefit analysis, risk assessment, federalism assessments, and in 
meeting transparency and disclosure requirements of laws and executive 
orders--need significant improvement. Many other authorities support 
these findings. All of us benefit when government performs well and 
meets the needs of the people it serves.
  A lot of effort and collaboration went into this legislation, which I 
think is why the Senate can now approve it unanimously. S. 1198 was 
originally the ``Congressional Accountability for Regulatory 
Information Act of 1999,'' sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby with 
Senators Lott and Bond. I sponsored S. 1244, the ``Truth in Regulating 
Act of 1999,'' with Senators Lincoln, Voinovich, Kerrey, Breaux, 
Landrieu, Inhofe, Stevens, Bennett, Robb, Hagel, and Roth. We 
synthesized these two similar bills, and I negotiated certain changes 
and clarifications with Joe Lieberman, the Ranking Member of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. On November 3, 1999, the negotiated 
changes were offered as a Thompson/Lieberman substitute amendment to S. 
1198, and the bill was reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee 
by voice vote. Afterwards, I worked on clarifications with Senator 
Levin. I thank my colleagues for pulling together to get the job done.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am supporting Senate passage of S. 
1198, a bill to provide a three year pilot program for GAO review of 
certain agency rule makings. These are rule makings where the Chairman 
or Ranking Member of a committee of jurisdiction in the House or the 
Senate has requested such a review after the rule has been published as 
proposed.
  As first introduced and considered in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I was opposed to this bill. I was concerned that it created 
a two track rule making process, putting GAO in the shoes of the rule 
making agency and having GAO carry out its own interpretation of the 
public comments, scientific studies and economic analyses involved in 
the development of the rule. But through the work of Senator Thompson 
and Senator Lieberman, the bill has been reworked and refined to a 
point where it may provide the agencies, Congress and the public with 
helpful information in evaluating the work of a rule making in progress 
without

[[Page 7263]]

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

                                S. 1198

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.

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

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

[[Page 7264]]



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

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

                          ____________________