[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9351-S9352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we now resume consideration of S. 343, the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, and in doing so, I am 
reminded of an ancient story. When Hercules was tested, one of his 
tasks was to slay the Hydra, a nine-headed serpent. Yet, for every head 
of the Hydra that Hercules cut off, two more grew in its place. It 
seems that regulations have become the 20th century Hydra, the only 
difference being that at least the Hydra was mythical and regulations 
are not.
  For hard-working, middle-class Americans, trying to cope with 
thousands upon thousands of regulations is indeed a Herculean task. 
Today, a small business person needs a law firm, an accountant and a 
doctor in order to cope with the regulations and barriers they impose. 
Why a doctor? First, for the headaches he or she will have trying to 
decipher all of the gobbledygook, and later for the heart attack when 
the agency issues citations for violations he or she did not even 
realize were violations.
  I recall testimony the Labor Committee received back in 1981 when we 
were considering legislation to revamp the CETA Program. I remember it 
because I was so impressed with the specific numbers cited to 
demonstrate the regulatory burden of the then Federal program. The 
testimony from the county job training official in Ohio pointed out 
that CETA regulations ``cross-referenced 75 other laws, Executive 
orders and circulars. The Department of Labor has issued an average of 
over 400 field memoranda, more than 1 per day, including Sundays and 
holidays.''
  This is not how Government is supposed to work, and it has to stop. 
The problem is that the bureaucracy is replacing democracy, and it is 
imposing high costs on private citizens and impinging on private rights 
and productivity. This bill remedies that by imposing common sense, 
rational decisionmaking on agencies. When any rational person is trying 
to make a decision, he or she weighs the cost of the action and the 
benefits that the action will bring. Now that is just simple common 
sense. That is what this bill does.
  There are some who will say, ``Oh, we are going to do away with clean 
water and clean air'' and all the other regulations they claim are so 
important to all of us, and they are important. No, we are not going to 
do that. We are just going to make sure there is common sense in these 
regulations, and they have to meet a cost-benefit analysis and some 
risk-assessment matters as well.
  I just have to say the Federal bureaucracy in this country does not 
have common sense, and we are in danger of losing our country. Nobody 
ever contemplated that the bureaucracy would become the fourth branch 
of Government, but it is now the fourth branch of Government and it may 
be more powerful than the other three that are constitutionally set 
apart.
  Under current law, when the bureaucracy considers making another 
rule, it often considers only the benefits and not the costs. It comes 
as no surprise that everything looks like a good idea if you have to 
only look at the benefit side and you do not have to pay for it.
  I am reminded of the headline in the Wall Street Journal not too long 
ago that spoke volumes. It read something like: ``If you're buying, 
I'll have sirloin.'' All this bill seeks to do is to make sure the 
agencies look at the cost side as well. I cannot believe that anyone in 
this body would find that objectionable.
  Let me briefly explain how the bill works. The Comprehensive 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 is aimed at stopping regulatory abuses 
and curbing excessive costs. The bill embodies the most basic notion of 
decisionmaking: Justify the costs. That is all the American people ask 
of their Government, that it justify the costs of its actions.
  Indeed, it is only common sense that when an action would produce 
more harm than good, it should not be taken. Accordingly, the 
centerpiece of the bill is the requirement for cost-benefit analysis of 
proposed rules. Right now, agencies are notorious for only looking at 
the benefits of rules and ignoring the cost to society. This bill 
forces the agencies to put both costs and benefits on the table.
  This provision is eminently reasonable and sensible. For one thing, 
it applies only to major rules which are defined as those having an 
annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more. In general, the 
agency must set out the costs and benefits and identify the reasonable 
alternatives. The agency then selects the best option in conjunction 
with requirements in the underlying statute.
  Significantly, the cost-benefit provisions of this bill work in 
harmony with the particular statutes that the Federal agencies 
implement. The cost-benefit criteria do not override specific statutory 
criteria for agency decisionmaking. Instead, they supplement those 
criteria to fine tune the regulatory process.
  Complementing the cost-benefit analysis is a risk-assessment 
provision. This sets out guidelines for how various risks are to be 
evaluated. Right now, agencies sometimes regulate for minuscule risks 
but at a tremendously great cost to the country. If, for example, we 
applied the same test to driving an automobile as we do to marketing of 
some food additives, drugs or medical devices, no one would be driving 
a car in this country. You could not afford to do it and you would not 
be able to.
  Also, agencies sometimes evaluate the risks based on questionable 
scientific techniques. By requiring a risk assessment and by 
establishing standards for scientific quality, this bill will ensure 
reliable results when agencies 

[[Page S 9352]]

determine the costs and benefits of regulation. It will also improve 
the consistency and risk assessment across Federal agencies.
  In a related vein, the bill modifies the much-criticized Delaney 
clause of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The Delaney clause 
requires that no processed foods, products containing a color additive 
or animal drug may be sold unless they do not contain even trace 
amounts of materials that have been demonstrated to cause cancer to 
humans or animals. That may have sounded good in the abstract, in 
reality it has become a burdensome rule that does not further the 
health and safety goals that it was designed to address.
  Let us take food, for example. Given modern technology, it is 
possible to detect the smallest amount of chemicals in food. When 
Delaney was enacted, it was parts per thousand. Today it is parts per 
quadrillion that we can actually determine. Under the Delaney clause, 
those materials cannot be included, the smallest amounts of chemicals 
in food, if they are carcinogenic, in any amounts or under any 
circumstances, even though there is basically no risk in eating the 
food.
  The problem is that many materials may be carcinogenic only if given 
in extraordinarily large doses and may be carcinogenic in animals for 
reasons for which there is no comparable reaction in humans. In this 
way, the Delaney clause has irrationally forbidden the inclusion of 
even trace amounts of materials in foods, even when scientists 
unanimously agree that there is absolutely no harm to humans from its 
consumption.
  The scientific evidence has shown us the Delaney clause, despite its 
laudable goals, does not really work in practice. That is why we must 
modify it in this bill. In addition to the substantive reforms, this 
bill also includes several review provisions to ensure openness and 
accountability in the regulatory process.
  The congressional review process, for example, provides Congress with 
an ability to stop a proposed rule if it disapproves of that rule. This 
gives Congress the opportunity to examine those rules before they take 
effect and do the harm. If within 60 days of the rule's adoption both 
Houses vote to disapprove the rule, and the President agrees, the rule 
will not be effective.
  The effective dates of major rules are also held off for those 60 
days during the congressional review period. This provision maintains a 
congressional role in the regulatory process and adds another guarantee 
that regulators will be held accountable for their actions.
 In addition, a separate type of review is involved to ensure that 
agencies conduct their own periodic review to fix outdated and 
insufficient or inefficient regulations.

  Agencies, it seems to me, have an obligation to keep their 
regulations current. Under this provision, agencies would promulgate a 
list of existing regulations that the agency feels are appropriate for 
review, along with a schedule for agency review of those regulations, 
over a 10-year period. The agency must apply the cost-benefit analysis 
to the rule and then decide whether to extend, modify, or rescind the 
rule. Any rules in the schedule that are not acted on in accordance 
with the agency schedule would automatically expire.
  In addition, the bill includes a petition process, whereby any 
interested party may seek to get a major rule review. An agency must 
grant the petition. If the agency finds a reasonable likelihood that 
the rule would not meet the cost-benefit test to ensure correct 
decisionmaking, the agency's decision is then subject to judicial 
review. Through these processes, a petition can be filed to challenge 
an existing rule to ensure that it satisfies the cost-benefit and risk-
assessment standards.
  The agency itself also has the duty to ensure that its current rules 
satisfy those standards. This keeps the agency accountable to the 
public, gives the American people a role in the process, and ensures 
that all rules continue to be justified.
  Finally, accountability of Federal regulators is further guaranteed 
through a judicial review. Perhaps the most important provision in the 
bill is the provision permitting judicial review of agency action. By 
allowing courts to enforce the requirements of the bill, the 
bureaucrats will be accountable in court for their actions.
  Unfortunately, the way things stand today, the bureaucracy is out of 
control. Those who churn out regulations day after day should, just 
like every other American, be accountable for their actions. Without 
this important judicial enforcement mechanism, and without the other 
review provisions, this bill would be a little more than a weak 
statement of policy. The added review makes this bill a powerful tool 
to reshape the Federal agencies.
  Now, Mr. President, in spite of everything, there are still those who 
oppose this bill and defend inefficient, irrational agency regulations. 
The opponents of this bill have only one weapon with which to attack, 
and that is fear. I expect that opponents of the bill will lay out a 
litany of unknown horrors that, according to them, only unbridled 
bureaucracies will somehow be able to handle.
  These scare tactics are nothing more than that, tactics to derail 
these needed reforms. They have nothing to do with the reality of the 
bill and everything to do with preserving big Government.
  The fact is that this bill will only change inefficient regulations 
and require that rules be updated so that they remain efficient. Let me 
be perfectly clear that this bill will not prevent agencies from 
protecting Americans from unsafe drugs, unsafe workplaces, polluted air 
and water, or discrimination. It will not prevent agencies from 
responding to disasters when and where the Government's help is needed. 
Rules that truly add to society are completely secure under this bill.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, let me just say that too much of 
anything, even a good thing, is bad. Federal regulation has reached 
that point. The Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 is the 
response to a bureaucracy run wild.
  It is the response we must make to a bureaucracy that no longer sees 
the American taxpayer and American business, especially small business, 
as clients to whom Federal agencies should be accountable. It is the 
response we need to restore the balance between costs and benefits, 
between protection and freedom.
  Those rules that truly provide a benefit to the country will remain 
on the books. This bill does not backdoor repeal a host of other 
statutes, many of which I voted for, by preventing agencies from 
issuing regulations.
  But the senseless regulations that create more problems than they 
solve must either be fixed or scrapped.
  The neighborhood grocer in south central Los Angeles, the rural Utah 
county landowner, the farmer in Kansas, the auto manufacturer in 
Detroit, or the university in Pennsylvania, have all just had it up to 
here with regulation and with overregulation. All Americans are united 
in their frustration with an unresponsive, inflexible, inefficient and 
overweight Federal bureaucracy.
  If the 1994 elections told us anything, it was that the American 
people are fed up. The number and scope of Federal regulations are just 
additional indications that Government has gotten too darn big.
  This bill is as direct an answer as we can give to their pleas that 
we can, in fact, control the Federal Government, not be controlled by 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan, 
commonsense initiative. I thank my colleague from South Carolina and my 
friend from Delaware for being patient as I delivered these few 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is 
recognized.

                          ____________________