The House Government Reform Committee reported legislation (H.R. 4744) to the floor today that would require the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct cost-benefit analysis of agency rules. H.R. 4744 was introduced only three days prior to the markup as a compromise between Reps. Sue Kelly (R-NY) and David McIntosh (R-IN) -- who had introduced separate versions of the legislation (H.R. 3669) & (H.R. 3521) earlier in the year. This legislation is vastly different and far more problematic than the Senate version (S. 1198), which recently passed by unanimous consent. In reaching this bipartisan compromise, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards worked closely with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to make sure that (1) GAO is capable of conducting the work assigned to it; (2) that an extra-rulemaking process is not created; and (3) that cost considerations are not elevated above the benefit side of the equation. H.R. 4744 violates all of these principles. Indeed, GAO itself wrote to the committee just prior to markup echoing many of our concerns. "This language could be interpreted to require us to prepare our own cost-benefit analysis for the rules -- a complex and resource intensive task that sometimes takes agencies months or years to complete," wrote Robert Murphy, GAO's General Counsel. "It is also a role that is very different than our traditional responsibility of evaluating agencies' analyses. To eliminate any ambiguity on this issue, the language in the bill could be clarified to specify that GAO's role would be to review the agencies' evaluations of costs, benefits, and alternative approaches." In fact, that is precisely what the Senate bill does, calling for "an evaluation of the agency's analysis" to examine "underlying assessments and assumptions." During the markup, however, Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) -- the chief co-sponsor of the legislation, along with Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) -- insisted that his bill does not require GAO to conduct cost-benefit analysis, and that like the Senate bill, it merely requires GAO to review the agency's analysis. But Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX) noted that McIntosh's bill had struck the language requiring an "evaluation of the agency's analysis" and had replaced it with language requiring GAO to conduct "an evaluation of the potential benefits" and "an evaluation of the potential costs." This, Turner said, implies an independent cost-benefit analysis. To make GAO's responsibilities clear, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) urged the committee to adopt the Senate version -- which Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA) introduced yesterday as H.R. 4763 -- and offered it as a substitute amendment to H.R. 4744. Unfortunately, McIntosh objected and the substitute was defeated, 15-18, on a straight party-line vote. Click here for a full analysis of H.R. 4744.