[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S203-S204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, 
        Mr. Coats, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
        Sessions, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Toomey):
  S. 168. A bill to codify and modify regulatory requirements of 
Federal agencies; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I rise today to talk about a problem that affects 
virtually every American, and that would be government regulations; to 
be more accurate, government overregulation.
  Let me point out something. In 2014, the administration issued 3,541 
rules in 1 year. That cost $181 billion. The first week of this new 
year brought us 35 new rules which added another 1,326 pages to the 
Federal Register. I would urge people back home in the business 
community or any other endeavor in which they are bothered by 
regulations to read the Federal Register as opposed to the 
Congressional Record. The Congressional Record deals with natural gas. 
The Federal Register deals with facts and regulations.
  Yet just last night we learned that President Obama has threatened to 
veto a significant regulatory reform proposal now being considered by 
the House of Representatives. It is interesting to me that the 
President is now threatening to veto his own ideas. Back in January of 
2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order. It was entitled 
``Improve Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' That is in quotes. 
Unfortunately, despite claims otherwise, the Executive order has 
largely been ignored.
  My bill takes this order and gives it the force of law. My bill would 
require that all regulations put forth by the current and future 
administrations consider the economic burden on American businesses and 
ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, thus promoting 
innovation and new jobs.
  Just as the President said in his order, this egregious assault on 
our economy must stop; it must end.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have had a longstanding concern with 
the regulatory process. Like other States, from every corner of Kansas, 
the No. 1 topic of concern for all businesses, including agriculture, 
energy, small shops on Main Street, healthcare, education, lending--
virtually every enterprise is harmed by overly burdensome and costly 
regulations. Whether it is the EPA'S Waters of the United States 
proposed rule or listing of the infamous lesser prairie chicken as an 
endangered species, the public is losing faith in our government.
  Obamacare is a prime example of this administration's vast regulatory 
overreach. The bill, as signed into law by the President, as most of us 
know, was no short read. It was over 2,000 pages. But as the rollout 
continues, the administration has now expanded Obamacare into over 
24,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register.
  Here is one example of the overly intrusive regulations this 
administration used the Affordable Health Care Act to implement. It is 
Health and Human Services' mandate requiring religious institutions to 
provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and emergency 
contraceptives.
  Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had to intervene and determine that 
the HHS mandate placed an excessive burden on the religious freedom of 
owners of family business.
  Regrettably, costly and intrusive regulations are not limited to HHS 
and Obamacare and CMS and all of those regulations. Not to be outdone 
by HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency has its own set of overly 
burdensome regulations.
  Let's take the proposed Waters of the United States rule. For 
example, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas knows, this 
proposal has caused a firestorm of opposition all throughout farm 
country. The EPA claims that the proposed Waters of the United States 
rule simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.
  Well, therein lies the problem.
  Farmers and ranchers do not believe it. I don't believe it. They fear 
the rule would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private 
property under the guise of the Clean Water Act.
  If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for 
ordinary field work, construction of a fence, or even planting crops 
near certain waters.
  Kansans are justifiably worried the permits would be time consuming, 
costly, and that the EPA could ultimate deny the permits, even for 
longstanding and normal cropping practices.
  This is another prime example of why many Kansans feel their way of 
life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and 
overregulation. Simply put, they feel ruled, not governed.
  Let's not forget the burdensome carbon regulations now being proposed 
by the EPA. Over the last 6 years, this administration's EPA has 
pursued an agenda that can only be described as a war on fossil fuels 
and coal.
  Just last week, in fact, the EPA announced that by June of this year 
it would finalize carbon reduction rules for both new and existing 
powerplants. That is going to be a move that will drive up the energy 
cost for all Kansans, all Americans, hoping to heat their homes during 
extremely cold winters or hot summers such as the ones we are 
experiencing now.
  This decision, which the EPA itself admitted would do nothing to 
reduce global temperature if similar plans are not adopted by Russia, 
China, India and Brazil, will have unbelievable costs. According to a 
recent study about the American Action Forum which cites the 
administration's own estimates these rules are anticipated to cost 
industry $8.8 billion to comply. That translates into a 6-percent rise 
in electricity prices. Sadly, these regulations will hurt low-income 
individuals the most--folks who can least afford it and who spend a 
greater percentage of their income to heat their homes and feed their 
families.
  Now let's look at what the Department of Labor is trying to do with 
President Obama's pen-and-paper dictates. Currently the Department of 
Labor has a regulation to eliminate the companion care exemption put 
forth by this body 40 years ago. This important exemption allows 
seniors and the disabled community access to affordable in-home care. 
If eliminated, those who need in-home care the most, and their 
families, would be forced to determine which hours are the most crucial 
in the day they receive assistance. In addition, caregivers who 
currently work over 40 hours would see their hours and paychecks cut 
because of this rule.
  As the Department of Labor issued this rule and geared up for 
implementation on January 1 of this year, benefit recipients, 
individual States, and Members of this Chamber stood together to shine 
a light on the negative effects this would have on communities all 
across the Nation.
  At the same time, a judge issued a partial determination on this 
regulation, and he stated the following:

       The fact that the Department issued its Notice of Proposed 
     Rulemaking after all six of these bills failed to move is 
     nothing short of yet another thinly-veiled effort to do 
     through regulation what could not be done

[[Page S204]]

     through legislation. Such conduct bespeaks an arrogance to 
     not only disregard Congress's intent but seize unprecedented 
     authority to impose overtime and minimum wage requirements in 
     defiance of the plain language of Section 213. It cannot 
     stand.

  My legislation addresses these abuses. Far too often the good 
intentions of regulations lead to job loss and red-tape that strangles 
business. Worse still, the agenda of bureaucrats drives bad policies 
and stifles economy.
  I have a solution. My comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote 
economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the 
cost of regulations. It is as simple as that.
  We need to be listening to the folks as well who have to live with 
and pay for the effects of these rules. I am hearing from stakeholders 
that they are weighing the time and expense of responding to 
regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them 
the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input. 
Bottom line, fewer Americans are bothering to participate in the 
comment period process.
  Stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. Right now, 
time varies on how long the comment period stays open. Sometimes it is 
as little as 2 weeks. My bill would ensure the period stay open for at 
least 60 days. My colleagues, as we all well know, sometimes the people 
who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject 
to the changes.
  My bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate 
default rules, and disclosure requirements to the public. Right now, 
just the opposite takes place. The administration skirts stakeholder 
input by issuing interim final rules--called IFRs--and they become 
effective immediately upon publication. My bill allows delay of 
implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court 
makes a decision. All too often new regulations are proposed and 
finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced.
  I have heard from a lot of folks in Kansas that the problems these 
new regulations claim to fix could be solved if the current regulations 
were properly monitored. Simply put, the solution is not more rules and 
regulations; it is considering the existing ones.
  My bill mandates an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify 
those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome 
rules--or, as the President himself once put it, ``rules that are just 
plain dumb''--and allows agencies to streamline, expand, or repeal 
those regulations.
  We need regulatory reform. My bill codifies the President's Executive 
order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. I do 
not know how the President could disagree with that.
  The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, 
the Farm Bureau, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have all 
endorsed my bill.
  Last year I had 35 cosponsors. We have about thirteen. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation and stay engaged as this process 
continues.
                                 ______