The House Government Reform Committee jammed through a bill last week that would require the General Accounting Office to run detailed analyses of the effects of proposed federal regulations.
Over the strong objection of Democrats, who said GAO is neither manned nor disposed to second-guess the regulatory agencies, the committee's Republicans sped the bill (H.R. 4744) to the House floor Thursday with the hope of getting a vote there before the August recess.
Although various efforts to curb the government's regulatory powers have been mounted over the past few years, this bill, dubbed the "Truth in Regulating Act of 2000," did not undergo the usual subcommittee hearings before being brought up for Thursday's markup session.
The bill--which passed on voice vote--is sponsored by Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., a candidate for his state's governorship this fall, who has long been critical of federal regulations that he maintains hurt businesses and impede economic growth.
The Senate has passed a bipartisan version of the bill and House Democrats, behind Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., are touting it as an alternative to the Government Reform panel's bill.
But when Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, offered it as a substitute for McIntosh's bill during Thursday's markup, it was defeated by an 18-15 vote.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., warned the Republicans that their bill probably cannot get through the Senate, and even if it did, it would be vetoed by the President. "The (McIntosh) bill has stirred up a fight and is not likely to become law," he said. "If you really want to pass something that will become law, you should adopt the Senate bill (which Condit has introduced in the House)."
McIntosh and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., contended that their bill is intended to sensitize federal rulemakers to the plight of small businesses whose scant resources often make it hard to compete when burdened by regulations. They also insisted that the GAO be given only 60 days to evaluate the economic impact of any regulations proposed by federal agencies. (Condit's bill would give GAO six months.)
GAO officials complained to committee members that, having just undergone a $12 million cutback in their budget, they lacked the money and manpower to take on the task of providing crash appraisals of proposed rules. But Ryan insisted that 60 days is the usual limit set for public comments on new regulations, and that GAO should provide its own assessments in the same period so that congressional committees could benefit from the evaluations.
The legislation itself appears to require GAO to run separate cost-benefit analyses of the rules, a meticulous and time-consuming process. But McIntosh said his bill means only to require a GAO review of each regulatory agency's cost-benefit analyses, including any data offered by regulated businesses affected by the proposed rules.
McIntosh also said his bill authorizes $5.2 million a year, over the next three years, for GAO to cover the costs of its additional workload.
NEXT STORY: Senate passes supplemental spending bill