[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 165 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8192-S8193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 1730. A bill to reform the regulatory process to ensure that small 
businesses are free to compete and to create jobs, to clear unnecessary 
regulatory burdens, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clearing 
Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013, or the ``CURB Act.'' This 
legislation is designed to help relieve the onerous regulatory burden 
on our Nation's job creators.
  When I ask employers in Maine what we need to do to help them add 
jobs, they tell me that Washington must reduce the cost and complexity 
of the regulations imposed on them. And this is not just a concern 
voiced by Maine businesses. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll of small 
business owners found that the vast majority are not hiring new workers 
right now, and more than half pointed to government regulations as one 
of the reasons why. The National Federation of Independent Business 
found the same when it polled its members last year.
  No business owner I know questions the legitimate role of regulation 
in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the 
public. But the public is not well-served by regulations that bury 
small businesses under a mountain of paperwork, driving up costs 
unnecessarily, and impeding growth and job creation. Proper regulation 
should be as efficient and simple as possible. At the very least, the 
benefits of a regulation should exceed its costs.
  Unfortunately, the burden of Federal regulations continues to grow. 
Right now, Federal agencies are at work on nearly 2,500 new rules, at 
least 229 of which affect small businesses. One hundred thirty-nine are 
major rules, costing more than $100 million each. These rules will go 
on top of a pile of regulations now measured in the millions of pages.
  Year-by-year, this pile of pages gets ever deeper. In the 1970s, the 
Federal Register, the compilation of Federal regulations, added some 
450,000 pages. In the first decade of the 21st Century, more than 
730,000 pages were added--a rate of 73,000 pages per year. The pace 
continues to accelerate. On average since 2010, the Federal Government 
has added more than 80,000 pages to the Federal Register each year. 
This cannot continue.
  We are not in the fifth year of an economic ``recovery'' that has 
produced tepid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment. The 
red-tape that is strangling our job creators is one of the chief 
reasons our economy has not fully recovered, and why millions of 
Americans still cannot find jobs. If we want to get our economy moving 
again and get Americans back to work, we must get serious about 
streamlining and reforming our regulatory system.
  The CURB Act is designed to do that by requiring Federal agencies to 
take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before 
imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in four ways: first, 
by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of 
regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, 
and consumer prices; second, by requiring agencies to follow ``good 
guidance'' practices; third, by helping small businesses avoid 
unnecessary penalties for first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations; 
and fourth, by implementing reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
proposed by our former colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. Let me explain 
each of these provisions in further detail.
  First, as a general rule, Federal agencies are not required by 
statute to analyze the indirect costs regulations can have on the 
public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on 
job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President 
Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with an assessment of the 
indirect costs of proposed regulations. The CURB Act would essentially 
codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order.
  Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public 
notice

[[Page S8193]]

and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these 
requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Let 
me explain why this is necessary:
  After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal 
agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' 
rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely 
an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a 
particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical 
matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have 
been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public 
notice and comment requirements.
  In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing 
this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal 
agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment 
for significant guidance documents. The CURB Act would essentially 
codify this OMB Bulletin.
  Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate 
our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many 
small businesses do not have a lot of capital on hand. When a small 
business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first 
time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it 
supports. The CURB Act directs agencies to search their files to 
determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for 
the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if 
no harm has come of it. It simply does not make sense to me to punish 
small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with 
paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.
  Fourth, as I mentioned, my bill also includes reforms to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. These reforms would build on the RFA 
by expanding its requirements to include guidance documents and 
indirect costs, in a manner consistent with what I have already 
described. In addition, the reforms to the RFA would allow small 
businesses to challenge burdensome rules when they are proposed, 
instead of when the rules have become final, which is often too late.
  Finally, these proposed reforms would put teeth into the RFA's 
requirement that agencies review their rules for possible savings at 
least once a decade. The bill directs each agency's Inspector General 
to notify the head of the agency if a rule has not been reviewed in the 
time required. Once this notification is received, the agency has 6 
months to conduct the required review. If it fails to do so, the bill 
directs the IG to notify Congress, triggering the recission of one 
percent of the offending agency's personnel budget unless Congress 
intervenes.
  Before I close, I want to note that many Members of this body, on 
both sides of the aisle, have offered serious regulatory reform 
proposals for our consideration in recent years. Indeed, even the 
President's own ``Jobs Council''--before it was disbanded--stressed the 
need for regulatory reform, and put forward ideas consistent with many 
of the proposals I and other Members of this body have submitted as 
legislation. Last session, the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, under the leadership of then- Chairman Lieberman and 
myself, held a series of hearings on regulatory reform. But the Senate 
as a whole did not act on these proposals last session, or dedicate any 
time whatsoever to their consideration. I am hopeful this session will 
be different, and room will be made on the Senate's agenda to consider 
regulatory reform. As we do so, I would ask my colleagues to consider 
the approach I have proposed in the CURB Act.
                                 ______