[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15401-S15402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 1346. A bill to require the periodic review of Federal 
regulations; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   THE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT OF 1995

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
Regulatory Review Act of 1995, which I introduce today on behalf of 
myself and Senators Heflin, Lott, Nickles, Hutchison, Craig, and Kyl.
  It is only common sense that the utility of a rule may change as 
circumstances change. Under current law, however, a rule enjoys eternal 
life unless the agency that promulgated it takes affirmative steps to 
terminate it. And in fact agencies rarely choose to burden themselves 
with the task of reexamining the rules they have promulgated. As a 
result, our rulebooks are littered with rules that are obsolete, 
inconsistent with other rules, or just plain unnecessary.
  The weight of this heap of outdated rules rests most heavily on the 
small businesses of this country. Unlike larger firms, small businesses 
cannot spread the costs of regulation over a large quantity of output. 
Nor can they pass their regulatory headaches on to an accounting 
department, legal counsel, or human resources division. Instead, in 
case after case the entrepreneur himself must spend innumerable hours 
attempting to comply with the mandates of Federal regulators. It comes 
as no surprise, then, that problems relating to regulation and 
Government paperwork were the fastest growing areas of concern in a 
recent survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses.
  The Regulatory Review Act would solve the problems caused by 
unnecessary rules. Under the act, the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and 
Budget would coordinate and supervise agency reviews of covered rules, 
which largely would be rules that impose annual costs of $100 million 
or more. Covered rules not reviewed by the end of their review period 
would terminate. The duration of review periods under the act would be 
up to 7 years, plus a possible extension of 6 months. Finally, the act 
itself would sunset after 10 years.
  There are several reasons why OIRA should be given supervisory 
authority over the regulatory review process. Obviously, the review 
process will involve determinations as to whether the rules 

[[Page S15402]]
of one agency conflict with or duplicate those of another agency. Those 
determinations will require a global, interagency perspective that 
comes much more naturally to OIRA than to the individual agencies 
themselves. Additionally, vesting this authority in OIRA, rather than 
scattering it among the various agencies, will provide a timely 
reaffirmation of what Alexander Hamilton called the unity of the 
executive in Federalist No. 70.
  It is also worth noting that the act avoids two areas of contention 
that arose during debate on S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. First, 
the act contains no decisional criteria; instead, rules would be 
reviewed according to whatever criteria already exist under current 
law. Second, the act would not affect the availability of, or standards 
for, judicial review of final agency action. Thus, at bottom, the act 
stands for the commonsense principle that agencies should be required 
to review their rules periodically.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to address this issue without delay. 
The small businesses represented by the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, which strongly supports the Regulatory Review 
Act, demand no less.
                                 ______