[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            REGULATORY REFORM

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 15, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, March 8, 1995 into the Congressional Record:

       The House approved five bills over the last 2 weeks that 
     aim to remove regulatory burdens on businesses and lower the 
     cost of regulation to the U.S. economy. Regulations have 
     performed an important function in protecting public health 
     and the environment, but the general consensus today is that 
     regulation has run amok. My impression is that many 
     regulations are difficult to justify on the basis of actual 
     risk. For example, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars a 
     year to eliminate minute concentrations of benzene in the 
     outdoor air, but there is little if any evidence that benzene 
     at those concentrations is a threat to anybody.
       There is no magic bullet for what ails regulation, but we 
     have to decide what is worth regulating and how to do it 
     better. The bills considered in the House, by and large, seek 
     to base future regulations on better science. They would 
     require risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses supported 
     by science before new regulations above certain cost 
     thresholds can be issued. I think all of that is a good idea. 
     I am concerned that some of the bills we are sending to the 
     Senate overreach and are excessive. My hope is that the 
     Senate will tone down the excesses and we will in the end 
     produce good legislation.
       The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which I supported, is 
     intended to minimize the paperwork burden for the public and 
     private sectors in complying with Federal regulations. It 
     sets an annual Government-wide goal of reducing Federal 
     information collection by at least 10 percent. The measure 
     will enable the Government to do its job more efficiently.
       The Regulatory Transition Act, which I supported, would 
     impose a moratorium on regulations that would take effect 
     during the period November 20, 1994 through December 31, 
     1995. The purpose of the moratorium is to provide a breathing 
     space while permanent reforms are enacted into law. The 
     moratorium does exclude regulations necessary to address 
     imminent threats to public health, safety and welfare. If an 
     agency tries to put a regulation into effect not exempted 
     from the moratorium, an affected party can challenge the 
     action in court. I voted for an amendment that would exempt 
     from the moratorium, regulations that permit food inspections 
     and testing to ensure safe drinking water.
       The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act, which I 
     supported, would require Federal agencies to conduct risk 
     assessment, based on scientific evidence, and cost-benefit 
     analysis of Federal regulations affecting health, safety, and 
     the environment that have an economic impact of $25 million 
     or more. It permits the review and invalidation of existing 
     regulations, and makes it much easier to challenge these 
     Federal regulations in court. The bill specifies a single set 
     of new principles that agencies will use for writing 
     regulations. Agencies must also establish ``peer review 
     panels'' consisting of experts who would render independent 
     advice on data and methods used for assessments and 
     decisionmaking.
       The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, which I supported, 
     would permit small businesses to sue Federal agencies to 
     force them to assess the effect of a proposed rule on small 
     business for any regulation with an economic impact of $50 
     million or more, and to consider less costly alternatives. 
     Parties can challenge regulations in court within one year of 
     their effective date. The bill also requires the Small 
     Business Administration to review the impact of regulations 
     on small business, recommended changes to ease burdens on 
     small business, and appear in court when small businesses 
     challenge the regulations.
       The Private Property Protection Act would require the 
     Federal Government to compensate owners of private property 
     when a Federal agency action limits the use of their property 
     so as to reduce its value by 20 percent or more. This bill 
     expands the definition of ``regulatory taking'' of property, 
     that is a taking through restrictions on use, rather than a 
     taking of actual title to the property. Compensation claims 
     would be limited primarily to cases arising from regulations 
     under the Clean Water Act wetlands program, the Endangered 
     Species Act and resource conservation programs of the 1985 
     Farm Act. A property owner could seek compensation either by 
     submitting a request with the appropriate Federal agency, or 
     by filing a lawsuit in federal court.
       I supported this bill despite concerns about it reach. It 
     marks a significant departure from long-settled judicial 
     doctrines on takings, and creates a statutory interpretation 
     of the fifth amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits 
     the seizing of property without compensation. It could impose 
     substantial and incalculable costs on the federal government 
     to pay for compensation claims. I supported a substitute 
     amendment, which failed, that would require federal agencies 
     to assess the impact of a federal action on private property 
     rights, and make its analysis available to the public.
       Conclusion: We need a regulatory system that works for the 
     American people, not against them. The system should protect 
     their health, safety, and well-being and improve the 
     performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or 
     unreasonable costs on them. Regulations should recognize that 
     the private sector is the best engine for economic growth, 
     respect the role of State and local governments, and be 
     effective, sensible and understandable.
       Federal agencies have focused too much on threats that pose 
     only tiny risks to the public, such as alar, the chemical 
     used to preserve apples. We would benefit tremendously from 
     clear thinking about costs and risks. It is true that the 
     science of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis focuses 
     on the costs, rather than the benefits of regulation--and it 
     is easier to quantify how a regulation will hurt a business 
     than to measure its benefit to public health and safety. Even 
     so, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis have powerful 
     appeal in a time of regulatory excesses.
       These bills, overall, move us in the right direction, but 
     my concern is that, as drafted, they overreach. My hope is 
     that they can be improved during the legislative process.
     

                          ____________________