Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would be happy to engage in a further colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana, because I do not think what he is saying makes sense. Is the problem the employees that work for the Government or the laws under which they operate? I would assume that the gentleman thinks it is the laws under which they operate because he is proposing under H.R. 9 to require that they do more cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, et cetera. If they are not capable of doing it, are we going to fire all those employees and then hire new ones? That I think is probably going to be very costly. Do we know it is the public employees in this country who are not sensible, or is it the laws that are not sensible? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] to respond to these questions.

Mr. WAXMAN. I am going to reclaim my time on that point. Mr. Chairman, that means fire all the people that are there that should be working on regulations, like a regulation to make parole more difficult for sex offenders, a regulation requiring drug testing for parolees, a regulation to require wealthy criminals to pay incarceration fees. There are things that people who are career people at the Department of Justice are trying to implement because of the laws that we have adopted. To fire those people and then hire them back, when we tell them ``Not only should you listen to these different groups, but you ought to go through extensive analyses even beyond that.'' I cannot see how that makes any sense. If the gentleman really wants to fire people because he does not think there is enough work, why are we going to pass a bill that will require them to double the amount of people working on regulations? I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to respond to that.

Mr. WAXMAN. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that under H.R. 450, they would not be permitted to do the job for which we hired them, which is to look at the possibility of regulation to accomplish those purposes, because this moratorium would prevent during the moratorium period not just the issuance of the regulations, but even consideration of regulations. Then when the bills are adopted to go into effect after the moratorium, H.R. 9, which would set up so many new analyses, we would need more employees. I cannot understand this. It seems to be a schizophrenic approach.

Mr. WAXMAN. If I can reclaim my time, the hole in the bucket is something we have heard a lot about, but I have heard from the Department of Justice that they would have to stop their employees from working on these regulations to protect us from sex offenders. They would stop the Department of Transportation from working on regulations to protect drivers from head injuries. It seems to me that it does not make sense.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 36.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whether the regulation is smart or stupid will make no difference under this legislation before us today because this legislation will stop all regulations, without giving consideration to whether it is very much needed by the middle class in this country. People look to regulations to protect them from harm. Whether it is environmental threats or safety concerns, regulations are in place to be there to protect people. This legislation would put a moratorium on all those regulations. The big winner will be the corporate special interests that will be relieved from the obligation to live up to standards that protect the public. The big loser will be the middle class, the people who are hard working and expect that someone is going to pay attention to them. And the people they are looking to are those of us in this Hall today. The tobacco industry illustrates to me a good example of how H.R. 450 would work. There is probably no more protected special interest in America than the tobacco industry, yet the tobacco industry would probably be the Nation's biggest winner under H.R. 450. The Food and Drug Administration is in the process of conducting an investigation as to whether the tobacco industry acted improperly in adding or manipulating the nicotine in cigarettes to keep people addicted, and particularly marketing it to kids. So FDA is trying to decide do they have jurisdiction over this matter. This moratorium legislation would keep FDA from even doing its investigation, let alone promulgating any regulations. OSHA is looking at protecting people in the workplace from secondhand smoke. It is a serious environmental threat. It is a class A carcinogen. It can cause a nonsmoker who is forced to breathe in that smoke to get lung disease and heart problems. All of these concerns we think about when we associate cigarette smoking and the smoker, yet OSHA would be stopped from their investigation on this very issue because the scope of this proposal is so broad that they could not even get further comment on a proposal to deal with protecting people in the workplace. This is not what the American public wants, regulatory relief that allows the tobacco industry to continue to promote and sell cigarettes to our children. There are other examples of how this bill will hurt the middle class. It will delay efforts to improve the safety of meat, poultry, and seafood. It would remove dangerous chemicals from drinking water under a proposal, and those proposals would be stopped. There is a proposal to establish standards for mammography, and those standards would be stopped. Protect children from iron poisoning and reduce toxic emissions from incinerators, these are regulations that are about to be proposed, and they would be stopped by this moratorium. I think it is a part of what is clearly not just in and of itself a transition to another bill, it is part of a salvo on attacking all of our Nation's regulatory safety net. Other provisions we are going to get up before this Congress next week which are part of this so-called Contract with America would be even more extreme, because they would create a regulatory maze that would prevent the agencies from protecting our health and safety. They in fact would roll back 25 years of environmental progress. There are good regulations, there are bad regulations. Let us figure out how to make regulations smart and effective, not simply to take all regulations and stop them from going into effect, either through a moratorium, which is part of what this legislation would do, or the regulatory, so-called, reform bill that we will get next week, which will cripple government from doing anything to protect people. The people we are trying to deal with are the middle class.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman claims that they are both treated the same, why not use the same language? Why have any doubt? The clear wording of that section is to say that there is a substantial endangerment for property but reasonably expected to cause death or injury when it comes to people. Why not a substantial endangerment to people or a substantial endangerment to property? It just seems to me that the gentleman's logic is incorrect, as is the spelling at least of one of the words on that chart. If we are going to achieve the same result, both property and humans, then let us use the same standards.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, to close debate on my amendment, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the only point I would say is that we are writing the law here. Let us write the law so that the standard is the same and we will not have what I believe in clear words that give a higher threshold before we will protect human beings than before we step in to protect property while this moratorium is in effect.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to join me in congratulating Morton A. Schrag on the occasion of his retirement as director of the Westside Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles. As a long-time member of the Westside Center, and as the congressional representative of a substantial number of its members, beneficiaries, and staff, I have profound gratitude for all Mort Schrag has done for the center and our entire community. During the nearly two decades that Mr. Schrag served as the center's director, the constituency it served underwent radical changes. A previously Anglo area realized a sharp increase in the number of African-American families. In addition, a Jewish community consisting primarily of Jews who emigrated from Europe decades ago or were born in this country experienced an enormous influx of newly arrived refugees primarily from the former Soviet Union and Iran. An individual less brilliant, creative, and dedicated than Mort Schrag would have been overwhelmed by the challenge of so many radical changes occurring over such a short period of time. Mort Schrag welcomed these challenges and used them to vastly expand the range of the Westside Jewish Community Center's programs. Under Mort Schrag's leadership, the decades old educational and recreational programs were sustained and expanded. Intensive new programs were instituted to help immigrants acquire English language skills, master the culture of their new land and, in countless cases, achieve the coveted status of American citizen. Two of Mort Schrag's innovations attracted national attention and emulation. He established a Senior Adult Day Care Center that addressed the special social, cultural, and interpersonal needs of individuals whose advancing age led to their social isolation and limited their ability to continue activities in which they were previously involved. Mr. Schrag also established a Community College of Jewish Studies that brought Westside Center together with five area synagogues. This was a bold move and represented a dramatic collaboration of two traditions--the once secular centers movement and the traditional synagogue institutions--that had previously cooperated only at a minimal level. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to extend to Morton Schrag every wish for good health and success in all future endeavors, and for continued vigorous community involvement.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I just want to reiterate the point that was persuasive on both sides of the aisle in the last Congress. If a local government is running an incinerator and they want to come in in advance and have consultation with the regulators, that is unfair to the citizens who are not also being consulted in advance who are going to have to breathe in the pollution. The same would be true when Government is acting in a businesslike capacity almost like a private sector business, where they run a drinking water system or a sewage system. I have no objection with the consultation with the regulators, but it seems to me that they should not have an unfair advantage to be consulted without other citizens having that same opportunity.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I had put in the Record an amendment on this very subject of judicial review which I will not offer at this time. I will support the Moran amendment because I think it is an improvement over the text that has been submitted to this Committee of the Whole. But I do not think it goes far enough. I would hope that when we go into conference with the other body, the managers of this legislation will look with great care at the other body's stand on this very issue. In the other body, in their unfunded mandates legislation, there is an explicit provision saying that there should not be judicial review. I think that is appropriate, for the very simply reason that judicial review can tie up regulations for a very, very long time and leave a great deal of uncertainly about what the regulations will in fact be in the long term. Section 202 of H.R. 5 provides that before promulgating a final regulation containing a Federal mandate, the agency would have to prepare a detailed statement analyzing a number of different factors, economic and other impacts of the regulation. The matters that must be analyzed include the anticipated costs to State and local governments; the estimates of future costs of Federal mandate; estimates of disproportionate budgetary effects upon particular regions of the country or particular States; estimates of disproportionate budgetary effects upon of any disproportionate budgetary effects on the private sector; a qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal mandate, including enhancement of health and safety and protection of the natural environment; the effect on national economy; the effect on productivity; the effect on economic growth; the effect on full employment; the effect on creation of jobs; and the effect of mandate on international competitiveness. I do not disagree with all of these factors being analyzed, but if we allowed judicial review of the regulation pursuant to statute, pursuant to laws adopted by the Congress and signed by the President and the judicial review does not go against the regulation as to whether it is a wise one pursuant to the statute, but in case they did not look at the productivity factors as opposed to one economist's view vis-a-vis another economist's view on any of those items I have listed, it seems to me that it will not make a lot of sense to allow that kind of second-guessing by the courts of the regulations. It seems to me to offer a lot of opportunity for agencies to be stymied in their objectives to carry out laws like the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, laws that are put in place to protect the public. Who will benefit from judicial review? One thing I can say with certainty, it will be all the lawyers that will be litigating this matter, because they will have the ability to drag this litigation on for a very long time. The Moran amendment does go far enough to say that there cannot be an injunction on the implementation of the regulation, but it still permits the adjudication of that regulation based on whether the agency has done a sufficient analysis to the satisfaction of the court, which may then decide to get involved in the procedural matters of this review. I do not think judicial review is necessary to enforce what we are asking the agencies to do before they adopt regulations. The judicial review is not necessary for enforcement. The review requirements can be enforced by the White House during OMB review. The requirement can also be enforced through congressional oversight. Before EPA developed its proposal to regulate emissions from municipal incinerators, EPA consulted with the Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties. Before the Department of Education proposed a regulation relating to vocational training for disadvantaged students, the Department held public meetings with State and local education officials. Before proposing rules affecting housing on tribal lands, HUD met with many tribal authorities. In fact to assure compliance with the Executive order, OMB has sent several regulations back to the agencies for failure to consult with all of the State and local governments that were appropriate. For instance, EPA regulations controlling emissions from municipal landfills were sent back to EPA for this reason. Likewise regulations to improve water quality in the Great Lakes were sent back to EPA for that same reason.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, in other words, we ought not to provide a judicial review as the way to enforce that the analysis be done. OMB has that role as they look at regulations coming from that agency and they have required the agencies to go back and review these things if they felt a satisfactory review did not take place. In fact, the Director of OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, Sally Katzen, has informed us that she is not aware of a single complaint with a State, local or tribal authority since the adoption of the Clinton Executive order, which has the same purpose as this legislation would in this regard. So the point is the Executive order is working without judicial review. The idea of judicial review can be very troublesome for the regulations to be settled with certainty. There are industries that can be affected by that uncertainty, and the public interest has been certainly adversely affected by that uncertainty and the lengthy litigations to be followed. It would be far better to see if there is a problem in reality before we have a judicial review provision that could have the consequence I fear. So I stand in support of this amendment with the statement that I want to make very clear on the Record that I do not think it needs to go as far as we need to have us go on this very issue.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding on that point. I think it is a helpful one for us to have on the record and I do want to express to the gentleman and the chairman of the committee my appreciation for their willingness to explore this issue with me. I regret that we were not able to reach full agreement on it. I think we have come to a compromise, and perhaps we can continue to look at the issue as this legislation moves forward. But I do express the good spirit in which the gentleman engaged us in this issue to try to come up with what is the best public policy.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rose before to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the amendment now. I do so to clarify for the Record that the General Accounting Office was asked to review what is called the Reg Flex Act to see whether the regulatory flexibility regulations are in fact being enforced by the executive branch, and they came back with a report which I would insert in the Record following my remarks that some agencies have in fact complied. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is a target of much of the debate here today, they said had complied. Where there was noncompliance, the reasons were many, not, they pointed out, because there was a lack of judicial review, but because the Small Business Administration had not issued guidance, or the OMB had not established procedures to enforce the Regulatory Flexibility Act. They did not say that a judicial review was recommended or required in order for the Regulatory Act to work. I want to make that point clear. Because I do not think judicial review is advisable as a part of enforcement of these proposals. Mr. Chairman, the GAO report is included at this point in the Record, as follows: U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, April 27, 1994. Hon. John J. LaFalce, Chairman, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives. Hon. John Glenn, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. This letter is in response to your requests that we evaluate federal agencies' implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), codified in Title 5 of the U.S. Code.\1\ Specifically, you asked that we (1) review the Small Business Administration's (SBA) annual reports on agency compliance with the RFA and generalize from the reports about which agencies were and were not implementing the RFA in an effective manner and (2) review SBA annual reports and related documents on the extent to which agencies have complied with the RFA requirement that they periodically examine their rules (section 610 of Title 5). \1\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- background The RFA requires federal agencies to assess the effects on their proposed rules on small entities. According to the RFA, small entities include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit organizations. As a result of their assessments, agencies must either (1) perform a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities or (2) certify that their rules will not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA does not define ``significant economic impact'' or ``substantial number,'' but does require the regulatory flexibility analysis to indicate the objectives of the rule and the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. Agencies must also consider alternatives to the proposal that will accomplish the agencies' objectives while minimizing the impact on small entities. The RFA also requires agencies to publish a semiannual regulatory agenda that describes any prospective rule that is likely to have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. Section 612 of Title 5 requires the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to monitor and report at least annually on agency compliance with the RFA.\2\ SBA's primary method of monitoring agencies' compliance is to review and comment on proposed regulations when they are published for notice and comment in the Federal Register during the federal rulemaking process. The Chief Counsels have issued 12 annual reports on RFA compliance since 1980.\3\ The reports discuss some, but not all, federal agencies' RFA compliance. \2\There have been several Chief Counsels since the RFA was enacted, some of whom served as Acting Chief Counsels. In this report, the Acting Chief Counsels are referred to as ``Chief Counsels.'' \3\The first report for 1981 was provided on October 7, 1981, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Export Opportunities and Special Small business Problems of the House Committee on Small Business. Reports for 1989 and 1990 were not prepared until 1992. All reports were prepared the year after the subject year. The report for 1993 is scheduled to be published in mid-1994. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- results in brief The SBA annual reports indicated agencies' compliance with the RFA has varied widely from one agency to another. Some agencies (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency) were repeatedly characterized as satisfying the RFA's requirements, while other agencies (e.g., the Internal Revenue Service) were viewed by SBA as recalcitrant in complying with those requirements. Still other agencies' RFA compliance reportedly varied over time (e.g., the Federal Communications Commission) or varied by subagency (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture). The same lack of uniform compliance is reflected in SBA documents regarding the section 610 requirement that agencies periodically examine their rules. Some agencies had developed plans for the review of their regulations and had acted on those plans, while other agencies had neither developed plans nor taken any action. One reason for this lack of compliance with the RFA's requirements is that the RFA does not expressly authorize SBA to interpret key provisions in the statute. Also, the RFA does not require SBA to develop criteria for agencies to follow in reviewing their rules, and SBA has not issued any guidance to federal agencies defining key statutory provisions. Finally, the RFA does not authorize SBA or any other agency to compel rulemaking agencies to comply with the act's provisions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said that it has helped to ensure RFA compliance during the rulemaking process whenever SBA has notified OMB of SBA's concerns regarding an agency's RFA compliance. However, OMB's ability to ensure RFA compliance has been limited because SBA does not normally notify OMB of SBA's RFA concerns when it comments on agencies' proposed rules. Also, OMB has no established procedures in its review process to determine whether agencies have complied with the RFA. Finally, OMB cannot review rules from independent regulatory agencies or agricultural marketing orders. objectives, scope, and methodology The objectives of our review were to determine which agencies SBA's annual reports and other documents (1) frequently indicated were and were not implementing the RFA in an effective manner and (2) indicated were and were not complying with section 610 of Title 5. To accomplish these objectives, we reviewed the annual reports of the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy for 1981 through 1992; correspondence from SBA and various agencies regarding section 610 activities; and related hearing records, reports, and other RFA-related materials. We also obtained information on the RFA and the regulatory process from officials at both SBA and OMB. We did not make an independent determination of agencies' RFA compliance. Any characterizations of particular agencies in this report are directly attributable to SBA. We discussed the results of our work with the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy and officials, including the Deputy Administrator, from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB in March 1994 and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We conducted our review from September 1993 to February 1994 at the Washington, D.C., headquarters offices of SBA and OMB. The review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. sba reports indicate variable agency compliance with the rfa The SBA annual reports we reviewed did not evaluate all federal agencies' compliance Protection Agency's compliance record was specifically mentioned in all 12 reports. Five other agencies--the U.S. Department of Agriculture (certain subagencies), the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Communications Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Securities and Exchange Commission--were mentioned in at least 8 of the 12 reports. At the other extreme, some agencies (e.g., the U.S. Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs) were either not mentioned in any annual reports or were only rarely mentioned. The SBA Chief Counsel said that differences in the degree to which agencies were mentioned in the reports are primarily due to differences between the agencies in their levels of regulatory activity. For example, the State Department issues very few regulations that affect small entities. \4\All but the first report contained an appendix listing selected comments filed by the Office of Advocacy regarding agencies' proposed rules during the year. These listings did not, however, evaluate agencies' compliance with the RFA. The Chief Counsel said SBA normally becomes aware of the specifics of a proposed rule when it is published for notice and comment. If SBA believes the rulemaking agency has not adequately considered the effect of the proposed rule on small entities, the Chief Counsel said SBA will send the agency written comments. However, the Chief Counsel said that SBA does not usually send OMB a copy of their compliance concerns. OMB officials said that SBA officials have occasionally called them on the telephone regarding certain agencies' RFA compliance and, in those instances, OMB has taken SBA's views into consideration during its reviews and helped ensure RFA compliance. For example, they said that if SBA official told them that a rulemaking agency should have conducted an RFA analysis, OMB would ask the agency to show why an analysis was not done before permitting the proposed rule to be published in its final form. conclusions Our review of SBA's annual reports and other documentation indicated that some agencies have not complied with the RFA as interpreted by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy. We believe that the reasons for this apparent lack of compliance include the following: (1) the RFA does not expressly authorize SBA to interpret the act's key provisions, (2) the RFA does not require SBA to develop criteria for agencies to follow in reviewing their rules, (3) SBA has not issued any guidance to federal agencies defining key statutory provisions in the RFA, and (4) the RFA does not authorize SBA or any other entity to compel rulemaking agencies to comply with the act's provisions. OMB can help ensure certain rulemaking agencies' compliance with the RFA by reviewing and commenting on those agencies' significant regulatory actions pursuant to its responsibilities under Executive Order 12866. OMB can return most regulatory actions to agencies for further consideration if it believes the actions are inconsistent with the RFA. However, OMB's authority to play an enforcement role is limited in several respects. OMB cannot review rules proposed by independent regulatory agencies and cannot return agricultural marketing orders to AMS. Also, OMB does not have established criteria or procedures to determine whether agencies have complied with the RFA. Finally, while SBA reportedly notifies rulemaking agencies in writing of its RFA concerns during the rulemaking notice and comment period, it does not normally provide OMB with a copy of those concerns and only occasionally telephones OMB about SBA's compliance concerns. Therefore, OMB's ability to ensure agencies' RFA compliance is diminished because it is often unaware of SBA's concerns regarding an agency's compliance. matters for consideration of congress If Congress wishes to strengthen the implementation of the RFA, it should consider amending the act to (1) provide SBA with clearer authority and responsibility to interpret the RFA's provisions and (2) require SBA, in consultation with OMB, to develop criteria as to whether and how federal agencies should conduct RFA analyses. Congress could also consider focusing its RFA oversight on the independent regulatory agencies and agricultural marketing orders over which OMB's review and comment authority is limited. recommendations We recommend that the OMB Director, in consultation with SBA, establish procedures OMB can use to determine agencies' compliance with the RFA. These procedures should be incorporated into OMB's processes for reviewing regulations before they are published for notice and comment and before they are published in final. We also recommend that the SBA Administrator direct the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to send OMB a copy of any written notification of RFA noncompliance the Chief Counsel sends to an agency. agency comments and our evaluation We provided a draft of this report to the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy and discussed the report with her on March 23, 1994. She suggested certain technical changes, which were incorporated into the final report. Overall, she said she agreed with the report's conclusions and recommendations. She said SBA welcomes clarification of its authority to interpret RFA provisions and will work with OMB to develop criteria and procedures for agency compliance with the act. The Chief Counsel also said that she will send OMB a copy of any written notifications of RFA noncompliance she sends to agencies during the rulemaking process. We also provided a draft of the report to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB and discussed the report with her staff on March 3, 1994. The Deputy Administrator said OMB has no objection to any changes in the statute or in the rulemaking process that would strengthen its position in ensuring RFA compliance. He also said OMB would work with SBA to develop criteria and procedures for determining RFA compliance. Finally, he said that if the SBA Chief Counsel notifies OMB during the rulemaking process that an agency is not complying with the RFA, OMB would discuss the issue with the agency before concluding its review of any final regulations. We are sending copies of this report to the SBA Administrator, the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, the OMB Director, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, interested congressional committees, and others who may have an interest in this matter. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. The major contributors to this report are Charles I. Patton, Jr., Associate Director, Federal Management Issues, General Government Division; Curtis W. Copeland, Assistant Director, Federal Management Issues, General Government Division; and V. Bruce Goddard, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please call me on (202) 512-8676. William M. Hunt, Director, Federal Management Issues.