David Skaggs: “this amendment deals with what I suspect was really a drafting error, back in title II of the bill, having to do with…”

“this amendment deals with what I suspect was really a drafting error, back in title II of the bill, having to do with the estimates that are required to be prepared by agencies pursuant to the new authorities in this legislation. Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, in subsection A(2) of section 202, estimates made by agencies concerning future costs or disproportional budgetary effects are to be made ``if and to the extent that the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible.'' However, over in paragraph 4 of that subsection, estimates concerning the effect on the national economy, including productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of jobs, and international competitiveness have no such qualifying language about reasonable feasibility. It seems to me those estimates are equally problematic for the agency to be able to conduct, Mr. Chairman. In discussing this with the floor manager of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], I think it is clear that we all recognize that in this proposed statute, as in any others, there is an implied qualification of reasonableness. I just wanted to inquire of the floor manager currently on the floor, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], if indeed that is his interpretation, that we are looking for reasonable estimates to be made by the agency under paragraph 4, just as under paragraph 2.”