Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

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. 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. 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 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. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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. OSE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) as to whether he has additional speakers.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire, I believe I have but 1 minute left?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I have the right to close?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for the purpose of closing.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time remains.

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.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

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. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I was unavoidably detained questioning a witness in a subcommittee hearing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 131 and 132, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both measures.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 29, 2004, I missed Rollcall votes 94 and 95. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall 94; and ``aye'' on Rollcall 95.