[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9194-S9195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           REGULATORY REFORM

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the next few days, the Senate 
will begin to debate regulatory reform legislation to make regulations 
more sensible, less burdensome, and more efficient.
  This debate is long overdue. Because while passing laws is important, 
real people are affected not by congressional debates but by 
implementation of the law by agencies.
  And all too often, agencies implement laws with too much paperwork, 
too much harassment and too little common sense. It is time to set 
things straight, and I congratulate the leadership for bringing this 
issue to the floor.
  At the same time, however, we must remember that preventing 
pollution, ensuring food safety and keeping our rivers clean are 
critically important to a good life for Americans.
  Unfortunately, some special interest groups do not see it that way. 
All over Washington, they are trying to get loopholes and special 
relief that will let them get away with polluting the air and water. 
And they are calling their loopholes regulatory reform. They should not 
get away with it.
  So let us watch what is coming aboard pretty carefully. Let us reform 
Government rules and regulations to make them work better. But let us 
not use regulatory reform to weaken protection of public health and 
safety and to lower the quality of life.


                          the need for reform

  Government has to treat people like adults. It has to understand that 
most people are good people. They don't need to fill out a lot of forms 
to do the right thing.
  As the debate unfolds, we will hear theories about so-called super 
mandates. About judicial review. About esoteric provisions of the 
Administrative Procedures Act. About how many permissible statutory 
constructions can dance on the head of a pin.
  But when most Montanans think about Government regulations, they are 
more straightforward. Montanans want common sense. Montanans believe 
most Federal rules and regulations cost too much. They accomplish too 
little. They make responsible business owners fill out too many forms. 
And they just plain make people angry.
                        osha logging regulations

  I will give you an example. Earlier this year, OSHA, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, proposed a rule that would make 
loggers wear steel-toed boots.
  Seems to make sense--unless you are actually out in the Montana woods 
in winter, on a steep slope and frozen ground. In that case, steel-toed 
boots can make the job more dangerous, not less. They make your feet go 
numb, so it is harder to hold your grip. And if you are holding a live 
chainsaw at the time, you are in a lot of trouble.
  So the people this regulation was meant to help knew it made no sense 
at all. And to add injury to insult, it threatened their jobs. OSHA 
told them to buy the boots in 2 weeks or take a furlough.
  Another example was the EPA's decision 2 years ago to ban some kinds 
of bear sprays--pepper sprays that help people avoid injury from bear 
attacks--because they might irritate the nasal tissues of an attacking 
grizzly. Yet another was the Forest Service's decision to bar loud 
speech and inappropriate noises in national forests.
  Most regulations are not as ridiculous or offensive as these. But 
even so, the sheer volume of regulation is a big problem. Small 
business owners often give up all of Friday afternoon to fill out OSHA 
forms and IRS withholding documents just to comply with existing 
regulations, let alone keep up with all the new ones.
  Today, we are only half-way through 1995. And the Federal Register, 
in which the government publishes its rules and regulations, is about 
to hit the 33,000-page mark. That is about 200 pages of rules, 
regulations, comments, revisions, and rerevisions every day.


                         Key elements of reform

  So I congratulate the leadership for moving ahead with regulatory 
reform. The effort is only beginning, but at the end I believe a good 
bill will include five key elements.
  First, we should open up the regulatory process. It should be easier 
for people to comment on proposed rules. They should get more notice 
when a rule will affect their job or business. You simply cannot expect 
a hard-working gas station owner or restaurant manager to subscribe to 
the Federal Register and track all the changes and revisions in the 
OSHA code.
  And while they are at it, agencies should explain their rules in 
plain English. For example, look at a sentence from an EPA rule in the 
December 29, 1994, Federal Register. It means to say treated hazardous 
wastes are exempt from disposal regulations under two conditions. But 
what it actually says is this:

       Currently, hazardous wastes that are used in a manner 
     constituting disposal (applied to or placed on land), 
     including waste-derived products that are produced in whole 
     or in part from hazardous wastes and used in a manner 
     constituting disposal, are not subject to hazardous waste 
     disposal regulations provided the products produced meet two 
     conditions.

  Imagine handing that in to a high school English teacher.
  Second, we should use new statistical tools like risk assessment and 
cost-benefit analysis when appropriate. They can help agencies set 
priorities, so we spend our money wisely and solve the biggest problems 
first. And they can help make sure agencies think creatively and 
consider all the options before charging ahead. But we must also 
understand their limitations--because I do not believe we can place a 
dollar value on things like the survival of the bald eagle or brain 
damage in children from lead in drinking water.
  Third, Congress should conduct more oversight. Passing a law is only 
a small part of the job. It is implementation of the law that affects 
real people at home and in business. But too often, Congress passes a 
law and then walks away, leaving implementation entirely to bureaucrats 
who do not always have practical experience. The OSHA logging 
regulation is a good example. Congress should review major new 
regulations closely, so the mistakes are corrected before they start to 
threaten jobs and businesses.
  Fourth, we should strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This law 
requires agencies to pay special attention to the effects of their 
regulations on small business. A good goal--but one agencies sometimes 
ignore.
  Today, small businesses have no right to challenge an agency, in 
court, when it fails to comply with the Act. By establishing a 
streamlined process for judicial review, we can help small businesses 
protect themselves.
  And fifth, we must continue strong and effective protection of public 
health, public safety and our natural heritage. Clean air, clean water 
and clean neighborhoods are basic American values. They are essential 
to a high quality of life in our country. Regulatory reform should get 
them for us more efficiently. It must not run away from these goals, 
and allow more contamination of rivers and streams, 

[[Page S 9195]]
more urban smog, or greater threats to the public health and safety.


                               conclusion

  With these five steps, Mr. President, we will make federal rules and 
regulations more effective. And we will do something even more 
important. Americans will be more confident that their tax dollars are 
being spent wisely, and that we are guaranteeing public health and 
safety with the absolute minimum of bureaucracy and paperwork.
  So I look forward to the debate on this bill, and to working with my 
colleagues to meet these goals.


                          ____________________