[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1558-1559]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           EXCESSIVE REGULATION BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have seen in the last several months, 
and I suspect we will continue to see from now until the end of this 
administration, a considerable effort to implement programs that bypass 
the Congress, programs that, indeed, bypass public input into those 
programs.
  We have seen a great many Executive orders regarding regulations that 
have had limited, if any, public input. We have seen the use of the 
Antiquities Act and a number of other activities of this kind.
  It is important that we remember the constitutional requirements of 
this Government, that there is a division within Government. That is 
what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches were designed to 
do, and they were purposely put in place to ensure that none of the 
three branches developed a domineering position and became a czar of 
the Government.
  It is terribly important we take a look at this in Congress; that we 
ensure, to the extent we can, that this does not happen; that there is, 
indeed, as we move forward with various programs--whether they be 
regulatory, whether they be legislative--an opportunity for people to 
participate.
  The current regulatory system encompasses more than 50 Federal 
agencies, more than 126,000 workers, and annual spending of more than 
$14 billion in the area regulations.
  From April 1, 1996, until March 31, 1999, Federal agencies issued 
nearly 13,000 final rules. Of these, 188 were major final rules that 
each carried an annual cost of more than $100 million in our Nation's 
economy.
  The paperwork burden of these Federal regulations is approaching $190 
billion annually. A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute 
concluded that all EPA rules promulgated between mid-1982 and mid-1996 
under environmental statutes such as Superfund, the Clean Water Act, 
Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 
and Rodenticide Act, have had negative net benefits; that is, they hurt 
more than they helped.
  When these regulations come into place, we hear that there is going 
to be a partnership, a partnership between the communities, a 
partnership between the State, a partnership with the Federal 
Government. Unfortunately, it has been our experience, particularly in 
the area of public lands, the partnership is a little one sided, a one-
horse, one-dog arrangement, not an equal partnership.
  One example is the clean water action plan, an Executive order 
establishing 111 key actions designed to improve the Nation's remaining 
water impairment problems. Everyone wants to do that. Imagine putting 
into place in one move 111 different regulatory actions, done without 
the NEPA process, without the process of input, without the process of 
having public discussion.
  The administration has requested roughly $2 billion annually since 
1998 for implementation. It has been an interesting process, 
particularly with EPA and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, which is taking a strong look at this and, in one instance, 
declared this agency had gone beyond its statutory authority.
  One of the difficulties is, first of all, the nonpoint source idea 
which was never authorized in the Clean Water Act. It was only point 
sources which were authorized.
  What is happening now is they have moved toward an implementation of 
the plan that is designed more to control the land use than, in fact, 
to control nonpoint source water.
  The Environmental Protection Agency structured the plan around data 
that the GAO, the Government auditing organization, has criticized. In 
1999, GAO cautioned the methodology used in determining both impairment 
levels and impacts from nonpoint source was underfunded and, 
consequently, results were very possibly inaccurate.
  Specifically, GAO highlighted concerns relating to how the agency 
identified waters polluted by nonpoint

[[Page 1559]]

sources, the need for more data to develop cost estimates, and the 
extent to which the Federal Government contributes to water pollution.
  Instead of pulling back, having found out this information, EPA is 
moving forward with the implementation of the program. States and 
impacted industries have complained to EPA through the Congress, 
through the committees, that EPA's plan places a financial burden and 
amounts to an unfunded mandate.
  This could be reasonable, if they went through the process of 
involving people before putting the regulations in place. But when the 
regulations are put there by fiat, certainly that is not something we 
expect to happen and should not allow to happen in our system of 
government.
  Even USDA wrote a letter, saying when they were doing these 
activities in the old Soil Conservation Service, they were much more 
efficient. When we questioned EPA about that, they got the Secretary of 
the Department of Agriculture to change his mind and say: I really did 
not mean that at all.
  Of course, 2 weeks ago I was in Wyoming for a week. Half of Wyoming 
belongs to the Federal Government. Much of our State is in public 
ownership. The use of those lands is vital to the economy. A multiple-
use concept is what has made these lands useful, not only to preserve 
the environment, which can be done, but as well to be able to use them 
for hunting, recreation, grazing, mineral production--all the things 
that go together to make up an economy in the West.
  Now we are faced with some other propositions. In this case, the 
Forest Service has declared by regulatory fiat that there would be 40 
million acres dedicated to roadless areas. Of course, we have roadless 
areas in the public lands. We have wilderness that has been set aside 
by congressional action. By the way, when it was set aside in Wyoming, 
the statute also said there would be no more wilderness set aside 
unless Congress made that proposal.
  It has been very difficult. We have had several hearings with the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service to 
determine what ``roadless'' means, whether or not it is another way of 
having wilderness areas. The interesting part of it is, most of the 
lands that have been structured in this plan for roadless areas have 
roads on them; they are not roadless at all. But the Forest Service has 
done nothing to identify or solicit cooperating non-Federal agencies in 
the EIS.
  Several of our States have asked to be cooperating agencies, which is 
what the Environmental Quality Group in the White House has said they 
are going to implement in all these kinds of programs, but the Forest 
Service has said: No, we are not going to have the States; we are not 
going to have the counties; we are not going to have these non-Federal 
agencies participate.
  Hearings were held. Actually, they were not hearings; they were 
information systems. People were invited to come, but there was no 
information there. They were asked to respond to something without 
knowing what was being done. So there was really not public involvement 
of that kind.
  The other thing is that we already have forest plans in place. Each 
forest is required to have a forest plan. I have no objection to the 
idea of limited roads, but it ought to be done in a way in which people 
can participate, and it ought to be done in a way in which Congress can 
participate. We are finding more and more of that happening in this so-
called land legacy that is being put forth by the administration.
  Last week, the Secretary of the Interior announced there would be 
literally millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands that 
would be set aside simply for their scenic value. That is very 
important to western public land States, where much of that land is 
part of our economy. It can be preserved for the environment. However, 
we also have to have multiple use. Those things will go together.
  The Antiquities Act is another. In 1996, we put into law the 
Congressional Review Act which requires regulations be submitted to the 
Congress. They are interpreted by OMB. Those that have over $100 
million of value or cost are submitted to the Congress, with an 
opportunity to take a look--oversight--to see if those regulations are 
carrying out the spirit of the legislation which authorized them or, 
indeed, to see if in some cases they are being put into place without 
any statutory or regulatory authority.
  Unfortunately, it has not worked well. The idea was to have it come 
to the Congress. It has to go through OMB first to decide whether it 
has the $100 million impact. Then it comes to the Congress, but the 
Congress has not had an opportunity to deal with it.
  Unfortunately, from April 1 of 1996 until March 1 of 1999, Federal 
agencies issued, as I said before, 13,000 final rules. And 188 fell 
within this category of $100 million. Unfortunately, not one has been 
changed by the Congress because this bill is not workable.
  We have to make it work. We need to create a congressional regulatory 
analysis group that has the opportunity to look into these bills. Much 
like CBO, Congress needs an entity to take a look at them. Right now, 
unfortunately, it does not work. I think certainly we have to do 
something to keep this administration from running roughshod over my 
constituents' interests, the Presiding Officer's constituents' 
interests, and others. There needs to be this balance. I think the 
Congressional Review Act could be that balance, if it has some changes.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Utah for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to note two events, one historic 
today and one somewhat historic tomorrow--one looking a little bit back 
with some nostalgia and the other looking back with some degree of 
finality.

                          ____________________