Yesterday, the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a long-awaited second hearing on President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. Much of the hearing focused on the role of the Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) — a position with newly enhanced responsibilities. The changes state "no rulemaking shall commence" without the approval of the RPO. Steve Aitken, former acting administrator of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, told the panel that the Clinton administration had issued a dictate forbidding agencies to "issue" rulemakings without similar approval. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) latched on to this as reason to drop the whole case against the Bush administration. Reg•Watch has checked its dictionary, and apparently "issue" and "commence" are two different verbs with two different meanings. Exactly when a rulemaking commences is unclear. This kind of confusion begs the question: What transparency measures will be included in this process? Committee Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) expressed legitimate concern that RPOs "can smother regulatory efforts in the crib before an agency can even begin considering a regulatory action." In the hearing, OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass recommended several improvements in transparency. Though OMB Watch fully opposes the changes embodied in the new E.O. and Good Guidance Practices Bulletin, if they are to exist the American people should be allowed to see into the process. At the very most, Congress should act to nullify these changes. At the very least, it should shine more sunlight on the regulatory process.