mr. goldston. >> i have no expertise, but i imagine they could've done more. >> i think mr. gattuso, it is too soon to breathe an early sigh of relief with resident of imus january 2011 "wall street journal" op-ed, for a turncoat will set that out of balance placing unreasonable burdens on businesses that have had a chilling effect on the growth in jobs. do you think after that particular op-ed that an executive orders 13693 were any closer to achieving what mr. sunstein has cited as its aim of nurturing quote, they can listen culture of retrospective review and analysis that the executive branch? >> i think we are closer, but we are dealing with micro milliliters perhaps of moving forward. >> micro milliliters, okay. >> you think the congress should mandate a law that all agencies should contact periodic retrospective reviews? >> i think he rarely had in 1980 with the regulatory flexibility act 610. >> so it is not implemented. >> you would agree that we should -- that the agency should have a retrospect to have mandate to look at the regulatory environment in their departm

mr. goldston, do you agree? >> there's no harm in retrospect i reviews if they -- retrospective reviews if they don't become the whole sum and substance of what agencies are doing. it means that the private -- >> okay. you agree. mr. kovacs? i understand your testimony to believe there are two distinct categories of regulation, andy f the primary oversight by congress and the administration should be those regulations that are economically significant.s in your view, what would be thee most effective way to address this? >> there are several ways. one is that they have a higher standard of review within the courts. a high your review within the courts. for example when a court refused a regulation, they treat their review the same as if it is a greenhouse gases or training for an employee, and what we expect to occur because when the courts give deference to the agencies they kept the balance in favor of the agencies and against congress and the way to address the would be to require the agency on those major ru

mr. goldston? >> i'm not sure i have an opinion on there. there's the constitutional issue whether they are required to do it. there's no reason they could not choose to submit plans. >> do you think there's anything more that oira could have done to regulate independent agencies to voluntarily submit retrospecktive analysis of the rules as set out in the president's executive order? >> no, the president suggested it, and just decided nod to do it. >> as i said in the testimony, i think the president is -- i think the president can make clear what is for sure and what is for show. >> i have no expertise on that, but i think they could have done more. >> you indicated it's too soon to breathe early a sigh of relief with the president obama's january 2011 "wall street journal" op-ed saying "rules have got out of balance places unnecessary burdens on business with a chilling effect on growth and jobs." do you think after that and the executive orders 13653, we're any closer to achieving what mr. sunstein cited as a consistent culture of review