Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1198.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1198 is Truth in Regulating Act of 2000. It is a bipartisan good government bill. It establishes a regulatory analysis function with the General Accounting Office. This function is intended to enhance congressional responsibility for regulatory decisions developed under the laws Congress enacts. It is the product of the leadership over the past few years of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, who will be joining us here in a few minutes. The most basic reason for supporting this bill is constitutional, as Congress needs a Congressional Budget Office to check and balance the executive branch in the budget office, so too does it need an analytic capability to check and balance the executive branch in the regulatory process. GAO is a logical location since it already has some regulatory review responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act. Mr. Speaker, article 1, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in the U.S. Congress. While Congress may not delegate its legislative functions, it routinely authorizes executive branch agencies to issue rules that implement laws passed by Congress. Congress has become increasingly concerned about its responsibility to oversee agency rulemaking, especially due to the extensive costs and impacts of Federal Rules. During the 105th Congress, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) held a hearing on the earlier Kelly regulatory analysis bill, H.R. 1704. This bill sought to establish a new, freestanding congressional agency. The subcommittee then marked up and reported her bill, H.R. 1704, and called for the establishment of a new legislative branch, Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis commonly referred to as CORA, to analyze all major rules and report to Congress on potential costs, benefits, and alternative approaches that could achieve the same regulatory goals at lower costs. This agency was intended to aid Congress in analyzing Federal regulations. The committee report stated Congress needs the expertise that CORA would provide to carry out its duty under the CRA. Currently Congress does not have the information it needs to carefully evaluate regulations. The only analyses it has to rely on are those provided by the agencies which promulgate the rules. There is no official, third-party analysis of new regulations. Unfortunately, CORA supporters in the 105th Congress could not overcome the resistance of the defenders of the regulatory status quo. Opponents argued that creating a new congressional agency would be fiscally irresponsible. But by this logic, Congress ought to abolish CBO, as an even more heroic demonstration of fiscal conservatism in action. Of course, most of us recognize that disbanding the CBO, however, penny- wise would be pound foolish. In this Congress, 106th Congress, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman McIntosh), and myself, as vice chairman, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), chairwoman of Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, seeking to accommodate the prejudice against a freestanding agency, introduced separate bills, H.R. 3021 and H.R. 3669 respectively, to establish a CORA function within the GAO, which is an existing legislative branch agency capable of performing such functions. The MacIntosh and Kelly bills were introduced in January and February. On May 9, the Senate passed its own regulatory analysis legislation, S. 1198, which we are now considering by unanimous consent, I might add. Like the McIntosh and Kelly bills, the Senate legislation would also establish a regulatory analysis function within the GAO. During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Government Reform did not hold a hearing specifically on one of the CORA bills. However, the subcommittee did hold a June 14 hearing entitled, does Congress delegate too much power to agencies and what should be done about it? Witnesses testified that Congress needs its own, in-house, regulatory analysis capability so that Members could especially provide timely comment on proposed rules, while there is still an opportunity to influence the costs, the scope, and the content of final agency action. On June 26, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) introduced H.R. 4744, which included several needed improvements to S. 1198, along the lines suggested by the witnesses at this June 14th hearing. For example, whereas S. 1198 merely permits GAO to assist Congress in submitting timely comments on proposed regulations during the public comment period. H.R. 4744 would require GAO to provide such assistance. This is a critical improvement, because it is only by commenting on proposed rules during the public comment period that Congress has any real opportunity to influence the costs, the scope and the content of regulation. In addition, unlike S. 1198, H.R. 4744 would require GAO to review not only the agency's data but also the public's data to assure a more balanced evaluation, analyze not only rules costing $100 million or more, but also rules with a significant impact on small businesses, and examine whether alternatives not considered by the agencies might achieve the same goal in a more cost-effective manner or with greater net benefits. On June 29, the Committee on Government Reform favorably reported H.R. 4744 with a very thorough discussion of issues in its accompanying report, but on June 24, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman McIntosh), along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) introduced H.R. 4924. This bill included only a few of H.R. 4744's improvements to S. 1198, the inclusion within the scope of GAO's purview of agency rules with a significant impact on small businesses, a directive to GAO to submit its independent evaluation of proposed rules within the public comment period, albeit only when doing so is practicable. House Report 106-772 explains the basis for these improvements. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4924 was, in my judgment, inferior to H.R. 4744, which in itself is a watered-down version of the complete reform that is needed to implement Congress' Constitutional responsibility for regulatory oversight, but it was a step in the right direction. On June 29, the House passed H.R. 4924. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet considered H.R. 4924. Since we are at the close of the 106th Congress, we now, however, urge the House's favorable consideration of S. 1198. Mr. Speaker, S. 1198 does not require or expect GAO to conduct any new regulatory impact analyses or cost benefit analyses, or other impact analyses. However, GAO's independent evaluation should lead the agencies to prepare any missing cost/benefit analysis, small business impact, federalism impact, or any other missing analysis. For example, after the MacIntosh subcommittee insisted that the Department of Labor prepare a missing RIA for its ``Baby UI'' rule, Labor finally prepared one. Here is basically in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, how S. 1198 works. A chairman or a ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction may request that GAO submit an independent evaluation to the committee of a major proposed or final rule within 180 days. GAO's analysis shall include an evaluation of the potential benefits of the rule, potential costs of the rule, alternative approaches in the rulemaking record, and various impact analyses. Congress currently has two opportunities to review agency regulatory actions. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, Congress can comment on an agency proposed and interim rules during the public comment period. The APA's fairness provisions require that all members of the public, including Congress, be given an equal opportunity to comment. Late congressional comments cannot be considered by an agency unless all other late comments are equally considered. Agencies can ignore comments filed by Congress after the end of the public comment period, as the Department of Labor did during its Baby UI period in its rule. Therefore, since GAO cannot be given more time than other members of the public to comment, GAO should complete its review of agency regulatory proposals during the public comment period. Under the CRA, Congress can disapprove an agency final rule after it is promulgated but before it is effective. Unfortunately, Congress has been unable to carry out its responsibility under the CRA because it neither has had all of the information it needs to carefully evaluate agency regulatory proposals nor sufficient staff for this function. In fact, since the March 1996 enactment of the CRA, there has been no completed congressional resolutions of disapproval. To assume oversight responsibility for Federal regulations, Congress needs to be armed with an independent evaluation, that is why we are doing this. What is needed is an analysis of legislative history to see if there is a nondelegation problem, such as in the Food and Drug Administration's proposed rule to regulate tobacco products, which was struck by the Supreme Court in FDA v. Brown & Williamson, or backdoor legislating, such as in the Department of Labor's Baby UI rule, which provides paid family leave to small business employees, even though Congress in the Family and Medical Leave Act said no to paid family leave and any coverage of small businesses. Sometimes the quickest or the only way to find that an agency has ignored a congressional intent or failed to consider less costly or nonregulatory alternatives, is to examine nonagency or public data and analysis. It is for that reason that, under H.R. 4744, GAO would be required to consult the public's data in the course of evaluating agency's rules. Although S.1198 does not require GAO to review public data, it does not forbid it. And I bring this up, because some hope that S.1198 implicitly contains a gag order, forbidding GAO to consult any analyses of data except those supplied by the agency. That is an incorrect reading, however, and the purpose and hope of this bill is to enable Congress to comment knowledgeably about agency rules from the standpoint of a truly independent evaluation of those rules, including the consumption and evaluation of public outside data. Instructed by GAO's independent evaluations, Congress then will be better equipped to review final agency rules under the CRA. More importantly, Congress will be better equipped to submit timely and knowledgeable comments on proposed rules during the public period. Some CORA foes hope that all GAO analyses of proposed rules will be untimely and, therefore, have no effect on the substance of rules, which I am confident that GAO will want to please, rather than annoy its customers, those of us serving in Congress and will help submit timely regulatory analysis. Thus, even though this bill is a far cry from the original Kelly idea of a CORA legislation, this legislation, S.1198, will increase the transparency of important regulatory decisions. It will promote effective congressional oversight, and it will increase the accountability of Congress. The best government is a government that is accountable to the people. For America to have an accountable regulatory system, the peoples elected representatives must participate in and take responsibility for the rules promulgated under the laws Congress passes and by the executive branch agencies, that is why I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful step. Mr. Speaker, I went through this exhaustive legislative history on this bill because I think it is important that those who are researching and realizing the debate here in Congress know the intent as we pass this bill. S. 1198, the ``Truth in Regulating Act of 2000,'' is a bi-partisan, good government bill. It establishes a regulatory analysis function within the General Accounting Office (GAO). This function is intended to enhance Congressional responsibility for regulatory decisions developed under the laws Congress enacts. It is the product of the leadership over the last few years of Small Business Subcommittee Chairwoman on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, Sue Kelly. The most basic reason for supporting this bill is Constitutional: Just as Congress needs a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to check and balance the Executive Branch in the budget process, so it needs an analytic capability to check and balance the Executive Branch in the regulatory process. GAO is a logical location since it already has some regulatory review responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in the U.S. Congress. While Congress may not delegate its legislative functions, it routinely authorizes Executive Branch agencies to issue rules that implement laws pass by Congress. Congress has become increasingly concerned about its responsibility to oversee agency rulemaking, especially due to the extensive costs and impacts of Federal rules. During the 105th Congress, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, chaired by David McIntosh, held a hearing on Mrs. Kelly's earlier regulatory analysis bill (H.R. 1704), which would sought to establish a new, freestanding Congressional agency. The Subcommittee then marked up and reported her bill (H. Rept. 105-441, Part 2). H.R. 1704 called for the establishment of a new Legislative Branch Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis (CORA) to analyze all major rules and report to Congress on potential costs, benefits, and alternative approaches that could achieve the same regulatory goals at lower costs. This agency was intended to aid Congress in analyzing Federal regulations. The Committee Report stated, ``Congress needs the expertise that CORA would provide to carry out its duty under the CRA. Currently, Congress does not have the information it needs to carefully evaluate regulations. The only analyses it has to rely on are those provided by the agencies which promulgate the rules. There is no official, third-party analysis of new regulations'' (p. 5). Unfortunately, CORA supporters in the 105th Congress could not overcome the resistance of the defenders of the regulatory status quo. Opponents argued that creating a new Congressional agency would be fiscally irresponsible. By this logic, Congress ought to abolish CBO, as an even more heroic demonstration of fiscal conservatism in action. Of course, most of us recognize that dismantling CBO, however penny wise, would be pound foolish. In the 106th Congress, Government Reform Subcommittee Chairman David McIntosh and Small Business Subcommittee Chairwoman Sue Kelly, seeking to accommodate the prejudice against a freestanding agency, introduced bills (H.R. 3521 and H.R. 3669, respectively) to establish a CORA function within GAO, which is an existing Legislative Branch agency. McIntosh and Kelly introduced their bills in January and February 2000. On May 9th, the Senate passed its own regulatory analysis legislation, S. 1198, by unanimous consent. Like the McIntosh and Kelly bills, the Senate legislation would also establish a regulatory analysis function within GAO. During the 106th Congress, the Government Reform Committee did not hold a hearing specifically on one of the CORA bills. However, the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs did hold a June 14th hearing, entitled ``Does Congress Delegate Too Much Power to Agencies and What Should be Done About It?'' Witnesses at the hearing included Senator Sam Brownback, Representative J.D. Hayworth, former Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, former OMB General Counsel Alan Raul, and New York Law School Professor David Schoenbrod. Witnesses stressed that Congress needs its own, in-house, regulatory analysis capability so that Members could especially provide timely comment on proposed rules, while there is still an opportunity to influence the cost, scope and content of the final agency action. Witnesses stated that a regulatory analysis function should: (a) take into account Congressional legislative intent; (b) examine other, less costly regulatory and nonregulatory alternative approaches besides those in an agency proposal; and (c) identify additional, non-agency sources of data on benefits, costs, and impacts of an agency's proposal. Dr. Gramm testified that, ``there's clearly a need for more and better analysis that is independent of the agency writing the regulation . . . In my view, Congress cannot carry out its responsibilities effectively without such analysis.'' She continued by recommending, ``a shadow OIRA . . . to perform independent, high- quality analysis of agency regulations at the proposal stage . . . whether or not the agency has considered the different alternatives, what might be other alternatives . . . I would suggest that all this analysis be done at the proposal stage so that this information can be put into the rulemaking record.'' On June 26th, Chairwoman Kelly and Chairman McIntosh introduced H.R. 4744, which included several needed improvements to S. 1198, along the lines suggested by the witnesses at the June 14th hearing. For example, whereas S. 1198 merely permits GAO to assist Congress in submitting timely comments on proposed regulations during the public comment period, H.R. 4744 would require GAO to provide such assistance. This was a critical improvement, because it is only by commenting on proposed rules during the public comment period that Congress has any real opportunity to influence the cost, scope, and content of regulation. In addition, unlike S. 1198, H.R. 4744 would require GAO to review not only the agency's data but also the public's data to assure a more balanced evaluation, analyze not only rules costing $100 million or more but also rules with a significant impact on small businesses, and examine whether alternatives not considered by the agencies might achieve the same goal in a more cost-effective manner or with greater net benefits. On June 29th, the Government Reform Committee favorably reported H.R. 4744, with a thorough discussion of issues in its accompanying report (H. Rept. 106-772). On July 24th, Chairmen Kelly and McIntosh with Messrs. Condit and Turner introduced H.R. 4924. This bill included only a few of H.R. 4744's improvements to S. 1198: (a) inclusion, within the scope of GAO's purview, of agency rules with a significant impact on small businesses; and (b) a directive to GAO to submit its independent evaluation of proposed rules within the public comment period, albeit only when doing so is ``practicable.'' House Report 106-772 explains the basis for these improvements. H.R. 4924 was, in my judgment, inferior to H.R. 4744, which was itself a watered down version of the complete reform needed to implement Congress' Constitutional responsibility for regulatory oversight. But, it was a step in the right direction. On July 29th, the House passed H.R. 4924. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet considered H.R. 4924. Since we are at the close of the 106th Congress, we now urge the House's favorable consideration of S. 1198. S. 1198 does not require or expect GAO to conduct any new Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), cost-benefit analyses, or other impact analyses. However, GAO's independent evaluation should lead the agencies to prepare any missing cost/benefit, small business impact, federalism impact, or any other missing analysis. For example, after the McIntosh Subcommittee insisted that the Department of Labor prepare a missing RIA for its Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation (``Baby UI'') proposed rule, Labor finally prepared one. Here's how S. 1198 works. The Chairman or Ranking Member of a Committee of jurisdiction may request that GAO submit an independent evaluation to the Committee of a major proposed or final rule within 180 days. GAO's analysis shall include an evaluation of the potential benefits of the rule, the potential costs of the rule, alternative approaches in the rulemaking record, and the various impact analyses. Congress currently has two opportunities to review agency regulatory actions. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress can comment on agency proposed and interim rules during the public comment period. The APA's fairness provisions require that all members of the public, including Congress, be given an equal opportunity to comment. Late Congressional comments cannot be considered by the agency unless all other late public comments are equally considered. Agencies can ignore comments filed by Congress after the end of the public comment period, as the Department of Labor did after its proposed ``Baby UI'' rule. Therefore, since GAO cannot be given more time than other members of the public to comment, GAO should complete its review of agency regulatory proposals during the public comment period. Under the CRA, Congress can disapprove an agency final rule after it is promulgated but before it is effective. Unfortunately, Congress has been unable to fully carry out its responsibility under the CRA because it has neither all of the information it needs to carefully evaluate agency regulatory proposals nor sufficient staff for this function. In fact, since the March 1996 enactment of the CRA, there has been no completed Congressional resolutions of disapproval. In recent years, various statutes (such as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) and executive orders (such as President Reagan's 1981 Executive Order 12291, ``Federal Regulation,'' and President Clinton's 1993 Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'') have mandated that Executive Branch agencies conduct extensive regulatory analyses, especially for economically significant rules having a $100 million-or-more effect on the economy or a significant impact on small businesses. Congress, however, does not have the analytical capability to independently and fairly evaluate these analyses. To assume oversight responsibility for Federal regulations, Congress needs to be armed with an independent evaluation. What is needed is an analysis of legislative history to see if there is a non-delegation problem, such as in Food and Drug Administration's proposed rule to regulate tobacco products, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in FDA v. Brown & Williamson, or backdoor legislating, such as in the Department of Labor's ``Baby UI'' rule, which provides paid family leave to small business employees, even though Congress in the Family and Medical Leave Act said no to paid family leave and any coverage of small businesses. Sometimes the quickest (or only) way to find out that an agency has ignored Congressional intent or failed to consider less costly or non- regularly alternatives, is to examine non-agency (i.e., ``public'') data and analyses. It is for that reason that, under H.R. 4744, GAO would be required to consult the public's data in the course of evaluating agency rules. Although S. 1198 does not require GAO to review public data, neither does it forbid or preclude GAO from doing so. I bring this up, because some hope that S. 1198 implicitly contains a gag order, forbidding GAO to consult any analyses or data except those supplied by the agency to be reviewed. This reading of S. 1198 would defeat a key purpose of the bill, which is to enable Congress to comment knowledgeably about agency rules from the standpoint of a truly independent evaluation of those rules. Instructed by GAO's independent evaluations, Congress will be better equipped to review final agency rules under the CRA. More importantly, Congress will be better equipped to submit timely and knowledgeable comments on proposed rules during the public comment period. Some CORA foes hope that all GAO analyses of proposed rules will be untimely and, therefore, have no effect on the substance of rules. I am confident that GAO will want to please rather than annoy its customers, and will not fail to help Members of Congress submit timely comments on regulatory proposals. Thus, even though a far cry from the original idea of an independent CORA agency, and although inferior to the Kelly-McIntosh bill reported by the Government Reform Committee, S. 1198 will increase the transparency of important regulatory decision, promote effective Congressional oversight, and increase the accountability of Congress. The best government is a government accountable to the people. For America to have an accountable regulatory system, the people's elected representatives must participate in, and take responsibility for, the rules promulgated under the laws Congress passes. S. 1198 is a meaningful step towards Congress' meeting its regulatory oversight responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the champion of small business, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, and the champion of CORA.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am very familiar with this quote because I think it goes to the different philosophies that are being represented here in Washington. Two weeks after the President came right behind the gentleman there and gave the State of the Union address last year, where he talked about how we are going to use the government surplus, he went to Buffalo, New York, and talked to a packed crowd of tens of thousands of people. He said, with respect to the government surplus, the people's surplus, he said, quote, ``We could give you your money back, but we would not be sure that you would spend it right,'' end quote. Well, therein lies the philosophy. The people's money is spent right, so long as they spend their own money. The belief here in Washington, shared by President Clinton and Vice President Gore, is that we here in Washington know how to spend the people's money better than they do. There is a different school of thought; there is a different philosophy which we share that people know how to spend their own money better. People know how to take care of their children, their grandparents, their parents much better than some distant bureaucrats in Washington do. So these two pie charts here, the visions, the blueprints about how to divvy up the surplus, they are more than just numbers, more than just budgets. They are twin visions. They are two different visions. The Gore vision here on how to treat the surplus is to spend the bulk of the money in Washington. Spend the bulk of our families' budgets in Washington on more programs, on more agencies so that Washington can try and come up with a solution to solve the problems in our lives. The different vision, the Bush vision proposed in the Bush plan is to pay down our debts so our children and grandchildren can inherit a debt-free Nation from our efforts. And as people are still overpaying their taxes, here is the critical part, do not think that Washington can spend money better than people can. Give people their money back and make the Tax Code much more fair and simpler so that they can move on and live and grow businesses and raise their families. So the vision here is very stark. It is very different. The Gore vision: spend the money in Washington, keep it in Washington, pay off the debt at a slower pace. If we actually add these numbers up, this $2.1 trillion spending increase that the Vice President is proposing, it is the largest proposed spending increase in the Federal Government in 30 years. Not since Lyndon Johnson has a spending increase been proposed. It is so large that if we add it all up, it forces the Vice President to go and raid the Social Security trust fund by $906 billion. He spends so much money, it is over $906 billion. The answer then is either dip into Social Security or raise taxes if we want to satisfy all of the Vice President's spending desires. That is not what the Bush plan is doing. That is not what we are trying to get done. Pay off the debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare, and as people are continuing to overpay their taxes, give them their money back rather than spend it on new programs in Washington. That is the difference in visions that these two alternatives present.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right. It is not Washington's money, it is America's money. As we take a look at this, let us take a look at the two different proposals being pushed right now by the two different Presidential candidates. I have here sort of an apples to apples comparison of the Gore budget and the Bush budget plan for America, should either of these two men become President of the United States. When you take a look at the Gore budget, and this chart shows the surplus dollar, how each candidate plans to divide up every dollar of surplus coming from taxpayers to Washington. Well, it is not a question of whether you cut taxes or pay down the national debt; it is now a question of whether you cut taxes or spend the money in Washington. Take a look at the pie over to my right, which is the Gore budget. Of every single surplus dollar, Vice President Gore is proposing to spend 46 cents, 46 cents of every surplus dollar coming from income tax overpayments, to be spent in Washington on new government programs on these Federal agencies. That is compared to George Bush's plan to spend 6 cents, 6 cents, of every surplus dollar in Washington on other programs here on Federal agencies. It is a huge difference. It is $2.1 trillion, about half of the surplus, the Vice President is proposing to keep in Washington and spend on government agencies, compared to Governor Bush's plan to spend $278 billion. But it goes beyond that. Mr. Bush has often been criticized for not paying down the debt. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you take a look Governor Bush's plan, he is actually dedicating 58 cents of the surplus dollar for the next 10 years towards shoring up Social Security and Medicare and paying off our national debt, to the tune of we will pay off the national debt in 12 years. Vice President Gore? He says not so much should go to debt reduction, Social Security and Medicare. He wants to dedicate 36 cents of the surplus dollar toward those goals. Where is the difference? Mr. Bush is proposing 29 cents of our surplus dollar to go back to the people it came from, the taxpayers; by eliminating the marriage tax penalty, by eliminating the death tax, by making health care more affordable through health care tax cuts, those kinds of things, making the tax code fairer for all Americans. The Vice President is proposing a net tax cut of 7 cents, meaning Americans are projected to send a lot of extra money over to pay their taxes for the next 10 years, to the tune of about $5 trillion. The Vice President is saying, let us give them 7 cents on the dollar back, and we will keep the money in Washington; 46 cents we will keep and spend, we will dedicate 36 cents to paying off the debt, shoring up Social Security and Medicare. It is a completely different vision than what Governor Bush is proposing. He is saying his number one priority in the budget, pay down the debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare. Then, if people are still overpaying their taxes, give them their money back by reducing their tax bite. Take less out of the paychecks in Washington, rather than spending the money in Washington, which is precisely what Vice President Gore is proposing. If you take a look the sum of the totals, as we examine these Federal agencies, the waste and the fraud and abuse that is occurring in these Federal agencies, Vice President Gore wants to fuel the flames. He wants to spend $2.1 trillion of the hard-earned surplus in Washington on new programs and other Federal agencies. Compared to Bush's proposal to spend $278 billion. So it is not a question of paying off the debt or cutting taxes. It is a question of paying off the debt, reducing taxes, or spending the money in Washington. And I think if our constituents were faced with a choice of, after we pay off the debt, do we want to keep the money in Washington or do we want to have it back in our pocket, we think the people want to have it back in their pocket, and that is what the Bush plan is.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have an education advisory board which consists of parents, teachers, school board members, administrators, superintendents from all around southern Wisconsin; and I am always asking them for ideas, asking them what kinds of reforms do they think Washington needs to make their job better, to help them improve the quality of education in southern Wisconsin. Does my colleague know what they always say? Get off of our backs. The fact that Washington only sends 6 cents of the education dollar that is spent on education in all of our school districts, but promulgates over 50 percent of the regulations is astounding. Six cents on the dollar come from Washington; 94 cents on average are coming from local property taxes and local and State money. Yet over half of the unfunded mandates are imposed from Washington on our local school districts. What astounds me is that just in my area of Wisconsin that I come from, we have school districts that have very interesting and unique problems. Racine, Wisconsin, has school district problems that are so unique to those in Beloit, Wisconsin, or those in Janesville, Wisconsin, but let alone the problems that may exist in Harlem or in Los Angeles or in New Mexico. In this kind of country, in a vast and differing Nation, to subject our school districts to one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter solutions where we give them a little bit of the money, but all of the mandates. It is strangling our schools and strangling innovation. I see that we are running out of time, but I think it is very important to point out they do not have all the answers in Washington. And in fact when we try to inflict these answers on our local school districts, we are doing more harm than good in many cases. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for joining me this afternoon. I mean there are two different visions here; there is a Washington-based vision and there is a local vision. We are focused on the local vision.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I notice the gentleman is here talking about how a lot of the money coming to Washington through our Federal tax dollars is getting wasted, it is getting misappropriated, there is actual fraud involved. So I thought that would be a fitting topic to discuss, what is the future? As we go into this coming election, it is very important, as we look at the waste, the fraud and the abuse, of how our taxpayer dollars are being spent here in Washington, it is important to take a look at what our two Presidential candidates are proposing with respect to spending the surplus from now for the next decade when they actually are in the oval office. I think it is important that we note, there is a huge surplus. It is not just a Social Security surplus. We have a giant non-Social Security surplus, almost over $5 trillion, coming into Washington over the next 10 years. As we take a look at this surplus, we are going back to our districts, talking to our constituents. When I go home to Wisconsin, my constituents tell me, first pay off the national debt, stop raiding the Social Security trust fund, fix the problems we have with Medicare, and if we are still overpaying our taxes, make sure we can have some of our money back, rather than spending it on new money in Washington. These are the priorities that I am hearing as I am traveling back, and I think a lot of people are seeing this around the country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that he is not proposing any tax increases at all.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. What would happen if a small or medium-sized business in Michigan or Texas or Wisconsin could not pass their audit with the IRS?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the majority leader. I was really struck with what the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) had to say. It really is about priorities. When you put together a budget, you are putting together a vision for the country. When you take a look at the good economic prosperity and times we have enjoyed here in America, it has given us a wonderful opportunity. It has given us a wonderful opportunity to take care of the challenges and needs that are facing the country. As I travel throughout southern Wisconsin, the constituents I listen to tell me, you know, finally we have a chance to get our hands around paying off the national debt. We have a looming crisis occurring when the baby boomers begin to retire in Medicare and Social Security. Let us take care of those problems so that Social Security and Medicare are programs that can be enjoyed not only for this current generation of retirees, but future generations of retirees. Finally, we are an overtaxed Nation. We are paying a higher amount of taxes than we do on food, shelter and clothing. We are paying the highest level of taxes in the peacetime history of this country. So when we are talking about budgets, it gets a little dry when you look at the numbers, but what it really means is what is your vision for the country, how are you going to address these challenges. This chart shows you the different visions for this country, the Gore vision and the Bush vision. The Bush vision is first pay off national debt, stop raiding the Social Security trust fund and modernize Medicare, and, as we accomplish those goals, if people are still overpaying their taxes, give them their money back, rather than spend it on new programs in Washington. What the Vice President is proposing is just the opposite. Spend the bulk of the money on new programs in Washington, pay off some debt, but he is putting us on a path to where we will be forced to dip back into Social Security to the tune of $906 billion to fund the new spending initiatives that the Vice President is proposing. The good fortune is this Congress has been able to keep the line on spending, so we can pay off the debt. We have already paid off $354 billion. If we get our way, as we are trying to with these negotiations, we will have paid off half a trillion dollars of debt just in the last 3 years alone. So what we are looking at here is the future. Are we going to take advantage of this prosperity, of this surplus, to use it to pay off the debt, to shore up Social Security and Medicare and let families keep some more of their hard earned money, or are we going to spend the money on new programs in Washington, as Vice President Gore is proposing? These are the choices that will be determined in this next election. As you look at the details underneath these policies, the details underneath these numbers, I just take a look at the Vice President's idea for saving Social Security. I would just like to quote two economists that the Vice President often listens to on his plan to revive Social Security. ``The Vice President does nothing more than add more IOUs to the Social Security trust fund. It is a papering over of the Social Security trust fund. To quote the General Accounting Office, `the Vice President's plan amounts to a pledge to provide that much more money for Social Security in the future somehow. It does not specify the sources. Thus, by itself, it does not fulfill any of the funding gap with Social Security.' '' That is what Alan Blinder said, who is the Vice President's economic adviser. David Walker, comptroller to the GAO, says, ``The Gore and Clinton proposal does not come close to saving Social Security. Under this proposal, the changes in the Social Security program will be more perceived than real. Although the trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the proposal, nothing about the program has changed.'' So we are seeing a rhetoric being cast about across the country that the Vice President is giving us a program, a proposal to save Social Security, but when we actually take a look at it, it is just adding more money, more IOUs to the Social Security program. It does nothing to advance the solvency of Social Security. In fact, the spending plan that the Vice President articulated in his acceptance speech in Los Angeles, that he has articulated in his prosperity plan for America, is one in which he is proposing to take $2.1 trillion, almost half of the surplus over the next 10 years, and spend it on new programs in Washington, to the point where he is proposing to dip into the Social Security trust fund by almost as much as $906 billion. Madam Speaker, that is not how you manage the surplus. What we are trying to accomplish with this surplus, what Governor Bush is trying to do with the surplus, is to stop the raid on Social Security. Do not dip into the trust fund anymore, pay off our national debt, modernize Medicare and Social Security, not on paper, but in reality, so that those of us who are near and dear to us, our grandparents, our fathers, our mothers, will have the program to rely upon in the future. As our constituents, as working families, continue to pay more and more and more to Washington, the highest level of taxation in the peacetime history of this Nation, we are saying, let us let them keep some of their money back as they continue to overpay their taxes, rather than spending it on new programs in Washington. That is the difference in this election. That is the choice that you have as a voter here in this election by choosing either the Bush vision or the Gore vision. I see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is here, and I would like to yield back to the majority leader who is controlling the time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman is saying that we have nine Cabinet departments that cannot pass an audit?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for yielding to me, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. I also serve on the House Committee on the Budget. We actually spend a great deal of time crunching these numbers, looking at the surplus, and evaluating the different plans that come through Washington that are being proposed. What we have done through the Senate budget committee's analysis is look at the different proposals, looked at what Governor Bush is proposing to do with the Government's surplus, looked at what Vice President Gore is proposing to do with the surplus. And as we did an apples-to-apples comparison and took a look at the priorities, it is a pretty stark difference. One of the things that I have heard as I have gone around my district, which is the First Congressional District in Wisconsin, is we talked to a lot of people about this election and the thing that really gets to me sometimes that I hear is that some people think there is not much of a difference, that there is no difference between who they pick in Washington. Well, I have got to tell my colleagues, of all the elections, this election is clearing about differences. The differences between the visions for America as proposed by Al Gore and George Bush are worlds apart from each other. To quickly summarize it, the Vice President wants to take the hard- earned surplus, and the surplus by definition are people overpaying their taxes, the Vice President wants to keep it in Washington. He wants to spend it on new government programs. Governor Bush wants to pay off our debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, and give us our money back as we continue to overpay our taxes. But let us not just listen to me. Let us take a look at the hard numbers. I have here a chart that breaks up the surplus dollars. It basically says, for every one dollar coming into Washington in government surplus, how does each plan spend that money, how does each plan treat that money? Well, if we look at Vice President Gore's plan, 46 cents of every surplus dollar is committed to new government spending. On the contrary, in the Bush plan, 6 cents of all surplus dollars are committed to new spending. What about preserving Social Security, Medicare, and paying off our national debt? A lot of them serve the same purpose. Paying off our debt helps us preserve Social Security and Medicare. The Bush plan commits 58 cents of every surplus dollar over the next 10 years toward preserving Social Security and paying off the debt and shoring up Medicare. The Gore plan commits 36 cents of every surplus dollar. What about tax relief? This is the lowest priority in the Gore budget. Vice President Gore is saying that, for every surplus dollar coming into Washington, Americans, after they overpay their taxes, should only get 7 cents of that dollar back. Governor Bush is saying 29 cents of every surplus dollar should be returned back to the taxpayer after dedicating 58 cents back towards Social Security and Medicare and paying off the debt. And increased interest costs, something that we have to do to manage the interest, the balance payments, 11 cents for Gore, 7 cents for Bush. That basically means that the Vice President is paying off debt at a slower pace. The Vice President, if all of his new spending plans get enacted, will likely wind us up into the point where we will have to dip into the Social Security trust fund. If you want to take a look at what the difference is in plans over the surplus are, just take a look at who wants to spend money and who wants to save the money. Vice President Gore is proposing the greatest expansion of the Federal Government in 30 years. He is proposing to take $2.1 trillion of the surplus and spend it on new programs here in Washington. To the contrary, Governor Bush is saying let us spend $278 billion on needed things in Washington, such as committing ourselves to the fundamental problems we have in this country, funding the education unfunded mandates, funding our critical needs in health care, rebuilding our national defenses. When it comes down to it, it is basically this: the Vice President wants to spend the surplus in Washington, the greatest expansion of the Federal Government in 30 years, at the expense of Social Security and Medicare and paying off our debt. Governor Bush is saying this: here is the priority of how we deal with the surplus. Pay off our national debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare. And if people still continue to overpay their taxes to Washington, give them their money back rather than spend it on new programs in Washington. That is what Bush is proposing. And there is a huge world of difference between these two men running for President and their visions for America with respect to how they treat our surpluses.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is correct.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Pastor, Jerry Pruitt, from the newly renamed Faith Builders International in Beloit, Wisconsin, formerly known as New Ark Christian. Mr. Speaker, I have come to know Pastor Jerry Pruitt as a personal friend and a counselor, a man who has give guidance not only to myself, but to countless numbers of people throughout Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin. Jerry Pruitt is a man who has built a church from the ground up, literally, to one where it is a beacon of hope, of religious pride, of Christian values, that is spreading throughout Southern Wisconsin, and now going international. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today to have Pastor Jerry Pruitt open today's proceedings with a prayer. We are very proud of him at home in Wisconsin. Now we are very proud of him here in the Nation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the opportunity to have such a wonderful man, who has brought so much to so many people's lives, be with us today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out in opposition to this Democratic initiative to ban the Boy Scouts from enjoying the rights that they have enjoyed since their existence.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3703, the Housing Finance Regulatory Improvement Act, if enacted, would enhance the regulatory structure of the housing GSEs--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks). While I do not agree with every proposal under this bill, I support advancing a constructive dialogue between Congress, the housing GSE's, their regulators and all industries involved. Continued work is needed to guarantee GSE mission compliance to forestall unfair competition into non-mission related products, as well as to ensure GSE safety and soundness to limit taxpayer liability. Currently, the housing GSEs are under good management and are in sound operating condition. That is why it is important to examine the systemic risk that these entities may pose to our financial system at the present time. Overall, I believe that the duties of the housing GSE's are somewhat divergent. On one hand, they have a mission to homebuyers to maintain liquidity in the housing markets and to stabilize mortgage rates. On the other hand, they are publicly traded companies that must return a profit to their shareholders. The means for a high shareholder return is manipulation of the GSE's implicit government subsidy, and there is a fine line between how much of the subsidy's benefits should be returned to homeowners and how much should be passed on to shareholders. Regardless, the GSEs have played an important role in bringing together homebuyers, lenders and capital from across the country and reducing mortgage rates. Again, while I do not support all provisions of H.R. 3703, I believe it is a step in the right direction. Introduction of this legislation has been a catalyst for serious discussion over the housing GSE's mission and the implications of financial failure. In cosponsoring this bill, I want to advance a dialogue to make certain that taxpayers and the private sector are protected from excessive risk and unfair competition.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House suspend the rules and pass the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000. It is a bipartisan, good government bill. It establishes a regulatory analysis function within the General Accounting Office. This function is intended to enhance congressional responsibility for regulatory decisions developed under the laws Congress enacts. It is a product of the leadership over the past few years by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction of the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who will be joining us here in a minute. The most basic reason for supporting this bill is constitutional. Just as Congress needs a Congressional Budget Office to check and balance the executive branch in the budget process, so it needs an analytic capability to check and balance the executive branch in the regulatory process. The GAO, or the General Accounting Office, is the logical location, since it already has some regulatory review responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act, otherwise known as the CRA. Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in the U.S. Congress. While Congress may not delegate its legislative functions, it routinely authorizes the executive branch agencies to issue rules and implement laws passed by Congress. Congress has become increasingly concerned, however, about its responsibility to oversee agency rule making, especially due to the extensive costs and impacts of Federal Rules. During the 105th Congress, the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), on which I serve as vice chairman, held a hearing on the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) earlier regulatory analysis bill, H.R. 1704, which sought to establish a new freestanding Congressional agency. The subcommittee then marked up and reported her bill, H.R. 1704, and called for the establishment of a new legislative branch Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis. We often refer to this as CORA, most people refer to this as CORA legislation, to analyze all major results and report to Congress on the potential costs, benefits, and alternative approaches that could achieve the same regulatory goals at lower costs. This agency was intended to aid Congress in analyzing Federal regulations. The committee report stated that ``Congress needs the expertise that CORA would provide to carry out its duty under the Congressional Review Act. Currently Congress does not have the information it needs to carefully evaluate regulations. The only analysis that it has to rely on are those provided by the agencies which actually promulgate the rules. There is no official third party analysis of new regulations.'' Unfortunately, CORA supporters in the 105th Congress could not overcome the resistance of the defenders of the regulatory status quo. Opponents argued against creating a new congressional agency on the basis of fiscal conservatism, but by this logic, Congress ought to abolish the CBO as an even more heroic demonstration of fiscal conservatism. But, of course, most of us recognize that dismantling the CBO would be penny wise and pound foolish. In the 106th Congress, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the Committee on Small Business chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), sought to accommodate the prejudice against the free-standing agency and introduced bills H.R. 3521 and H.R. 3669 respectively to establish a CORA function within the General Accounting Office, which is where we are now, which is an existing legislative branch agency that has this kind of expertise. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) introduced their bills in January and February of this year. On May 10, the Senate passed its own regulatory analysis legislation, S. 1198, the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000, by unanimous consent. Like the bills of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the Senate legislation would also establish a regulatory analysis function within the GAO. During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Government Reform did not hold a hearing specifically on this bill, but the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs did hold a June 14th hearing entitled, Does Congress delegate too much power to agencies and what should be done about it? Witnesses discussed the need for a CORA function that would assist Congress in assuming more responsibility for agency rules now which impose over $700 billion in off-budget costs to the American people through regulations. On June 26, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) introduced H.R. 4744, which made several needed improvements to the Senate-passed bill along the lines suggested by witnesses at the June 14 hearing. For example, whereas S. 1198 merely permits GAO to assist Congress in submitting timely comments on proposed regulations during the public comment period, H.R. 4744 would require GAO to provide such assistance. This was a critical improvement, because it is only by commenting on proposed rules during the public comment period that Congress has any real opportunity to influence the cost, the scope, and the content of regulation. In addition, unlike the Senate bill, this bill would require GAO to review not only the agency's data, but also the public's data, to assure a more balanced evaluation, analyze not only the rules, costing more than $100 million, but also the rules with a significant impact on small businesses, and examine whether or not alternatives not considered by the agencies might achieve the same goal in a more cost- effective manner or with a greater net benefit. On June 29, the Committee on Government Reform favorably reported out H.R. 4744, with a very thorough discussion of issues in its accompanying report. H.R. 4924 introduced just yesterday, includes two, or more accurately, one and a half of H.R. 4744's improvements to S. 1198. A, the inclusion within the scope of GAO's purview of agency rules with a significant impact on small businesses; and, B, a directive to the GAO to submit its independent evaluation of proposed rules within the public comment period, albeit only when doing so is practicable. House Report 106-772 explains the basis for these improvements. Nonetheless, I am deeply disappointed that we could not persuade the honorable gentleman from California that timely comments on proposed rules are better than untimely or late comments, but understand that in politics, half a loaf, or in this case, a fraction of a loaf, may still be better than none. H.R. 4924 is, in my judgment, inferior to H.R. 4744, which is itself a watered down version of the complete reform needed that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) worked on in returning's constitutional responsibility for regulatory oversight, but this bill is a step in the right direction and it will give reformers something to build on in the next Congress. H.R. 4924 is truly a very modest bipartisan proposal. It does not require or expect GAO to conduct any new regulatory impact analyses, any new cost benefit analyses or other impacted analyses. However, GAO's independent evaluation should lead the agencies to prepare any missing cost-benefit analyses, small business impacts, federalism impacts, or any other missing analysis. For example, after the McIntosh subcommittee insisted that the Department of Labor prepare a missing RIA for its Baby UI proposal, they finally prepared one. Unfortunately, H.R. 4924 excludes from GAO's purview major rules promulgated by the independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulate major sectors of the U.S. economy. Since the analysis accompanying rules issued by the independent regulatory agencies are often incomplete or inadequate, this omission is unfortunate, and it makes the bill less useful than its Senate counterpart or H.R. 4744. Here is basically how the bill works. The chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction may request that GAO submit an independent evaluation to the committee on a major proposed rule during the public comment period or on a final rule within 180 days. The GAO's analysts shall include an evaluation of the potential benefits of the rule, the costs, alternative approaches to the rule making and various impact analyses. Congress currently has two opportunities to review agency regulatory action. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, Congress can comment on agency-proposed and interim rules during the public comment period. The APA says that public sector and private sector officials have the same comment period. Late Congressional comments cannot be accepted, anymore than late private comments. That is why it is important that the GAO finishes its analysis within the public comment period, and to do so just like any other entity that does so correctly under today's law and under today's APA procedures. Agencies can ignore comments filed by Congress after the end of the public comment period, as the Department of Labor did with the Baby UI rule. Therefore, since GAO cannot be given more time than any members of the public to comment, they should clearly be able to complete their review of agency regulatory proposals during the public comment period. Under the CRA, Congress can disapprove an agency final rule after it has promulgated, but before it is effective. That is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, Congress has not been able to fully carry out its responsibility under the CRA because it has neither all of the information it needs to carefully evaluate agency regulatory proposals, nor sufficient staff to carry out its function. In fact, since the March 1996 enactment of the CRA, at that time, we have had no completed congressional resolutions of disapproval. To assume oversight responsibility for Federal regulations, Congress needs to be armed with an independent evaluation. What is needed is an analysis of legislative history to see if there is a nondelegation problem, such as the FDA administration's proposed rule on tobacco product regulation; the Baby UI rule which provides paid family leave to small business employees even though Congress in the Family Medical Leave Act said no to paid family and medical leave for coverage of small business employees as well. Sometimes the quickest way to find out that an agency has ignored a congressional intent or failed to consider less costly regulatory alternatives is to examine nonagency data and analysis. It is for that reason, under H.R. 4744, the GAO would be required to consult the public's data in the course of evaluating agency rules. Although H.R. 4924 does not require the GAO to review public data, neither does it forbid or preclude GAO from doing so. I bring this up because some hope that H.R. 4924 implicitly contains a gag order forbidding the GAO to consult any analysis or data except for those supplied by the agency to be reviewed. This reading of H.R. 4924 would defeat the whole purpose of the bill, which is to enable Congress to comment knowingly and knowledgeably about agency rules from the standpoint of a truly independent evaluation of those rules. Instructed by GAO's independent evaluations, Congress will be better equipped to review final agency rules under the CRA. More importantly, Congress will be better equipped to submit timely and knowledgeable comments on proposed rules during the public comment period. I say this notwithstanding the words, where practicable, which some CORA foes hope will ensure that the GAO analysis of proposed rules are untimely and therefore relatively worthless. I am confident that despite the ``where practicable'' language, GAO will want to please rather than annoy its customers and employers and will not fail to help Members of Congress submit timely comments on regulatory proposals. Thus, even though a far cry from the original idea of an independent CORA agency, and although inferior to the Kelly-McIntosh bill reported by the Committee on Government Reform, H.R. 4924 will increase the transparency of important regulatory decisions. It will promote the effective congressional oversight and increase the accountability of Congress. The best government is a government accountable for the people. For America to have an accountable regulatory system, the people's elected representatives must participate in and take responsibility for the rules promulgated under the laws Congress passes. H.R. 4924 is a meaningful step toward Congress meeting its oversight and its regulatory oversight capabilities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I simply just want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), ranking member; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the full committee; the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit); the gentlewoman from New York (Chairman Kelly); the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman McIntosh); and the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) for all of their hard work on this, for coming together and putting together a good bipartisan product that we are now passing here. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate one point, which is it is our hope and intent that GAO does conduct this new analysis within the public comment period, because then it helps us as Members of Congress respond to our congressional responsibility which is to see that we as legislators are writing the laws of this country. It is just a hope and intent. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4924) to establish a 3-year pilot project for the General Accounting Office to report to Congress on economically significant rules of Federal agencies, and for other purposes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4924.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on H.R. 4923, the Community Renewal and New Markets Act, which includes a provision to create several very large investment companies targeted toward the inner cities and rural communities. The American Private Investment Companies' (APIC) proposed goal of bringing large-scale businesses to economically distressed communities is a laudable and important goal. However, the APIC proposed under the Community Renewal and New Markets Act accepts the various impediments to investing in the inner city and rural communities and simply offers businesses a subsidy for risky investment. Further, the legislation duplicates several existing programs, including Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) which are also expanded under this bill. The proposal has not been adequately scored to take government loan guarantee risk into consideration, and is to be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is inadequately prepared for the responsibility. A lack of capital is not keeping businesses from investing in these areas, especially not the large-scale, established businesses that the APIC program would target--the problem is the high cost of doing business. Instead of attacking the fundamental problems of these areas, a program such as APIC reduces urban and rural areas' incentives to change what makes investment in these communities difficult in the first place--penalizing tax rates, burdensome regulatory policies, a lack of pubic infrastructure, and high crime rates. Further, a lack of venture capital is not an issue. The companies the APIC proposal targets are not entrepreneurial start-ups, nor are they small businesses. They are companies like Safeway or Wal-Mart. Location of venture capital is also not an issue. In today's information economy where technology facilitates long-distance interpersonal communication, venture capital flows to where it can earn a high rate of return, whether the investment is in Chicago or the Appalachian Mountains. At least eight federal programs already exist that have similar goals as the APIC program. We understand each program is structured slightly differently and awards loans and grants differently than APICs, but the outcome remains the same. These include Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Section 108 Loan Guarantees, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs), and the Business and Industry Loan program administered by the USDA. The APIC proposed creates quasi-GSEs, by relying on government subsidies to back ``private'' loans. This is not a private market initiative. HUD is granted authority to create a secondary market in APIC debt, similar to how Ginnie Mae guarantees mortgage debt. Creation of this secondary market further lowers the cost of capital, but increases taxpayer risk. In fact, under H.R. 4923, APICs are expected to lose $6 million for every $1 billion invested. CBO believes that this loss could be greater if the true value of risk is calculated. In addition, CBO wrote that although the APIC legislation ``authorizes the appropriation of $36 million annually for the subsidy cost of loan guarantees and $1 million annually for administrative expenses . . . based on the experience of similar loan guarantee programs administered by the SBA. CBO estimates that the subsidy cost to guarantee $1 billion in loans under the APIC program would cost about $50 million annually.'' Based on SBA programs, ``CBO expects that APIC borrowers would default on between 25 and 30 percent of the guaranteed loans.'' To put this in perspective, CRS contrasts the expected 3.6 percent subsidy rate with both CDFIs and SBICs. CDFIs have a FY1999 subsidy rate of over 39 percent and SBICs have a subsidy rate of 25 percent (as of 1996). Accordingly, CRS, as well as CBO, the proposed 3.6 percent subsidy rate far too low. Finally, HUD is a highly political department and has demonstrated a lack of success in handling new programs, such as the community builders program. Unlike the Treasury Department or the Small Business Administration (SBA), HUD has no expertise in managing a large-scale business investment program. For the reasons outlined above, we believe that the APIC program is not the preferred means of addressing poverty and unemployment in economically distressed urban and rural areas. Its band-aid approach as a government subsidized investment program does not reduce the cost of business in these areas, aside from reducing the cost of capital for large companies who can easily find funds in the private market. The best way to promote economic growth is to reduce federal, state and local tax and regulatory burdens, which would encourage local entrepreneurs--with their own capital at risk--to determine what works best in their community.