    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [February 21, 1995]
    [Pages 235-239]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Regulatory Reform
    February 21, 1995

        Thank you very much. I want to begin by thanking the Vice President
    for his leadership on this issue. When we formed our partnership back in
    1992, and we talked about all the things we wanted to do, and we had a
    series of long, fascinating conversations in which he talked to me about
    science and technology and the environment, and I talked to him about
    education and economic development and reinventing Government. And I
    told him that when I was a Governor, every couple of years we'd
    eliminate an agency just to see if anybody noticed. [Laughter] And
    normally, they didn't. And they never did complain when they did notice.
        And I asked him if he would--then after we actually won and came
    here, I asked him if he would get involved with this and really try to
    make it work for the American people, because I was convinced that there
    was so much justifiable anxiety out there among our people about the way
    Government operates, that unless we could change that we'd never be able
    to maintain the faith of the taxpayers and the integrity of the Federal
    Government.
        I also asked him to do it because he was the only person I could
    trust to read all 150,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.
    [Laughter] At this very moment, Tipper is being treated for insomnia at
    the Georgetown Hospital--[laughter]--but he's just about through.
        I also want to thank all of you who are here who represent really
    the future of the Federal Government and the future of its ability to
    maintain the confidence of the American people that we're protecting and
    promoting their interest and doing it in a way that reinforces instead
    of defies common sense.
        I believe very strongly in the cause of regulatory reform. And as
    the Vice President said, we've been working at it for about 2 years now.
    I also believe that we have to hold fast to certain standards. I believe
    we can bring back common sense and reduce hassle without stripping away
    safeguards for our children, our workers, our families.
        There are proposals pending in the Congress today which go beyond
    reform to roll back, arguably even to wrecking, and I oppose them. But I
    believe we have the burden of reform. And that means we have to change
    in fundamental ways the culture of regulation that has permeated this
    Government throughout administrations, from administration to
    administration, from Republicans to Democrats occupying the White House.
        The Federal Government to many people is not the President of the
    United States. It's the person who shows up on the doorstep to check out
    the bank records or the safety in the factory or the integrity of the
    workplace or how the nursing home is being run. I believe that we have a
    serious obligation in this administration to work with the Congress to
    reduce the burden of regulation and to increase the protection to the
    public. And we have an obligation on our own to do what we can to change
    the destructive elements of the culture of regulation that has built up
    over time and energize the legitimate and decent things that we should
    be doing here in Washington and, more importantly, that should be being
    done all across the country.
        I thank those who have come here today as examples of the progress
    which has been made. We do want to get rid of yesterday's Government so
    we can meet the demands of this new time. We do want results, not rules.
    We want leaner Government, not meaner Government. At a time when I have
    said our obligation should be to create more opportunity and also to
    provide more responsibility, our responsibility here is to expand
    opportunity, empower people to make the most of their own lives, enhance
    security, and to do it all while we are shrinking the Federal
    bureaucracy, to give the people a Government as effective as our finest
    private companies, to give our taxpayers their money's worth.
        Now, everybody has talked about this for years now, but in fact, we
    have taken steps in the right direction. Already, we have reduced
    Federal spending by over a quarter of a trillion dollars, reduced the
    size of the Federal payroll by over 100,000. We are on our way to a
    reduction in excess of 250,000 in the Federal work force, which will
    give us by the end of this decade the smallest Federal Government since
    the Kennedy administration.

    [[Page 236]]

        Vice President Gore's leadership in the reinventing Government
    initiatives have already saved taxpayers $63 billion. Some of the more
    visible changes have been well-noted: the reduction of offices in the
    Agriculture Department by more than 1,200, throwing away the
    Government's 10,000-page personnel manual. I haven't heard a single soul
    complain about it. Nobody has said, ``You know, I never thought about
    the personnel manual, but I just can't bear to live without it now.''
    [Laughter] I haven't heard it a single place.
        We've worked hard to solve problems that had been long ignored:
    reforming the pension benefit guarantee system to secure the pensions of
    8\1/2\ million working Americans whose pensions and retirement were at
    risk, reforming Government procurement so that the days of the $500
    hammer and the $10 glass ashtray are over, turning FEMA from a disaster
    into a disaster relief agency, breaking gridlock on bills that hung
    around in Congress for years, 6 or 7 years, like the family leave law,
    the motor voter law, the Brady bill, and the crime bill.
        But maybe the most stubborn problem we face is this problem of
    regulation. How do we do what we're supposed to do here? How do we help
    to reinforce the social contract and do our part to work with the
    private sector to protect the legitimate interests of the American
    people without literally taking leave of our senses and doing things
    that drive people up the wall but don't make them safer?
        We all want the benefits of regulation. We all want clean air and
    clean water and safe food and toys that our children can play with. But
    let's face it, we all know the regulatory system needs repair. Too often
    the rule writers here in Washington have such detailed lists of do's and
    don'ts that the do's and don'ts undermine the very objectives they seek
    to achieve, when clear goals and operation for cooperation would work
    better. Too often, especially, small businesses face a profusion of
    overlapping and sometimes conflicting rules. We've tried to set up an
    effective procedure here for resolving those conflicts, but it drives
    people crazy. I had somebody just yesterday mention being subject to two
    directly conflicting rules from two Federal agencies.
        We have to move beyond the point where Washington is, to use the
    Vice President's phrase, the sort of national nanny that can always tell
    businesses, consumers, and workers not only what to do but exactly how
    to do it, when, and with a 100-page guideline. And as has already been
    said, we have begun to take the first steps in doing this.
        You've heard about what the Comptroller of the Currency has done. I
    can tell you one thing: When I was out in New Hampshire in 1992, I heard
    more grief about the regulation of the private sector by the Comptroller
    of the Currency than any other single thing. And now every time I go to
    New England, they say, ``We're making money. We're making loans, and we
    can function, because we finally got somebody down there in Washington
    who understands how to have responsible and safe banking regulations and
    still promote economic growth.'' I hear it every time I go up there, and
    I thank you, sir, for what you've done on that.
        We've got industry and environmentalists alike supporting Carol
    Browner and the EPA's Common Sense Initiative and our proposed overhauls
    of the Superfund and the safe drinking water laws which I pray will pass
    in this session of Congress, and I believe they will, would increase
    both flexibility and improve results for consumers. We've slashed the
    small business loan form from an inch thick to a single page.
        We haven't had to wait for legislation to streamline all
    regulations. We've asked regulators and instructed them to use market
    mechanisms whenever possible and to open up the regulatory process to
    more public scrutiny and involvement.
        HHS has cut its block grant application form in half for maternal
    and child health programs. EPA is exploring using enforceable contracts
    instead of regulation to eliminate potential risk. The FAA is reviewing
    all of its rules to identify those that are out of sync with state-of-
    the-art technology practices. And there's nothing more maddening to a
    businessman than being told one thing on Monday by one governmental
    agency and another thing on Tuesday by another.
        Our Labor Department did something unusual about that as it relates
    to regulations that affect both labor and the environment. They talked
    to EPA before issuing their asbestos rules, a stunning departure from
    past practices. So that at least there, there are now no contradictory
    instructions.
        We're also trying to bring common sense in other ways, targeting
    high-risk areas, focusing, for example, on lead in day care centers
    rather

    [[Page 237]]

    than aircraft hangars. We're making school lunches more nutritious but
    reducing the forms the local schools have to fill out to qualify for the
    program.
        Today we're attempting to work with Members of both parties in
    Congress to further reform regulation. Soon the Congress will pass
    legislation so that Washington won't order States to solve problems
    without giving them the resources to do it. We're working together to
    pass legislation that ensures that regulation is especially sensitive to
    the needs of small businesses and to reduce paperwork. But we must
    clearly do more. We must ask ourselves some questions that are very,
    very important. And I want to emphasize those here.
        Would you take the card down? This is why I asked all of you here,
    not just to be between me and the press corps. [Laughter]
        Today, this is what we are now going to do. I am instructing all
    regulators to go over every single regulation and cut those regulations
    which are obsolete, to work to reward results, not redtape, to get out
    of Washington and go out into the country to create grassroots
    partnerships with the people who are subject to these regulations and to
    negotiate rather than dictate wherever possible.
        We should ask ourselves--let me go through each one--on the
    regulations, we should ask ourselves: Do we really need this regulation?
    Could private businesses do this just as well with some accountability
    to us? Could State or local government do the job better, making Federal
    regulation not necessary? I want to really work through these things,
    and I want you, all of you, to review all these regulations and make a
    report to me by June 1st, along with any legislative recommendations you
    need to implement the changes that would be necessary to reduce the
    regulatory burden on the American people.
        Second, I want every one of you to change the way we measure the
    performance of your agencies and the front-line regulators. I love the
    comment the Vice President had about people in Customs being evaluated
    about how many boxes they detain. I believe safety inspections should be
    judged, for example, by how many companies on their watch comply, not by
    how many citations our regulators write. We ought to be interested in
    results, not process.
        Third, I want you to convene immediately groups consisting of the
    frontline regulators and the people affected by their regulations, not
    lawyers talking to lawyers in Washington or even the rest of us talking
    to each other in Washington but a conversation that actually takes place
    around the country, at our cleanup sites, our factories, and our ports.
    Where this has been done, as we saw here, we have seen stunning results.
    Most people in business in this country know that there is a reason for
    these regulations, for these areas of regulations. And most people would
    be more than happy to work to find a way that would reduce hassle and
    still achieve the public interest we seek to achieve.
        Fourth, I want to move from a process where lawyers write volumes to
    one where people create partnerships based on common objectives and
    common sense. I want each regulatory agency head to submit to the White
    House a list of pending procedures that can be converted into consensual
    negotiations.
        Now, I want to say this again. This is very important. By June 1st,
    I want to know which obsolete regulations we can cut and which ones you
    can't cut without help from Congress. We want a system that will reward
    results, not redtape. We want to get out of Washington and talk to
    people who are doing the regulating and who are being regulated on the
    frontline. That is the only way we will ever change the culture that
    bothers people. We could stay here from now to kingdom come in this
    room, and we would never get that done.
        And finally, we need to look for the areas in which we can honestly
    negotiate to produce the desired results rather than dictate.
        Finally, the Vice President has been conducting a serious review of
    regulation in the areas of greatest concern. In the coming months, he
    will present to me a series of recommendations for regulatory reform on
    the environment, on health, on food, on financial institutions, on
    worker safety. And when appropriate and necessary, I will present them
    to the Congress.
        This is what we are going to do, and it is high time. But let me
    also emphasize what we are not going to do. We have to recognize that,
    done right, regulation gives our children safer toys and food, protects
    our workers from injury, protects families from pollution, and that when
    we fail, it can have disastrous consequences.
        The American economy is the envy of the world, in part because of
    the public health protections put in place over the last 30 years. Toxic
    emissions by factories have dropped by

    [[Page 238]]

    more than 50 percent, and lead levels in children's blood have dropped
    by 70 percent in three decades. Lake Erie, once declared dead, is now
    teeming with fish. One hundred and twelve thousand people survived car
    crashes because of auto safety rules. Workplace deaths are down by 50
    percent since OSHA was created. Our food is safer, and we know its true
    nutritional content because the Government stood up for public
    interests.
        These protections are still needed. There's not too little consumer
    fraud. Toys are not too safe. The environment is still not able to
    protect itself. Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut
    vital consumer, worker, environmental protections, even things that
    protect business itself. They don't want reform; they really want rigor
    mortis.
        Some in Congress are pushing a collection of proposals that, taken
    together, would bring Federal protection of public health and safety to
    a halt. Later this week, the House will vote on an across-the-board
    freeze on all Federal regulations. It sounds good, but this stops in its
    tracks Federal action that protects the environment, protects consumers,
    and protects workers. For example, it would stop the Government from
    allocating rights to commercial fishermen. A person who's worked with
    those folks in Louisiana is here today. It would stop the Government
    from authorizing burials at Arlington Cemetery. It would stop good
    regulations, bad regulations, in-between regulations, all regulations.
    No judgment--sounds good but no judgment. It would even cancel the duck
    hunting season. That gives me some hope that it will not prevail.
    [Laughter] It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our
    drinking water, stop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars, stop final
    implementation of the law that lets parents take a leave to care for a
    sick child. It would undermine what we're trying to do to promote safety
    in commuter airlines. If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits
    will be on hold for the foreseeable future. Therefore, to me, a
    moratorium is not acceptable.
        I agree with the Republicans in Congress on many things. We do need
    to change this system. We have been working for 2 years to change it,
    and believe you me, I know we've got a long way to go. But there is a
    right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. We can agree on many
    things, but I am convinced that a moratorium would hurt the broad
    interests of the American people and would benefit only certain narrow
    interests who, in the moment, think they would be undermined by having
    this or that particular regulation pass.
        The best thing to do is to change the culture of regulation, to do
    the four things that I have outlined, not to put these things on hold
    but to put these things in high gear. That is the right way to do this.
    I still believe that, working together with Congress, we can achieve
    real and balanced regulatory reform. But we shouldn't go too far. For
    example, we want all agencies to carefully compare the cost and benefits
    of regulations so that we don't impose any unnecessary burdens on
    business.
        But the Contract With America, literally read, could pile so many
    new requirements on Government that nothing would ever get done. It
    would add to the very things that people have been complaining about for
    years--too many lawsuits, everything winds up in court. The contract,
    literally read, would override every single health and safety law in the
    books; distort the process by giving industry-paid scientists undue
    influence over rules that govern their employers; in the name of private
    property, could literally bust the budget by requiring the Government to
    pay polluters every time an environmental law puts limits on profits.
        These are extreme proposals. They go too far. They would cost lives
    and dollars. A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can
    never get away with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental
    protection. But why bother if you can paralyze the Government by
    process? Surely, after years and years and years of people screaming
    about excessive governmental process, we won't just go to an even bigger
    round of process to tilt the process itself in another direction. We
    cannot strip away safeguards for families in this country.
        Here in our audience today are real people on whose behalf we act or
    we might have acted. There's a father in this audience whose son died
    from E. coli bacteria in food that might have been discovered if our
    proposed rule had been in effect when his son ate the contaminated food.
    There are people here whose lives were saved by air bags. Let's not
    forget these people as we cut redtape and bureaucracy. There's a woman
    here who is a breast cancer survivor who lost a child to cancer, who
    lives in an area unusually high in the density of people

    [[Page 239]]

    who suffer from cancer. Let's not forget the kind of work that still
    needs to be done.
        At every stage in the history of this country, our Government has
    always had to change to meet the needs of changing times. And we need to
    change now. We need a Government that's smaller and more
    entrepreneurial, that provides a lot less hassle, that realizes that
    there are an awful lot of people out there in the private sector who
    have enlightened views and they want to do the right thing and they need
    to be helped instead of hindered in that.
        I would never defend the culture of this community when it is wrong.
    But let us also not forget that as we strive for a Government that is
    costing less and is more flexible, that is producing better results and
    not more rules, that we have a job to do for the American people and
    that people are entitled to protection. So I echo again what the Vice
    President said earlier: Reform, yes. Bring it on. Roll back, no. There
    is too much good to do to turn this noble enterprise into something that
    we would live to regret. Let us instead work to do what must be done.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:40 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive
    Office Building.