Summary:

All articles in House section

REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT
(House of Representatives - March 01, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2402-H2443] REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 926. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 926) to promote regulatory flexibility and enhance public participation in Federal agency rulemaking, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] will be recognized for 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have good news for our country here today, because we are going to be considering a bill that will go a long way when enacted to bring about job creation and wage enhancement. Mr. Chairman, for too long, burdensome and complex rules coming out of Washington have strangled small business, have been a drag on free enterprise, have been a drag on job creation, have been a drag on wage creation, have been a drag on the economy. Today what we are about here today is a first step to slay that dragon, to bring about sanity in the rulemaking process of the national bureaucracy, of the Federal bureaucracy. How do we go about accomplishing that? Well, a bold attempt was made in 1980 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter when there was passed a Regulatory Flexibility Act. That did bring about at least a sense of more involvement by the small business community in the rulemaking process that so adversely had affected it previously. We are here to say today that even that bold attempt that started in 1980 has not fulfilled the promise that it was expected by the small business community to lift the burden of regulations from their shoulders so that they can venture out into new enterprises and create more jobs. Rather, the reverse took place. There was even more of a vivid flurry of regulations and burdens that came down on their shoulders. Mr. Chairman, we here today in title I of this particular bill will deal directly with small business. We are targeting small business. We are going to be embracing small business to give them more input into what transpires in the rulemaking process. That in itself would be worth the whole effort of what we do here today, but we go farther. We do something that is so exquisite for the small businessperson, that we have a great, good feeling about it. We are for the first time providing by law, if this bill is enacted, judicial review. That means that where the previous act, the one I just alluded to from the Jimmy Carter era, prohibited judicial review, we go the other way and overtly provide for judicial review. [[Page H2403]] What does this mean? It means that for the first time in a whole host of rulemaking processes across the Federal bureaucracy, when a rule is promulgated and it disaffects or adversely impacts against a small business entity or groups of entities, then there will be the possibility of challenging that rule and what it does to the small business community in court. That is a major step. It is just an afterthought on the part of this Member? No. It is just a whim on the part of the small business community? No. It is an absolute necessity. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed in people who are advocating some kind of reform in this arena for a long period of time. Even Vice President Gore has come out in his interpretation of the reforms that are necessary for judicial review. That by itself again would justify passage of this bill and enactment of it into the law of the land. {time} 1100 But we go further. We also provide in title I, this is extremely important for the small business community, that the Small Business Administration advocate and chief counsel must receive notice of a proposed rule. What does that do? That allows him or her acting for the small business community, within this Small Business Administration, which is the key administrative bureau of small business, to have advanced notice of a rule and then bring into play all of the concerns and the worries that the small business community might have in the face of such a rule. That is an excellent advance that we are making by what is included in title I. Then we go to title II. Title II would require for the first time for all business, not just small business, but for all business, a regulatory impact analysis that would accompany these very strident rules that have for too long been plaguing the business community. What am I talking about here? Well, a rule has an impact, and when what we want to call a major rule has an adverse impact on the economy worth more than $50 million, then on that basis our bill calls for the issuance of a regulatory impact analysis to give advance notice to the business community, the very people who are going to have to be guided by this rule or are adversely impacted by this rule, an opportunity to come back and be able to challenge the findings of this analysis and thus have a full participation in the deliberations that take place in the promulgation of a rule, rather than to sit back and just take what is coming to them and then be helpless, possibly, in combating the rule that will have so blatantly impacted them adversely. So title II will afford the business community this extra forum that would be required. But how did we accomplish this? What we did was not dream up criteria by which we ought to be defining this analysis that the rulemaking agency must apply, but rather we incorporated by new language, but nevertheless incorporated into our bill, in title II, seven strong criteria that have to be included in this analysis drawn from the Executive order that President Reagan during his time issued on this very same subject. So we are combining the history of the Jimmy Carter administration and regulatory flexibility with the Executive order of Ronald Reagan in the regulatory impact analysis area, and combining them to make a strong bill that would bring back a sense of accomplishment on the part of the small business community as they seek to open new markets and to expand their ability to create jobs and to lift wages as they become more successful. These criteria will be discussed, I know, in different ways as we proceed with the debate, but I can safely tell my colleagues that it will be a great stride forward when we complete the business of the day. Title III, which the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the ranking member on the minority, and I jointly responded to the concerns that were expressed during the hearings, that has taken on a different configuration from that which we first felt was necessary, but I am sure at the end of the day that the Members of the House will be satisfied with how we have approached title III and the segments of Executive responsibility that are contained therein. In short, it is a good day for small business here today. Let us get on with helping them avoid the burden of undue and cumbersome regulations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending both the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr Reed], for their diligence in improving legislation that started off in a pretty sorry state and has now reached the nearly acceptable level but still needs a little bit more work, and I would like to explain this for just a few minutes in beginning the general debate. The language in the bill providing for a so-called regulatory Bill of Rights could have had a devastating impact on the Federal Government's ability to enforce the laws fairly and efficiently, and now we have revised language that I praise my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for improving, which is included in title III, seeking employee guidelines which are more responsive to the needs of private parties, and represents a vast improvement. So I am here to praise them as well as to point out some areas in which we hope there will be improvements. Similarly, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve and narrow the scope of title I of the bill relating to regulatory flexibility analysis, and I am not surprised at his cooperative spirit. We have worked for many many years together on the Judiciary and other committees. Unfortunately, title II of the legislation requiring agencies to complete complex new regulatory impact analyses continues to be problematic. We have got trouble in this area in title II, and I am hoping that it may be repaired on the floor here today. As a result of a number of recent changes made by statute and Executive order, agency rulemakers must now consider nine separate analyses when issuing rules. That is a few too many, and while each of these additional required analyses is well intentioned and in isolation may be beneficial, collectively they have contributed to making the rulemaking process far more lengthy and complex. In an effort to make the regulatory system responsive to the needs of businesses, title II of the bill would impose even further and more complex requirements on the regulatory process. And that is not what we are here to do. That is not the great day that all America and small business in particular have been waiting for. I am concerned about title II's defining a major rule as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more. Every President since Gerald Ford has used the $100 million level for defining major rules, thereby preventing costly and needless analysis for rules such as the Interior Department's opening of hunting season or the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizing the gulf war syndrome. I also believe that the judicial review under title II should be limited to challenges of a final rule or the agency's failure to perform the required analysis. The unrestricted judicial review in title II would result in endless litigation, as every element of an impact analysis could be challenged by literally countless numbers of people. And finally, I believe that the legislation is deficient in failing to provide for greater sunshine in the regulatory process. Later today I will offer an amendment which would require that communications between an agency and OMB and Government officials and private parties be recorded and made available to the public. This change would help provide for greater accountability and avoid the perception of secret, behind-the-scene dealings, which has plagued us in earlier years. I am hopeful that the bill's language can continue to be refined along these lines in a cooperative fashion. If amendments along these lines are approved, we will make for a much better bill in H.R. 926 while making the regulatory process more responsive and more streamlined. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H2404]] Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett]. Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the poster here is just one reason for that. These are the taxes and regulations that our restaurant people have to live with. Whenever we see a tragedy we frequently ask for a moment of silence. I think when Members see the tragedy of what this does to our small business people we need a long, long moment of silence. This speaks for itself. I will not go over any of the details of this. Let me just note one instance of the inanity that occurs here. One of our restaurant people told us that OSHA came in and threatened them with fines because their workers were not using a protective glove when slicing carrots. The health people came in and threatened them with a fine if the workers did use the protective glove for slicing carrots because the protective glove could not be adequately sanitized in their view. Clearly when we look at this long, long list of taxes and regulations, this represents a burden on our restaurant people that they just cannot bear. I strongly support this bill. It starts us in the although modest application, it really halts our march in the wrong direction and starts us back in the right direction. I advise, recommend, strong, strong support of this bill for this and many many other reasons. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Gekas. We were able to work together in a cooperative and bipartisan process and although we have some principal disagreements, I believe the legislation has been made better because we were able to work together constructively and cooperatively, and at the end of today regardless of the outcome I think we can be very proud of this bipartisan process. Both of us agree that steps need to be taken to make the regulatory process more sensitive to the needs of small businesses. Small businesses lack the staff and resources to track the daily comings and goings of the Federal Register. They are less likely to have their interest represented by trade associations and lobbyists and may have a more difficult time meeting the costs imposed by regulators. Costs that seem minuscule to General Motors are insurmountable to some small businesses throughout the United States. Title I addresses this concern by strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act which direct agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small entities and, where possible, make special considerations for small businesses. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, and the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for working so hard on this issue and for sharing their expertise with us when they testified before the subcommittee. The core of title I is based on their bill, H.R. 830 from the last Congress. Mr. Skelton, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Exports Tourism and Special Problems, found that those agencies that complied with the Regulatory Impact Act had done so successfully. They established procedures that saved time, money, and litigation headaches. Unfortunately, other agencies have been able to escape compliance and they have been able to do that because regulatory flexibility analysis did not include judicial review. We are remedying that situation today and I join the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] in support of this section of the bill. The regulatory flexibility analysis in an important weapon in our efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and we need to ensure that it is implemented governmentwide. I also support title III of the bill. This title would create a code of conduct for regulators in their dealings with the American people and it emanated from a proposal made originally by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. It has been thoroughly reviewed and we have reached I think a very sensible position in the bill in title III's provisions which I support with enthusiasm. However, I do have serious concerns about title II, especially now that we have completed action on H.R. 1022. Initially, both H.R. 1022 and H.R. 926 were part of the same contract bill, H.R. 9. Unfortunately, their provisions overlap and conflict. I think it is a mistake to pass both bills in the hopes that the Senate will sort out these conflicts and inconsistencies, a step that undermines the ability of Members of this House to act on these issues sensibly with some type of overall cohesive purpose. {time} 1115 The rulemaking process has been criticized as overly prescriptive, expensive and overburdened with useless paperwork. Title II exacerbates these problems by creating a costly, time consuming process that does nothing to streamline Government or roll back redtape. The New York Times just published a diagram of the rulemaking steps required by this bill, entitled ``A Rule Making Maze.'' It resembled a Rube Goldberg contraption in its inticracy and complexity. My colleague from Florida, John Mica, just sent around a ``Dear Colleague'' containing an excerpt from Philip Howard's book, ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I wanted to quote from it, because I think it makes my point: Important, often urgent projects get held up by procedural concerns. Potentially important breakthroughs in medicine wait for years at the Food and Drug Administration. Even obviously necessary safety projects can't break through the thick wall of process. (Here he cites New York's difficulty in extending a runway at La Guardia airport that is too short for safe landings) . . . The irony he points out of our obsession with process is that it has not prevented sharp operators from exploiting the governments contracting system, as the weapons procurement scandals of the 1980's showed us. Its dense procedural thicket is a perfect hiding place for those who want to cheat * * *''. Title II is exactly what he is talking about. It extends the time line for regulations by about 2 years by establishing a series of procedural hurdles, sweeps administrative rules, such as the regulations that open duck hunting season, into costly regulatory impact analysis, and enables sharp business owners to stall regulatory changes that benefit themselves by letter writing campaigns and filing multiple lawsuits. All of these procedures will apply to deregulation, as well as regulation. They will apply to new regulations that aim to help small business become more competitive. I do not believe that 2 years from now Members will want to read in their local paper that we forced the Department of the Interior to spend several hundred thousand dollars to perform a regulatory impact analysis, followed by the costs of defending lawsuits by animal rights activists, when they are simply trying to open duck hunting season, or to replay this scenario when we try to prevent fisheries from being overfished, or to compensate veterans for gulf war syndrome. We will have amendments today that address some of the flaws in title II, and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will listen to the arguments and vote to improve this legislation. I think we can make progress to create, I hope, a bill that we can all support. But we have principal disagreements which we will debate vigorously on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing]. Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Gekas for the time he has given us and my thanks to the chairman and to Chairman Jan Meyers of the Small Business Committee for all of the support and help they have given us in developing this legislation, to Congressman Ike Skelton and Congressman Reed on the other side of the aisle for their support. I think probably most of us understand what the problem is, but I think these figures are very meaningful. Federal statutes and rules now run to 100 million words. If we were to read all of these it would take 8 years. Of course, no one is going to do that. Regulatory costs in our economy are now at $600 billion and climbing; that is $6,000 per household. Small business and small units of government have been at the mercy of [[Page H2405]] the Federal regulators for many years. And probably the most often voiced complaint that I receive when I talk to my constituents is about this overregulation. In 1980 this Congress passed a bill, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in an effort to rein in the bureaucracy and the regulations. But it had no teeth in it. It specifically prevented judicial review. There has been strong and persistent bureaucratic opposition to meaningful reform of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Yet three Presidents of both parties have ordered the bureaucracy to follow the Regulatory Flexibility Act but to no avail. Last Congress, in the 103d Congress, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I put together a coalition of small business groups that support legislation to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to add judicial review. This was backed by 254 Members of that Congress on both sides of the aisle. But unfortunately the leadership of that Congress, not the Members, refused to call that bill, and it became, because it died at the end of that Congress, a part of our Contract With America. I believe that turning a deaf ear to the demands of responsible, reasonable citizens in this country to revise our overly bureaucratic, overblown, excessive, intrusive, and destructive regulatory system was a major factor not only in the result of the November 8 election but to the dissatisfaction which the American people have expressed with their Federal Government. I strongly support the legislation before us, and particularly title I which does contain the improvements in the Regulatory Flexibility Act to grant judicial review. In addition, agencies must circulate proposed rules to the chief counsel for the advocacy of Small Business Administration, giving that agency 30 days to comment on how these would affect small entities. And finally, the bill includes a sense of Congress that the chief counsel for advocacy of SBA should be able to file amicus briefs in actions in the Federal court. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and am glad to have the opportunity to speak in its favor today. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for yielding time to me. I want to start by congratulating the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for taking what was a terrible bill and working with the other side to improve it into what is now a bad bill, and I would be the first to concede that it is an improved bill, but it is still bad. Let me express a series of concerns that I have about this bill. First of all, yesterday we passed a bill which requires a cost-benefit assessment of any new regulations that the Federal Government puts in place. So I am wondering what is the purpose of this new process that we are putting here, first of all? Second, this bill goes several steps beyond that by giving small businesses an implied veto over rules and regulations and standing in court to contest such regulations if the small business is adversely affected, whatever that means. Third, this bill gives the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy, that is probably somebody the American people have never heard of, the obligation to review and comment and get involved in litigation with respect to rules and regulations. It takes nobody out of the process. Understand, now, we have the department, the agency of government, we have the CBO, we have the Justice Department, now we have the SBA involved in the process. We keep adding on to the bureaucracy, and nobody is taken out of the process. Now, let me talk to you about the problems that I have with the bill. No. 1, it assumes that all rules that are promulgated by government are bad. You start with that assumption. Take this retaurant example that the previous speaker talked about. When I go into a restaurant and I look up and I see an A grade rating, my friends, that gives me a great deal of comfort as a member of the public. Under this rule, if we require some A grade rating, B grade rating, whatever it is, although I think that is done at the State level, if under this bill we did it at the Federal level, we would then adversely affect some restaurants. They would then end up in litigation in the courts, tying up the court system. No. 2, this bill gives small businesses unprecedented standing. The people in this country have had standing in the court. Now are are giving small businesses some kind of standing out here where they can come in, create more litigation, and I submit to the American people that that sends a terrible message that business now has some standing that even ordinary people cannot even get to. This is another step away from empowerment of the people and creates another bureaucracy which is, in effect, welfare for businesses, do away with welfare for the people, give welfare to the businesses. Third, this bill creates an entirely new level of bureaucracy in the process. Fourth, this bill will result in protracted and extended and unprecdented litigation. At the same time we are moving toward tort reform which takes away rights from the people to have access to the courts, we are moving in this direction all of a sudden to give more access to the courts, more standing to businesses. Fifth, this bill will not allow us to get to who is actually having influence in the process. We offered an amendment, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did, in the committee which would have required agencies to tell who is commenting on these regulations, who is actually getting involved, who is exerting influence on the regulators to draw these regulations. You would think that my colleagues, if they are concerned about protracted regulation, would have been anxious to know who is involved in the process, but no such luck. Let me just say that the final concern I have about this bill is that nobody knows what it is going to cost. We passed a bill yesterday to deal with regulations that was estimated to cost $250 million. Who has any idea what this monstrosity is going to cost the American people? And here we are, my colleagues, saying we are trying to cut back on government, and we are cutting back on government by increasing, not reducing, bureaucracy and costs. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate Chairman Gekas for doing an extraordinary job with this bill. What he is going to be doing is providing meaningful and long overdue relief, particularly to small businesses throughout America who are being crushed by the weight of regulation. We are suffocating job growth. We are diminishing economic opportunity oftentimes through well-meaning but badly constructed rules and regulations. Mr. Chairman, a lot of the suggestions embodied in title II of this bill do not come from any think tank in Washington, DC, or any so- called experts. They came as a result of the efforts of the manufacturing task force of this House formed under the auspices of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition 2 years ago and cochaired by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and myself. We met with literally scores of small manufacturers throughout our 18-State region and they made recommendations to us in terms of specific items that they wanted regulators to consider before finally issuing their regulation. {time} 1130 Mr. Chairman, because of his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this bill, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the cochairman of the congressional manufacturing task force, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the regulatory impact analysis provisions in H.R. 926. In 1993, Representative Bob Franks and I established the first ever congressional manufacturing task force. We traveled around the country to hold hearings [[Page H2406]] and spoke to small and mid-sized companies to find out what they needed to maintain competitiveness. Each time we held a hearing, each time we met with small businesses, we heard the same thing. Overlapping, burdensome regulations are killing manufacturers ability to stay competitive and have created the perception of Government hostile to business. Last year, the Federal Register issued over 69,000 pages of new regulations--the third highest total ever. Congress must act to change this. By requiring regulators to assess the impact of new regulations, we will streamline--not eliminate--regulations so they are more effective. The goal is to cause regulators and regulated parties to have full knowledge of the likely impact of a regulatory action before it is made final. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. You know, as a member of the committee, I enjoyed going through this bill, and I think many of the goals are worthy ones. One concern I have, however, is that I believe we have failed to account for the immutable law of unintended consequences. I believe it is our job to make sure that, when we act legislatively, we know what the outcome will be and we do not get blind-sided by an outcome that we did not intend or expect. One of the issues I intend to raise by way of an amendment later today has to do with allowing for emergency action and defining what that might be. This was an amendment offered in the committee, withdrawn with the pledge that we would work through and try to deal with the issue. Unfortunately, given the press of time and our agenda, that has not yet occurred. I am concerned we do not want to preclude, for example, the release of useful drugs, a cure for cancer, because of the regulatory scheme provided in this bill. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I believe what this is all about is making it more difficult for Washington to regulate the activities out there in America. And that is a good thing, because what has built up in this country is a mindset based on taxation, regulation, and litigation. We are going to deal with the litigation portion next week, with legal reform items; we are going to deal with the taxation part of that trilogy a little after that. This week we are dealing with the regulatory part of that terrible trilogy so weighing down this country. I believe this is a good step toward reining in some of those regulators, to making them have some justification for their additional regulations. That certainly will make sense out there in America where businesses, particularly small businesses, are collapsing under the weight of this tremendous pressure from the regulators. So I am very excited to support this bill. I commend the chairman of our subcommittee for doing an excellent job in bringing the bill to us. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a member of the subcommittee, who has played an active part in the development of this legislation. Mr. FLANAGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. H.R. 926, which is the product of hard work and consensus by Mr. Gekas and members of the Judiciary Committee, is in my opinion one of the most important features of the Republicans' Contract With America. It tackles head-on many of the problems that have been caused by the Congress and the Federal bureaucracy during the past 30-40 years, and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and regional government officials are suffering under the weight of high taxes and excessive and intrusive government regulations. H.R. 926 is a step towards reversing this trend by rolling back the tide of ill-conceived regulations, and making bureaucrats more accountable for the burdens they impose on both the wage payer and the wage earner. Under H.R. 926, Federal agencies will be required to perform regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule--that is, a rule which has an effect on the economy of $50 million or more--is promulgated. This language will go far in reducing the burdens placed on all entrepreneurs, especially small business owners whose companies employ two-thirds of the American work force and fuel the Nation's economy. Furthermore, with the enactment of this bill, business people and their employees will be a step closer in having a Government that acts more like their friend, and not as their worst enemy. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Gekas and his staff. Since the start of the 104th Congress, Mr. Gekas has bent over backward to accommodate those Members who have had reasonable suggestions for perfecting this bill. Whether Republican or Democrat, committee chairman or lowly freshman Member, Mr. Gekas and his staff worked in a congenial and bipartisan fashion unequal to anything else I have seen so far in this body. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 926. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some of the things that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has alluded to in his remarks. You know, when we take the bill that we just passed last night and add to it to the bill that we have today, we have a total cost to the taxpayers of $400 million. This means, to me, according to CBO estimates, that you are going to have to add that many more work hours in the Federal bureaucracy in order to do the risk assessment, the regulatory impact analysis, plus the other few things that are thrown in. Where do all these bureaucrats come from? They do not come from the sky, they do not grow on trees, they are hard-working American taxpayers, folks. They work hard just like everybody else out there, whether you are a truck driver, a lawyer, a doctor, or anybody else. They are trying to do their job. But what is really going to happen? Do you really believe, is there anybody in this House, anyone from the Speaker on down, from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], or anybody, who can tell me that this Congress is going to appropriate the additional funds necessary to the Small Business Administration, to EPA, to the other of our Federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and all the rest of them, in order to perform the tasks they are going to be required to fulfill under this bill and the bill we passed just yesterday? No. It is not going to happen. The money is not going to be there. The additional bureaucrats are not going to be added. As a result, they are not going to be able to do the work that is imposed on them. Then what will the other party say? The other party will say they are not doing their job, ``We passed the legislation, and they are not doing their job.'' Well, folks, they cannot do their job, they cannot do it unless you give them the money. And you are not going to give them the money because you are already taking away from the kids, the veterans, the elderly. All those programs are being cut in a rescission bill in order to give it to the wealthy in income tax cuts. That is where you are giving the money. You are not going to help them be able to fulfill this legislation. You tell me in what bill when you are going to appropriate the additional money that is required under the CBO [[Page H2407]] estimate in this bill. You are not going to do it. I would like to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come up here and tell us they are going to provide the additional funds, because I do not think it is going to be done. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is the culmination of a great deal of effort that I have been personally working on for more than a decade. At the outset, let me thank and compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for his efforts, for together we have cosponsored legislation regarding the original Regulatory Flexibility Act for some time. I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the gentlewoman from Kansas, Chairman Meyers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaFalce. I applaud their efforts and again thank Tom Ewing for the opportunity of getting this hearing. The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, which had my support and on which I worked, was signed into law back in 1980. Later I was chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee, and I held hearings on this in the mid-1980's concerning how the Regulatory Flexibility Act was working. We got mixed reviews. As chairman of that, I found that most agencies were making an honest, diligent effort to comply with the law. Others came before us and testified and said, ``It does not apply to us,'' or they were giving it, as we say back home, a lick and a promise. We put out a report that found that those complying with the law found that they were actually writing better regulations when they considered the impact on small businesses. Also, they found and concluded that it saves these agencies time, saves them money when good regulations are written from the beginning rather than waiting to have them questioned by small businesses. We need to make adjustments in the law, to improve it, to give it teeth. That is why the portion that Mr. Ewing and I have been working on throughout the last few years deals with judicial review and primarily states that the agencies should understand that they can actually be challenged if they write regulations that are more than cursory--take more than cursory consideration of the impact on small businesses. It is unlikely that many cases would ever come to court because the threat, the sword of Damocles that would be hanging over them. I think it would be a very, very important step, and that is why I fully support the efforts for judicial review and a change in the law as set forth in this proposal. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize our next speaker, I want to personally commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his decade of interest in this vital issue and to point out to the Members that his testimony and his involvement has played an important role in bringing this matter to the full House today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also played a significant role in the development of the issues that have now been brought to the floor. Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for the fine work that he has provided, not only to those who have the honor of serving on his subcommittee and addressing the issues of regulatory reform but also to the people of this country who labor in our small businesses all across this great land who have been crying out for this relief for so long but who for so long have been denied the relief they need to manage their businesses in a way that meets the needs of their consumers, responsibly meets the needs of their consumers, meets the needs of their shareholders, meets the needs of citizens all across this land who benefit from the products and services that our businesses provide. {time} 1145 Those consumers and those citizens have for too long labored and have seen higher prices for products, products not being able to get on the market, and higher prices for the provision of necessary Government services, all of which can be directly traced to burdensome, many times unnecessary, and frequently ill-thought-out Federal regulations. Under the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], we have taken one step, only one step, but an important step, toward regulatory reform and regulatory flexibility. It has been a very responsible first step, Mr. Chairman. We listened very carefully to the evidence and the testimony that was presented to us in subcommittee hearings. In some instances we took the material that was received and incorporated that into amendments to the bill that we now have before us. In other instances, based on information presented by some folks from the administration, we have deferred action, recommended deferring action in some important areas. But I think this administration and the American people and those on the other side of the aisle who continue to defend the status quo must know that even as important as H.R. 926 is that we will be considering today, there is further work that must be done to ensure that our Federal regulators respect the rights of citizens and businesses, and that they extend them relief, and that they be stopped from running roughshod over our businesses and our citizens. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am one Democrat who believes regulations have gone too far. They kill American jobs. It has gotten to the point that it is so bad that if a dog urinates on a side lot, it may be declared a wetlands. I recommended for years that Congress should ship the EPA to Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China, and then we would not have a trade problem because the EPA would screw them up too. But in any event, I think the Democrats should have done this in the past. I am going to support the bill. I have two amendments, and people are saying they may not necessarily apply to in fact the Administrative Procedures Act. But in my research I have found that there are no safeguards in the event that situation should develop. My two amendments would do two things, and I would like the majority party here to pay attention to this. This bill would exempt certain emergencies, certain deadlines imposed by statute, and certain monetary activities that are listed in the bill. The Traficant amendment just say two things: For any future action or any ambiguous action for a trade program in America that is less than aggressive, who might at some point creatively try to find a loophole to continue not to in fact enforce and provide sanctions where necessary, the Traficant amendment would first say that no rule or regulation that is in existence that can be used for trade sanctions to combat illegal trade, that we would exempt that and put it in the exemption part of the bill. The other one deals with the possibility in the future of the collection of taxes from foreign subsidiaries, people who take our money out of or country and run, and there could be absolutely no possibility by any stretch of the imagination where creative minds could be used to apply this bill at some point down the line. And it would exempt from that the IRS collection actions on these foreign subsidiaries who many times come and take our jobs, take the profits, and run away with them. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: These are safeguard amendments. They are the types of amendments we should be doing. We should be preventing the opportunity for abuse, and that is one of the reasons why we are in fact eliminating regulations. [[Page H2408]] I recommend this to the handlers of this bill. This makes the bill a better bill, and I ask for the support of Members on these amendments. Let me say one other thing: The trade representative's office which is concerned about this does agree that sanctions are not the result of rulemaking. But one thing we can be sure of, there is no reason the Congress of the United States should allow any loophole where illegal trade sanctions can at some point have their backs turned by our trade people. We have seen too much of that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I would appreciate having my amendments be approved and accepted without prejudice. I would be glad to talk to the majority staff further about these issues. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is a member of the subcommittee and who participated in the hearings and the entire development of this legislation. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I find it incredible that some on the other side of the aisle are so adamant in defending and preserving the massive Federal bureaucracy that has grown over the years. Maybe it is understandable that they defend this huge bureaucracy since they created it. The challenge now is to reduce and simplify a government that has grown completely out of control. H.R. 926 aims to curb the ruinous practices of Federal agencies that unduly restrain the creative energies of small business. Small business is the backbone of America's economy. America's small businesses have had enough. They desperately need, in fact they are demanding immediately, that we relieve the overbearing regulatory agencies that have grown up. Opponents of H.R. 926 incorrectly assume that hardworking Americans and small businesses should bear the destructive brunt of the cost of this regulatory process. Nobody I know of in Cincinnati, especially small business owners, shares that opinion. If we want the regulatory process to be a burden, let us not make it a burden on small business; let us make it a burden on the Federal Government. Let us strengthen regulatory flexibility by giving aggrieved small businesses the ability to seek judicial review. Let us enlarge the public's role in the rulemaking process. Let us force regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses. Let us protect Americans who report abusive practices of regulatory agencies from catastrophic reprisals. What does all this mean to the average American citizen? It means that when they go to the store, products will not be so expensive; they will be more in the reach of average Americans. It means jobs for American citizens, because so many of the jobs that are created in this country are created by small business. And most importantly, it means a better standard of living for the American people. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and would like to briefly address title I of the bill that deals with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I and a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle were troubled with the original language in the Contract With America with respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That original language would have applied the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to big business as well as the country's small businesses. We felt that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was supposed to respond to the kinds of problems the majority has been talking about. A lot of our small businesses do go through bureaucratic water torture when they run up against some of these regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to be a fast-track process for adjusting regulation to the needs of small entrepreneurs. But the Contract With America would have changed all that. We want what amounts to an HOV lane for entrepreneurs so that the Federal Government responds to their concerns. So fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, working with the chairman of the committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], there has now been a bipartisan agreement worked out with all the relevant committees that regulatory flexibility provisions will apply just to small business. In my view, this is the way to ensure that the Federal bureaucracy is sensitive to America's entrepreneurs. That is what is in the public interest. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask again, at the risk of boring the Chair, how much time we have left? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 6 minutes remaining. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, that gives me ample time to bring to the floor the giant legislator, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, who is the chairman of the full committee and the leader of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental goal of the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act (H.R. 926) is to reduce the inevitable growth of costly regulations imposed upon our society. The bill achieves this by ensuring enforcement of current law to protect small business, the Regulatory Flexibility Act--and by encouraging greater public participation in our rulemaking process through the imposition of impact analysis on agency rulemaking. It is our hope that through the achievement of this goal, a less inhibited atmosphere will exist, which will allow U.S. commerce to thrive. The amendments before us to the Regulatory Flexibility Act are important because they would provide small businesses with a means to effectively enforce the goals/purposes of that law. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special needs and concerns of small entities--small businesses, small local governments, farmers, et cetera--whenever they engage in a rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the law, each time an agency publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, it must prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' From the beginning, the problem with this statute has been the lack of availability of judicial review as a mechanism to enforce the purposes of the law. Right now, if agencies do not do a regulatory flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in the act, there is no sanction. For years, small business groups have sought judicial review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a means of ``keeping the regulatory agencies honest.'' Our colleague and friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, has been a leader in this effort. H.R. 926 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, specifically providing for judicial review. In instances where an agency should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized to seek judicial review within 180 days after promulgation. A court can then give an agency 90 days to take corrective action. If the agency fails to take the necessary corrective action within 90 days, the court is given the authority to stay the rule and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. H.R. 926 is aimed at humanizing the Federal regulatory process. This is an [[Page H2409]] important aspect of the Contract With America--to provide affected parties--such as small businesses, small local governments, farmers and others--with a mechanism to ensure that the impersonal Washington bureaucracy takes into consideration the impact that a new rule or regulation can have on their businesses and their everyday lives. Title Z of H.R. 926 deals with regulatory impact analyses. This language would require Federal agencies to complete a regulatory impact analysis when drafting a major rule. Major rule is defined under the legislation as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or significant adverse impacts on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete domestically or internationally. The bill lists a number of specific criteria which Federal agencies have to consider as a part of their regulatory impact analysis. These include a requirement that the agency describe the necessity and legal authority for the rule; a description of the potential costs of the rule; an analysis of alternative approaches, that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal; a statement that the rule does not conflict with any other rule or regulation; a statement as to whether or not the rule would require onsight inspections--or whether or not the rule would require the maintenance of any records subject to inspection--and an estimate of the costs to the agency for the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The bill encourages public hearings on important regulations. The bill makes it clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will oversee the Federal regulatory process in an effort to ensure consistency and broad based fairness. It is important to note that the provisions of this section would not apply to major rules if it would conflict in any way with deadlines imposed by statute or by court order. The bill also requires that the Director of OMB submit a report to Congress no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this act containing an analysis of Federal rulemaking procedures and an analysis of the impact of the regulatory process on the American public. Mr. Chairman, regulatory flexibility was a good idea when it was enacted in 1980. Unfortunately, we haven't seen its potential because our courts could not enforce it. Regulatory impact analysis by Federal agencies was a good idea in 1981 when President Reagan required it through Executive order. Unfortunately, Executive orders are not permanent and those impact analyses are no longer enforced. This legislation will ensure enforcement of both of these tools. This legislation is long overdue. {time} 1200 Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been the process of working together cooperatively over the last several weeks to develop legislation that will meet the needs of small businesses throughout the United States and meet the needs of taxpayers throughout the United States, to develop a regulatory system which is streamlined, efficient and provides for the protection of the public good. And we have reached, I think, major accommodations in terms of language. Today I hope we can reach additional accommodations in terms of providing a system that will protect the public good and save money. I am encouraged by the process. I hope in the next few hours we can make changes that will make this legislation even better for the benefit of all of our citizens. Again, I thank and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his help and effort during this process. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for all his cooperative efforts in the past. I just wanted to end our portion of general debate by pointing out to the Members on the other side that as they consider their amendments and as they consider their opposition to certain portions of the bill as it now is drafted, to think of the people in their district, the working people. They, by most chances, work for a small business. They are the people who are going to be helped most by this piece of legislation. We are not against rules. We are not against regulation. We simply want to make sure that the small business which does the hiring of your constituents, which keeps wage earners on the payroll, that those small businesses will not have to go out of business or fire people or lay off people because of the burdensome regulations that sweep down on them from Washington. That is the purpose of this bill. Think of your working people, your constituents, and then you will think twice about trying to defend against this bill or offering amendments which will weaken it. We want to make our working people work for a small business that will have the greatest opportunity to expand, to hire more people, to enhance wages, to increase prosperity for the community in which they operate. That is the purpose of this bill. When you start attacking business, you are attacking the opportunity for your working people, your constituents to keep on trucking with their jobs. The CHAIRMAN. All time for the Committee on the Judiciary has expired. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, is recognized for 15 minutes. Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 926. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Jimmy Carter signed the original Regulatory Flexibility Act back in 1980, it was applauded as a new, strategic weapon in the war against excessive regulation. American businesses soon discovered that Reg Flex was less a strategic weapon and more a water pistol. Sure, you could aim it at excessive regulations and pull the trigger, but nothing much happened. Reg Flex lacked the striking power to challenge the bureaucrats. It failed even to drown out their laughter as they ignored the law. As a weapon for curbing regulatory abuses, Reg Flex was a dud. Today, we are giving punch to Reg Flex. By allowing America's businesses to challenge abusive regulations in the courts, we are finally forcing Federal bureaucrats to comply with the law. If they want to issue a new major rule, they first have to account for its impact on American business. Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act is a major step forward in the battle for control of America's businesses. It's the strategic weapon we've been promising America's busineses all along, and I look forward to its passage. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such ti

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT
(House of Representatives - March 01, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2402-H2443] REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 926. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 926) to promote regulatory flexibility and enhance public participation in Federal agency rulemaking, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] will be recognized for 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have good news for our country here today, because we are going to be considering a bill that will go a long way when enacted to bring about job creation and wage enhancement. Mr. Chairman, for too long, burdensome and complex rules coming out of Washington have strangled small business, have been a drag on free enterprise, have been a drag on job creation, have been a drag on wage creation, have been a drag on the economy. Today what we are about here today is a first step to slay that dragon, to bring about sanity in the rulemaking process of the national bureaucracy, of the Federal bureaucracy. How do we go about accomplishing that? Well, a bold attempt was made in 1980 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter when there was passed a Regulatory Flexibility Act. That did bring about at least a sense of more involvement by the small business community in the rulemaking process that so adversely had affected it previously. We are here to say today that even that bold attempt that started in 1980 has not fulfilled the promise that it was expected by the small business community to lift the burden of regulations from their shoulders so that they can venture out into new enterprises and create more jobs. Rather, the reverse took place. There was even more of a vivid flurry of regulations and burdens that came down on their shoulders. Mr. Chairman, we here today in title I of this particular bill will deal directly with small business. We are targeting small business. We are going to be embracing small business to give them more input into what transpires in the rulemaking process. That in itself would be worth the whole effort of what we do here today, but we go farther. We do something that is so exquisite for the small businessperson, that we have a great, good feeling about it. We are for the first time providing by law, if this bill is enacted, judicial review. That means that where the previous act, the one I just alluded to from the Jimmy Carter era, prohibited judicial review, we go the other way and overtly provide for judicial review. [[Page H2403]] What does this mean? It means that for the first time in a whole host of rulemaking processes across the Federal bureaucracy, when a rule is promulgated and it disaffects or adversely impacts against a small business entity or groups of entities, then there will be the possibility of challenging that rule and what it does to the small business community in court. That is a major step. It is just an afterthought on the part of this Member? No. It is just a whim on the part of the small business community? No. It is an absolute necessity. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed in people who are advocating some kind of reform in this arena for a long period of time. Even Vice President Gore has come out in his interpretation of the reforms that are necessary for judicial review. That by itself again would justify passage of this bill and enactment of it into the law of the land. {time} 1100 But we go further. We also provide in title I, this is extremely important for the small business community, that the Small Business Administration advocate and chief counsel must receive notice of a proposed rule. What does that do? That allows him or her acting for the small business community, within this Small Business Administration, which is the key administrative bureau of small business, to have advanced notice of a rule and then bring into play all of the concerns and the worries that the small business community might have in the face of such a rule. That is an excellent advance that we are making by what is included in title I. Then we go to title II. Title II would require for the first time for all business, not just small business, but for all business, a regulatory impact analysis that would accompany these very strident rules that have for too long been plaguing the business community. What am I talking about here? Well, a rule has an impact, and when what we want to call a major rule has an adverse impact on the economy worth more than $50 million, then on that basis our bill calls for the issuance of a regulatory impact analysis to give advance notice to the business community, the very people who are going to have to be guided by this rule or are adversely impacted by this rule, an opportunity to come back and be able to challenge the findings of this analysis and thus have a full participation in the deliberations that take place in the promulgation of a rule, rather than to sit back and just take what is coming to them and then be helpless, possibly, in combating the rule that will have so blatantly impacted them adversely. So title II will afford the business community this extra forum that would be required. But how did we accomplish this? What we did was not dream up criteria by which we ought to be defining this analysis that the rulemaking agency must apply, but rather we incorporated by new language, but nevertheless incorporated into our bill, in title II, seven strong criteria that have to be included in this analysis drawn from the Executive order that President Reagan during his time issued on this very same subject. So we are combining the history of the Jimmy Carter administration and regulatory flexibility with the Executive order of Ronald Reagan in the regulatory impact analysis area, and combining them to make a strong bill that would bring back a sense of accomplishment on the part of the small business community as they seek to open new markets and to expand their ability to create jobs and to lift wages as they become more successful. These criteria will be discussed, I know, in different ways as we proceed with the debate, but I can safely tell my colleagues that it will be a great stride forward when we complete the business of the day. Title III, which the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the ranking member on the minority, and I jointly responded to the concerns that were expressed during the hearings, that has taken on a different configuration from that which we first felt was necessary, but I am sure at the end of the day that the Members of the House will be satisfied with how we have approached title III and the segments of Executive responsibility that are contained therein. In short, it is a good day for small business here today. Let us get on with helping them avoid the burden of undue and cumbersome regulations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending both the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr Reed], for their diligence in improving legislation that started off in a pretty sorry state and has now reached the nearly acceptable level but still needs a little bit more work, and I would like to explain this for just a few minutes in beginning the general debate. The language in the bill providing for a so-called regulatory Bill of Rights could have had a devastating impact on the Federal Government's ability to enforce the laws fairly and efficiently, and now we have revised language that I praise my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for improving, which is included in title III, seeking employee guidelines which are more responsive to the needs of private parties, and represents a vast improvement. So I am here to praise them as well as to point out some areas in which we hope there will be improvements. Similarly, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve and narrow the scope of title I of the bill relating to regulatory flexibility analysis, and I am not surprised at his cooperative spirit. We have worked for many many years together on the Judiciary and other committees. Unfortunately, title II of the legislation requiring agencies to complete complex new regulatory impact analyses continues to be problematic. We have got trouble in this area in title II, and I am hoping that it may be repaired on the floor here today. As a result of a number of recent changes made by statute and Executive order, agency rulemakers must now consider nine separate analyses when issuing rules. That is a few too many, and while each of these additional required analyses is well intentioned and in isolation may be beneficial, collectively they have contributed to making the rulemaking process far more lengthy and complex. In an effort to make the regulatory system responsive to the needs of businesses, title II of the bill would impose even further and more complex requirements on the regulatory process. And that is not what we are here to do. That is not the great day that all America and small business in particular have been waiting for. I am concerned about title II's defining a major rule as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more. Every President since Gerald Ford has used the $100 million level for defining major rules, thereby preventing costly and needless analysis for rules such as the Interior Department's opening of hunting season or the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizing the gulf war syndrome. I also believe that the judicial review under title II should be limited to challenges of a final rule or the agency's failure to perform the required analysis. The unrestricted judicial review in title II would result in endless litigation, as every element of an impact analysis could be challenged by literally countless numbers of people. And finally, I believe that the legislation is deficient in failing to provide for greater sunshine in the regulatory process. Later today I will offer an amendment which would require that communications between an agency and OMB and Government officials and private parties be recorded and made available to the public. This change would help provide for greater accountability and avoid the perception of secret, behind-the-scene dealings, which has plagued us in earlier years. I am hopeful that the bill's language can continue to be refined along these lines in a cooperative fashion. If amendments along these lines are approved, we will make for a much better bill in H.R. 926 while making the regulatory process more responsive and more streamlined. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H2404]] Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett]. Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the poster here is just one reason for that. These are the taxes and regulations that our restaurant people have to live with. Whenever we see a tragedy we frequently ask for a moment of silence. I think when Members see the tragedy of what this does to our small business people we need a long, long moment of silence. This speaks for itself. I will not go over any of the details of this. Let me just note one instance of the inanity that occurs here. One of our restaurant people told us that OSHA came in and threatened them with fines because their workers were not using a protective glove when slicing carrots. The health people came in and threatened them with a fine if the workers did use the protective glove for slicing carrots because the protective glove could not be adequately sanitized in their view. Clearly when we look at this long, long list of taxes and regulations, this represents a burden on our restaurant people that they just cannot bear. I strongly support this bill. It starts us in the although modest application, it really halts our march in the wrong direction and starts us back in the right direction. I advise, recommend, strong, strong support of this bill for this and many many other reasons. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Gekas. We were able to work together in a cooperative and bipartisan process and although we have some principal disagreements, I believe the legislation has been made better because we were able to work together constructively and cooperatively, and at the end of today regardless of the outcome I think we can be very proud of this bipartisan process. Both of us agree that steps need to be taken to make the regulatory process more sensitive to the needs of small businesses. Small businesses lack the staff and resources to track the daily comings and goings of the Federal Register. They are less likely to have their interest represented by trade associations and lobbyists and may have a more difficult time meeting the costs imposed by regulators. Costs that seem minuscule to General Motors are insurmountable to some small businesses throughout the United States. Title I addresses this concern by strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act which direct agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small entities and, where possible, make special considerations for small businesses. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, and the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for working so hard on this issue and for sharing their expertise with us when they testified before the subcommittee. The core of title I is based on their bill, H.R. 830 from the last Congress. Mr. Skelton, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Exports Tourism and Special Problems, found that those agencies that complied with the Regulatory Impact Act had done so successfully. They established procedures that saved time, money, and litigation headaches. Unfortunately, other agencies have been able to escape compliance and they have been able to do that because regulatory flexibility analysis did not include judicial review. We are remedying that situation today and I join the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] in support of this section of the bill. The regulatory flexibility analysis in an important weapon in our efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and we need to ensure that it is implemented governmentwide. I also support title III of the bill. This title would create a code of conduct for regulators in their dealings with the American people and it emanated from a proposal made originally by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. It has been thoroughly reviewed and we have reached I think a very sensible position in the bill in title III's provisions which I support with enthusiasm. However, I do have serious concerns about title II, especially now that we have completed action on H.R. 1022. Initially, both H.R. 1022 and H.R. 926 were part of the same contract bill, H.R. 9. Unfortunately, their provisions overlap and conflict. I think it is a mistake to pass both bills in the hopes that the Senate will sort out these conflicts and inconsistencies, a step that undermines the ability of Members of this House to act on these issues sensibly with some type of overall cohesive purpose. {time} 1115 The rulemaking process has been criticized as overly prescriptive, expensive and overburdened with useless paperwork. Title II exacerbates these problems by creating a costly, time consuming process that does nothing to streamline Government or roll back redtape. The New York Times just published a diagram of the rulemaking steps required by this bill, entitled ``A Rule Making Maze.'' It resembled a Rube Goldberg contraption in its inticracy and complexity. My colleague from Florida, John Mica, just sent around a ``Dear Colleague'' containing an excerpt from Philip Howard's book, ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I wanted to quote from it, because I think it makes my point: Important, often urgent projects get held up by procedural concerns. Potentially important breakthroughs in medicine wait for years at the Food and Drug Administration. Even obviously necessary safety projects can't break through the thick wall of process. (Here he cites New York's difficulty in extending a runway at La Guardia airport that is too short for safe landings) . . . The irony he points out of our obsession with process is that it has not prevented sharp operators from exploiting the governments contracting system, as the weapons procurement scandals of the 1980's showed us. Its dense procedural thicket is a perfect hiding place for those who want to cheat * * *''. Title II is exactly what he is talking about. It extends the time line for regulations by about 2 years by establishing a series of procedural hurdles, sweeps administrative rules, such as the regulations that open duck hunting season, into costly regulatory impact analysis, and enables sharp business owners to stall regulatory changes that benefit themselves by letter writing campaigns and filing multiple lawsuits. All of these procedures will apply to deregulation, as well as regulation. They will apply to new regulations that aim to help small business become more competitive. I do not believe that 2 years from now Members will want to read in their local paper that we forced the Department of the Interior to spend several hundred thousand dollars to perform a regulatory impact analysis, followed by the costs of defending lawsuits by animal rights activists, when they are simply trying to open duck hunting season, or to replay this scenario when we try to prevent fisheries from being overfished, or to compensate veterans for gulf war syndrome. We will have amendments today that address some of the flaws in title II, and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will listen to the arguments and vote to improve this legislation. I think we can make progress to create, I hope, a bill that we can all support. But we have principal disagreements which we will debate vigorously on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing]. Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Gekas for the time he has given us and my thanks to the chairman and to Chairman Jan Meyers of the Small Business Committee for all of the support and help they have given us in developing this legislation, to Congressman Ike Skelton and Congressman Reed on the other side of the aisle for their support. I think probably most of us understand what the problem is, but I think these figures are very meaningful. Federal statutes and rules now run to 100 million words. If we were to read all of these it would take 8 years. Of course, no one is going to do that. Regulatory costs in our economy are now at $600 billion and climbing; that is $6,000 per household. Small business and small units of government have been at the mercy of [[Page H2405]] the Federal regulators for many years. And probably the most often voiced complaint that I receive when I talk to my constituents is about this overregulation. In 1980 this Congress passed a bill, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in an effort to rein in the bureaucracy and the regulations. But it had no teeth in it. It specifically prevented judicial review. There has been strong and persistent bureaucratic opposition to meaningful reform of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Yet three Presidents of both parties have ordered the bureaucracy to follow the Regulatory Flexibility Act but to no avail. Last Congress, in the 103d Congress, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I put together a coalition of small business groups that support legislation to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to add judicial review. This was backed by 254 Members of that Congress on both sides of the aisle. But unfortunately the leadership of that Congress, not the Members, refused to call that bill, and it became, because it died at the end of that Congress, a part of our Contract With America. I believe that turning a deaf ear to the demands of responsible, reasonable citizens in this country to revise our overly bureaucratic, overblown, excessive, intrusive, and destructive regulatory system was a major factor not only in the result of the November 8 election but to the dissatisfaction which the American people have expressed with their Federal Government. I strongly support the legislation before us, and particularly title I which does contain the improvements in the Regulatory Flexibility Act to grant judicial review. In addition, agencies must circulate proposed rules to the chief counsel for the advocacy of Small Business Administration, giving that agency 30 days to comment on how these would affect small entities. And finally, the bill includes a sense of Congress that the chief counsel for advocacy of SBA should be able to file amicus briefs in actions in the Federal court. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and am glad to have the opportunity to speak in its favor today. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for yielding time to me. I want to start by congratulating the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for taking what was a terrible bill and working with the other side to improve it into what is now a bad bill, and I would be the first to concede that it is an improved bill, but it is still bad. Let me express a series of concerns that I have about this bill. First of all, yesterday we passed a bill which requires a cost-benefit assessment of any new regulations that the Federal Government puts in place. So I am wondering what is the purpose of this new process that we are putting here, first of all? Second, this bill goes several steps beyond that by giving small businesses an implied veto over rules and regulations and standing in court to contest such regulations if the small business is adversely affected, whatever that means. Third, this bill gives the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy, that is probably somebody the American people have never heard of, the obligation to review and comment and get involved in litigation with respect to rules and regulations. It takes nobody out of the process. Understand, now, we have the department, the agency of government, we have the CBO, we have the Justice Department, now we have the SBA involved in the process. We keep adding on to the bureaucracy, and nobody is taken out of the process. Now, let me talk to you about the problems that I have with the bill. No. 1, it assumes that all rules that are promulgated by government are bad. You start with that assumption. Take this retaurant example that the previous speaker talked about. When I go into a restaurant and I look up and I see an A grade rating, my friends, that gives me a great deal of comfort as a member of the public. Under this rule, if we require some A grade rating, B grade rating, whatever it is, although I think that is done at the State level, if under this bill we did it at the Federal level, we would then adversely affect some restaurants. They would then end up in litigation in the courts, tying up the court system. No. 2, this bill gives small businesses unprecedented standing. The people in this country have had standing in the court. Now are are giving small businesses some kind of standing out here where they can come in, create more litigation, and I submit to the American people that that sends a terrible message that business now has some standing that even ordinary people cannot even get to. This is another step away from empowerment of the people and creates another bureaucracy which is, in effect, welfare for businesses, do away with welfare for the people, give welfare to the businesses. Third, this bill creates an entirely new level of bureaucracy in the process. Fourth, this bill will result in protracted and extended and unprecdented litigation. At the same time we are moving toward tort reform which takes away rights from the people to have access to the courts, we are moving in this direction all of a sudden to give more access to the courts, more standing to businesses. Fifth, this bill will not allow us to get to who is actually having influence in the process. We offered an amendment, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did, in the committee which would have required agencies to tell who is commenting on these regulations, who is actually getting involved, who is exerting influence on the regulators to draw these regulations. You would think that my colleagues, if they are concerned about protracted regulation, would have been anxious to know who is involved in the process, but no such luck. Let me just say that the final concern I have about this bill is that nobody knows what it is going to cost. We passed a bill yesterday to deal with regulations that was estimated to cost $250 million. Who has any idea what this monstrosity is going to cost the American people? And here we are, my colleagues, saying we are trying to cut back on government, and we are cutting back on government by increasing, not reducing, bureaucracy and costs. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate Chairman Gekas for doing an extraordinary job with this bill. What he is going to be doing is providing meaningful and long overdue relief, particularly to small businesses throughout America who are being crushed by the weight of regulation. We are suffocating job growth. We are diminishing economic opportunity oftentimes through well-meaning but badly constructed rules and regulations. Mr. Chairman, a lot of the suggestions embodied in title II of this bill do not come from any think tank in Washington, DC, or any so- called experts. They came as a result of the efforts of the manufacturing task force of this House formed under the auspices of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition 2 years ago and cochaired by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and myself. We met with literally scores of small manufacturers throughout our 18-State region and they made recommendations to us in terms of specific items that they wanted regulators to consider before finally issuing their regulation. {time} 1130 Mr. Chairman, because of his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this bill, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the cochairman of the congressional manufacturing task force, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the regulatory impact analysis provisions in H.R. 926. In 1993, Representative Bob Franks and I established the first ever congressional manufacturing task force. We traveled around the country to hold hearings [[Page H2406]] and spoke to small and mid-sized companies to find out what they needed to maintain competitiveness. Each time we held a hearing, each time we met with small businesses, we heard the same thing. Overlapping, burdensome regulations are killing manufacturers ability to stay competitive and have created the perception of Government hostile to business. Last year, the Federal Register issued over 69,000 pages of new regulations--the third highest total ever. Congress must act to change this. By requiring regulators to assess the impact of new regulations, we will streamline--not eliminate--regulations so they are more effective. The goal is to cause regulators and regulated parties to have full knowledge of the likely impact of a regulatory action before it is made final. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. You know, as a member of the committee, I enjoyed going through this bill, and I think many of the goals are worthy ones. One concern I have, however, is that I believe we have failed to account for the immutable law of unintended consequences. I believe it is our job to make sure that, when we act legislatively, we know what the outcome will be and we do not get blind-sided by an outcome that we did not intend or expect. One of the issues I intend to raise by way of an amendment later today has to do with allowing for emergency action and defining what that might be. This was an amendment offered in the committee, withdrawn with the pledge that we would work through and try to deal with the issue. Unfortunately, given the press of time and our agenda, that has not yet occurred. I am concerned we do not want to preclude, for example, the release of useful drugs, a cure for cancer, because of the regulatory scheme provided in this bill. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I believe what this is all about is making it more difficult for Washington to regulate the activities out there in America. And that is a good thing, because what has built up in this country is a mindset based on taxation, regulation, and litigation. We are going to deal with the litigation portion next week, with legal reform items; we are going to deal with the taxation part of that trilogy a little after that. This week we are dealing with the regulatory part of that terrible trilogy so weighing down this country. I believe this is a good step toward reining in some of those regulators, to making them have some justification for their additional regulations. That certainly will make sense out there in America where businesses, particularly small businesses, are collapsing under the weight of this tremendous pressure from the regulators. So I am very excited to support this bill. I commend the chairman of our subcommittee for doing an excellent job in bringing the bill to us. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a member of the subcommittee, who has played an active part in the development of this legislation. Mr. FLANAGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. H.R. 926, which is the product of hard work and consensus by Mr. Gekas and members of the Judiciary Committee, is in my opinion one of the most important features of the Republicans' Contract With America. It tackles head-on many of the problems that have been caused by the Congress and the Federal bureaucracy during the past 30-40 years, and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and regional government officials are suffering under the weight of high taxes and excessive and intrusive government regulations. H.R. 926 is a step towards reversing this trend by rolling back the tide of ill-conceived regulations, and making bureaucrats more accountable for the burdens they impose on both the wage payer and the wage earner. Under H.R. 926, Federal agencies will be required to perform regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule--that is, a rule which has an effect on the economy of $50 million or more--is promulgated. This language will go far in reducing the burdens placed on all entrepreneurs, especially small business owners whose companies employ two-thirds of the American work force and fuel the Nation's economy. Furthermore, with the enactment of this bill, business people and their employees will be a step closer in having a Government that acts more like their friend, and not as their worst enemy. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Gekas and his staff. Since the start of the 104th Congress, Mr. Gekas has bent over backward to accommodate those Members who have had reasonable suggestions for perfecting this bill. Whether Republican or Democrat, committee chairman or lowly freshman Member, Mr. Gekas and his staff worked in a congenial and bipartisan fashion unequal to anything else I have seen so far in this body. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 926. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some of the things that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has alluded to in his remarks. You know, when we take the bill that we just passed last night and add to it to the bill that we have today, we have a total cost to the taxpayers of $400 million. This means, to me, according to CBO estimates, that you are going to have to add that many more work hours in the Federal bureaucracy in order to do the risk assessment, the regulatory impact analysis, plus the other few things that are thrown in. Where do all these bureaucrats come from? They do not come from the sky, they do not grow on trees, they are hard-working American taxpayers, folks. They work hard just like everybody else out there, whether you are a truck driver, a lawyer, a doctor, or anybody else. They are trying to do their job. But what is really going to happen? Do you really believe, is there anybody in this House, anyone from the Speaker on down, from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], or anybody, who can tell me that this Congress is going to appropriate the additional funds necessary to the Small Business Administration, to EPA, to the other of our Federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and all the rest of them, in order to perform the tasks they are going to be required to fulfill under this bill and the bill we passed just yesterday? No. It is not going to happen. The money is not going to be there. The additional bureaucrats are not going to be added. As a result, they are not going to be able to do the work that is imposed on them. Then what will the other party say? The other party will say they are not doing their job, ``We passed the legislation, and they are not doing their job.'' Well, folks, they cannot do their job, they cannot do it unless you give them the money. And you are not going to give them the money because you are already taking away from the kids, the veterans, the elderly. All those programs are being cut in a rescission bill in order to give it to the wealthy in income tax cuts. That is where you are giving the money. You are not going to help them be able to fulfill this legislation. You tell me in what bill when you are going to appropriate the additional money that is required under the CBO [[Page H2407]] estimate in this bill. You are not going to do it. I would like to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come up here and tell us they are going to provide the additional funds, because I do not think it is going to be done. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is the culmination of a great deal of effort that I have been personally working on for more than a decade. At the outset, let me thank and compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for his efforts, for together we have cosponsored legislation regarding the original Regulatory Flexibility Act for some time. I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the gentlewoman from Kansas, Chairman Meyers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaFalce. I applaud their efforts and again thank Tom Ewing for the opportunity of getting this hearing. The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, which had my support and on which I worked, was signed into law back in 1980. Later I was chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee, and I held hearings on this in the mid-1980's concerning how the Regulatory Flexibility Act was working. We got mixed reviews. As chairman of that, I found that most agencies were making an honest, diligent effort to comply with the law. Others came before us and testified and said, ``It does not apply to us,'' or they were giving it, as we say back home, a lick and a promise. We put out a report that found that those complying with the law found that they were actually writing better regulations when they considered the impact on small businesses. Also, they found and concluded that it saves these agencies time, saves them money when good regulations are written from the beginning rather than waiting to have them questioned by small businesses. We need to make adjustments in the law, to improve it, to give it teeth. That is why the portion that Mr. Ewing and I have been working on throughout the last few years deals with judicial review and primarily states that the agencies should understand that they can actually be challenged if they write regulations that are more than cursory--take more than cursory consideration of the impact on small businesses. It is unlikely that many cases would ever come to court because the threat, the sword of Damocles that would be hanging over them. I think it would be a very, very important step, and that is why I fully support the efforts for judicial review and a change in the law as set forth in this proposal. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize our next speaker, I want to personally commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his decade of interest in this vital issue and to point out to the Members that his testimony and his involvement has played an important role in bringing this matter to the full House today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also played a significant role in the development of the issues that have now been brought to the floor. Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for the fine work that he has provided, not only to those who have the honor of serving on his subcommittee and addressing the issues of regulatory reform but also to the people of this country who labor in our small businesses all across this great land who have been crying out for this relief for so long but who for so long have been denied the relief they need to manage their businesses in a way that meets the needs of their consumers, responsibly meets the needs of their consumers, meets the needs of their shareholders, meets the needs of citizens all across this land who benefit from the products and services that our businesses provide. {time} 1145 Those consumers and those citizens have for too long labored and have seen higher prices for products, products not being able to get on the market, and higher prices for the provision of necessary Government services, all of which can be directly traced to burdensome, many times unnecessary, and frequently ill-thought-out Federal regulations. Under the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], we have taken one step, only one step, but an important step, toward regulatory reform and regulatory flexibility. It has been a very responsible first step, Mr. Chairman. We listened very carefully to the evidence and the testimony that was presented to us in subcommittee hearings. In some instances we took the material that was received and incorporated that into amendments to the bill that we now have before us. In other instances, based on information presented by some folks from the administration, we have deferred action, recommended deferring action in some important areas. But I think this administration and the American people and those on the other side of the aisle who continue to defend the status quo must know that even as important as H.R. 926 is that we will be considering today, there is further work that must be done to ensure that our Federal regulators respect the rights of citizens and businesses, and that they extend them relief, and that they be stopped from running roughshod over our businesses and our citizens. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am one Democrat who believes regulations have gone too far. They kill American jobs. It has gotten to the point that it is so bad that if a dog urinates on a side lot, it may be declared a wetlands. I recommended for years that Congress should ship the EPA to Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China, and then we would not have a trade problem because the EPA would screw them up too. But in any event, I think the Democrats should have done this in the past. I am going to support the bill. I have two amendments, and people are saying they may not necessarily apply to in fact the Administrative Procedures Act. But in my research I have found that there are no safeguards in the event that situation should develop. My two amendments would do two things, and I would like the majority party here to pay attention to this. This bill would exempt certain emergencies, certain deadlines imposed by statute, and certain monetary activities that are listed in the bill. The Traficant amendment just say two things: For any future action or any ambiguous action for a trade program in America that is less than aggressive, who might at some point creatively try to find a loophole to continue not to in fact enforce and provide sanctions where necessary, the Traficant amendment would first say that no rule or regulation that is in existence that can be used for trade sanctions to combat illegal trade, that we would exempt that and put it in the exemption part of the bill. The other one deals with the possibility in the future of the collection of taxes from foreign subsidiaries, people who take our money out of or country and run, and there could be absolutely no possibility by any stretch of the imagination where creative minds could be used to apply this bill at some point down the line. And it would exempt from that the IRS collection actions on these foreign subsidiaries who many times come and take our jobs, take the profits, and run away with them. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: These are safeguard amendments. They are the types of amendments we should be doing. We should be preventing the opportunity for abuse, and that is one of the reasons why we are in fact eliminating regulations. [[Page H2408]] I recommend this to the handlers of this bill. This makes the bill a better bill, and I ask for the support of Members on these amendments. Let me say one other thing: The trade representative's office which is concerned about this does agree that sanctions are not the result of rulemaking. But one thing we can be sure of, there is no reason the Congress of the United States should allow any loophole where illegal trade sanctions can at some point have their backs turned by our trade people. We have seen too much of that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I would appreciate having my amendments be approved and accepted without prejudice. I would be glad to talk to the majority staff further about these issues. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is a member of the subcommittee and who participated in the hearings and the entire development of this legislation. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I find it incredible that some on the other side of the aisle are so adamant in defending and preserving the massive Federal bureaucracy that has grown over the years. Maybe it is understandable that they defend this huge bureaucracy since they created it. The challenge now is to reduce and simplify a government that has grown completely out of control. H.R. 926 aims to curb the ruinous practices of Federal agencies that unduly restrain the creative energies of small business. Small business is the backbone of America's economy. America's small businesses have had enough. They desperately need, in fact they are demanding immediately, that we relieve the overbearing regulatory agencies that have grown up. Opponents of H.R. 926 incorrectly assume that hardworking Americans and small businesses should bear the destructive brunt of the cost of this regulatory process. Nobody I know of in Cincinnati, especially small business owners, shares that opinion. If we want the regulatory process to be a burden, let us not make it a burden on small business; let us make it a burden on the Federal Government. Let us strengthen regulatory flexibility by giving aggrieved small businesses the ability to seek judicial review. Let us enlarge the public's role in the rulemaking process. Let us force regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses. Let us protect Americans who report abusive practices of regulatory agencies from catastrophic reprisals. What does all this mean to the average American citizen? It means that when they go to the store, products will not be so expensive; they will be more in the reach of average Americans. It means jobs for American citizens, because so many of the jobs that are created in this country are created by small business. And most importantly, it means a better standard of living for the American people. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and would like to briefly address title I of the bill that deals with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I and a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle were troubled with the original language in the Contract With America with respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That original language would have applied the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to big business as well as the country's small businesses. We felt that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was supposed to respond to the kinds of problems the majority has been talking about. A lot of our small businesses do go through bureaucratic water torture when they run up against some of these regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to be a fast-track process for adjusting regulation to the needs of small entrepreneurs. But the Contract With America would have changed all that. We want what amounts to an HOV lane for entrepreneurs so that the Federal Government responds to their concerns. So fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, working with the chairman of the committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], there has now been a bipartisan agreement worked out with all the relevant committees that regulatory flexibility provisions will apply just to small business. In my view, this is the way to ensure that the Federal bureaucracy is sensitive to America's entrepreneurs. That is what is in the public interest. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask again, at the risk of boring the Chair, how much time we have left? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 6 minutes remaining. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, that gives me ample time to bring to the floor the giant legislator, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, who is the chairman of the full committee and the leader of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental goal of the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act (H.R. 926) is to reduce the inevitable growth of costly regulations imposed upon our society. The bill achieves this by ensuring enforcement of current law to protect small business, the Regulatory Flexibility Act--and by encouraging greater public participation in our rulemaking process through the imposition of impact analysis on agency rulemaking. It is our hope that through the achievement of this goal, a less inhibited atmosphere will exist, which will allow U.S. commerce to thrive. The amendments before us to the Regulatory Flexibility Act are important because they would provide small businesses with a means to effectively enforce the goals/purposes of that law. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special needs and concerns of small entities--small businesses, small local governments, farmers, et cetera--whenever they engage in a rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the law, each time an agency publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, it must prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' From the beginning, the problem with this statute has been the lack of availability of judicial review as a mechanism to enforce the purposes of the law. Right now, if agencies do not do a regulatory flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in the act, there is no sanction. For years, small business groups have sought judicial review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a means of ``keeping the regulatory agencies honest.'' Our colleague and friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, has been a leader in this effort. H.R. 926 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, specifically providing for judicial review. In instances where an agency should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized to seek judicial review within 180 days after promulgation. A court can then give an agency 90 days to take corrective action. If the agency fails to take the necessary corrective action within 90 days, the court is given the authority to stay the rule and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. H.R. 926 is aimed at humanizing the Federal regulatory process. This is an [[Page H2409]] important aspect of the Contract With America--to provide affected parties--such as small businesses, small local governments, farmers and others--with a mechanism to ensure that the impersonal Washington bureaucracy takes into consideration the impact that a new rule or regulation can have on their businesses and their everyday lives. Title Z of H.R. 926 deals with regulatory impact analyses. This language would require Federal agencies to complete a regulatory impact analysis when drafting a major rule. Major rule is defined under the legislation as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or significant adverse impacts on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete domestically or internationally. The bill lists a number of specific criteria which Federal agencies have to consider as a part of their regulatory impact analysis. These include a requirement that the agency describe the necessity and legal authority for the rule; a description of the potential costs of the rule; an analysis of alternative approaches, that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal; a statement that the rule does not conflict with any other rule or regulation; a statement as to whether or not the rule would require onsight inspections--or whether or not the rule would require the maintenance of any records subject to inspection--and an estimate of the costs to the agency for the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The bill encourages public hearings on important regulations. The bill makes it clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will oversee the Federal regulatory process in an effort to ensure consistency and broad based fairness. It is important to note that the provisions of this section would not apply to major rules if it would conflict in any way with deadlines imposed by statute or by court order. The bill also requires that the Director of OMB submit a report to Congress no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this act containing an analysis of Federal rulemaking procedures and an analysis of the impact of the regulatory process on the American public. Mr. Chairman, regulatory flexibility was a good idea when it was enacted in 1980. Unfortunately, we haven't seen its potential because our courts could not enforce it. Regulatory impact analysis by Federal agencies was a good idea in 1981 when President Reagan required it through Executive order. Unfortunately, Executive orders are not permanent and those impact analyses are no longer enforced. This legislation will ensure enforcement of both of these tools. This legislation is long overdue. {time} 1200 Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been the process of working together cooperatively over the last several weeks to develop legislation that will meet the needs of small businesses throughout the United States and meet the needs of taxpayers throughout the United States, to develop a regulatory system which is streamlined, efficient and provides for the protection of the public good. And we have reached, I think, major accommodations in terms of language. Today I hope we can reach additional accommodations in terms of providing a system that will protect the public good and save money. I am encouraged by the process. I hope in the next few hours we can make changes that will make this legislation even better for the benefit of all of our citizens. Again, I thank and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his help and effort during this process. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for all his cooperative efforts in the past. I just wanted to end our portion of general debate by pointing out to the Members on the other side that as they consider their amendments and as they consider their opposition to certain portions of the bill as it now is drafted, to think of the people in their district, the working people. They, by most chances, work for a small business. They are the people who are going to be helped most by this piece of legislation. We are not against rules. We are not against regulation. We simply want to make sure that the small business which does the hiring of your constituents, which keeps wage earners on the payroll, that those small businesses will not have to go out of business or fire people or lay off people because of the burdensome regulations that sweep down on them from Washington. That is the purpose of this bill. Think of your working people, your constituents, and then you will think twice about trying to defend against this bill or offering amendments which will weaken it. We want to make our working people work for a small business that will have the greatest opportunity to expand, to hire more people, to enhance wages, to increase prosperity for the community in which they operate. That is the purpose of this bill. When you start attacking business, you are attacking the opportunity for your working people, your constituents to keep on trucking with their jobs. The CHAIRMAN. All time for the Committee on the Judiciary has expired. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, is recognized for 15 minutes. Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 926. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Jimmy Carter signed the original Regulatory Flexibility Act back in 1980, it was applauded as a new, strategic weapon in the war against excessive regulation. American businesses soon discovered that Reg Flex was less a strategic weapon and more a water pistol. Sure, you could aim it at excessive regulations and pull the trigger, but nothing much happened. Reg Flex lacked the striking power to challenge the bureaucrats. It failed even to drown out their laughter as they ignored the law. As a weapon for curbing regulatory abuses, Reg Flex was a dud. Today, we are giving punch to Reg Flex. By allowing America's businesses to challenge abusive regulations in the courts, we are finally forcing Federal bureaucrats to comply with the law. If they want to issue a new major rule, they first have to account for its impact on American business. Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act is a major step forward in the battle for control of America's businesses. It's the strategic weapon we've been promising America's busineses all along, and I look forward to its passage. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair

Summary:

All articles in House section

REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT
(House of Representatives - March 01, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2402-H2443] REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 926. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 926) to promote regulatory flexibility and enhance public participation in Federal agency rulemaking, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] will be recognized for 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have good news for our country here today, because we are going to be considering a bill that will go a long way when enacted to bring about job creation and wage enhancement. Mr. Chairman, for too long, burdensome and complex rules coming out of Washington have strangled small business, have been a drag on free enterprise, have been a drag on job creation, have been a drag on wage creation, have been a drag on the economy. Today what we are about here today is a first step to slay that dragon, to bring about sanity in the rulemaking process of the national bureaucracy, of the Federal bureaucracy. How do we go about accomplishing that? Well, a bold attempt was made in 1980 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter when there was passed a Regulatory Flexibility Act. That did bring about at least a sense of more involvement by the small business community in the rulemaking process that so adversely had affected it previously. We are here to say today that even that bold attempt that started in 1980 has not fulfilled the promise that it was expected by the small business community to lift the burden of regulations from their shoulders so that they can venture out into new enterprises and create more jobs. Rather, the reverse took place. There was even more of a vivid flurry of regulations and burdens that came down on their shoulders. Mr. Chairman, we here today in title I of this particular bill will deal directly with small business. We are targeting small business. We are going to be embracing small business to give them more input into what transpires in the rulemaking process. That in itself would be worth the whole effort of what we do here today, but we go farther. We do something that is so exquisite for the small businessperson, that we have a great, good feeling about it. We are for the first time providing by law, if this bill is enacted, judicial review. That means that where the previous act, the one I just alluded to from the Jimmy Carter era, prohibited judicial review, we go the other way and overtly provide for judicial review. [[Page H2403]] What does this mean? It means that for the first time in a whole host of rulemaking processes across the Federal bureaucracy, when a rule is promulgated and it disaffects or adversely impacts against a small business entity or groups of entities, then there will be the possibility of challenging that rule and what it does to the small business community in court. That is a major step. It is just an afterthought on the part of this Member? No. It is just a whim on the part of the small business community? No. It is an absolute necessity. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed in people who are advocating some kind of reform in this arena for a long period of time. Even Vice President Gore has come out in his interpretation of the reforms that are necessary for judicial review. That by itself again would justify passage of this bill and enactment of it into the law of the land. {time} 1100 But we go further. We also provide in title I, this is extremely important for the small business community, that the Small Business Administration advocate and chief counsel must receive notice of a proposed rule. What does that do? That allows him or her acting for the small business community, within this Small Business Administration, which is the key administrative bureau of small business, to have advanced notice of a rule and then bring into play all of the concerns and the worries that the small business community might have in the face of such a rule. That is an excellent advance that we are making by what is included in title I. Then we go to title II. Title II would require for the first time for all business, not just small business, but for all business, a regulatory impact analysis that would accompany these very strident rules that have for too long been plaguing the business community. What am I talking about here? Well, a rule has an impact, and when what we want to call a major rule has an adverse impact on the economy worth more than $50 million, then on that basis our bill calls for the issuance of a regulatory impact analysis to give advance notice to the business community, the very people who are going to have to be guided by this rule or are adversely impacted by this rule, an opportunity to come back and be able to challenge the findings of this analysis and thus have a full participation in the deliberations that take place in the promulgation of a rule, rather than to sit back and just take what is coming to them and then be helpless, possibly, in combating the rule that will have so blatantly impacted them adversely. So title II will afford the business community this extra forum that would be required. But how did we accomplish this? What we did was not dream up criteria by which we ought to be defining this analysis that the rulemaking agency must apply, but rather we incorporated by new language, but nevertheless incorporated into our bill, in title II, seven strong criteria that have to be included in this analysis drawn from the Executive order that President Reagan during his time issued on this very same subject. So we are combining the history of the Jimmy Carter administration and regulatory flexibility with the Executive order of Ronald Reagan in the regulatory impact analysis area, and combining them to make a strong bill that would bring back a sense of accomplishment on the part of the small business community as they seek to open new markets and to expand their ability to create jobs and to lift wages as they become more successful. These criteria will be discussed, I know, in different ways as we proceed with the debate, but I can safely tell my colleagues that it will be a great stride forward when we complete the business of the day. Title III, which the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the ranking member on the minority, and I jointly responded to the concerns that were expressed during the hearings, that has taken on a different configuration from that which we first felt was necessary, but I am sure at the end of the day that the Members of the House will be satisfied with how we have approached title III and the segments of Executive responsibility that are contained therein. In short, it is a good day for small business here today. Let us get on with helping them avoid the burden of undue and cumbersome regulations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending both the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr Reed], for their diligence in improving legislation that started off in a pretty sorry state and has now reached the nearly acceptable level but still needs a little bit more work, and I would like to explain this for just a few minutes in beginning the general debate. The language in the bill providing for a so-called regulatory Bill of Rights could have had a devastating impact on the Federal Government's ability to enforce the laws fairly and efficiently, and now we have revised language that I praise my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for improving, which is included in title III, seeking employee guidelines which are more responsive to the needs of private parties, and represents a vast improvement. So I am here to praise them as well as to point out some areas in which we hope there will be improvements. Similarly, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve and narrow the scope of title I of the bill relating to regulatory flexibility analysis, and I am not surprised at his cooperative spirit. We have worked for many many years together on the Judiciary and other committees. Unfortunately, title II of the legislation requiring agencies to complete complex new regulatory impact analyses continues to be problematic. We have got trouble in this area in title II, and I am hoping that it may be repaired on the floor here today. As a result of a number of recent changes made by statute and Executive order, agency rulemakers must now consider nine separate analyses when issuing rules. That is a few too many, and while each of these additional required analyses is well intentioned and in isolation may be beneficial, collectively they have contributed to making the rulemaking process far more lengthy and complex. In an effort to make the regulatory system responsive to the needs of businesses, title II of the bill would impose even further and more complex requirements on the regulatory process. And that is not what we are here to do. That is not the great day that all America and small business in particular have been waiting for. I am concerned about title II's defining a major rule as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more. Every President since Gerald Ford has used the $100 million level for defining major rules, thereby preventing costly and needless analysis for rules such as the Interior Department's opening of hunting season or the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizing the gulf war syndrome. I also believe that the judicial review under title II should be limited to challenges of a final rule or the agency's failure to perform the required analysis. The unrestricted judicial review in title II would result in endless litigation, as every element of an impact analysis could be challenged by literally countless numbers of people. And finally, I believe that the legislation is deficient in failing to provide for greater sunshine in the regulatory process. Later today I will offer an amendment which would require that communications between an agency and OMB and Government officials and private parties be recorded and made available to the public. This change would help provide for greater accountability and avoid the perception of secret, behind-the-scene dealings, which has plagued us in earlier years. I am hopeful that the bill's language can continue to be refined along these lines in a cooperative fashion. If amendments along these lines are approved, we will make for a much better bill in H.R. 926 while making the regulatory process more responsive and more streamlined. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H2404]] Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett]. Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the poster here is just one reason for that. These are the taxes and regulations that our restaurant people have to live with. Whenever we see a tragedy we frequently ask for a moment of silence. I think when Members see the tragedy of what this does to our small business people we need a long, long moment of silence. This speaks for itself. I will not go over any of the details of this. Let me just note one instance of the inanity that occurs here. One of our restaurant people told us that OSHA came in and threatened them with fines because their workers were not using a protective glove when slicing carrots. The health people came in and threatened them with a fine if the workers did use the protective glove for slicing carrots because the protective glove could not be adequately sanitized in their view. Clearly when we look at this long, long list of taxes and regulations, this represents a burden on our restaurant people that they just cannot bear. I strongly support this bill. It starts us in the although modest application, it really halts our march in the wrong direction and starts us back in the right direction. I advise, recommend, strong, strong support of this bill for this and many many other reasons. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Gekas. We were able to work together in a cooperative and bipartisan process and although we have some principal disagreements, I believe the legislation has been made better because we were able to work together constructively and cooperatively, and at the end of today regardless of the outcome I think we can be very proud of this bipartisan process. Both of us agree that steps need to be taken to make the regulatory process more sensitive to the needs of small businesses. Small businesses lack the staff and resources to track the daily comings and goings of the Federal Register. They are less likely to have their interest represented by trade associations and lobbyists and may have a more difficult time meeting the costs imposed by regulators. Costs that seem minuscule to General Motors are insurmountable to some small businesses throughout the United States. Title I addresses this concern by strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act which direct agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small entities and, where possible, make special considerations for small businesses. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, and the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for working so hard on this issue and for sharing their expertise with us when they testified before the subcommittee. The core of title I is based on their bill, H.R. 830 from the last Congress. Mr. Skelton, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Exports Tourism and Special Problems, found that those agencies that complied with the Regulatory Impact Act had done so successfully. They established procedures that saved time, money, and litigation headaches. Unfortunately, other agencies have been able to escape compliance and they have been able to do that because regulatory flexibility analysis did not include judicial review. We are remedying that situation today and I join the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] in support of this section of the bill. The regulatory flexibility analysis in an important weapon in our efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and we need to ensure that it is implemented governmentwide. I also support title III of the bill. This title would create a code of conduct for regulators in their dealings with the American people and it emanated from a proposal made originally by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. It has been thoroughly reviewed and we have reached I think a very sensible position in the bill in title III's provisions which I support with enthusiasm. However, I do have serious concerns about title II, especially now that we have completed action on H.R. 1022. Initially, both H.R. 1022 and H.R. 926 were part of the same contract bill, H.R. 9. Unfortunately, their provisions overlap and conflict. I think it is a mistake to pass both bills in the hopes that the Senate will sort out these conflicts and inconsistencies, a step that undermines the ability of Members of this House to act on these issues sensibly with some type of overall cohesive purpose. {time} 1115 The rulemaking process has been criticized as overly prescriptive, expensive and overburdened with useless paperwork. Title II exacerbates these problems by creating a costly, time consuming process that does nothing to streamline Government or roll back redtape. The New York Times just published a diagram of the rulemaking steps required by this bill, entitled ``A Rule Making Maze.'' It resembled a Rube Goldberg contraption in its inticracy and complexity. My colleague from Florida, John Mica, just sent around a ``Dear Colleague'' containing an excerpt from Philip Howard's book, ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I wanted to quote from it, because I think it makes my point: Important, often urgent projects get held up by procedural concerns. Potentially important breakthroughs in medicine wait for years at the Food and Drug Administration. Even obviously necessary safety projects can't break through the thick wall of process. (Here he cites New York's difficulty in extending a runway at La Guardia airport that is too short for safe landings) . . . The irony he points out of our obsession with process is that it has not prevented sharp operators from exploiting the governments contracting system, as the weapons procurement scandals of the 1980's showed us. Its dense procedural thicket is a perfect hiding place for those who want to cheat * * *''. Title II is exactly what he is talking about. It extends the time line for regulations by about 2 years by establishing a series of procedural hurdles, sweeps administrative rules, such as the regulations that open duck hunting season, into costly regulatory impact analysis, and enables sharp business owners to stall regulatory changes that benefit themselves by letter writing campaigns and filing multiple lawsuits. All of these procedures will apply to deregulation, as well as regulation. They will apply to new regulations that aim to help small business become more competitive. I do not believe that 2 years from now Members will want to read in their local paper that we forced the Department of the Interior to spend several hundred thousand dollars to perform a regulatory impact analysis, followed by the costs of defending lawsuits by animal rights activists, when they are simply trying to open duck hunting season, or to replay this scenario when we try to prevent fisheries from being overfished, or to compensate veterans for gulf war syndrome. We will have amendments today that address some of the flaws in title II, and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will listen to the arguments and vote to improve this legislation. I think we can make progress to create, I hope, a bill that we can all support. But we have principal disagreements which we will debate vigorously on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing]. Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Gekas for the time he has given us and my thanks to the chairman and to Chairman Jan Meyers of the Small Business Committee for all of the support and help they have given us in developing this legislation, to Congressman Ike Skelton and Congressman Reed on the other side of the aisle for their support. I think probably most of us understand what the problem is, but I think these figures are very meaningful. Federal statutes and rules now run to 100 million words. If we were to read all of these it would take 8 years. Of course, no one is going to do that. Regulatory costs in our economy are now at $600 billion and climbing; that is $6,000 per household. Small business and small units of government have been at the mercy of [[Page H2405]] the Federal regulators for many years. And probably the most often voiced complaint that I receive when I talk to my constituents is about this overregulation. In 1980 this Congress passed a bill, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in an effort to rein in the bureaucracy and the regulations. But it had no teeth in it. It specifically prevented judicial review. There has been strong and persistent bureaucratic opposition to meaningful reform of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Yet three Presidents of both parties have ordered the bureaucracy to follow the Regulatory Flexibility Act but to no avail. Last Congress, in the 103d Congress, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I put together a coalition of small business groups that support legislation to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to add judicial review. This was backed by 254 Members of that Congress on both sides of the aisle. But unfortunately the leadership of that Congress, not the Members, refused to call that bill, and it became, because it died at the end of that Congress, a part of our Contract With America. I believe that turning a deaf ear to the demands of responsible, reasonable citizens in this country to revise our overly bureaucratic, overblown, excessive, intrusive, and destructive regulatory system was a major factor not only in the result of the November 8 election but to the dissatisfaction which the American people have expressed with their Federal Government. I strongly support the legislation before us, and particularly title I which does contain the improvements in the Regulatory Flexibility Act to grant judicial review. In addition, agencies must circulate proposed rules to the chief counsel for the advocacy of Small Business Administration, giving that agency 30 days to comment on how these would affect small entities. And finally, the bill includes a sense of Congress that the chief counsel for advocacy of SBA should be able to file amicus briefs in actions in the Federal court. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and am glad to have the opportunity to speak in its favor today. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for yielding time to me. I want to start by congratulating the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for taking what was a terrible bill and working with the other side to improve it into what is now a bad bill, and I would be the first to concede that it is an improved bill, but it is still bad. Let me express a series of concerns that I have about this bill. First of all, yesterday we passed a bill which requires a cost-benefit assessment of any new regulations that the Federal Government puts in place. So I am wondering what is the purpose of this new process that we are putting here, first of all? Second, this bill goes several steps beyond that by giving small businesses an implied veto over rules and regulations and standing in court to contest such regulations if the small business is adversely affected, whatever that means. Third, this bill gives the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy, that is probably somebody the American people have never heard of, the obligation to review and comment and get involved in litigation with respect to rules and regulations. It takes nobody out of the process. Understand, now, we have the department, the agency of government, we have the CBO, we have the Justice Department, now we have the SBA involved in the process. We keep adding on to the bureaucracy, and nobody is taken out of the process. Now, let me talk to you about the problems that I have with the bill. No. 1, it assumes that all rules that are promulgated by government are bad. You start with that assumption. Take this retaurant example that the previous speaker talked about. When I go into a restaurant and I look up and I see an A grade rating, my friends, that gives me a great deal of comfort as a member of the public. Under this rule, if we require some A grade rating, B grade rating, whatever it is, although I think that is done at the State level, if under this bill we did it at the Federal level, we would then adversely affect some restaurants. They would then end up in litigation in the courts, tying up the court system. No. 2, this bill gives small businesses unprecedented standing. The people in this country have had standing in the court. Now are are giving small businesses some kind of standing out here where they can come in, create more litigation, and I submit to the American people that that sends a terrible message that business now has some standing that even ordinary people cannot even get to. This is another step away from empowerment of the people and creates another bureaucracy which is, in effect, welfare for businesses, do away with welfare for the people, give welfare to the businesses. Third, this bill creates an entirely new level of bureaucracy in the process. Fourth, this bill will result in protracted and extended and unprecdented litigation. At the same time we are moving toward tort reform which takes away rights from the people to have access to the courts, we are moving in this direction all of a sudden to give more access to the courts, more standing to businesses. Fifth, this bill will not allow us to get to who is actually having influence in the process. We offered an amendment, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did, in the committee which would have required agencies to tell who is commenting on these regulations, who is actually getting involved, who is exerting influence on the regulators to draw these regulations. You would think that my colleagues, if they are concerned about protracted regulation, would have been anxious to know who is involved in the process, but no such luck. Let me just say that the final concern I have about this bill is that nobody knows what it is going to cost. We passed a bill yesterday to deal with regulations that was estimated to cost $250 million. Who has any idea what this monstrosity is going to cost the American people? And here we are, my colleagues, saying we are trying to cut back on government, and we are cutting back on government by increasing, not reducing, bureaucracy and costs. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate Chairman Gekas for doing an extraordinary job with this bill. What he is going to be doing is providing meaningful and long overdue relief, particularly to small businesses throughout America who are being crushed by the weight of regulation. We are suffocating job growth. We are diminishing economic opportunity oftentimes through well-meaning but badly constructed rules and regulations. Mr. Chairman, a lot of the suggestions embodied in title II of this bill do not come from any think tank in Washington, DC, or any so- called experts. They came as a result of the efforts of the manufacturing task force of this House formed under the auspices of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition 2 years ago and cochaired by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and myself. We met with literally scores of small manufacturers throughout our 18-State region and they made recommendations to us in terms of specific items that they wanted regulators to consider before finally issuing their regulation. {time} 1130 Mr. Chairman, because of his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this bill, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the cochairman of the congressional manufacturing task force, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the regulatory impact analysis provisions in H.R. 926. In 1993, Representative Bob Franks and I established the first ever congressional manufacturing task force. We traveled around the country to hold hearings [[Page H2406]] and spoke to small and mid-sized companies to find out what they needed to maintain competitiveness. Each time we held a hearing, each time we met with small businesses, we heard the same thing. Overlapping, burdensome regulations are killing manufacturers ability to stay competitive and have created the perception of Government hostile to business. Last year, the Federal Register issued over 69,000 pages of new regulations--the third highest total ever. Congress must act to change this. By requiring regulators to assess the impact of new regulations, we will streamline--not eliminate--regulations so they are more effective. The goal is to cause regulators and regulated parties to have full knowledge of the likely impact of a regulatory action before it is made final. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. You know, as a member of the committee, I enjoyed going through this bill, and I think many of the goals are worthy ones. One concern I have, however, is that I believe we have failed to account for the immutable law of unintended consequences. I believe it is our job to make sure that, when we act legislatively, we know what the outcome will be and we do not get blind-sided by an outcome that we did not intend or expect. One of the issues I intend to raise by way of an amendment later today has to do with allowing for emergency action and defining what that might be. This was an amendment offered in the committee, withdrawn with the pledge that we would work through and try to deal with the issue. Unfortunately, given the press of time and our agenda, that has not yet occurred. I am concerned we do not want to preclude, for example, the release of useful drugs, a cure for cancer, because of the regulatory scheme provided in this bill. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I believe what this is all about is making it more difficult for Washington to regulate the activities out there in America. And that is a good thing, because what has built up in this country is a mindset based on taxation, regulation, and litigation. We are going to deal with the litigation portion next week, with legal reform items; we are going to deal with the taxation part of that trilogy a little after that. This week we are dealing with the regulatory part of that terrible trilogy so weighing down this country. I believe this is a good step toward reining in some of those regulators, to making them have some justification for their additional regulations. That certainly will make sense out there in America where businesses, particularly small businesses, are collapsing under the weight of this tremendous pressure from the regulators. So I am very excited to support this bill. I commend the chairman of our subcommittee for doing an excellent job in bringing the bill to us. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a member of the subcommittee, who has played an active part in the development of this legislation. Mr. FLANAGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. H.R. 926, which is the product of hard work and consensus by Mr. Gekas and members of the Judiciary Committee, is in my opinion one of the most important features of the Republicans' Contract With America. It tackles head-on many of the problems that have been caused by the Congress and the Federal bureaucracy during the past 30-40 years, and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and regional government officials are suffering under the weight of high taxes and excessive and intrusive government regulations. H.R. 926 is a step towards reversing this trend by rolling back the tide of ill-conceived regulations, and making bureaucrats more accountable for the burdens they impose on both the wage payer and the wage earner. Under H.R. 926, Federal agencies will be required to perform regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule--that is, a rule which has an effect on the economy of $50 million or more--is promulgated. This language will go far in reducing the burdens placed on all entrepreneurs, especially small business owners whose companies employ two-thirds of the American work force and fuel the Nation's economy. Furthermore, with the enactment of this bill, business people and their employees will be a step closer in having a Government that acts more like their friend, and not as their worst enemy. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Gekas and his staff. Since the start of the 104th Congress, Mr. Gekas has bent over backward to accommodate those Members who have had reasonable suggestions for perfecting this bill. Whether Republican or Democrat, committee chairman or lowly freshman Member, Mr. Gekas and his staff worked in a congenial and bipartisan fashion unequal to anything else I have seen so far in this body. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 926. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some of the things that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has alluded to in his remarks. You know, when we take the bill that we just passed last night and add to it to the bill that we have today, we have a total cost to the taxpayers of $400 million. This means, to me, according to CBO estimates, that you are going to have to add that many more work hours in the Federal bureaucracy in order to do the risk assessment, the regulatory impact analysis, plus the other few things that are thrown in. Where do all these bureaucrats come from? They do not come from the sky, they do not grow on trees, they are hard-working American taxpayers, folks. They work hard just like everybody else out there, whether you are a truck driver, a lawyer, a doctor, or anybody else. They are trying to do their job. But what is really going to happen? Do you really believe, is there anybody in this House, anyone from the Speaker on down, from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], or anybody, who can tell me that this Congress is going to appropriate the additional funds necessary to the Small Business Administration, to EPA, to the other of our Federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and all the rest of them, in order to perform the tasks they are going to be required to fulfill under this bill and the bill we passed just yesterday? No. It is not going to happen. The money is not going to be there. The additional bureaucrats are not going to be added. As a result, they are not going to be able to do the work that is imposed on them. Then what will the other party say? The other party will say they are not doing their job, ``We passed the legislation, and they are not doing their job.'' Well, folks, they cannot do their job, they cannot do it unless you give them the money. And you are not going to give them the money because you are already taking away from the kids, the veterans, the elderly. All those programs are being cut in a rescission bill in order to give it to the wealthy in income tax cuts. That is where you are giving the money. You are not going to help them be able to fulfill this legislation. You tell me in what bill when you are going to appropriate the additional money that is required under the CBO [[Page H2407]] estimate in this bill. You are not going to do it. I would like to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come up here and tell us they are going to provide the additional funds, because I do not think it is going to be done. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is the culmination of a great deal of effort that I have been personally working on for more than a decade. At the outset, let me thank and compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for his efforts, for together we have cosponsored legislation regarding the original Regulatory Flexibility Act for some time. I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the gentlewoman from Kansas, Chairman Meyers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaFalce. I applaud their efforts and again thank Tom Ewing for the opportunity of getting this hearing. The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, which had my support and on which I worked, was signed into law back in 1980. Later I was chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee, and I held hearings on this in the mid-1980's concerning how the Regulatory Flexibility Act was working. We got mixed reviews. As chairman of that, I found that most agencies were making an honest, diligent effort to comply with the law. Others came before us and testified and said, ``It does not apply to us,'' or they were giving it, as we say back home, a lick and a promise. We put out a report that found that those complying with the law found that they were actually writing better regulations when they considered the impact on small businesses. Also, they found and concluded that it saves these agencies time, saves them money when good regulations are written from the beginning rather than waiting to have them questioned by small businesses. We need to make adjustments in the law, to improve it, to give it teeth. That is why the portion that Mr. Ewing and I have been working on throughout the last few years deals with judicial review and primarily states that the agencies should understand that they can actually be challenged if they write regulations that are more than cursory--take more than cursory consideration of the impact on small businesses. It is unlikely that many cases would ever come to court because the threat, the sword of Damocles that would be hanging over them. I think it would be a very, very important step, and that is why I fully support the efforts for judicial review and a change in the law as set forth in this proposal. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize our next speaker, I want to personally commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his decade of interest in this vital issue and to point out to the Members that his testimony and his involvement has played an important role in bringing this matter to the full House today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also played a significant role in the development of the issues that have now been brought to the floor. Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for the fine work that he has provided, not only to those who have the honor of serving on his subcommittee and addressing the issues of regulatory reform but also to the people of this country who labor in our small businesses all across this great land who have been crying out for this relief for so long but who for so long have been denied the relief they need to manage their businesses in a way that meets the needs of their consumers, responsibly meets the needs of their consumers, meets the needs of their shareholders, meets the needs of citizens all across this land who benefit from the products and services that our businesses provide. {time} 1145 Those consumers and those citizens have for too long labored and have seen higher prices for products, products not being able to get on the market, and higher prices for the provision of necessary Government services, all of which can be directly traced to burdensome, many times unnecessary, and frequently ill-thought-out Federal regulations. Under the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], we have taken one step, only one step, but an important step, toward regulatory reform and regulatory flexibility. It has been a very responsible first step, Mr. Chairman. We listened very carefully to the evidence and the testimony that was presented to us in subcommittee hearings. In some instances we took the material that was received and incorporated that into amendments to the bill that we now have before us. In other instances, based on information presented by some folks from the administration, we have deferred action, recommended deferring action in some important areas. But I think this administration and the American people and those on the other side of the aisle who continue to defend the status quo must know that even as important as H.R. 926 is that we will be considering today, there is further work that must be done to ensure that our Federal regulators respect the rights of citizens and businesses, and that they extend them relief, and that they be stopped from running roughshod over our businesses and our citizens. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am one Democrat who believes regulations have gone too far. They kill American jobs. It has gotten to the point that it is so bad that if a dog urinates on a side lot, it may be declared a wetlands. I recommended for years that Congress should ship the EPA to Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China, and then we would not have a trade problem because the EPA would screw them up too. But in any event, I think the Democrats should have done this in the past. I am going to support the bill. I have two amendments, and people are saying they may not necessarily apply to in fact the Administrative Procedures Act. But in my research I have found that there are no safeguards in the event that situation should develop. My two amendments would do two things, and I would like the majority party here to pay attention to this. This bill would exempt certain emergencies, certain deadlines imposed by statute, and certain monetary activities that are listed in the bill. The Traficant amendment just say two things: For any future action or any ambiguous action for a trade program in America that is less than aggressive, who might at some point creatively try to find a loophole to continue not to in fact enforce and provide sanctions where necessary, the Traficant amendment would first say that no rule or regulation that is in existence that can be used for trade sanctions to combat illegal trade, that we would exempt that and put it in the exemption part of the bill. The other one deals with the possibility in the future of the collection of taxes from foreign subsidiaries, people who take our money out of or country and run, and there could be absolutely no possibility by any stretch of the imagination where creative minds could be used to apply this bill at some point down the line. And it would exempt from that the IRS collection actions on these foreign subsidiaries who many times come and take our jobs, take the profits, and run away with them. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: These are safeguard amendments. They are the types of amendments we should be doing. We should be preventing the opportunity for abuse, and that is one of the reasons why we are in fact eliminating regulations. [[Page H2408]] I recommend this to the handlers of this bill. This makes the bill a better bill, and I ask for the support of Members on these amendments. Let me say one other thing: The trade representative's office which is concerned about this does agree that sanctions are not the result of rulemaking. But one thing we can be sure of, there is no reason the Congress of the United States should allow any loophole where illegal trade sanctions can at some point have their backs turned by our trade people. We have seen too much of that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I would appreciate having my amendments be approved and accepted without prejudice. I would be glad to talk to the majority staff further about these issues. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is a member of the subcommittee and who participated in the hearings and the entire development of this legislation. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I find it incredible that some on the other side of the aisle are so adamant in defending and preserving the massive Federal bureaucracy that has grown over the years. Maybe it is understandable that they defend this huge bureaucracy since they created it. The challenge now is to reduce and simplify a government that has grown completely out of control. H.R. 926 aims to curb the ruinous practices of Federal agencies that unduly restrain the creative energies of small business. Small business is the backbone of America's economy. America's small businesses have had enough. They desperately need, in fact they are demanding immediately, that we relieve the overbearing regulatory agencies that have grown up. Opponents of H.R. 926 incorrectly assume that hardworking Americans and small businesses should bear the destructive brunt of the cost of this regulatory process. Nobody I know of in Cincinnati, especially small business owners, shares that opinion. If we want the regulatory process to be a burden, let us not make it a burden on small business; let us make it a burden on the Federal Government. Let us strengthen regulatory flexibility by giving aggrieved small businesses the ability to seek judicial review. Let us enlarge the public's role in the rulemaking process. Let us force regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses. Let us protect Americans who report abusive practices of regulatory agencies from catastrophic reprisals. What does all this mean to the average American citizen? It means that when they go to the store, products will not be so expensive; they will be more in the reach of average Americans. It means jobs for American citizens, because so many of the jobs that are created in this country are created by small business. And most importantly, it means a better standard of living for the American people. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and would like to briefly address title I of the bill that deals with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I and a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle were troubled with the original language in the Contract With America with respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That original language would have applied the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to big business as well as the country's small businesses. We felt that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was supposed to respond to the kinds of problems the majority has been talking about. A lot of our small businesses do go through bureaucratic water torture when they run up against some of these regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to be a fast-track process for adjusting regulation to the needs of small entrepreneurs. But the Contract With America would have changed all that. We want what amounts to an HOV lane for entrepreneurs so that the Federal Government responds to their concerns. So fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, working with the chairman of the committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], there has now been a bipartisan agreement worked out with all the relevant committees that regulatory flexibility provisions will apply just to small business. In my view, this is the way to ensure that the Federal bureaucracy is sensitive to America's entrepreneurs. That is what is in the public interest. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask again, at the risk of boring the Chair, how much time we have left? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 6 minutes remaining. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, that gives me ample time to bring to the floor the giant legislator, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, who is the chairman of the full committee and the leader of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental goal of the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act (H.R. 926) is to reduce the inevitable growth of costly regulations imposed upon our society. The bill achieves this by ensuring enforcement of current law to protect small business, the Regulatory Flexibility Act--and by encouraging greater public participation in our rulemaking process through the imposition of impact analysis on agency rulemaking. It is our hope that through the achievement of this goal, a less inhibited atmosphere will exist, which will allow U.S. commerce to thrive. The amendments before us to the Regulatory Flexibility Act are important because they would provide small businesses with a means to effectively enforce the goals/purposes of that law. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special needs and concerns of small entities--small businesses, small local governments, farmers, et cetera--whenever they engage in a rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the law, each time an agency publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, it must prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' From the beginning, the problem with this statute has been the lack of availability of judicial review as a mechanism to enforce the purposes of the law. Right now, if agencies do not do a regulatory flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in the act, there is no sanction. For years, small business groups have sought judicial review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a means of ``keeping the regulatory agencies honest.'' Our colleague and friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, has been a leader in this effort. H.R. 926 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, specifically providing for judicial review. In instances where an agency should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized to seek judicial review within 180 days after promulgation. A court can then give an agency 90 days to take corrective action. If the agency fails to take the necessary corrective action within 90 days, the court is given the authority to stay the rule and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. H.R. 926 is aimed at humanizing the Federal regulatory process. This is an [[Page H2409]] important aspect of the Contract With America--to provide affected parties--such as small businesses, small local governments, farmers and others--with a mechanism to ensure that the impersonal Washington bureaucracy takes into consideration the impact that a new rule or regulation can have on their businesses and their everyday lives. Title Z of H.R. 926 deals with regulatory impact analyses. This language would require Federal agencies to complete a regulatory impact analysis when drafting a major rule. Major rule is defined under the legislation as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or significant adverse impacts on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete domestically or internationally. The bill lists a number of specific criteria which Federal agencies have to consider as a part of their regulatory impact analysis. These include a requirement that the agency describe the necessity and legal authority for the rule; a description of the potential costs of the rule; an analysis of alternative approaches, that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal; a statement that the rule does not conflict with any other rule or regulation; a statement as to whether or not the rule would require onsight inspections--or whether or not the rule would require the maintenance of any records subject to inspection--and an estimate of the costs to the agency for the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The bill encourages public hearings on important regulations. The bill makes it clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will oversee the Federal regulatory process in an effort to ensure consistency and broad based fairness. It is important to note that the provisions of this section would not apply to major rules if it would conflict in any way with deadlines imposed by statute or by court order. The bill also requires that the Director of OMB submit a report to Congress no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this act containing an analysis of Federal rulemaking procedures and an analysis of the impact of the regulatory process on the American public. Mr. Chairman, regulatory flexibility was a good idea when it was enacted in 1980. Unfortunately, we haven't seen its potential because our courts could not enforce it. Regulatory impact analysis by Federal agencies was a good idea in 1981 when President Reagan required it through Executive order. Unfortunately, Executive orders are not permanent and those impact analyses are no longer enforced. This legislation will ensure enforcement of both of these tools. This legislation is long overdue. {time} 1200 Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been the process of working together cooperatively over the last several weeks to develop legislation that will meet the needs of small businesses throughout the United States and meet the needs of taxpayers throughout the United States, to develop a regulatory system which is streamlined, efficient and provides for the protection of the public good. And we have reached, I think, major accommodations in terms of language. Today I hope we can reach additional accommodations in terms of providing a system that will protect the public good and save money. I am encouraged by the process. I hope in the next few hours we can make changes that will make this legislation even better for the benefit of all of our citizens. Again, I thank and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his help and effort during this process. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for all his cooperative efforts in the past. I just wanted to end our portion of general debate by pointing out to the Members on the other side that as they consider their amendments and as they consider their opposition to certain portions of the bill as it now is drafted, to think of the people in their district, the working people. They, by most chances, work for a small business. They are the people who are going to be helped most by this piece of legislation. We are not against rules. We are not against regulation. We simply want to make sure that the small business which does the hiring of your constituents, which keeps wage earners on the payroll, that those small businesses will not have to go out of business or fire people or lay off people because of the burdensome regulations that sweep down on them from Washington. That is the purpose of this bill. Think of your working people, your constituents, and then you will think twice about trying to defend against this bill or offering amendments which will weaken it. We want to make our working people work for a small business that will have the greatest opportunity to expand, to hire more people, to enhance wages, to increase prosperity for the community in which they operate. That is the purpose of this bill. When you start attacking business, you are attacking the opportunity for your working people, your constituents to keep on trucking with their jobs. The CHAIRMAN. All time for the Committee on the Judiciary has expired. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, is recognized for 15 minutes. Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 926. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Jimmy Carter signed the original Regulatory Flexibility Act back in 1980, it was applauded as a new, strategic weapon in the war against excessive regulation. American businesses soon discovered that Reg Flex was less a strategic weapon and more a water pistol. Sure, you could aim it at excessive regulations and pull the trigger, but nothing much happened. Reg Flex lacked the striking power to challenge the bureaucrats. It failed even to drown out their laughter as they ignored the law. As a weapon for curbing regulatory abuses, Reg Flex was a dud. Today, we are giving punch to Reg Flex. By allowing America's businesses to challenge abusive regulations in the courts, we are finally forcing Federal bureaucrats to comply with the law. If they want to issue a new major rule, they first have to account for its impact on American business. Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act is a major step forward in the battle for control of America's businesses. It's the strategic weapon we've been promising America's busineses all along, and I look forward to its passage. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such ti

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT
(House of Representatives - March 01, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2402-H2443] REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 926. {time} 1055 in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 926) to promote regulatory flexibility and enhance public participation in Federal agency rulemaking, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] will be recognized for 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have good news for our country here today, because we are going to be considering a bill that will go a long way when enacted to bring about job creation and wage enhancement. Mr. Chairman, for too long, burdensome and complex rules coming out of Washington have strangled small business, have been a drag on free enterprise, have been a drag on job creation, have been a drag on wage creation, have been a drag on the economy. Today what we are about here today is a first step to slay that dragon, to bring about sanity in the rulemaking process of the national bureaucracy, of the Federal bureaucracy. How do we go about accomplishing that? Well, a bold attempt was made in 1980 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter when there was passed a Regulatory Flexibility Act. That did bring about at least a sense of more involvement by the small business community in the rulemaking process that so adversely had affected it previously. We are here to say today that even that bold attempt that started in 1980 has not fulfilled the promise that it was expected by the small business community to lift the burden of regulations from their shoulders so that they can venture out into new enterprises and create more jobs. Rather, the reverse took place. There was even more of a vivid flurry of regulations and burdens that came down on their shoulders. Mr. Chairman, we here today in title I of this particular bill will deal directly with small business. We are targeting small business. We are going to be embracing small business to give them more input into what transpires in the rulemaking process. That in itself would be worth the whole effort of what we do here today, but we go farther. We do something that is so exquisite for the small businessperson, that we have a great, good feeling about it. We are for the first time providing by law, if this bill is enacted, judicial review. That means that where the previous act, the one I just alluded to from the Jimmy Carter era, prohibited judicial review, we go the other way and overtly provide for judicial review. [[Page H2403]] What does this mean? It means that for the first time in a whole host of rulemaking processes across the Federal bureaucracy, when a rule is promulgated and it disaffects or adversely impacts against a small business entity or groups of entities, then there will be the possibility of challenging that rule and what it does to the small business community in court. That is a major step. It is just an afterthought on the part of this Member? No. It is just a whim on the part of the small business community? No. It is an absolute necessity. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed in people who are advocating some kind of reform in this arena for a long period of time. Even Vice President Gore has come out in his interpretation of the reforms that are necessary for judicial review. That by itself again would justify passage of this bill and enactment of it into the law of the land. {time} 1100 But we go further. We also provide in title I, this is extremely important for the small business community, that the Small Business Administration advocate and chief counsel must receive notice of a proposed rule. What does that do? That allows him or her acting for the small business community, within this Small Business Administration, which is the key administrative bureau of small business, to have advanced notice of a rule and then bring into play all of the concerns and the worries that the small business community might have in the face of such a rule. That is an excellent advance that we are making by what is included in title I. Then we go to title II. Title II would require for the first time for all business, not just small business, but for all business, a regulatory impact analysis that would accompany these very strident rules that have for too long been plaguing the business community. What am I talking about here? Well, a rule has an impact, and when what we want to call a major rule has an adverse impact on the economy worth more than $50 million, then on that basis our bill calls for the issuance of a regulatory impact analysis to give advance notice to the business community, the very people who are going to have to be guided by this rule or are adversely impacted by this rule, an opportunity to come back and be able to challenge the findings of this analysis and thus have a full participation in the deliberations that take place in the promulgation of a rule, rather than to sit back and just take what is coming to them and then be helpless, possibly, in combating the rule that will have so blatantly impacted them adversely. So title II will afford the business community this extra forum that would be required. But how did we accomplish this? What we did was not dream up criteria by which we ought to be defining this analysis that the rulemaking agency must apply, but rather we incorporated by new language, but nevertheless incorporated into our bill, in title II, seven strong criteria that have to be included in this analysis drawn from the Executive order that President Reagan during his time issued on this very same subject. So we are combining the history of the Jimmy Carter administration and regulatory flexibility with the Executive order of Ronald Reagan in the regulatory impact analysis area, and combining them to make a strong bill that would bring back a sense of accomplishment on the part of the small business community as they seek to open new markets and to expand their ability to create jobs and to lift wages as they become more successful. These criteria will be discussed, I know, in different ways as we proceed with the debate, but I can safely tell my colleagues that it will be a great stride forward when we complete the business of the day. Title III, which the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the ranking member on the minority, and I jointly responded to the concerns that were expressed during the hearings, that has taken on a different configuration from that which we first felt was necessary, but I am sure at the end of the day that the Members of the House will be satisfied with how we have approached title III and the segments of Executive responsibility that are contained therein. In short, it is a good day for small business here today. Let us get on with helping them avoid the burden of undue and cumbersome regulations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending both the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr Reed], for their diligence in improving legislation that started off in a pretty sorry state and has now reached the nearly acceptable level but still needs a little bit more work, and I would like to explain this for just a few minutes in beginning the general debate. The language in the bill providing for a so-called regulatory Bill of Rights could have had a devastating impact on the Federal Government's ability to enforce the laws fairly and efficiently, and now we have revised language that I praise my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for improving, which is included in title III, seeking employee guidelines which are more responsive to the needs of private parties, and represents a vast improvement. So I am here to praise them as well as to point out some areas in which we hope there will be improvements. Similarly, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve and narrow the scope of title I of the bill relating to regulatory flexibility analysis, and I am not surprised at his cooperative spirit. We have worked for many many years together on the Judiciary and other committees. Unfortunately, title II of the legislation requiring agencies to complete complex new regulatory impact analyses continues to be problematic. We have got trouble in this area in title II, and I am hoping that it may be repaired on the floor here today. As a result of a number of recent changes made by statute and Executive order, agency rulemakers must now consider nine separate analyses when issuing rules. That is a few too many, and while each of these additional required analyses is well intentioned and in isolation may be beneficial, collectively they have contributed to making the rulemaking process far more lengthy and complex. In an effort to make the regulatory system responsive to the needs of businesses, title II of the bill would impose even further and more complex requirements on the regulatory process. And that is not what we are here to do. That is not the great day that all America and small business in particular have been waiting for. I am concerned about title II's defining a major rule as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more. Every President since Gerald Ford has used the $100 million level for defining major rules, thereby preventing costly and needless analysis for rules such as the Interior Department's opening of hunting season or the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizing the gulf war syndrome. I also believe that the judicial review under title II should be limited to challenges of a final rule or the agency's failure to perform the required analysis. The unrestricted judicial review in title II would result in endless litigation, as every element of an impact analysis could be challenged by literally countless numbers of people. And finally, I believe that the legislation is deficient in failing to provide for greater sunshine in the regulatory process. Later today I will offer an amendment which would require that communications between an agency and OMB and Government officials and private parties be recorded and made available to the public. This change would help provide for greater accountability and avoid the perception of secret, behind-the-scene dealings, which has plagued us in earlier years. I am hopeful that the bill's language can continue to be refined along these lines in a cooperative fashion. If amendments along these lines are approved, we will make for a much better bill in H.R. 926 while making the regulatory process more responsive and more streamlined. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H2404]] Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett]. Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the poster here is just one reason for that. These are the taxes and regulations that our restaurant people have to live with. Whenever we see a tragedy we frequently ask for a moment of silence. I think when Members see the tragedy of what this does to our small business people we need a long, long moment of silence. This speaks for itself. I will not go over any of the details of this. Let me just note one instance of the inanity that occurs here. One of our restaurant people told us that OSHA came in and threatened them with fines because their workers were not using a protective glove when slicing carrots. The health people came in and threatened them with a fine if the workers did use the protective glove for slicing carrots because the protective glove could not be adequately sanitized in their view. Clearly when we look at this long, long list of taxes and regulations, this represents a burden on our restaurant people that they just cannot bear. I strongly support this bill. It starts us in the although modest application, it really halts our march in the wrong direction and starts us back in the right direction. I advise, recommend, strong, strong support of this bill for this and many many other reasons. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Gekas. We were able to work together in a cooperative and bipartisan process and although we have some principal disagreements, I believe the legislation has been made better because we were able to work together constructively and cooperatively, and at the end of today regardless of the outcome I think we can be very proud of this bipartisan process. Both of us agree that steps need to be taken to make the regulatory process more sensitive to the needs of small businesses. Small businesses lack the staff and resources to track the daily comings and goings of the Federal Register. They are less likely to have their interest represented by trade associations and lobbyists and may have a more difficult time meeting the costs imposed by regulators. Costs that seem minuscule to General Motors are insurmountable to some small businesses throughout the United States. Title I addresses this concern by strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act which direct agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small entities and, where possible, make special considerations for small businesses. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, and the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for working so hard on this issue and for sharing their expertise with us when they testified before the subcommittee. The core of title I is based on their bill, H.R. 830 from the last Congress. Mr. Skelton, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Exports Tourism and Special Problems, found that those agencies that complied with the Regulatory Impact Act had done so successfully. They established procedures that saved time, money, and litigation headaches. Unfortunately, other agencies have been able to escape compliance and they have been able to do that because regulatory flexibility analysis did not include judicial review. We are remedying that situation today and I join the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] in support of this section of the bill. The regulatory flexibility analysis in an important weapon in our efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and we need to ensure that it is implemented governmentwide. I also support title III of the bill. This title would create a code of conduct for regulators in their dealings with the American people and it emanated from a proposal made originally by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. It has been thoroughly reviewed and we have reached I think a very sensible position in the bill in title III's provisions which I support with enthusiasm. However, I do have serious concerns about title II, especially now that we have completed action on H.R. 1022. Initially, both H.R. 1022 and H.R. 926 were part of the same contract bill, H.R. 9. Unfortunately, their provisions overlap and conflict. I think it is a mistake to pass both bills in the hopes that the Senate will sort out these conflicts and inconsistencies, a step that undermines the ability of Members of this House to act on these issues sensibly with some type of overall cohesive purpose. {time} 1115 The rulemaking process has been criticized as overly prescriptive, expensive and overburdened with useless paperwork. Title II exacerbates these problems by creating a costly, time consuming process that does nothing to streamline Government or roll back redtape. The New York Times just published a diagram of the rulemaking steps required by this bill, entitled ``A Rule Making Maze.'' It resembled a Rube Goldberg contraption in its inticracy and complexity. My colleague from Florida, John Mica, just sent around a ``Dear Colleague'' containing an excerpt from Philip Howard's book, ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I wanted to quote from it, because I think it makes my point: Important, often urgent projects get held up by procedural concerns. Potentially important breakthroughs in medicine wait for years at the Food and Drug Administration. Even obviously necessary safety projects can't break through the thick wall of process. (Here he cites New York's difficulty in extending a runway at La Guardia airport that is too short for safe landings) . . . The irony he points out of our obsession with process is that it has not prevented sharp operators from exploiting the governments contracting system, as the weapons procurement scandals of the 1980's showed us. Its dense procedural thicket is a perfect hiding place for those who want to cheat * * *''. Title II is exactly what he is talking about. It extends the time line for regulations by about 2 years by establishing a series of procedural hurdles, sweeps administrative rules, such as the regulations that open duck hunting season, into costly regulatory impact analysis, and enables sharp business owners to stall regulatory changes that benefit themselves by letter writing campaigns and filing multiple lawsuits. All of these procedures will apply to deregulation, as well as regulation. They will apply to new regulations that aim to help small business become more competitive. I do not believe that 2 years from now Members will want to read in their local paper that we forced the Department of the Interior to spend several hundred thousand dollars to perform a regulatory impact analysis, followed by the costs of defending lawsuits by animal rights activists, when they are simply trying to open duck hunting season, or to replay this scenario when we try to prevent fisheries from being overfished, or to compensate veterans for gulf war syndrome. We will have amendments today that address some of the flaws in title II, and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will listen to the arguments and vote to improve this legislation. I think we can make progress to create, I hope, a bill that we can all support. But we have principal disagreements which we will debate vigorously on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing]. Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Gekas for the time he has given us and my thanks to the chairman and to Chairman Jan Meyers of the Small Business Committee for all of the support and help they have given us in developing this legislation, to Congressman Ike Skelton and Congressman Reed on the other side of the aisle for their support. I think probably most of us understand what the problem is, but I think these figures are very meaningful. Federal statutes and rules now run to 100 million words. If we were to read all of these it would take 8 years. Of course, no one is going to do that. Regulatory costs in our economy are now at $600 billion and climbing; that is $6,000 per household. Small business and small units of government have been at the mercy of [[Page H2405]] the Federal regulators for many years. And probably the most often voiced complaint that I receive when I talk to my constituents is about this overregulation. In 1980 this Congress passed a bill, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in an effort to rein in the bureaucracy and the regulations. But it had no teeth in it. It specifically prevented judicial review. There has been strong and persistent bureaucratic opposition to meaningful reform of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Yet three Presidents of both parties have ordered the bureaucracy to follow the Regulatory Flexibility Act but to no avail. Last Congress, in the 103d Congress, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I put together a coalition of small business groups that support legislation to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to add judicial review. This was backed by 254 Members of that Congress on both sides of the aisle. But unfortunately the leadership of that Congress, not the Members, refused to call that bill, and it became, because it died at the end of that Congress, a part of our Contract With America. I believe that turning a deaf ear to the demands of responsible, reasonable citizens in this country to revise our overly bureaucratic, overblown, excessive, intrusive, and destructive regulatory system was a major factor not only in the result of the November 8 election but to the dissatisfaction which the American people have expressed with their Federal Government. I strongly support the legislation before us, and particularly title I which does contain the improvements in the Regulatory Flexibility Act to grant judicial review. In addition, agencies must circulate proposed rules to the chief counsel for the advocacy of Small Business Administration, giving that agency 30 days to comment on how these would affect small entities. And finally, the bill includes a sense of Congress that the chief counsel for advocacy of SBA should be able to file amicus briefs in actions in the Federal court. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and am glad to have the opportunity to speak in its favor today. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for yielding time to me. I want to start by congratulating the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for taking what was a terrible bill and working with the other side to improve it into what is now a bad bill, and I would be the first to concede that it is an improved bill, but it is still bad. Let me express a series of concerns that I have about this bill. First of all, yesterday we passed a bill which requires a cost-benefit assessment of any new regulations that the Federal Government puts in place. So I am wondering what is the purpose of this new process that we are putting here, first of all? Second, this bill goes several steps beyond that by giving small businesses an implied veto over rules and regulations and standing in court to contest such regulations if the small business is adversely affected, whatever that means. Third, this bill gives the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy, that is probably somebody the American people have never heard of, the obligation to review and comment and get involved in litigation with respect to rules and regulations. It takes nobody out of the process. Understand, now, we have the department, the agency of government, we have the CBO, we have the Justice Department, now we have the SBA involved in the process. We keep adding on to the bureaucracy, and nobody is taken out of the process. Now, let me talk to you about the problems that I have with the bill. No. 1, it assumes that all rules that are promulgated by government are bad. You start with that assumption. Take this retaurant example that the previous speaker talked about. When I go into a restaurant and I look up and I see an A grade rating, my friends, that gives me a great deal of comfort as a member of the public. Under this rule, if we require some A grade rating, B grade rating, whatever it is, although I think that is done at the State level, if under this bill we did it at the Federal level, we would then adversely affect some restaurants. They would then end up in litigation in the courts, tying up the court system. No. 2, this bill gives small businesses unprecedented standing. The people in this country have had standing in the court. Now are are giving small businesses some kind of standing out here where they can come in, create more litigation, and I submit to the American people that that sends a terrible message that business now has some standing that even ordinary people cannot even get to. This is another step away from empowerment of the people and creates another bureaucracy which is, in effect, welfare for businesses, do away with welfare for the people, give welfare to the businesses. Third, this bill creates an entirely new level of bureaucracy in the process. Fourth, this bill will result in protracted and extended and unprecdented litigation. At the same time we are moving toward tort reform which takes away rights from the people to have access to the courts, we are moving in this direction all of a sudden to give more access to the courts, more standing to businesses. Fifth, this bill will not allow us to get to who is actually having influence in the process. We offered an amendment, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did, in the committee which would have required agencies to tell who is commenting on these regulations, who is actually getting involved, who is exerting influence on the regulators to draw these regulations. You would think that my colleagues, if they are concerned about protracted regulation, would have been anxious to know who is involved in the process, but no such luck. Let me just say that the final concern I have about this bill is that nobody knows what it is going to cost. We passed a bill yesterday to deal with regulations that was estimated to cost $250 million. Who has any idea what this monstrosity is going to cost the American people? And here we are, my colleagues, saying we are trying to cut back on government, and we are cutting back on government by increasing, not reducing, bureaucracy and costs. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate Chairman Gekas for doing an extraordinary job with this bill. What he is going to be doing is providing meaningful and long overdue relief, particularly to small businesses throughout America who are being crushed by the weight of regulation. We are suffocating job growth. We are diminishing economic opportunity oftentimes through well-meaning but badly constructed rules and regulations. Mr. Chairman, a lot of the suggestions embodied in title II of this bill do not come from any think tank in Washington, DC, or any so- called experts. They came as a result of the efforts of the manufacturing task force of this House formed under the auspices of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition 2 years ago and cochaired by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and myself. We met with literally scores of small manufacturers throughout our 18-State region and they made recommendations to us in terms of specific items that they wanted regulators to consider before finally issuing their regulation. {time} 1130 Mr. Chairman, because of his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this bill, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the cochairman of the congressional manufacturing task force, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the regulatory impact analysis provisions in H.R. 926. In 1993, Representative Bob Franks and I established the first ever congressional manufacturing task force. We traveled around the country to hold hearings [[Page H2406]] and spoke to small and mid-sized companies to find out what they needed to maintain competitiveness. Each time we held a hearing, each time we met with small businesses, we heard the same thing. Overlapping, burdensome regulations are killing manufacturers ability to stay competitive and have created the perception of Government hostile to business. Last year, the Federal Register issued over 69,000 pages of new regulations--the third highest total ever. Congress must act to change this. By requiring regulators to assess the impact of new regulations, we will streamline--not eliminate--regulations so they are more effective. The goal is to cause regulators and regulated parties to have full knowledge of the likely impact of a regulatory action before it is made final. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. You know, as a member of the committee, I enjoyed going through this bill, and I think many of the goals are worthy ones. One concern I have, however, is that I believe we have failed to account for the immutable law of unintended consequences. I believe it is our job to make sure that, when we act legislatively, we know what the outcome will be and we do not get blind-sided by an outcome that we did not intend or expect. One of the issues I intend to raise by way of an amendment later today has to do with allowing for emergency action and defining what that might be. This was an amendment offered in the committee, withdrawn with the pledge that we would work through and try to deal with the issue. Unfortunately, given the press of time and our agenda, that has not yet occurred. I am concerned we do not want to preclude, for example, the release of useful drugs, a cure for cancer, because of the regulatory scheme provided in this bill. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I believe what this is all about is making it more difficult for Washington to regulate the activities out there in America. And that is a good thing, because what has built up in this country is a mindset based on taxation, regulation, and litigation. We are going to deal with the litigation portion next week, with legal reform items; we are going to deal with the taxation part of that trilogy a little after that. This week we are dealing with the regulatory part of that terrible trilogy so weighing down this country. I believe this is a good step toward reining in some of those regulators, to making them have some justification for their additional regulations. That certainly will make sense out there in America where businesses, particularly small businesses, are collapsing under the weight of this tremendous pressure from the regulators. So I am very excited to support this bill. I commend the chairman of our subcommittee for doing an excellent job in bringing the bill to us. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a member of the subcommittee, who has played an active part in the development of this legislation. Mr. FLANAGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. H.R. 926, which is the product of hard work and consensus by Mr. Gekas and members of the Judiciary Committee, is in my opinion one of the most important features of the Republicans' Contract With America. It tackles head-on many of the problems that have been caused by the Congress and the Federal bureaucracy during the past 30-40 years, and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and regional government officials are suffering under the weight of high taxes and excessive and intrusive government regulations. H.R. 926 is a step towards reversing this trend by rolling back the tide of ill-conceived regulations, and making bureaucrats more accountable for the burdens they impose on both the wage payer and the wage earner. Under H.R. 926, Federal agencies will be required to perform regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule--that is, a rule which has an effect on the economy of $50 million or more--is promulgated. This language will go far in reducing the burdens placed on all entrepreneurs, especially small business owners whose companies employ two-thirds of the American work force and fuel the Nation's economy. Furthermore, with the enactment of this bill, business people and their employees will be a step closer in having a Government that acts more like their friend, and not as their worst enemy. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Gekas and his staff. Since the start of the 104th Congress, Mr. Gekas has bent over backward to accommodate those Members who have had reasonable suggestions for perfecting this bill. Whether Republican or Democrat, committee chairman or lowly freshman Member, Mr. Gekas and his staff worked in a congenial and bipartisan fashion unequal to anything else I have seen so far in this body. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 926. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some of the things that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has alluded to in his remarks. You know, when we take the bill that we just passed last night and add to it to the bill that we have today, we have a total cost to the taxpayers of $400 million. This means, to me, according to CBO estimates, that you are going to have to add that many more work hours in the Federal bureaucracy in order to do the risk assessment, the regulatory impact analysis, plus the other few things that are thrown in. Where do all these bureaucrats come from? They do not come from the sky, they do not grow on trees, they are hard-working American taxpayers, folks. They work hard just like everybody else out there, whether you are a truck driver, a lawyer, a doctor, or anybody else. They are trying to do their job. But what is really going to happen? Do you really believe, is there anybody in this House, anyone from the Speaker on down, from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], or anybody, who can tell me that this Congress is going to appropriate the additional funds necessary to the Small Business Administration, to EPA, to the other of our Federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and all the rest of them, in order to perform the tasks they are going to be required to fulfill under this bill and the bill we passed just yesterday? No. It is not going to happen. The money is not going to be there. The additional bureaucrats are not going to be added. As a result, they are not going to be able to do the work that is imposed on them. Then what will the other party say? The other party will say they are not doing their job, ``We passed the legislation, and they are not doing their job.'' Well, folks, they cannot do their job, they cannot do it unless you give them the money. And you are not going to give them the money because you are already taking away from the kids, the veterans, the elderly. All those programs are being cut in a rescission bill in order to give it to the wealthy in income tax cuts. That is where you are giving the money. You are not going to help them be able to fulfill this legislation. You tell me in what bill when you are going to appropriate the additional money that is required under the CBO [[Page H2407]] estimate in this bill. You are not going to do it. I would like to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come up here and tell us they are going to provide the additional funds, because I do not think it is going to be done. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is the culmination of a great deal of effort that I have been personally working on for more than a decade. At the outset, let me thank and compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for his efforts, for together we have cosponsored legislation regarding the original Regulatory Flexibility Act for some time. I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the gentlewoman from Kansas, Chairman Meyers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaFalce. I applaud their efforts and again thank Tom Ewing for the opportunity of getting this hearing. The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, which had my support and on which I worked, was signed into law back in 1980. Later I was chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee, and I held hearings on this in the mid-1980's concerning how the Regulatory Flexibility Act was working. We got mixed reviews. As chairman of that, I found that most agencies were making an honest, diligent effort to comply with the law. Others came before us and testified and said, ``It does not apply to us,'' or they were giving it, as we say back home, a lick and a promise. We put out a report that found that those complying with the law found that they were actually writing better regulations when they considered the impact on small businesses. Also, they found and concluded that it saves these agencies time, saves them money when good regulations are written from the beginning rather than waiting to have them questioned by small businesses. We need to make adjustments in the law, to improve it, to give it teeth. That is why the portion that Mr. Ewing and I have been working on throughout the last few years deals with judicial review and primarily states that the agencies should understand that they can actually be challenged if they write regulations that are more than cursory--take more than cursory consideration of the impact on small businesses. It is unlikely that many cases would ever come to court because the threat, the sword of Damocles that would be hanging over them. I think it would be a very, very important step, and that is why I fully support the efforts for judicial review and a change in the law as set forth in this proposal. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize our next speaker, I want to personally commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his decade of interest in this vital issue and to point out to the Members that his testimony and his involvement has played an important role in bringing this matter to the full House today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also played a significant role in the development of the issues that have now been brought to the floor. Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for the fine work that he has provided, not only to those who have the honor of serving on his subcommittee and addressing the issues of regulatory reform but also to the people of this country who labor in our small businesses all across this great land who have been crying out for this relief for so long but who for so long have been denied the relief they need to manage their businesses in a way that meets the needs of their consumers, responsibly meets the needs of their consumers, meets the needs of their shareholders, meets the needs of citizens all across this land who benefit from the products and services that our businesses provide. {time} 1145 Those consumers and those citizens have for too long labored and have seen higher prices for products, products not being able to get on the market, and higher prices for the provision of necessary Government services, all of which can be directly traced to burdensome, many times unnecessary, and frequently ill-thought-out Federal regulations. Under the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], we have taken one step, only one step, but an important step, toward regulatory reform and regulatory flexibility. It has been a very responsible first step, Mr. Chairman. We listened very carefully to the evidence and the testimony that was presented to us in subcommittee hearings. In some instances we took the material that was received and incorporated that into amendments to the bill that we now have before us. In other instances, based on information presented by some folks from the administration, we have deferred action, recommended deferring action in some important areas. But I think this administration and the American people and those on the other side of the aisle who continue to defend the status quo must know that even as important as H.R. 926 is that we will be considering today, there is further work that must be done to ensure that our Federal regulators respect the rights of citizens and businesses, and that they extend them relief, and that they be stopped from running roughshod over our businesses and our citizens. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am one Democrat who believes regulations have gone too far. They kill American jobs. It has gotten to the point that it is so bad that if a dog urinates on a side lot, it may be declared a wetlands. I recommended for years that Congress should ship the EPA to Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China, and then we would not have a trade problem because the EPA would screw them up too. But in any event, I think the Democrats should have done this in the past. I am going to support the bill. I have two amendments, and people are saying they may not necessarily apply to in fact the Administrative Procedures Act. But in my research I have found that there are no safeguards in the event that situation should develop. My two amendments would do two things, and I would like the majority party here to pay attention to this. This bill would exempt certain emergencies, certain deadlines imposed by statute, and certain monetary activities that are listed in the bill. The Traficant amendment just say two things: For any future action or any ambiguous action for a trade program in America that is less than aggressive, who might at some point creatively try to find a loophole to continue not to in fact enforce and provide sanctions where necessary, the Traficant amendment would first say that no rule or regulation that is in existence that can be used for trade sanctions to combat illegal trade, that we would exempt that and put it in the exemption part of the bill. The other one deals with the possibility in the future of the collection of taxes from foreign subsidiaries, people who take our money out of or country and run, and there could be absolutely no possibility by any stretch of the imagination where creative minds could be used to apply this bill at some point down the line. And it would exempt from that the IRS collection actions on these foreign subsidiaries who many times come and take our jobs, take the profits, and run away with them. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: These are safeguard amendments. They are the types of amendments we should be doing. We should be preventing the opportunity for abuse, and that is one of the reasons why we are in fact eliminating regulations. [[Page H2408]] I recommend this to the handlers of this bill. This makes the bill a better bill, and I ask for the support of Members on these amendments. Let me say one other thing: The trade representative's office which is concerned about this does agree that sanctions are not the result of rulemaking. But one thing we can be sure of, there is no reason the Congress of the United States should allow any loophole where illegal trade sanctions can at some point have their backs turned by our trade people. We have seen too much of that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I would appreciate having my amendments be approved and accepted without prejudice. I would be glad to talk to the majority staff further about these issues. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is a member of the subcommittee and who participated in the hearings and the entire development of this legislation. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I find it incredible that some on the other side of the aisle are so adamant in defending and preserving the massive Federal bureaucracy that has grown over the years. Maybe it is understandable that they defend this huge bureaucracy since they created it. The challenge now is to reduce and simplify a government that has grown completely out of control. H.R. 926 aims to curb the ruinous practices of Federal agencies that unduly restrain the creative energies of small business. Small business is the backbone of America's economy. America's small businesses have had enough. They desperately need, in fact they are demanding immediately, that we relieve the overbearing regulatory agencies that have grown up. Opponents of H.R. 926 incorrectly assume that hardworking Americans and small businesses should bear the destructive brunt of the cost of this regulatory process. Nobody I know of in Cincinnati, especially small business owners, shares that opinion. If we want the regulatory process to be a burden, let us not make it a burden on small business; let us make it a burden on the Federal Government. Let us strengthen regulatory flexibility by giving aggrieved small businesses the ability to seek judicial review. Let us enlarge the public's role in the rulemaking process. Let us force regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses. Let us protect Americans who report abusive practices of regulatory agencies from catastrophic reprisals. What does all this mean to the average American citizen? It means that when they go to the store, products will not be so expensive; they will be more in the reach of average Americans. It means jobs for American citizens, because so many of the jobs that are created in this country are created by small business. And most importantly, it means a better standard of living for the American people. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and would like to briefly address title I of the bill that deals with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I and a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle were troubled with the original language in the Contract With America with respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That original language would have applied the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to big business as well as the country's small businesses. We felt that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was supposed to respond to the kinds of problems the majority has been talking about. A lot of our small businesses do go through bureaucratic water torture when they run up against some of these regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to be a fast-track process for adjusting regulation to the needs of small entrepreneurs. But the Contract With America would have changed all that. We want what amounts to an HOV lane for entrepreneurs so that the Federal Government responds to their concerns. So fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, working with the chairman of the committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], there has now been a bipartisan agreement worked out with all the relevant committees that regulatory flexibility provisions will apply just to small business. In my view, this is the way to ensure that the Federal bureaucracy is sensitive to America's entrepreneurs. That is what is in the public interest. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask again, at the risk of boring the Chair, how much time we have left? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 6 minutes remaining. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, that gives me ample time to bring to the floor the giant legislator, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, who is the chairman of the full committee and the leader of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental goal of the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act (H.R. 926) is to reduce the inevitable growth of costly regulations imposed upon our society. The bill achieves this by ensuring enforcement of current law to protect small business, the Regulatory Flexibility Act--and by encouraging greater public participation in our rulemaking process through the imposition of impact analysis on agency rulemaking. It is our hope that through the achievement of this goal, a less inhibited atmosphere will exist, which will allow U.S. commerce to thrive. The amendments before us to the Regulatory Flexibility Act are important because they would provide small businesses with a means to effectively enforce the goals/purposes of that law. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special needs and concerns of small entities--small businesses, small local governments, farmers, et cetera--whenever they engage in a rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the law, each time an agency publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, it must prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' From the beginning, the problem with this statute has been the lack of availability of judicial review as a mechanism to enforce the purposes of the law. Right now, if agencies do not do a regulatory flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in the act, there is no sanction. For years, small business groups have sought judicial review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a means of ``keeping the regulatory agencies honest.'' Our colleague and friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, has been a leader in this effort. H.R. 926 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, specifically providing for judicial review. In instances where an agency should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized to seek judicial review within 180 days after promulgation. A court can then give an agency 90 days to take corrective action. If the agency fails to take the necessary corrective action within 90 days, the court is given the authority to stay the rule and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. H.R. 926 is aimed at humanizing the Federal regulatory process. This is an [[Page H2409]] important aspect of the Contract With America--to provide affected parties--such as small businesses, small local governments, farmers and others--with a mechanism to ensure that the impersonal Washington bureaucracy takes into consideration the impact that a new rule or regulation can have on their businesses and their everyday lives. Title Z of H.R. 926 deals with regulatory impact analyses. This language would require Federal agencies to complete a regulatory impact analysis when drafting a major rule. Major rule is defined under the legislation as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or significant adverse impacts on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete domestically or internationally. The bill lists a number of specific criteria which Federal agencies have to consider as a part of their regulatory impact analysis. These include a requirement that the agency describe the necessity and legal authority for the rule; a description of the potential costs of the rule; an analysis of alternative approaches, that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal; a statement that the rule does not conflict with any other rule or regulation; a statement as to whether or not the rule would require onsight inspections--or whether or not the rule would require the maintenance of any records subject to inspection--and an estimate of the costs to the agency for the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The bill encourages public hearings on important regulations. The bill makes it clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will oversee the Federal regulatory process in an effort to ensure consistency and broad based fairness. It is important to note that the provisions of this section would not apply to major rules if it would conflict in any way with deadlines imposed by statute or by court order. The bill also requires that the Director of OMB submit a report to Congress no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this act containing an analysis of Federal rulemaking procedures and an analysis of the impact of the regulatory process on the American public. Mr. Chairman, regulatory flexibility was a good idea when it was enacted in 1980. Unfortunately, we haven't seen its potential because our courts could not enforce it. Regulatory impact analysis by Federal agencies was a good idea in 1981 when President Reagan required it through Executive order. Unfortunately, Executive orders are not permanent and those impact analyses are no longer enforced. This legislation will ensure enforcement of both of these tools. This legislation is long overdue. {time} 1200 Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been the process of working together cooperatively over the last several weeks to develop legislation that will meet the needs of small businesses throughout the United States and meet the needs of taxpayers throughout the United States, to develop a regulatory system which is streamlined, efficient and provides for the protection of the public good. And we have reached, I think, major accommodations in terms of language. Today I hope we can reach additional accommodations in terms of providing a system that will protect the public good and save money. I am encouraged by the process. I hope in the next few hours we can make changes that will make this legislation even better for the benefit of all of our citizens. Again, I thank and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his help and effort during this process. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for all his cooperative efforts in the past. I just wanted to end our portion of general debate by pointing out to the Members on the other side that as they consider their amendments and as they consider their opposition to certain portions of the bill as it now is drafted, to think of the people in their district, the working people. They, by most chances, work for a small business. They are the people who are going to be helped most by this piece of legislation. We are not against rules. We are not against regulation. We simply want to make sure that the small business which does the hiring of your constituents, which keeps wage earners on the payroll, that those small businesses will not have to go out of business or fire people or lay off people because of the burdensome regulations that sweep down on them from Washington. That is the purpose of this bill. Think of your working people, your constituents, and then you will think twice about trying to defend against this bill or offering amendments which will weaken it. We want to make our working people work for a small business that will have the greatest opportunity to expand, to hire more people, to enhance wages, to increase prosperity for the community in which they operate. That is the purpose of this bill. When you start attacking business, you are attacking the opportunity for your working people, your constituents to keep on trucking with their jobs. The CHAIRMAN. All time for the Committee on the Judiciary has expired. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, is recognized for 15 minutes. Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 926. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Jimmy Carter signed the original Regulatory Flexibility Act back in 1980, it was applauded as a new, strategic weapon in the war against excessive regulation. American businesses soon discovered that Reg Flex was less a strategic weapon and more a water pistol. Sure, you could aim it at excessive regulations and pull the trigger, but nothing much happened. Reg Flex lacked the striking power to challenge the bureaucrats. It failed even to drown out their laughter as they ignored the law. As a weapon for curbing regulatory abuses, Reg Flex was a dud. Today, we are giving punch to Reg Flex. By allowing America's businesses to challenge abusive regulations in the courts, we are finally forcing Federal bureaucrats to comply with the law. If they want to issue a new major rule, they first have to account for its impact on American business. Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act is a major step forward in the battle for control of America's businesses. It's the strategic weapon we've been promising America's busineses all along, and I look forward to its passage. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair