[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10137-S10146]
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. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as I have listened to the debate and 
editorializing surrounding the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act I am 
struck by the extreme rhetoric and baseless accusations made by 
opponents of this legislation. If you were to believe all that has been 
said, you would be convinced that this bill would undermine all of our 
health and safety protections. You would also believe that the Clinton 
administration has dramatically reformed the regulatory process during 
its 2 years in office. Well, Mr. President, nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  Let us first examine the Clinton administration's record on 
regulatory reform. Despite rhetoric claiming support for a more 
reasonable approach to regulation, Federal regulatory activity has 
significantly increased during the past 2 years. In November 1994, the 
administration itself identified over 4,300 new rulemakings underway 
throughout the Federal Government--4,300 new ones working their way 
through the process.
  The Institute for Regulatory Policy recently studied EPA regulations 
issued by the Clinton administration. 

[[Page S 10138]]
This study examined all EPA proposed and final rules published in the 
Federal Register during the second 6 months after President Clinton's 
regulatory reform Executive order took effect. Based on an analysis of 
222 rulemakings, the study found that only six rulemakings offered a 
determination that there was a compelling public need for regulation. 
That is 6 out of 222 regulations. Only six of them were worth the paper 
they were printed on. This demonstrates that the benefits justify the 
cost of the regulations on only six.
  To put Federal regulation in historical perspective, during the 
1960's, the Federal Register--where regulations are published--devoted 
approximately 170,000 pages to Federal regulatory requirements for that 
decade. In the 1970's, this number jumped to approximately 475,000 
pages. During the early 1980's, President Reagan achieved a significant 
reduction in the growth of regulations. Unfortunately, at the end of 
President Clinton's first year in office, the number of Federal 
Register pages reached the highest annual level since 1980.
  Once you strip away the rhetoric and look at the facts, it is clear 
who stands on the side of restraining our runaway bureaucracy and who 
seeks to defend the status quo. And the bureaucracy is and has run 
away. It is clear who stands on the side of protecting individual 
liberties and who stands on the side of handing-over unchecked 
political power to unelected bureaucrats. It is clear who stands on the 
side of increased economic growth and economic opportunity, and who 
would allow our economy and our opportunities as a free people to be 
strangled by redtape.
  Although the legislative language of this bill can be complex and 
confusing, it is really based on a handful of easily-understandable 
commonsense principles.
  First, the bill would require agencies to conduct risk assessment. 
Risk assessment is a scientific process that requires regulators to 
evaluate and compare the risks of different activities in order to 
focus regulations and scarce Federal dollars on those activities posing 
the greatest threat to consumers. Too often in the past, regulations 
have been aimed at issues identified through media attention rather 
than sound science.
  Second, this bill would require cost-benefit analysis to ensure that 
agencies do not impose undue burdens on the public. The premise of 
cost-benefit analysis is simple. Before an agency issues a regulation, 
it should be required to systematically measure the benefits of the 
regulation and compare them to the costs. Such an analysis allows a 
more accurate understanding of the regulatory burden imposed on 
consumers by the Federal Government.
  Finally, the Dole-Johnston substitute amendment permits judicial and 
congressional review of various agency determinations. Opponents of 
these provisions claim that they will lead to gridlock. I claim that 
such reviews are essential to hold unelected bureaucrats accountable to 
the American people for the rules and regulations which they would 
impose on us. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than an 
unelected bureaucrat not being held subject to judicial and legislative 
review?
  I would like to give an example of how Government infringement upon 
private property rights in the form of uncompensated regulatory takings 
can have negative environmental impacts. I would like to illustrate 
this problem by talking about the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. 
Ben Cone, of Ivanhoe, NC, who has been mentioned previously during 
debate on this bill.
  Mr. Cone owns 8,000 acres of timber land in North Carolina. Over the 
years, Ben Cone has deliberately managed much of his land in such a way 
so as to attract wildlife to his property. Mr. Cone has actively and 
intentionally created wildlife habitat. Through selective logging and 
long rotation cycles. Mr. Cone has been very successful in his efforts, 
attracting many species to his land--from wood duck and quail to black 
bear and deer.
  Mr. Cone has also provided habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker, 
an endangered species.
  In response, the Federal Government has placed a large portion of his 
land off limits to logging. The value of his land has been reduced by 
approximately $2 million. This has taught Mr. Cone a lesson: He should 
no longer manage his land in such a way that would attract the red-
cockaded woodpecker if he wants to be able to use it.
  In other words, if he allows the trees to mature, he simply cannot 
cut them because of the red-cockaded woodpeckers. So what he is doing 
and can do is cut the trees that they do not inhabit and ultimately 
they will go away.
  I believe the case of Ben Cone and the central issue at stake in this 
legislation is about preserving fundamental liberties under our 
constitutional system of checks and balances. In short, our problem is 
one of limited accountability. It is about who regulates the 
regulators. And it is about whether the executive branch alone should 
oversee our massive Federal bureaucracy or whether Congress and the 
Federal courts should have a greater role in this process.
  I firmly believe that the Congress and the courts should have the 
major role in regulating the bureaucracy.
  I believe that one of the lessons of our experiment with big 
Government in the last half of this century is that agencies tend to 
take on a life of their own. Despite the efforts of various Presidents 
to rein in agencies, they have continued to grow in size, cost, and 
power. We have ceded increasing power and control over our lives to a 
``fourth branch'' of Government which has consistently resisted efforts 
to be held accountable.
  The time is long overdue to increase oversight of agencies by the 
judicial and legislative branches of Government. Perhaps such oversight 
will in some instances result in a slowdown in the implementation of 
some regulations. And if it does, that is exactly what we need and what 
the country needs.
  Some will say that such a slowdown is intolerable. I believe it is 
absolutely essential to preserve our hard-won constitutional liberties 
and freedoms to have such review.
  I oppose the Glenn-Chafee substitute, which I believe fails to 
address many of the central issues in regulatory reform. Therefore, I 
strongly support the Dole-Johnston substitute amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the Domenici amendment has 
been set aside so that the Senate could consider the Glenn substitute 
to the whole bill. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I further understand Senator Glenn on the Democrat side 
and Senator Roth on the Republican side have no objection to my getting 
unanimous consent that my amendment now be in order and the Glenn 
amendment remain as is but that we dispose of the Domenici amendment 
tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may call for the regular order and 
that will bring the amendment in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is the Domenici 
amendment.


                Amendment No. 1784 to Amendment No. 1533

 (Purpose: To facilitate small business involvement in the regulatory 
              development process, and for other purposes)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a substitute to the desk in 
behalf of myself and Senators Bond, Bingaman, Abraham, Cohen, 
Hutchison, and Roth, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the clerk will 
report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Cohen, Mrs. 
     Hutchison, and Mr. Roth, proposes an amendment numbered 1784 
     to amendment No. 1533.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note that a number of other Senators 
had 

[[Page S 10139]]
cosponsored the original Domenici small business advocacy bill, but 
since I have changed it I have not had time to ask them if they want to 
be cosponsors, and so I am going to send to the desk a list of the 
cosponsors and ask that overnight Senators' offices decide whether they 
want to be original cosponsors, in which event tomorrow I would seek 
unanimous consent that they be made original cosponsors as if I had 
done it this evening.
  Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Bond, the chairman of the 
Small Business Committee, for offering a package of amendments to the 
original Domenici small business advocacy representation amendment, and 
then I wish to thank Senator Glenn and Senator Roth for their 
cooperation and Senator Johnston and his staff. I think we have now 
crafted a measure that will be accepted this evening by the Senate, and 
I feel very proud of the amendment because I think ultimately the cry 
by small business across this land that they ought to be somewhat 
involved, albeit it in an informal way, in the development of 
regulations that affect them, both before they are finalized and after 
they are finalized, will have been accomplished.
  Last year, five agencies including Small Business, EPA, and OSHA held 
small business forums on regulatory reform, and this report is their 
findings, findings and recommendations of the industry working groups.
  In that document, which was put together by the executive branch of 
Government, the small business people recited over and over again that 
the inability of small business owners to comprehend overly complex 
regulations and those that are overlapping and inconsistent and 
redundant was a major problem. They continued to state over and over 
the need for agency regulatory officials to understand the nuances of 
the regulated industry and the compliance constraints of small 
business. They stated over and over that the need for more small 
business involvement in the regulatory development process, 
particularly during the analytic risk assessment and preliminary 
drafting stages, was imperative if in fact we were going to have 
commonsense regulations.
  So let me once again read the conclusion of this very large group of 
small business people: The need for more small business involvement in 
the regulatory development process during analytic risk assessment and 
preliminary stages is of utmost importance.
  What we have done in this compromise measure, which many have 
participated in drafting, is we have complied with a number of the 
White House Conference on Small Business final recommendations which 
are included in this document. I will make those a part of the Record. 
I will just recite a few of the 60 recommendations to the President and 
the Congress. I am going to cite just four of them and they are in 
here, in this amendment:

       Input from small business representatives should be 
     required in any future legislation, policy development, and 
     regulation making affecting small business.
       Congress shall enact legislation . . . to include the 
     following: require all agencies to simplify language and 
     forms required for use by small business . . . and eliminate 
     duplicate regulations from multiple Government agencies.
       Require agencies to assemble information through a single 
     source on all business related government programs, 
     regulations, reporting requirements, and key federal 
     contact's names and phone numbers.
       Congress shall enact legislation to include the following: 
     Require all agencies provide a cooperative/consulting 
     regulatory environment that follows due process procedures 
     and that they be less punitive and more solution oriented.

  These are the highlights concerning regulations from the final 60 
recommendations the delegates made to the President. They were among 
hundreds of grass-roots ideas the delegates voted on.
  The delegates felt so strongly about the recommendations I just read, 
that they received an overwhelming number of votes.
  The President's own welcoming letter to the delegates states, ``Small 
businesses are the heart of America. We look to you for our new best 
ideas * * *'' My amendment will implement these ideas.
  Mr. President, what we have accomplished in the first part of this 
amendment, which will then be followed by the ombudsman legislation 
that Senator Bond, chairman of the Small Business Committee, has put 
in, small business panels will come into play in each of the States and 
the small business advocate within Small Business will get them 
together on an informal basis with five or six of the lead Government 
officials who work in this area of regulation, and together they will 
go over the regulatory problems that are coming up on regulations as we 
define them in this bill.
  This means that if this works, for the first time in history as part 
of our Government we will recognize in each State the need for small 
business, that is, the Small Business Administration, which some people 
wonder what do they do for business in general, they will now go out 
and pick six small business people, men or women, generally from our 
States, and they will work with them regarding the regulatory 
activities that are taking place that are approaching finalization. 
There is plenty of time to get it done because these regulations take a 
long time. It is not intended to be formal. It is a real bona fide 
effort to see if cooperation and partnership can be generated by 
statute law which will bring small business people into direct contact 
with those who are preparing regulations, all under the auspices of the 
Small Business Administration and its advocates bringing this together.
  There are some technical issues I need not mention but that are part 
of this which I think will make it work. Essentially, it will depend on 
whether the bureaucrats want to listen to small business. But at least 
they will be given a chance to participate in what is happening in the 
regulatory process. I look for some good things to come from it, not 
because they will get their way all the time, because nobody expects 
that, but I think they will have the kind of input so they will not in 
a few years be telling us that small business does not know what the 
regulatory process is all about, what they are doing to them and then 
the regs are without commonsense.
  Small businesses panels will be responsible for providing technical 
guidance for issues impacting small businesses, such as applicability, 
compliance, consistency, redundancy, readability, and any other related 
concerns that may affect them.
  They will then provide recommendations to the appropriate agency 
personnel responsible for developing and drafting the relevant 
regulations.
  The panels will be chaired by a senior official of the agency and 
will include staff responsible for development and drafting of the 
regulation, a representative from OIRA, a member of the SBA Advocate 
Office, and up to six representatives from small businesses especially 
affected.
  The panel will have a total of 45 days each to meet and develop 
recommendations before a rule is promulgated or before a final rule is 
issued. Forty-five days, in the context of rules that are years in 
development, is not a delay.
  In fact, these agencies know months in advance that they will be 
preparing these regulations. Sometime during this period, the agencies 
can seek these panels' advice
  This will allow the actual small business owners, or their 
representative associations, to have a voice in the massive regulatory 
process that affects them so much.
  Finally, this amendment will also provide for a survey to be 
conducted on regulations. This idea is analogous to what the private 
sector routinely practices.
  A customer survey, contracted and conducted with a private sector 
firm, will sample a cross-section of the affected small business 
community responsible for complying with the sampled regulation.
  I believe that this panel, working together so all viewpoints are 
represented, will be the crux of reasonable, consistent and 
understandable rulemaking.
  Further, my amendment enjoys the support of the National Federation 
of Independent Business.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment will help reduce 
counterproductive, unreasonable Federal regulations at the same time it 
is helping to foster the nonadversarial, cooperative relationships that 
most agree is long overdue between small businesses and Federal 
agencies.
  Mr. President, a second part of this amendment would greatly aid 
small 

[[Page S 10140]]
businesses as they deal with these seemingly endless Federal 
regulations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Bond who wants to talk 
about the second part of the amendment, and then I assume Senator Glenn 
will speak and we will, hopefully, have the Senate adopt the amendment 
this evening.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and my distinguished friend from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. President, I will abide by the suggestion that we keep this short 
because I do believe, first, thanks are in order to Senator Domenici 
for the concept of this amendment. I was pleased to join with him on 
adding provisions with respect to the ombudsmen, but sincere thanks to 
Senator Glenn, Senator Levin and their staffs because they made very 
helpful and constructive suggestions that we think can improve the 
working of these provisions.
  The part of the amendment which I had earlier introduced legislation 
on provides a means for small businesses who feel that they are being 
abused by a particular regulator to get some relief without having to 
risk heightening the animosity of that particular regulator by going 
through the Small Business Advocacy Council in the Small Business 
Administration. This, we think, will respond to the many complaints we 
have heard in hearings we had in New Mexico, in my State, and other 
places around the country, where they think the enforcement is 
excessive.
  There was a suggestion by the Senator from Michigan that we have the 
appointment of the regional small business regulatory fairness board by 
the SBA Administrator so it would not be burdensome, having to go 
through Presidential and congressional leadership appointment. I think 
that improves the bill.
  I express my appreciation to the managers on both sides for their 
help in getting this amendment through. I really think this is going to 
be a significant step forward for small business. As Senator Domenici 
has pointed out, small business has expressed their frustration with 
regulations. Now they will have an opportunity to sit in on the 
crafting of the regulations.
  They will also have a place to go if they are treated unfairly by 
particular regulators or the particular agencies. I hope that there 
will not be a need for the small business ombudsmen. I hope that with 
the establishment of this procedure, there will be a strong push and a 
greater effort on behalf of all agencies to become servers of the 
businesses and the people they regulate and the people of the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the need for the 
Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment. This amendment opens a new front in 
our fight against oppressive, onerous, and overly meddlesome Government 
regulations. This new front will, for the first time, take the fight 
outside the beltway and attack regulations and agencies where they 
impact people in their day-to-day lives.
  Since the election, there has been tremendous activity in reforming 
the way Federal agencies develop and issue regulations, and I have been 
deeply involved in this effort as cochair of the regulatory relief task 
force. S. 343 is so important because it makes fundamental changes in 
the way Government regulations are developed. It is vitally important 
if we are to reduce the flood of runaway regulations. And it is 
particularly important for small business to add meaningful judicial 
enforcement provisions to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and I am very 
pleased to see the strong reforms of the Reg Flex Act in this bill.
  So far, most of our efforts have focused on changing the way agencies 
enact regulations. The Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment begins to 
reform the way Government officials enforce Federal regulations. After 
all, most people, most small business people, do not have the time to 
concern themselves with the process of reviewing and commenting on 
proposed and final rules in the Federal Register. Small businesses have 
to deal with regulations when the regulator shows up on the doorstep to 
inspect their facility or to enforce a new Federal mandate. As I have 
taken the Senate Small Business Committee around the country, I have 
heard numerous horror stories about burdensome regulations. But as I 
have listened and learned from business men and women with real life 
problems, I have become increasingly convinced that the enforcement of 
regulations is a problem as troublesome as the regulations themselves.
  The Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment will begin to make 
fundamental changes in the way regulatory agencies think about small 
business. It should be every regulatory agency's mission to encourage 
compliance by making rules easier to understand and by not enforcing 
their regulations in a way that unnecessarily frustrates law-abiding 
small businesses. This is the essence of President Clinton's call for 
Government regulators to treat small businessmen as clients and not 
criminals, partners not adversaries. In fact, the administration should 
support this amendment. It establishes a type of performance-based 
standard for regulators that the Vice President has talked about in the 
national performance review. This allows the customers--small 
business--to rate the regulators.
  The Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment is designed to give 
small businesses a place to voice complaints about excessive, unfair, 
or incompetent enforcement of regulations. It sets up regional Small 
Business and Agriculture ombudsmen through the Small Business 
Administration's offices around the country to give small businesses 
assurance that their confidential complaints and comments will be 
recorded and heard. These ombudsmen also will coordinate the activities 
of volunteer Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, made up of 
small business people from each region. These Boards will be able to 
report on and make recommendations about troublesome patterns of 
enforcement activities. Any small business that is subject to an 
inspection or enforcement action will have the chance to rate and 
critique the inspectors or lawyers they deal with. In dealing with 
small businesses today, agencies seem to assume that every one is a 
violator of their rules, trying to get away with something. Some 
agencies do a good job of fulfilling their legal mandate while 
assisting small business, but many agencies seem stuck in an 
enforcement mentality where everyone is presumed guilty until proven 
innocent. I think we should let small businesses compare their dealings 
with one agency to dealing with another so the abusive agencies or 
agents can be weeded out and exposed. Agencies should be trying to see 
who can fulfill their statutory mandate in a way that helps and 
empowers small business.
  This is an important amendment. It has the strong support of small 
business. I believe it will help to bring about a more cooperative 
relationship between regulators and small business. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  In recent weeks, we have heard from the President about all the ways 
he is going to reduce the burdens of Government regulations. I commend 
him for recognizing the forces at work in Congress and responding 
quickly to it. He has found a parade and now is hustling to get in 
front of it, as a good politician will do. Presidential directives and 
agency policies can change as often as the weather, though, and I want 
the comfort of knowing that Congress has passed a law that permanently 
changes the enforcement attitudes of Federal regulators so small 
business can get on with what they do best, creating jobs and driving 
the engine of America's economy.
  I appreciate the willingness of the managers to accept the measure.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici-Bond 
amendment.
  In 1980, Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 
recognition of the fact that Government regulations have a 
disproportionate impact on small business. In that act we asked 
Government agencies to take this fact into account in issuing 
regulations. Today, some 15 years later, it is generally accepted that 
the 1980 act has been an ineffective response to a growing problem.
  The pending amendment is an effective remedy. It flashes out what two 
agencies--EPA and OSHA--must do to take the concerns of small business 

[[Page S 10141]]
into account. It formalizes a dialog between small business and those 
agencies which, I am sure, will be helpful to both. With this 
amendment, these agencies can no longer brush aside the legitimate 
concerns of small business. There is a real difference in how 
regulations impact a conglomerate and a sole proprietor.
  Fifteen years ago we notified agencies that they should recognize 
this difference and gave them discretion. But that discretion has not 
been exercised as it should have been. So no Congress must respond with 
more precise direction.
  This amendment embodies a second major component. It establishes 
regional small business ombudsmen to solicit and receive comments from 
small businesses regarding enforcement activities of Federal agencies 
and periodically evaluate how responsive agencies have been to small 
business concerns.
  This amendment impresses me as an appropriate solution to the 
concerns of small business. The requirements of the pending amendment 
regarding the issuance of rules pertain only to two agencies and, 
there, only formalize what should now be taking place--a dialog between 
small business and the agencies.
  Mr. President, Government must be made sensitive to the regulatory 
burden on small business. Small business is the backbone of America--a 
crucial provider of jobs, a wellspring of entrepreneurial innovation, 
and a central part of the American dream. I congratulate Senators 
Domenici and Bond for their efforts to help America's millions of small 
business owners, their employees, and their families.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the small business advocacy review 
panels that are created by this amendment should make the regulatory 
processes of OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency more user 
friendly and, in a sense, bring small business and those two regulatory 
agencies into some kind of cooperative spirit where heretofore they 
seemed to have kind of thrived on being adversarial.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch who is managing this bill for helping 
us get our amendment to this point. I understand he, too, is going to 
express a willingness to accept it. I thank him for that. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
from New Mexico and compliment him for his amendment. We are prepared 
to accept this amendment at this point, and I believe the other side is 
as well.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the amendment 
offered by Senator Domenici.
  First of all, I do want to recognize his concerns regarding the 
ability of small businesses to have a role in the regulatory process. 
Like all other Americans, their voices should be heard.
  I also want to acknowledge the charges made by Senators Domenici and 
Bond and their staffs to address concerns raised by myself and others, 
including Senator Levin.
  I am pleased that the sponsors have done away with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act [FACA] exemption. I will have more to say about 
the importance of FACA when I offer my amendment to strike the FACA 
exemption for the risk assessment peer review panels in the underlying 
Dole-Johnston bill. In fact, we spent a whole day discussing FACA on 
the floor last August when we eliminated such exemptions in the health 
care bill.
  I am also glad that the role of the small business designated 
representatives has changed somewhat--they will be primarily to furnish 
information to the review panel.
  Second, I am glad that we were able to straighten out the definition 
of rules for when these panels come into play, so it mirrors the 
language in the underlying bill.
  Third, I am pleased that we have clarified that any information made 
available to the small business designated representatives will also be 
publicly accessible. They will not be privy to any information that 
other citizens will not be able to access.
  Fourth, regarding the surveys which may be ordered, we not only will 
know the results, but also the cost paid by taxpayers to undertake 
them.
  Having said this, let me also voice my concerns over some of the 
provisions in the amendment.
  Let me be clear: we are giving one special interest--no matter how 
meritorious their cause--a leg up over all other citizens in the 
regulatory process.
  These small business review panels will come into play even prior to 
the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. That is a marked 
departure from current practice.
  We don't have special review panels to hear from labor interests 
prior to issuance of regulatory proposals. Workers will have an 
interest--perhaps their safety or lives depend on it--in presenting 
their views, also.
  We do not have teachers giving their comments prior to the 
promulgation of a rulemaking notice for an education proposal by the 
Department of Education.
  I understand what the proponents of this amendment are trying to do. 
It is important to reach out and consult with those of our citizens who 
will be most affected by a proposed rule. I do not disagree with the 
principle, and I am a strong supporter of small business, but I support 
workers and teachers too, and we are not giving them equivalent access.
  Second, I am concerned about the survey these review panels may order 
to assess the impact of a final rule. We hear alot about government 
redtape and the endless burden of paperwork.
  But now we are going to have an agency contracting with a private 
sector firm to do an assessment--from a cross-section of affected small 
businesses--which, it would seem to me, will add to the burden of 
paperwork that the Paperwork Reduction Act is supposed to reduce. I 
hope OMB reviews any such survey proposal carefully.
  I understand the sponsor will not request a roll call vote. On that 
basis, I will not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. President, we are going to accept this. It is my intention to do 
that. I want to recognize the concerns of Senator Domenici regarding 
the ability of small business to have a role in the regulatory process. 
Their voices should be heard. There were changes made that took care of 
some of our problems with FACA, in particular, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, which requires a balance on certain committees, and so 
on.
  I will have some more to say about that later on, not in regard to 
this particular amendment, but to the underlying bill. There are some 
problems still in that area.
  I have expressed some concerns about how this might be applied to 
other speciality areas that we have some concern about, but that is of 
no concern in this particular area. We may want to address some of that 
later.
  With that, I will be glad to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1784 to amendment No. 1533.
  So the amendment (No. 1784) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1533, as amended.
  So the amendment (No. 1533), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1785 to Amendment No. 1487

 (Purpose: To repeal the Medicare and Medicaid coverage data bank, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for and on 
behalf of Senators McCain and 

[[Page S 10142]]
Lieberman and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1785 to amendment No. 1487.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . REPEAL OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID COVERAGE DATA BANK.

       (a) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 13581 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 is hereby repealed.
       (2) Application of the social security act.--The Social 
     Security Act shall be applied and administered as if section 
     13581 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (and 
     the amendments made by such section) had not been enacted.
       (b) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall conduct a study on how to achieve the 
     objectives of the data bank described in section 1144 of the 
     Social Security Act (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act) in the most cost-effective 
     manner, taking into account--
       (A) the administrative burden of such data bank on private 
     sector entities and governments,
       (B) the possible duplicative reporting requirements of the 
     Health Care Financing Administration in effect on such date 
     of enactment, and
       (C) the legal ability of such entities and governments to 
     acquire the required information.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the Congress on 
     the results of the study described in paragraph (1) by not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment which is cosponsored by 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Kyl would eliminate a large and 
unjustified administrative burden imposed on employers by an ill-
considered piece of legislation passed 2 years ago. Specifically, it 
would repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank, section 
13581 of OBRA 1993, a law that is extremely expensive, burdensome, 
punitive, and in my view, entirely unnecessary.
  The data bank law requires every employer who offers health care 
coverage to provide substantial and often difficult-to-obtain 
information on current and past employees and their dependents, 
including names, Social Security numbers, health care plans, and period 
of coverage. Employers that do not satisfy this considerable reporting 
obligation are subject to substantial penalties, possibly up to 
$250,000 per year or even more if the failure to report is found to be 
deliberate.
  The purported objective of the data bank law is to ensure 
reimbursement of costs to Medicare or Medicaid when a third party is 
the primary payor. This is a legitimate objective. However, if the 
objective of the data bank is to preserve Medicare and Medicaid funds, 
why is it necessary to mandate information on all employees, the vast 
majority of whom have no direct association with either the Medicare or 
Medicaid Program?
  Last year, I introduced S. 1933 to repeal the Medicare and Medicaid 
Coverage Data Bank. Unfortunately, this bill did not pass in the 103d 
Congress, in part because of a questionable Congressional Budget Office 
analysis that estimated that the data bank would save the Federal 
Government about $1 billion. In contrast, the General Accounting Office 
found that ``as envisioned, the data bank would have certain inherent 
problems and likely achieve little or no savings to the Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs.'' Still, due primarily to the fiction that the data 
bank would save money, S. 1933 was not enacted last year.
  The GAO report on the data bank law also found that employers are not 
certain of their specific reporting obligations, because HCFA has not 
provided adequate guidance. Much of the information which is required 
is not typically collected by employers, such as Social Security 
numbers of dependents and certain health insurance information. Some 
employers have even questioned whether it is legal for them under 
various privacy laws to seek to obtain the required information.
  The GAO report further found that employers are facing significant 
costs in complying with the reporting requirements, including the costs 
of redesigning their payroll and personnel systems. It cites one 
company with 44,000 employees that would
 have costs of approximately $52,000 and another company with 4,000 
employees that would have costs of $12,000. Overall, the American 
Payroll Association estimated last year that this requirement will cost 
between $50,000 and $100,000 per company.

  I would add that the reporting requirement applies only to employers 
that provide health insurance coverage to their employees. It is 
unconscionable that we are adding costs and penalties to those who have 
been most diligent in providing health coverage to their employees. The 
last thing that the Federal Government should do is impose 
disincentives to employee health care coverage, which is one of the 
unintended consequences of the data bank law.
  Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the data bank law is that its 
enormous costs have little or no corresponding benefit. The GAO report 
concluded that ``The additional information gathering and record 
keeping required by the data bank appears to provide little benefit to 
Medicare or Medicaid in recovering mistaken payments.'' This is in part 
because HCFA is already obtaining this information in a much more 
efficient manner than that required under OBRA 1993.
  Foe example, OBRA 1989 provides for HCFA to periodically match 
Medicare beneficiary data with Internal Revenue Service employment 
information--the data match program. Also, HCFA directly asks 
beneficiaries about primary payor coverage. To the extent that the data 
bank duplicates these efforts, any potential savings will not be 
realized. It is clearly preferable to require HCFA to use the 
information it already has than to require the private sector to 
provide duplicative information.
  The GAO report found that ``the data match not only can provide the 
same information [as the Data Bank] without raising the potential 
problems described above, but it can do so at less cost.'' It also 
recognized that both the data match and data bank processes rely too 
much on an after-the-fact recovery approach, and recommended enhancing 
up-front identification of other insurance and avoiding erroneous 
payments. In this regard, it documented that HCFA has already initiated 
this prospective approach.
  For these and other reasons, the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources appropriations report last year contained language 
prohibiting the use of Federal funds for developing or maintaining the 
data bank. However, this provision by itself did not revoke the 
requirement that covered entities must still provide the required 
information on the health coverage of current and former employees and 
their families. This would have resulted in the bizarre situation in 
which covered employers would have had to report the information, but 
there would have been no data bank to process or retrieve it.
  Finally, in response to the public outcry about this Federal mandate, 
the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] indicated that it will 
not be enforcing the data bank's reporting requirements in fiscal year 
1995. It stated that in light of the refusal of Congress to fund the 
data bank, ``we have agreed to stay an administrative action to 
implement the current requirements, including the promulgation of 
reporting forms and instructions. Therefore, we will not expect 
employers to compile the necessary information or file the required 
reports. Likewise, no sanctions will be imposed for failure to file 
such reports.''
  This was a major step in the right direction. However, the data bank 
and its reporting requirements are still in the law and are still 
scheduled to be implemented in the next fiscal year. Consequently, this 
year I have reintroduced my data bank repeal bill, S. 194. I have 
recently been informed that the CBO has revised its scoring to 
recognize that the data bank would not save the Federal Government any 
money. This removed the only argument in favor of the data bank and the 
only major impediment to its repeal.

[[Page S 10143]]

  Mr. President, the Federal Government continues to impose substantial 
financial burdens on the private sector without fully accepting its 
share of the burden to implement a program. We should once again expect 
the worst case scenario to occur: employers will provide the required 
information at substantial administrative burden, there will be no data 
bank in which to make use of it, and even if a data bank were funded 
and established, the information stored could not be used efficiently 
to save Medicare or Medicaid funds.
  I do not want this repeal to be construed, in any way, as opposition 
to HCFA obtaining the information it needs to administer the Medicare 
and Medicaid Programs efficiently, and obtaining reimbursement from 
third-party payors when appropriate. To assure that HCFA has the 
information it needs, the bill also requires the Secretary of HHS to 
conduct a study and report to Congress on how to achieve the purported 
objectives of the data bank in the most cost-effective manner possible.
  The Secretary's study would have to take into consideration the 
administrative costs and burden on the private sector and the 
Government of processing and providing the necessary information versus 
the benefits and savings that such reporting requirements would 
produce. It must also consider current HCFA reporting requirements and 
the ability of entities to obtain the required information legally and 
efficiently.
  Too often, Congress considers only the cost savings to the Federal 
Government of legislation while ignoring costs to other parties. The 
Medicare and Medicaid Data Bank is a case in point. Congress required 
information on millions of employees to save the Federal Government 
money. Yet, it will cost employers more money to comply than the 
Government saves. Congress must stop passing laws that impose large, 
unjustified administrative burdens on other entities. It must consider 
the impact of its actions on the whole economy and not just on the 
Government.
  In summary, the reporting requirement for the Medicare and Medicaid 
Data Bank is duplicative, burdensome, ineffective, and unnecessary. The 
GAO has characterized it as creating ``an avalanche of unnecessary 
paperwork for both HCFA and employers.'' It penalizes employers who 
provide health care benefits to their workers--exactly the opposite 
goal we should be pursuing. The data bank should be repealed and a more 
cost-effective approach should be found to ensure that Medicare and 
Medicaid are appropriately reimbursed by primary payors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from 
the Coalition on Employer Health Coverage Reporting and the Medicare/
Medicaid Data Bank, the ERISA Industry Committee [ERIC] and the 
National Federation of Independent Business be printed in the Record. 
They represent the numerous associations, organizations, and individual 
employers that continue to demand repeal of this law. Their message is 
clear. The Federal Government must stop imposing unjustified burdens on 
the private sector.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 The ERISA Industry Committee,

                                                    July 11, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We understand that you are planning to 
     offer a floor amendment to S. 343, the Comprehensive 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, to repeal the requirement that 
     employers report certain health coverage information to the 
     Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for use by the 
     Medicare and Medicaid Data Bank. The members of the ERISA 
     Industry Committee (ERIC) strongly support your amendment.
       The ERISA Industry Committee is a non-profit employer 
     association committed to the advancement of the employee 
     retirement, health and welfare benefit plans of America's 
     major employers. ERIC represents the employee benefits 
     interests of more than 125 of the nation's largest employers. 
     As sponsors of health, disability, pension, savings, life 
     insurance, and other welfare benefit plans directly covering 
     approximately 25 million plan participants and beneficiaries, 
     ERIC's members provide coverage to about 10 percent of the 
     U.S. population.
       The reporting requirement was created by OBRA'93, P.L. 103-
     66, ERIC's analysis has concluded that the employer reporting 
     requirement neither successfully addresses HCFA's concerns 
     regarding the prevention of mistaken primary payments nor 
     justifies the enormous reporting burdens it imposes on 
     employers. Therefore, its repeal is consistent with the 
     laudable goal of reducing unnecessary and inappropriate 
     regulation.
       ERIC is committed to working with you and others to find 
     alternative means to address HCFA's secondary payer 
     enforcement and compliance needs that do not impose 
     disproportionate financial and administrative burdens on 
     employers. In particular, the multiple sources of data and 
     data collection vehicles already available to HCFA should be 
     fully implemented rather than imposing massive new reporting 
     burdens on employers.
       In conclusion, we applaud your efforts to repeal this 
     onerous reporting requirement and urge your colleagues in the 
     Senate to support your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark J. Ugoretz,
     President.
                                                                    ____

             The ERISA Industry Committee--Member Companies

       Aetna Life & Casualty, Alexander & Alexander Inc., Allied-
     Signal Inc., American Express Co., American Home Products 
     Corp., American International Group, American National Can 
     Co., Ameritech, Amoco Corp., Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., 
     Apache Corp., Ashland Oil Inc., AT&T Corp., Atlantic 
     Richfield Co.,
       Bankers Trust Co., Baxter Healthcare Corp., Bell Atlantic 
     Corp., Bell Communications Research, BellSouth Corp., 
     Bethlehem Steel Corp., The Boeing Co., BP America Inc., 
     Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Buck Consultants Inc.,
       Caterpillar Inc., Champion International Corp., Chase 
     Manhattan Bank N.A., Chemical Bank, Chevron Corp., Chrysler 
     Corp., CIBA-GEIGY Corp., CIGNA Corp., Citibank N.A., The 
     Coastal Corp., Coopers & Lybrand,
       Dana Corp., Deere & Co., Delta Air Lines Inc., Digital 
     Equipment Corp., The Dow Chemical Co., Dresser Industries 
     Inc., duPont Co.,
       Eastman Kodak Co., Eli Lilly and Co., Enron Corp., Ernst & 
     Young, Exxon Corp.,
       Federated Department Stores Inc., FMC Corp., Ford Motor 
     Co., A. Foster Higgins & Co. Inc.,
       General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., The Goodyear 
     Tire & Rubber Co., W.R. Grace & Co., Grand Metropolitan, GTE 
     Corp.,
       Halliburton Co., Harris Corp., Hazlehurst & Associates 
     Inc., The Hearst Corp., Hewitt Associated LLC, Hewlett-
     Packard Co.,
       IBM Corp., ITT Corp.,
       John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., Johnson & Johnson,
       Kimberly-Clark Corp.
       The LTV Corp.,
       MCI Communications Corp., McDonnell Douglas Corp., William 
     M. Mercer Incorporated, Merck & Co. Inc., MetraHealth, 
     Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Michelin North America Inc., 
     Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., Mobil Corp., J. P. 
     Morgan & Co. Inc., Motorola Inc., Mutual of New York,
       Nestle USA Inc., NYNEX Corp.,
       Occidental Petroleum Corp., Olin Corp., Owens-Corning 
     Fiberglas Corp.,
       Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Pacific Telesis Group, Pathmark 
     Stores Inc., J. C. Penney Co. Inc., Pennzoil Co., PepsiCo 
     Inc., Pfizer Inc., Philip Morris Companies Inc., PPG 
     Industries Inc., Price Waterhouse, The Procter & Gamble Co., 
     The Prudential Insurance Co. of America,
       Ralston Purina Co., Rockwell International Corp.,
       Sears Roebuck & Co., Shell Oil Co., The Southland Corp.,
       Tenneco Inc., Texaco Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Textron 
     Inc., Time Warner Inc., Towers Perrin, The Travelers, TRW 
     Inc.,
       Unilever United States Inc., Union Camp Corp., Union 
     Pacific Corp., Unisys Corp., United Technologies Corp., 
     Unocal Corp., U S West Inc., USX Corp.,
       Westvaco Corp., Weyerhaeuser Co., Whirlpool Corp., The 
     Wyatt Co., Xerox Corp., Zeneca Inc.
                                                                    ____

         Coalition on Employer Health Coverage Reporting and the 
           Medicare/Medicaid Data Bank
                                                    July 11, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We understand that you are planning to 
     offer a floor amendment to S. 343, the Comprehensive 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, to repeal the requirement that 
     employers report certain health coverage information to the 
     Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for use by the 
     Medicare and Medicaid Data Bank. On behalf of the Coalition's 
     members, I would like to express their support for your 
     amendment.
       The Coalition on Employer Health Coverage Reporting and the 
     Medicare/Medicaid Data Bank consists of more than 90 
     assocations, organizations and individual employers working 
     together since January 1994 in a joint effort to repeal the 
     reporting requirement.
       The reporting requirement was created by OBRA'93, P.L. 103-
     66. The Coalition's analysis (summary attached) concluded 
     that the employer reporting requirement neither successfully 
     addresses HUFA's concerns regarding the prevention of 
     mistaken primary payments nor justifies the enormous 
     reporting burdens it imposes on employers.

[[Page S 10144]]

       We applaud your efforts to repeal this onerous reporting 
     requirement and urge your colleagues in the Senate to support 
     your amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                           Anthony J. Knettel,

            Director, Health Policy, The ERISA Industry Committee 
     Coalition Coordinator.
                                                                    ____

   Coalition on Employer Health Coverage Reporting and the Medicare/
                   Medicaid Data Bank--.July 11, 1995


coalition analysis: reporting requirement imposes unreasonable costs on 
  employers but still fails to remedy hcfa's secondary payer problems

       Summary: The Coalition's analysis has concluded that the 
     employer health coverage reporting requirement,\1\ which is 
     intended to provide data for the Medicare/Medicaid Data Bank, 
     neither successfully addresses the concerns of the Health 
     Care Financing Administration (HCFA) regarding mistaken 
     primary payments nor justifies the burdens imposed on 
     employers. Therefore, the data bank reporting requirement 
     should be repealed as soon as possible.
     \1\ Beginning January 1, 1994, current law requires employers 
     to report the health insurance coverage status of employees 
     and their dependents to a data bank to be administered by 
     HCFA. This reporting requirement was created by OBRA '93 
     (P.L. 103-66). HCFA has indefinitely suspended implementation 
     of the data bank because Congress has not appropriated any 
     funds for that purpose. The coalition strongly supported the 
     Appropriation Committees' decision not to appropriate funds 
     for data bank implementation. Employers remain subject to the 
     statutory obligation to collect and report the data, however, 
     so repeal of the reporting requirement is still urgently 
     needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Unreasonable costs imposed on employers: The administrative 
     and financial burden imposed on employers by full compliance 
     with the reporting requirement is enormous. A significant 
     portion of the information to be reported to the data bank is 
     not currently maintained by most employers for any business 
     purpose. In many cases this information will have to be 
     compiled manually (i.e., most employers do not have payroll 
     systems and computer data bases that are designed to collect 
     and maintain this required information) at tremendous cost.
       GAO determines that the data bank won't work: On May 6, 
     1994, Leslie Aronovitz testified on behalf of the General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) before the Senate Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs that ``the enormous administrative 
     burden the data bank would place on HCFA and the nation's 
     employers. . . likely would do little or nothing to enhance 
     current efforts to identify those beneficiaries who have 
     other health insurance coverages.'' The basis for GAO's 
     conclusions is discussed in detail in a report, ``Medicare/
     Medicaid Data Bank Unlikely to Increase Collections From 
     Other Insurers,'' prepared at the request of Senator Joseph 
     Lieberman and released the same day.
       Coalition's analysis supports GAO's conclusions: The data 
     bank's employer reporting requirement will not solve HCFA's 
     secondary payer enforcement problems--despite the massive 
     administrative burdens and expenses it imposes on employers--
     for the following reasons:
       In many cases it is impossible for employers to fully 
     comply with the reporting requirement. Collection of such 
     information from employees is even harder for employers than 
     it is for the government to obtain it directly from Medicare 
     and Medicaid beneficiaries. Obtaining information about 
     dependents, in particular, will be very difficult, time 
     consuming, expensive, and in many cases impossible--
     especially for employers with high work force turnover. 
     Further, employers' ability to collect certain information 
     (e.g., dependents' social security numbers) may be limited by
      privacy laws. Collection of information in cases where 
     employers contribute to, but do not administer, Taft-
     Hartley multi-employer health plans will also be 
     difficult, if not impossible.
       Requiring employers to collect the data for HCFA is 
     incredibly inefficient. Only a minute amount of the 
     information employers must collect and report will be of any 
     use to the data bank because only a small fraction (less than 
     5 percent) of employees and their dependents are Medicare or 
     Medicaid beneficiaries. In effect, more than 95 percent of 
     employers' effort will be wasted because the data collected 
     will be irrelevant to secondary payer enforcement.
       The data bank won't improve secondary payer enforcement in 
     any case. The data to be reported by employers was intended 
     to be matched against government records in an effort to 
     identify (after the fact) mistaken reimbursements for health 
     care services by Medicare and Medicaid. But in many cases the 
     data reported by employers will still not be sufficient to 
     enable HCFA (by its own admission) to identify or prevent 
     mistaken payments. Moreover, it is unlikely HCFA would be 
     able to process any relevant information it did receive fast 
     enough to meet applicable claims filing deadlines and recover 
     mistaken payments.
       Data bank compounds ``Pay-and-chase'' inefficiencies: 
     Mistaken primary payments by Medicare and Medicaid most often 
     result from health care providers billing the wrong parties. 
     Yet HCFA's secondary payer enforcement efforts are based on a 
     ``pay-and-chase'' strategy--reconciling mistaken payments 
     with employers (not providers) years after the fact. The data 
     bank reporting requirement does not alter this ``pay-and-
     chase'' strategy significantly because of the time delay 
     implicit in the collection and processing of the information 
     to be reported to the data bank.
       Better alternatives are available: To date the federal 
     government has not made effective use of relevant and more 
     timely information it already receives or could obtain from 
     sources other than the data bank in order to prevent mistaken 
     payments before they occur. For example, HCFA already 
     receives or could obtain much of the same information when 
     claims are filed by health care providers. This is because 
     the UB-92 and other claim forms require secondary payer 
     information to be included on the form. In fact, secondary 
     payer information has been sent to HCFA for years, but HCFA 
     has not been successful at fully incorporating this 
     information into its systems. HCFA has also been unable to 
     take full advantage of additional information it receives or 
     could obtain from other sources, such as new beneficiary 
     questionnaires. Rather than overwhelm HCFA with new data that 
     the agency can't effectively utilize, it makes more sense to 
     help HCFA manage the information it already has or could 
     readily obtain.
       Compelling arguments for repeal: The preceding analysis 
     suggests several compelling arguments for repealing the data 
     bank reporting requirement, including:
       Employers' compliance costs will far outweigh (by orders of 
     magnitude) any potential government savings. For all of the 
     reasons discussed above and in the GAO's 1994 report, the 
     data bank reporting requirement will generate little or no 
     additional savings for the federal government despite tens of 
     millions of dollars in annual employer compliance costs.
       The data bank reporting requirement compounds rather than 
     solves the inherent inefficiency of HCFA's ``pay-and-chase'' 
     enforcement efforts. HCFA's enforcement efforts instead 
     should be focused on preventing mistaken claims before they 
     occur by requiring health care providers to bill the proper 
     parties.
                                                                    ____

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                                    July 12, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the over 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I 
     am writing to strongly support the McCain-Lieberman amendment 
     to repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Data Bank. This data bank 
     is nothing short of another regulatory and paperwork 
     nightmare for America's already overburdened small 
     businesses.
       Unless repealed, this provision will require employers to 
     report detailed health insurance coverage information for 
     more than 140 million individuals--including employees, 
     retirees and their dependents. Information from the Health 
     Care Financing Administration (HCFA) suggests these 
     statistics will be useless 98 percent of the time.
       Ironically, the government currently receives much of the 
     information the data bank would mandate. Through better 
     management of current resources, and with information 
     gathered through the study your amendment directs the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake, we 
     believe the federal bureaucracy can avoid this costly and 
     time consuming burden altogether.
       Thanks for your continued leadership on behalf of small 
     business. We look forward to working with you to pass this 
     important anti-paperwork amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donald A. Danner,
                                                   Vice President.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that both sides have approved 
this amendment and will agree to its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 1785) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think we are about ready to shut the 
Senate down in just a minute or so. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
would like to send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page S 10145]]



                Amendment No. 1786 to Amendment No. 1487
  (Purpose: To provide for the designation of distressed areas within 
  qualifying cities as regulatory relief zones and for the selective 
            waiver of Federal regulations within such zones)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1786 to amendment No. 1487.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new title:

               ``TITLE II--URBAN REGULATORY RELIEF ZONES

     SECTION 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the likelihood that a proposed business site will 
     comply with many government regulations is inversely related 
     to the length of time over which a site has been utilized for 
     commercial and/or industrial purposes in the past, thus 
     rendering older sites in urban areas the sites most unlikely 
     to be chosen for new development and thereby forcing new 
     development away from the areas most in need of economic 
     growth and job creation; and
       (2) broad Federal regulations often have unintended social 
     and economic consequences in urban areas where such 
     regulations, among other things--
       (A) offend basic notions of common sense, particularly when 
     applied to individual sites;
       (B) adversely impact economic stability;
       (C) result in the unnecessary loss of existing jobs and 
     businesses;
       (D) undermine new economic development, especially in 
     previously used sites;
       (E) create undue economic hardships while failing 
     significantly to protect human health, particularly in areas 
     where economic development is urgently needed in order to 
     improve the health and welfare of residents over the long 
     term; and
       (F) contribute to social deterioration to such degree that 
     high unemployment, crime, and economic and social problems 
     create the greatest risk to the health and well-being of 
     urban residents.

     SEC. 203. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) enable qualifying cites to provide for the general 
     well-being, health, safety and security for their residents 
     living in distressed areas by empowering such cities to 
     obtain selective relief from Federal regulations that 
     undermine economic stability and development in distressed 
     areas within the city; and
       (2) authorize Federal agencies to waive the application of 
     specific Federal regulations in distressed urban areas 
     designated as Urban Regulatory Relief Zones by an Economic 
     Development Commission--
       (A) upon application through the Office of Management and 
     Budget by an Economic Development Commission established by a 
     qualifying city pursuant to section 205; and
       (B) upon a determination by the appropriate Federal agency 
     that granting such a waiver will not substantially endanger 
     health or safety.

     SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR WAIVERS

       (a) Eligible Cities.--The mayor or chief executive officer 
     of a city may establish an Economic Development Commission to 
     carry out the purposes of section 205 if the city has a 
     population greater than 200,000 according to:
       (1) the U.S. Census Bureau's 1992 estimate for city 
     populations; or
       (2) beginning six months after the enactment of this title, 
     the U.S. Census Bureau's latest estimate for city 
     populations.
       (b) Distressed Area.--Any census tract within a city shall 
     qualify as a distressed area if--
       (1) 33 percent or more of the resident population in the 
     census tract is below the poverty line; or
       (2) 45 percent or more of out-of-school males aged 16 and 
     over in the census tract worked less than 26 weeks in the 
     preceding year; or
       (3) 36 percent or more families with children under age 18 
     in the census tract have an unmarried parent as head of the 
     household; or
       (4) 17 percent or more of the resident families in the 
     census tract received public assistance income in the 
     preceding year.

     SEC. 205. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS.

       (a) Purpose.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a 
     qualifying city under section 204 may appoint an Economic 
     Development Commission for the purpose of--
       (1) designating distressed areas, or a combination of 
     distressed areas with one another or with adjacent industrial 
     or commercial areas, within the city as Urban Regulatory 
     Relief Zones; and
       (2) making application through the Office of Management and 
     Budget to waive the application of specific Federal 
     regulations within such Urban Regulatory Relief Zones.
       (b) Composition.--To the greatest extent practicable, an 
     Economic Development Commission shall include--
       (1) residents representing a demographic cross section of 
     the city population; and
       (2) members of the business community, private civic 
     organizations, employers, employees, elected officials, and 
     State and local regulatory authorities.
       (c) Limitation.--No more than one Economic Development 
     Commission shall be established or designated within a 
     qualifying city.

     SEC. 206. LOCAL PARTICIPATION

       (a) Public Hearings.--Before designating an area as an 
     Urban Regulatory Relief Zone, an Economic Development 
     Commission established pursuant to section 205 shall hold a 
     public hearing, after giving adequate public notice, for the 
     purpose of soliciting the opinions and suggestions of those 
     persons who will be affected by such designation.
       (b) Individual Requests.--The Economic Development 
     Commission shall establish a process by which individuals may 
     submit requests to the Economic Development Commission to 
     include specific Federal regulations in the Commission's 
     application to the Office of Management and Budget seeking 
     waivers of Federal regulations.
       (c) Availability of Commission Decisions.--After holding a 
     hearing under paragraph (a) and before submitting any waiver 
     applications to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant 
     to section 207, the Economic
      Development Commission shall make publicly available--
       (1) a list of all areas within the city to be designated as 
     Urban Regulatory Relief Zones, if any;
       (2) a list of all regulations for which the Economic 
     Development Commission will request a waiver from a Federal 
     agency; and
       (3) the basis for the city's findings that the waiver of a 
     regulation would improve the health and safety and economic 
     well-being of the city's residents and the data supporting 
     such a determination.

     SEC. 207. WAIVER OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Selection of Regulations.--An Economic Development 
     Commission may select for waiver, within an Urban Regulatory 
     Relief Zone, Federal regulations that--
       (1)(A) are unduly burdensome to business concerns located 
     within an area designated as an Urban Regulatory Relief Zone; 
     or
       (B) discourages new economic development within the zone; 
     or
       (C) creates undue economic hardships in the zone; or
       (D) contributes to the social deterioration of the zone; 
     and
       (2) if waived, will not substantially endanger health or 
     safety.
       (b) Request for Waiver.--(1) An Economic Development 
     Commission shall submit a request for the waiver of Federal 
     regulations to the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Such request shall--
       (A) identify the area designated as an Urban Regulatory 
     Relief Zone by the Economic Development Commission;
       (B) identify all regulations for which the Economic 
     Development Commission seeks a waiver; and
       (C) explain the reasons that waiver of the regulations 
     would economically benefit the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone 
     and the data supporting such determination.
       (c) Review of Waiver Request.--No later than 60 days after 
     receiving the request for waiver, the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall--
       (1) review the request for waiver;
       (2) determine whether the request for waiver is complete 
     and in compliance with this title, using the most recent 
     census data available at the time each application is 
     submitted; and
       (3) after making a determination under paragraph (2)--
       (A) submit the request for waiver to the Federal agency 
     that promulgated the regulation and notify the requesting 
     Economic Development Commission of the date on which the 
     request was submitted to such agency; or
       (B) notify the requesting Economic Development Commission 
     that the request is not in compliance with this Act with an 
     explanation of the basis for such determination.
       (d) Modification of Waiver Requests.--An Economic 
     Development Commission may submit modifications to a waiver 
     request. The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply to a 
     modified waiver as of the date such modification is received 
     by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (e) Waiver Determination.--(1) No later than 120 days after 
     receiving a request for waiver under subsection (c) from the 
     Office of Management and Budget, a Federal agency shall--
       (A) make a determination of whether to waive a regulation 
     in whole or in part; and
       (B) provide written notice to the requesting Economic 
     Development Commission of such determination.
       (2) Subject to subsection (g), a Federal agency shall deny 
     a request for a waiver only if the waiver substantially 
     endangers health or safety.
       (3) If a federal agency grants a waiver under this 
     subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to 
     the requesting Economic Development Commission that--
       (A) describes the extent of the waiver in whole or in part; 
     and
       (B) explains the application of the waiver, including 
     guidance for the use of the waiver by business concerns, 
     within the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone. 

[[Page S 10146]]

       (4) If a Federal agency denies a waiver under this 
     subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to 
     the requesting Economic Development Commission that--
       (A) explains the reasons the the waiver substantially 
     endangers health or safety; and
       (B) provides a scientific basis in writing for such 
     determination.
       (f) Automatic Waiver.--If a Federal agency does not provide 
     the written notice require under subsection (e) within the 
     120-day period as required under such subsection, the waiver 
     shall be deemed to be granted by the federal agency.
       (g) Limitation.--No provision of this Act shall be 
     constructed to authorize any Federal agency to waive any 
     regulation or Executive order that prohibits, or the purpose 
     of which is to protect persons against, discrimination on the 
     basis of race, color, relation, gender, or national origin.
       (h) Applicable procedures.--A waiver of a regulation under 
     subsection (e) shall not be considered to be a rule, 
     rulemaking, or regulation under chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code. The Federal agency shall publish a notice in the 
     Federal Register stating any waiver of a regulation under 
     this section.
       (i) Effect or Subsequent Amendment of Regulations.--If a 
     Federal agency amends a regulation for which a waiver under 
     this section is in effect, the agency shall not change the 
     waiver to impose additional requirements.
       (j) Expiration of Waivers.--No waiver of a regulation under 
     this section shall expire unless the Federal agency 
     determines that a continuation of the waiver substantially 
     endangers health or safety.

     SEC. 208. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``regulation'' means--
       (A) any rule as defined under section 551(4) of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (B) any rulemaking conducted on the record after 
     opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 and 557 
     of such title;
       (2) ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone'' means an area 
     designated under section 205;
       (3) ``qualifying city'' means a city which is eligible to 
     establish an Economic Development Commission under section 
     204;
       (4) ``industrial or commercial area'' means any part of a 
     census tract zoned for industrial or commercial use which is 
     adjacent to a census tract which is a distressed area 
     pursuant to section 205(b); and
       (5) ``poverty line'' has the same meaning as such term is 
     defined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)).''.
                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
on the Glenn amendment at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 18, and 
immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Dole-Johnston substitute, with 
mandatory quorum under rule XXII being waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I further ask unanimous consent that if the Glenn 
substitute is agreed to, it be considered original text for the purpose 
of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the first vote at 
2:15 p.m. be the standard 15-minute vote, and the second vote in the 
voting sequence be limited to 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________