[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S4566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 2670. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to 
require major rules of agencies to be approved by Congress in order to 
take effect, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


         the congressional regulatory review reform act of 2000

 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation to curb Federal over-regulation by the executive branch of 
Government and to restore congressional accountability for the 
regulatory process.
  The annual regulatory costs of the Federal Government on the private 
sector have been estimated to be $200-$800 billion annually. The pace 
and scope of over-regulation has accelerated under the Clinton 
Administration. For example, the IRS has tried to raise taxes 
administratively, the EPA has exceeded its authority with the Clean 
Water Action Plan and the National Park Service is trying to eliminate 
snowmobile use in our national parks, all without congressional 
authorization. Increasingly, we have found that this administration 
tries to advance through regulation and executive order an agenda it 
cannot get done through the normal legislative process. In fact, there 
are currently 137 major regulations in the works that will each have at 
least a $100 million cost. That means these new regulations will impose 
at least a $13.7 billion yearly impact on the economy.
  Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen. For years 
Congress has delegated its most fundamental responsibility--the 
creation of laws--to the executive branch. Consequently, rather than 
just enforce laws, these unelected bureaucrats now also write the laws. 
These regulatory bureaucracies have often been called the fourth branch 
of Government. This fourth branch has misinterpreted, undercut and 
directly contradicted the will of Congress time and time again. It is 
well past time to end this ``regulation without representation.''
  As many of my colleagues know, Congress passed the Congressional 
Review Act in 1996 in an attempt to slow the executive regulatory 
machine. For the first time, this law established a process by which 
Congress can review and disapprove virtually all federal agency rules. 
Unfortunately, the promise of the Act has not been fulfilled.
  Between 1996 and 1999, 12,269 non-major rules and 186 major rules 
were submitted to Congress by federal agencies. Only seven joint 
resolutions of disapproval were introduced, pertaining to five rules. 
None passed either House. In fact, none have even been debated on the 
floor of either House.
  The legislation I introduce today will address the flaws in the 
Congressional Review Act and restore the proper balance between the 
congressional and executive branches when it comes to rule-making. The 
Congressional Regulatory Review Reform Act will require all major rules 
(those with a $100 million annual impact as defined by the Office of 
Management in consultation with GAO) to be approved by Congress before 
they take effect. If Congress disapproves a rule, an agency will be 
precluded from proposing the same or similar rule for a period of 6 
months. A rule may be given interim effectiveness if the President 
determines and certifies that a rule should take effect because of an 
imminent threat to health and safety or emergency (this decision is not 
judicially reviewable). Finally, the president is authorized to 
establish, by executive order a program for the systematic review of 
agency rules.
  I believe that congressional review and accountability for federal 
regulations will improve efficiency and lessen federal government 
intervention in the daily lives of the American people. Congress cannot 
allow the Executive Branch to continue to legislate through rules and 
regulations. Congress must be responsible. Congress must take back its 
constitutionally granted authority over the rule-making process.
  This is not a partisan issue. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer 
suggested this idea as long ago as 1984. Nor is the purpose of this 
legislation to overturn a great number of rules submitted by agencies. 
It is intended to increase incentives regulators have to respond to the 
views of the general public, rather than narrow interests and to make 
Congress and the president more politically accountable for the 
resulting rules.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this commonsense, good government reform.
                                 ______