[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9828-S9829]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to continue discussions on the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.
  Mr. President, in an effort to protect the American consumer and 
taxpayer from pollution, faulty products, contaminants, unfair business 
practices and threats to their livelihood and health, our Government 
has in fact buried us under a mountain of Federal redtape and 
regulation that far exceeds any recognizable benefit. As a result, the 
American economy stagnates and the American public continues to be 
subjected to the ever-increasing presence of the Federal Government in 
our business practices and in our daily lives.
  It is ironic that in an effort to protect the American people and the 
American industry the Federal Government has become an impediment. The 
greatest challenges to American industry and businesses do not come 
from dwindling natural resources or from competition from Europe and 
Japan, or from any number of social and economic challenges facing our 
society and culture today. Arguably, the greatest challenges facing 
American businesses and industries and the Americans who depend on them 
are the burdens placed on them by their own Federal Government; a 
Government that may or may not always have the best intentions but 
whose sole purpose is to protect and promote the common good, not to 
suffocate or stymie its citizens' and industries' well-intentioned and 
lawful pursuits. The need for substantial and fundamental regulatory 
reform cannot be overstated.
  As we have heard in the last 3 days, the cost of regulation in this 
country now exceeds $560 billion every year. It is growing rapidly. And 
it is the rate of this growth which, like that of the national debt, 
that is so disturbing--growth, unfortunately, that produces no 
corresponding rise in benefits to either the economy or the American 
people.
  Mr. President, we have now reached the point where the cost of 
supposedly protecting ourselves, our businesses and our industries from 
ourselves now more than doubles the dollar value that we spend on 
defending our Nation from foreign enemies. Part of the fault is our 
own. In the past Congress has failed to control the regulating agencies 
that fall under its jurisdiction. Congress has failed to scrutinize the 
expense of a regulation as closely as we have included such items in 
the budget. Congress has failed to consider the cost of regulation to 
the economy.
  But just as we are fixing today our budget problems, we can reduce 
our regulatory burden if we have the will to do so. I believe the 
legislation before us is a positive, necessary and long overdue step in 
that direction.
  Mr. President, the regulatory machine in our Government is out of 
control. Regulating agencies have become something akin to nonelected 
lawmakers, and almost predatory in nature when dealing with many 
industries and businesses. These agencies refuse to follow even the 
simplest of commonsense guidelines requiring validation of their 
actions for the common good, and that benefits realized from their 
actions outweigh the costs incurred.
  Where was this simple American principle lost on the Federal 
Government? These are the principles which American citizens follow in 
their everyday lives, and it should not be difficult or unreasonable 
for the Government to operate that way also. The arrogance and the 
paternalism that has typified too much of the rulemaking in this 
country must end. People are tired of it.
  The provisions of this bill are based on the commonsense principles 
that guide a free market economy in a democracy. These are the very 
same principles that played a critical role in building the America we 
know today. At the centerpiece of this legislation is cost-benefit 
analysis. In simple terms, it dictates that before a new regulation 

[[Page S 9829]]
can be implemented it must be determined to be more beneficial to the 
public good than it will cost the economy.
  While cost-benefit analysis has been used in the determination of new 
rules before, it clearly has not been the guiding principle. This bill 
dictates that it must now be the centerpiece of the formulation of any 
new rule and the basis for its justification or its dismissal.
  This legislation also establishes--or reestablishes--that regulating 
agencies prioritize their formulation of new rules. Simply stated, that 
means the greatest dangers to the public must be addressed first and 
must be dealt with in the most cost-effective way.
  The Government should no longer be allowed to saddle the economy with 
a supposed protective measure that clearly does not justify the cost it 
incurs.
  With the inclusion of standardized risk assessment guidelines and 
decisional criteria, this legislation is designed to prevent extensive 
promulgation of excessive rules from occurring again as it has in the 
past.
  Mr. President, one of the most encouraging and commonsense provisions 
of this legislation is that it compels the Federal Government to use 
market-based alternatives rather than proscriptive brute force 
regulation. Such measures have thus far proven to be extremely 
effective. They are also less costly, and they are fair.
  One of the most common complaints I hear from businesses, both large 
and small, is the unnecessarily strict and archaic nature of the 
Delaney clause, or the rule that says even very small traces, trace 
elements of materials deemed unhealthy prohibit a company from offering 
that product to the public. The problem is that technology today has 
progressed far enough and so rapidly from the time the Delaney clause 
was first introduced that we can now detect these trace elements of 
substances that simply could never have been detected before and at 
levels that cannot be reasonably argued to be detrimental to ones 
health. However, the law has not changed to fit that reality. Such an 
inflexibility does not have the best interests of the public in mind. 
This legislation will in large part remedy that problem, and not a 
minute too soon.
  This bill reinforces what this body passed earlier this year in the 
form of the congressional review, S. 219, of any new major rules. This 
provision will ultimately allow elected lawmakers--not regulatory 
agency bureaucrats--to decide if the new rule is in the best interest 
of the public before rules are applied.
 And perhaps the most encouraging provision of this legislation is the 
explicit instruction it includes to minimize the impact on small 
businesses when formulating and applying rules.

  Mr. President, it is high time we reapply this simple set of 
principles by which the economy and society function to the way our 
Government works. It is time to hold the Government accountable to the 
same standards which the public must meet every day. It is unfortunate, 
if not ludicrous, that it would be any other way, and it is no wonder 
that the American electorate is restless and upset with their 
Government.
  During the course of this debate, we have heard many examples, both 
telling and anecdotal. These examples remind us exactly how 
unprincipled and how out of control our Government can sometimes be. 
Some of the instances of the regulatory machine run amok are almost 
unbelievable in their egregious violation of common sense and 
individual rights. But the one fact that must be kept in mind is that 
our Government operates in such a way that the common good is no longer 
the goal. Regulation has become a goal in and of itself. Not only is 
that dangerous, it is unfair and extraordinarily expensive--almost $600 
billion a year.
  This legislation should be viewed as nothing short of a necessary 
complement to what we are striving to accomplish in balancing our 
budget. Indeed, this legislation could be viewed as the opportunity to 
give the American public the biggest tax cut in its history without so 
much as increasing the deficit or reducing benefits by a single cent.
  We would be remiss in our duties as popularly elected officials if we 
failed in this opportunity by failing to pass this important 
legislation or by passing it in a form so watered down as to hardly 
check the regulatory machine at all. I strongly urge my colleagues not 
to miss this opportunity and not to let special interests or partisan 
concerns guide our upcoming votes.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________