[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 REGULATION BURDEN REACHES NEW HEIGHTS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in an era of regulation. Every 
business person who is afraid of a bureaucrat coming to his place of 
business to shut him down knows how serious the regulation problem is. 
So I want to speak today about the regulation burden reaches new 
heights.
  Mr. President, in 1980, 15 years ago, when I was a Member of the 
other body, I wanted to highlight the growing regulatory burden that 
the Federal Government has placed on the taxpayer and on businesses.
  To do this, as you can see in the far left chart, I stacked up copies 
of the Code of Federal Regulations. That is all the regulations put out 
in 1 year by the Federal Government pursuant, presumably, to the laws 
that we pass or have passed.
  You can see stacked there the regulations for the year 1970. And then 
you can see stacked beside it the regulations for the year 1980.
  So you can see that thousands and thousands of pages were added to 
the burden of the business people through Federal regulation just in 
the 10 years between 1970 and 1980.
  Recently, I decided to see what the story is now in 1994. So, once 
again, I stacked up copies of the Code of Federal Regulations from 1980 
and compared it to the most recent edition, 1993.
  Here is a picture of it. I should say, we have stacked here 1970, 
which is comparable to the pile there; 1980, comparable to the pile in 
that picture; and then here is 1993. I have to stand on a chair to be 
able to put the last volume up on the pile.
  That is the picture. And, of course, you can see, Mr. President, that 
it is not good news.
  Since 1980, the administrative branch of Government, aided and 
abetted by Congress passing so many laws, has added many more volumes 
of new regulations. These regulations come with a tremendous price tag. 
They cost the taxpayers, business, and even workers.
  Mr. Thomas Hopkins, an economist at the Rochester Institute of 
Technology--he was also a former Deputy at OMB--estimated in 1992 that 
the gross cost of implementing these regulations was conservatively 
estimated by him at $392 billion per year. This translates, by his 
estimation, into $4,000 per household per year.
  But Science magazine cites figures that the direct and indirect costs 
of regulation may be as high as $1 trillion per year. If that figure 
were the bottom line, that would be $9,000 per household.
  Because of these costs, and because of the negative impact on 
productivity growth, you would think that we in Congress would closely 
review the regulatory burden imposed by the Federal Government and try 
to do more about it than what we are. Unfortunately, I do not think 
Congress pays much attention to this and I do not think we have done 
anything about it, as you can see from the growth of regulations over 
the past 23 years.
  Congress and both Republican and Democratic administrations alike 
have imposed regulations with little or no concern as to the costs to 
the taxpayer or the impact upon the private sector. Bureaucrats have 
implemented regulations without consideration of more cost-effective 
means of achieving goals.
  There are certainly regulations that provide benefits to the public, 
and which we all support. We acknowledge that. For example, every poll 
shows consumers, the public generally, wanting clean air and clean 
water. And regulations, to some degree, are required to ensure those 
public policies.
  But care must be taken to achieve these desired results in the most 
sensible and the most cost-effective manner. And I am not sure all 
these regulations are a demonstration of our doing that before we write 
regulations.
  The answer, of course, should be simple. We should weigh the benefits 
against the costs. This is no different than how, say, my constituents 
in the State of Iowa would approach his or her daily life. I think they 
would take the view then that Government should use the same common 
sense.
  The administration has recognized that we must be smarter in imposing 
regulations on the taxpayers. And I want to compliment President 
Clinton for this statement. He has stated:

       Expanding regulations threaten to overwhelm the Nation's 
     entrepreneurs and divert them from the task of building 
     strong, innovative companies.

  More specifically, Vice President Gore's National Performance 
Review's report, entitled ``Improving Regulatory Systems''--and this is 
part of the Vice President's reinventing Government program--states:

       [T]he Federal regulatory system is not working as well as 
     it should. Many Federal regulations impose too many 
     constraints on individuals and businesses while still failing 
     to accomplish the goals for which they were imposed.

  The report of the Vice President goes on to state:

       [R]egulators and Congress should employ regulations more 
     selectively and sometimes use other approaches to accomplish 
     their goals.

  I think that this picture visualizes for us that we do not use 
regulations as selectively as the Vice President says we should.
  The report makes a key recommendation, the reinventing Government 
report, on the subject of governmental regulation. It suggests that 
there should be a ranking of the seriousness of the environmental and 
the health and the safety risks. Such a task is essential if we are 
going to make a reasoned analysis of our priorities so we can reduce 
the amount of regulation.
  I have been a strong supporter of the National Performance Review and 
the Vice President's efforts to reinvent government. But an ongoing 
report, a status report coming out September 1994 shows that the 
administration has still not provided a ranking of the seriousness of 
the environmental health and safety risks, as they implored was 
necessary a year ago. The administration has far to go in showing that 
we will see real reform, not just rhetoric, when it comes to improving 
regulatory systems.
  The importance of reducing the regulatory burden is highlighted by 
the continuous horror stories that we hear about the impact regulations 
have on taxpayers.
  I would like to describe a recent action that affects thousands of 
farmers in my State--in lots of States. The EPA has recently banned the 
use of the pesticide carbofuran on corn and sorghum. The concern is 
that up to 60 birds a year may be killed by this pesticide.
  However, according to Grain Sorghum News, the EPA cannot point to one 
confirmed bird kill related to the use of carbofuran on sorghum. The 
unfortunate response to the banning of carbofuran is that farmers will 
have to turn to less effective substitutes, and use those less 
effective substitutes in increased amounts. Of course, this may cause 
greater health and environmental problems than the banned carbofuran.
  My colleagues are familiar with the points I have made. They are 
familiar with the burdensome regulations and what they do to reduce 
productivity, what they do to burden business, and often do not address 
our Nation's most serious health risks. These are very familiar 
arguments.
  However, in studying this issue of regulations, I am especially 
persuaded by another argument even more disturbing and even more 
convincing. Burdensome regulations may actually cost lives.
  Let me repeat: The economic costs of implementing regulations may 
actually cost lives.
  When I first read about this, I thought it must be some sort of a 
fringe argument. As I have explored this matter further, it has become 
clear that far from being outside the mainstream, the theory that 
costly regulations can actually lead to more deaths than they save has 
been widely accepted by academia. It is us in the political arena, 
including Congress, who are far behind the curve on this issue.
  While the reasons are complicated, the simple fact is that 
regulations result in lower incomes and productivity, and in turn, 
then, lower incomes are directly related to a higher number of 
premature deaths.
  For example, the Office of Management and Budget has reported that 
workers with reduced incomes will curtail their purchases of good 
nutrition, good medical care, and safe products. This fact of increased 
premature deaths due to regulatory costs is discussed in detail by Dr. 
Ralph Keeney at UCLA, in an article called ``Mortality Risk Induced by 
Economic Expenditures,'' in the journal Risk Analysis.
  Dr. Keeney's research was supported by the National Science 
Foundation. His finding is that:

       Results suggest that some expensive regulations and 
     programs intended to save lives may actually lead to 
     increased fatalities.

  Think of that. We may well be implementing regulations, including 
maybe many in this stack for 1993, that do more harm than good. This 
view was echoed by Prof. Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University. He 
says:

       Regulations intended to prevent premature deaths may not do 
     so--because they are ineffective or because they cause more 
     deaths than they preserve.

  Experts estimate there is one premature death for every $7.5 million 
to $17 million in regulatory costs because of lower worker wages.
  In 1992, OMB respond to this research by seeking to adopt what has 
been coined as a ``risk-risk'' analysis. OMB sought to weigh the lives 
saved by a new regulation in comparison with the lives lost by the 
increased regulatory costs.
  This approach, however, was denounced by our Congress. Congress 
rejected such cost analysis as cold and as harsh, because, critics said 
of the action by OMB, you cannot put a price on human life; and they 
argued compassion. They said we must be compassionate.
  But the data are beginning to show that this traditional view may not 
be compassionate at all. It shows, in fact, that to be truly 
compassionate, we must have a complete analysis of all of the impacts 
caused by regulation. True compassion is when you weigh the total harm 
that will be done by new regulations, including the probability of lost 
lives due to those regulations.
  Let me provide a specific example. According to OMB, regulations 
today cost $5.7 trillion--yes, that is trillion--for every premature 
death averted from regulations regarding wood-preserving chemicals, and 
$4.1 billion for each premature death averted under the hazardous-waste 
land disposal ban. Let me repeat how many premature deaths result from 
the economic burden of regulations: One premature death for every $7.5 
to $17 million in regulatory costs. In other words, 335 people may 
prematurely die to save one person from wood-preserving chemicals.
  Not only can our Nation's economy not afford to write a blank check, 
clearly, regulations which reduce the incomes of American working 
families result in loss of life. This is not just a monetary issue. 
Even more revealing is the negative impact that overregulation has on 
people's lives. It is an issue of compassion, as well.
  The economic phenomenon here is that with less income, people live 
less healthy lives. It is because of this common-sense truth and our 
desire to be compassionate that we must consider the recommendations of 
groups as diverse as the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard School of 
Public Health, and also the Heritage Foundation, on the other hand.
  The Federal Government must prioritize our environmental, health, and 
safety concerns, and begin weighing all the costs before we call for 
additional regulations beyond what we have here.
  Congress and the administration must understand that we should impose 
regulations only when they are cost effective and a net benefit to 
society.
  We must also recognize that many regulations are so costly and so 
inefficient that what they seek to correct should be achieved through 
other means. I would like to see these stacks of regulations begin to 
get smaller in succeeding years.
  In closing, the growing burden of Federal regulation is clearly shown 
in these pictures, from 1970 to 1980, to where we are now, in 1993.
  These volumes represent a profound burden on our society. These 
volumes hurt businesses, they burden productivity, they hurt wages of 
our working people, and worst of all, they can be killers.
  If we are going to ever see these regulations reduced, we must begin 
to take steps now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from California [Mrs. Boxer].

                          ____________________