Deaf Watch Newsletter
( Address Snipped )

May 28, 1998

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20510

Dear Representative Sanchez:

We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 1704, the
Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis Creation Act.  This
bill would create a new Congressional office to review agency
rules and perform cost/benefit analyses.  Such an office would
provide little new information and represents yet another
attempt to elevate cost above health, safety, and environmental
concerns.

H.R. 1704 would create a new bureaucracy to duplicate
information that is readily available.  Congress already has
access to the cost analysis required by this bill.  Agencies
must now submit all proposed rules to the parliamentarian and
leadership in both the House and Senate.  Agencies already
complete regulatory impact analyses for each major rule and the
Congressional Budget Office conducts cost estimates as required
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.  The General
Accounting Office has made details about each agency rulemaking
(including cost/benefit analysis, risk assessment and small
business panel recommendations) available through its Internet
site.

H.R. 1704 would undermine the public accountability that
currently exists in the rulemaking process.  Currently, the
Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to take a number
of steps (e.g. public notice and comment) to ensure openness
and fairness in the rulemaking process.  None of these
requirements would apply to the new Congressional Office of
Regulatory Analysis even though the work of this office could
dramatically affect the outcome of important health, safety,
and environmental protections.

H.R. 1704 would provide an excuse to focus more on cost and
less on public protections.  In addition to requiring the new
Congressional office to conduct detailed cost/benefit analyses,
the bill would require the office to determine "potential net
benefits."  As highlighted in the debate over previous
regulatory reform proposals, such a test has serious flaws --
costs are much easier to quantify than benefits such as the
value of a healthy child.  Moreover, the bill raises serious
Constitutional questions over the separation of powers by
placing Congress in the position of describing "lower cost"
regulatory alternatives for the way the executive branch is to
execute.

Rather than streamlining government, we believe H.R. 1704 would
create unnecessary and costly bureaucratic hurdles impeding
important health and safety protections.  For these reasons, we
urge you to oppose H.R. 1704.

Sincerely,



Richard Roehm                                                            
Chief Editor Deaf Watch Newsletter                               

William Cross
Assistant Editor Deaf Watch Newsletter