On Thursday at 10:00 a.m., a House panel will examine President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. Gary Bass, Executive Director of OMB Watch, is scheduled to testify. The panel (the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight) has looked at Bush's amendments to the regulatory process before, but this hearing will focus on the Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) — a presidentially appointed regulatory taskmaster housed in each federal agency. Here are the basic facts on the RPO:

• President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 created the RPO position to "foster the development of effective, innovative, and least burdensome regulations."
• Bush's amendments to E.O. 12866 have required agencies to designate a presidential appointee to be its RPO
• Bush's amendments also increased the authority of the RPO by stating "no rulemaking shall commence … without the approval of the agency's Regulatory Policy Officer."

OMB Watch has expressed several concerns related to the RPO changes. Requiring RPOs to be presidential appointees allows the White House to exert greater influence in the day-to-day operations of federal agencies. Whereas some agencies formerly used experts on particular issues to manage regulatory proceedings, political motives will now set the tone. Furthermore, agencies must designate a current presidential appointee, but the individual is not subject to Senate approval for the new position. This is tantamount to promoting an undersecretary to a cabinet-level secretary without Senate confirmation. Bass's testimony will focus on the transparency of regulatory decision making. Under the old system, White House regulatory directives were sent to agencies by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. These directives are publicly available on the White House website. Now, because the RPO must approve commencement of regulations, the political chokehold is in the agencies. It is conceivable a regulation could be completely stifled by the RPO without announcement or public input. The public needs greater clarification on just what these changes mean for the basic democratic right of access to information.