REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
(Senate - March 27, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S4604-S4641]
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 6
hours for general debate on the subject of
S. 219.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Federal
regulations. We are going to be on Senate bill
S. 219. I want to
compliment Senator Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee for
reporting this bill out. I also want to compliment the House of
Representatives for their move in trying to make some progress on
reining in the cost of excessive regulations. Federal regulations are
estimated to cost about $581 billion, by some sources. It is hard to
figure what that means, but per household, that is over $6,000--
actually $6,100 per household for the cost of Federal regulations. That
increases the cost of everything we buy. Whether you are talking about
your automobile or your home or your electric bill or the price that
you pay for gasoline, regulations are involved in all these and have
inflated the costs on every single thing that we buy.
Many of us feel these regulations have been excessive and they have
not been well thought out, or in some cases they are too expensive. I
might mention, I guess almost all are probably well intended, and I do
not fault anyone's intentions, whether it be the people who passed the
legislation authorizing the regulations or the regulators. They may be
well intended, but in many cases, the regulations have gone too far and
they are far too expensive.
So we have several measures that are working their way through this
body and through the Congress to try to limit excessive regulations.
The House passed a couple of measures. One was a measure called
regulation moratorium. A similar bill was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the bill we have on the floor
of the Senate today. I, along with my colleague and friend from Nevada,
Senator Reid, will be offering an amendment in the form of a substitute
to that bill. I will discuss that in a moment.
Also the Governmental Affairs Committee has reported out a
comprehensive bill dealing with regulation overhaul. I compliment them
for that effort. I think it is a giant step in the right direction.
Senator Dole, myself, and others have introduced a very comprehensive
bill. Likewise, I believe there is a markup scheduled in the Judiciary
Committee on that bill as well.
I compliment Senator Dole for his leadership because I think it makes
sense. We should have regulations where the benefits exceed the costs.
We should make sure we use real science. That is the purpose of both
Senator Roth's bill and Senator Dole's bill that we will be considering
on the floor my guess is sometime after the April recess.
But the bill we have before us many people support--the regulation
moratorium bill,
S. 219. I am a sponsor of that bill. I believe we have
36 sponsors. This is a bill that people have labeled a ``moratorium.''
I even have heard some people mislabel it, including the President, who
said it was a ``moratorium on all regulations,'' good and bad
regulations. I take issue with that because we had a lot of exceptions
for good regulations and we had a lot of exceptions for regulations
which people felt were necessary to go forward with, those regulations
that dealt with imminent health and safety and regulations that dealt
with ordinary administrative practices. The committee added more
exceptions. The Committee on Governmental Affairs limited it to
significant regulations. So we reduced the scope substantially.
Why was that bill introduced? That bill was introduced because on
November 14, the administration announced or published in the Federal
Register that they were working on 4,300 different regulations that
were in progress and that would be finalized in the year 1995 and
beyond. Many of us were concerned. That looked like an explosion of
regulations. Many of those regulations had been held up during the
previous year. It happened to be an election year, and they were held
up and published in the Federal Register on November 14.
So we wanted to stop those or at least we wanted to have a chance to
[[Page
S4605]] look at them. So this moratorium regulation was
introduced with a lot of sponsors. It eventually passed the House with
a lot of exceptions, came through the Senate, was marked up in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, which added more exceptions and limited
it to significant regulations. That was a moratorium.
The amendment that Senator Reid, myself, Senator Bond, and Senator
Hutchison are offering is a different approach. One, the moratorium
that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee is a temporary
moratorium. It expires when we pass comprehensive legislation, or it
expires at the end of the year. So it was only a temporary moratorium.
The legislation we are introducing today provides for 45-day
congressional review of regulations. During that time, Congress will be
authorized to review and potentially to reject regulations through a
resolution of disapproval before they become final.
This alternative provides an opportunity to move forward on the
critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I think
that is vitally important. This amendment will allow the authors of
legislation in Congress to review and to ensure that Federal agencies
are properly carrying out congressional intent. All too often agencies
issue regulations which go beyond their intended purpose.
For future significant rules, the alternative provides a 45-day
period following publication of the final rule before that rule can
become effective. Under the current law, most rules are already delayed
by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. This delay in the
effectiveness would only apply to significant regulations which the
amendment defines as final rules that meet one of four criteria set by
the administration under Executive Order 12866. For all other future
nonsignificant rules, the regulation of disapproval is in order, but
the final rule is not suspended during the 45-day period.
The alternative also provides an opportunity to review and reject
significant rules which became final on or after November 20, 1994, and
prior to the date of enactment. Such rules would not be suspended
during the review period. Final regulations addressing threats to
imminent health and safety or other emergencies, criminal law
enforcement or matters of national security, could be exempted by
Executive order from the postponement of the effective date provided
for in this bill. However, a joint resolution of disapproval will still
be eligible for fast-track consideration.
The expedited floor procedure has in it consideration of base closure
legislation as well as consideration of Federal Election Commission
regulations. Congress will have 45 calendar days to review final rules
and consider a resolution of disapproval.
All final rules that are published less than 60 days before Congress
adjourns sine die or that are published during sine die adjournment
shall be eligible for review and fast-track disapproval procedures for
45 days beginning on the 15th day after a new Congress convenes. A
joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of Congress, and the
fast-track process for moving the joint resolution of disapproval to
the calendar is enabled under two conditions; First, if the authorizing
committee reports out the resolution; or, second, if following the
resolution's introduction the committee does not act, the majority
leader of either House discharges the committee from further
consideration of the resolution and places the resolution of
disapproval directly on the calendar. The motion to proceed to
consideration of the resolution is privileged and is nondebatable.
I would like to note that last Thursday the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out the comprehensive reform bill which
includes this 45-day review proposal. However, it did not contain a
look back to past regulations. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to
the resolution of disapproval, the debate on the resolution is limited
to 10 hours equally divided with no motions other than a motion to
further limit debate or amendments being in order. If the resolution
passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the
floor of the other body.
The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be subject to a
Presidential veto and in turn a possible veto override. By providing
the mechanism to hold Federal agencies accountable before it is too
late, this alternative makes an important contribution to the critical
regulatory reform effort. I hope that my colleagues will join me in
this effort.
Mr. President, I would like to at this time mention and thank my
friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada for his support in
offering and working with me to offer this alternative or substitute to
the regulation moratorium. I have had the pleasure of working with
Senator Reid for many, many years now. We worked together on the
measures that we called the Economic and Employment Impact Statement, a
measure which is becoming law I guess as part of the unfunded mandate
bill. He has been a real leader in trying to reform and limit the cost
of excessive regulations. I compliment him for that successful effort
in the past, and I look forward to a successful effort on this bill as
well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my
friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation,
S. 219. Whenever
it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this
time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I
chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules
on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody.
We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest
Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really
out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place
regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging
industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it
has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to
that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the
horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and
regulations was really an eye opener for me.
We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks
from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that
Saturday field hearing.
Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training
consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the
same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA
forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards.
So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of
regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing
the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the
redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces
safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries
that are located within those States.
Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA
needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a
philosophical idea on what the rules should be.
Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States.
Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that
Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in
the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with
employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather
than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is
wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it,
that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In
other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe
workplace.
Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT.
The list goes on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a
couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as
they were given to me.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
My name is Arley Adams, doing business as Adams Wood
Products.
[[Page
S4606]] I'm a second generation logger in the timber
and saw mill industry. My son, Alan is the third generation
in the business and works with me.
We have a logging and sawmill operation that can be
operated by two or ten men, but with OSHA standards and
Workmans Compensation rates, there is no way we can hire one
man. You wonder why there is so much unemployment? Its called
cause and effect.
The rules and regulations that OSHA has at this time are so
far out of line that they will break every small operator.
Sure, our business is dangerous but so are a lot of other
industries and sports.
We are professionals in our business and we have an
excellent Safety Team in the Logging Association. We are well
aware of the dangers we are up against--we work with them
daily.
OSHA thinks that we are so incompetent that they must hold
our hands and impede us with so much gear that they ``OSHA''
will be the cause of the accidents they are trying to
prevent.
When they break us all--they will have to feed us because
surely we can't be trusted with a dinner fork.
The entire situation OSHA is trying to impose upon us is a
``Major Disaster.'' If California got Disaster Relief from
the earthquake, we should be eligible too!
Arley A. Adams.
____
March 9, 1995.
Dear Senator Burns: As a working foreman for a logging
company in the state of Idaho, I work with safety problems on
a daily basis. We have about thirty-five (35) other workers
on the job.
We pride ourselves in being able to have OSHA, the State,
or anyone else come on our job and see that we make the
working conditions as safe as humanly possible.
We work closely with the people from the Idaho Logging
Safety Program and we know that most of the other contractors
in our area do also. We've put together safety programs,
weekly safety meetings, monthly safety meetings, and anything
else they've asked for.
Then all of a sudden here come these new OSHA rules telling
us that we can't use diesel to start fires anymore and that
we can't fuel any of our machines with the engines running.
Do you people realize that you are talking to adults not five
year old kids. How many injuries have there been in the State
of Idaho from people using diesel to start a fire or from
fueling a vehicle with the engine running?
These rules and some of the others I've read in the book 29
CFR 1910 and 1928 really have no place in a logging standard.
Why don't you live with the Idaho Code. It as least let's
us use some common sense.
Sincerely,
Terry Streeter,
Foreman, Babbitt Logging, Inc.
____
Senator Burns, members of the committee: My name is Paul
Tisher. I live in Libby, Montana, My partner's name is Paul
Brown and we own and operate TBC Timber, a small family-owned
business. We've been in business for 15 years and have nine
employees other than ourselves. We are (also) working members
of our crew.
One of the new rules which concerns us most is under D.
General Requirements #5 called Environmental Conditions. It
read: All work shall terminate and each employee shall move
to a place of safety when environmental conditions, such as
but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslide and
darkness may endanger an employee in the performance of their
job. Senator, the interpretation of these conditions can mean
many things to different people. I can tell you, there have
been many times when our crew has had to sit out a storm,
whether it be wind, rain, or snow. But, the weather will be
what it will be, and we as stewards of this land will be out
there in the elements to support our families and sustain our
communities.
Another proposed rule that ties in with these environmental
conditions is under Tree Harvesting #2 Manual Felling Section
#3. It reads: Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of
snow and ice. Accumulation of snow and ice that may create a
hazard for an employee shall be removed before felling is
commenced in the area or the areas shall be avoided. I hope
that OSHA didn't intend for us to remove the snow and ice by
ourselves, especially knowing that this would create an even
greater hazard. That leaves us with the two things that
usually remove snow and ice from trees, and that is wind or
rain. Senator, this really becomes confusing at this point.
We can't work if there's too much snow or ice in the trees.
So we finally get a good hard rain or some chinook winds that
remove all the snow and ice, but we can't work under these
conditions either. Then as conditions turn colder it starts
to snow and we get more build up in the trees. This can go on
for six or seven months in Montana and leaves us wondering
how we're going to be able to work under this type of rule.
Who from OSHA can determine if conditions are too dangerous
to work in? What degree of wind, rain, snow, cold or fog will
constitute a total shutdown or the ensuing penalties if
operations are still working when they arrive. What
experience do they have in logging procedure and working with
outdoor elements that tell them one or more of these
conditions is too dangerous? We feel that the decisions on
Environmental Conditions should be left to the people who
make their living doing this and not by the Federal
Government.
Being members of the Montana Logging Association, we as a
crew have all had training in First Aid, CPR, Blood Borne
Pathogens, Material Safety Data, and Safe Operating
Procedures. This training is done annually and is a key to
recognizing unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions. Holding
ourselves to these standards has become the norm in this
profession we call logging.
Having said that, I would like to comment on a procedure
used by OSHA compliance officers during a jobsite visit. That
is the use of a video camera when questioning employers and
employees about the training they have had in reference to
what I just talked about. This, ``Camera In Your Face''
session gives one the feeling that you've already done
something wrong or why would the want to get it on film in
the first place. I am sure that somewhere, in all of the many
hours of training we have had, someone will forget something,
but that doesn't mean all of a sudden we are in a hazardous
situation. With the camera rolling and knowing that the wrong
answer to a question can result in a training violation and
cost an employer up to $7000 per violation and also knowing
that you haven't done anything wrong and that you're not in a
hazardous situation nor have you created a hazardous
situation for a fellow worker, is frustrating and
intimidating to the point that the easiest of answers can be
forgotten.
Senator, logging always has been and always will be a
dangerous occupation. We do not take this lightly. It is very
clear to us that training for, and providing a safe work
place will not only send us all home safely every night but
it is also essential for a company to stay in business. If we
believe in and practice these things then why do we need the
Federal Government to enforce what is already being done.
Common sense has been around a lot longer than OSHA and it
will be on the job when OSHA isn't. Please Senator, lets not
put any more rules into place that would jeopardize the use
of good common sense.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the
new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being
made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA
representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You
can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was.
For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the
employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other
words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer
responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is
overstepping a little bit.
Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a
little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt
with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to
it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when
you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard
of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He
said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a
Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a
kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again.
In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only
be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get
mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it
hang up and lose it? I do not think so.
But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an
industry which were written by an organization with basically very
little common sense when it comes to logging.
I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a
suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress,
after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into
law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless
bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence
that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the
legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the
Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of
jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the
legislation.
I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens,
Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned.
I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws
passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be
debated a little more.
[[Page
S4607]] But I think we in this body, if we have been remiss in
any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing
the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and
talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be
acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder
why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller
companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in
Montana are created by small business.
So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill.
It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the
rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially
if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do
with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a
living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also
ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to
do.
It was suggested after the elections last year that Government
reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8,
but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message
as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or
Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political
arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it
is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of
Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much
money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on
them that cost them more.
Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should
not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it
in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is
just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector
who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not
safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some
problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let
us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of
the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company,
plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not
his employees--he works with in the woods.
They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a
safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each
other, either. And they are all small.
But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal
Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he
can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what
we put into rules and regulations.
Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We
are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the
employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and
Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this
piece of legislation does it.
I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend
from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come
this weekend.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague
from Montana for his support for our amendment, and also thank him for
his statement.
I also wish to compliment the Senator from Montana, because he did
something that many of us have not been doing. He has held some
oversight hearings. He has had some of those people, many times we call
them faceless bureaucrats, but he has had them come into his State and
talk about some of the problems, whether it be in logging or forestry,
and let them talk and actually meet those that they regulate.
I believe the Senator said--correct me if I am wrong. The OSHA
official who was writing the regs had not actually been involved in the
logging industry but yet was writing rules and regulations dealing with
everything from trucks to boots, and he has not actually met some of
the people whom he was regulating.
Is that correct?
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from
Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to
the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but
he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when
we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and
they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that
is fine and dandy.
But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us
it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not
get ourselves into that kind of situation.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague having the hearing. My guess
is that meeting would not have transpired had it not been for the
Senator from Montana and his insisting on that meeting.
The fact is that those regulations or proposed regulations will
probably be changed and improved dramatically because of the insistence
of the Senator from Montana on having face-to-face meetings with people
who are making the regulations and making the rules to meet with people
that are directly impacted.
One of the real positive things which I hope will come out of this is
that Congress will become more active in oversight, just as the Senator
from Montana proved that it can make a difference, certainly in his
State.
Again, I compliment him for it, and I thank him again for his
statement.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow, pursuant to the order--the bill
not being before the Senate today--an amendment will be offered by the
senior Senator from Oklahoma and this Senator as a substitute to
S.
219. I believe, Mr. President, that the substitute is a good solution
to the problem that we are all concerned about, and that is excessive
bureaucratic regulation.
For example, Mr. President, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
estimated the cost of complying with regulations in the United States
on a yearly basis at over $500 billion. That is almost 10 percent of
our gross domestic product. It has also been estimated that the time
spent on paperwork is almost 7 billion hours.
Mr. President, I repeat that. Over $500 billion to comply with
regulations and almost 7 billion man-hours to do that paperwork.
We all know, Mr. President, that regulations serve a valid purpose
and an important purpose. In fact, because of the regulatory framework
that has been put in place for the last 50 or 60 years, we have
workplaces that are safer. Hard-working Americans are less likely to be
seriously injured on the job. There has been a tremendous reduction in
the loss of limb or permanent disfigurement in the workplace as a
result of Government regulations that were promulgated after we passed
laws in this and the other body.
We have, Mr. President, an airline industry that has the greatest
safety record in the world; food that meets very safe requirements, but
they are very strict. We have a country where, just 20-odd years ago,
80 percent of all rivers were polluted. Now, that is down to
approximately 20 percent. The numbers have been reversed as a result of
the Clean Water Act.
The problem is that all too often Congress passes a law with good
intentions and very sound policy only to have the agencies, the
governmental agencies, turn these simple laws into very complex
regulations that go beyond the intent of Congress and many times make
no sense. Ultimately, we create an environment where small
businessowners must hire legal departments--and I do not say
``lawyers''; legal departments--To comply with labor and environmental
laws and other issues.
In some instances, the regulations are so complex that a small firm
has to hire a multitude of experts so they can
[[Page
S4608]] comply with the labor laws, the environmental laws, the
tax laws. The reality has led Americans to become frustrated and
skeptical of their Government as a result of overregulation.
In a survey conducted by the Times Mirror, they found that, since
1987, the number of Americans who believe regulations affecting
businesses do more harm than good has jumped from 55 to over 63
percent. It was not very good in 1987. It has only gotten worse,
though.
Why are we concerned?
Well, Mr. President, if we look at the new regulations that have been
promulgated by Federal agencies--and this does not count State and
local agencies; we are not going to have any impact on that.
But I have in my possession, and I show the Presiding Officer,
regulations received since the 9th day of November 1994, that are
economically significant, and those that are not economically
significant.
Remember, for us, those are terms of art. For the American public,
they are not. We are talking about those that are economically
significant, to be over $100 million.
But look at them--page after page of these regulations. Those that
are economically significant, 3 pages; those not economically
significant, 12 pages of fine print.
Market promotion program regulations; Department of Defense selection
criteria for clothing and realigning military installations. It covers
everything. Protest disputes and appeals.
I would like to read that in more detail.
Wool and mohair payment programs for shorn wool, wool and unshorn
lambs, and mohair, even though, as you know, Mr. President, we repealed
the law, but we are still promulgating regulations in that regard.
Here is one that the Senator from California would, I am sure,
appreciate, the junior Senator, I believe. Use of the term ``fresh'' on
the labeling of raw poultry products.
As you may recall, there has been a dispute that has arisen, as to:
When you get a fresh turkey at Thanksgiving, is it really fresh? We
have regulations promulgated on that.
I am not going to go into more detail. We have 15 pages. And this is
not up to date. This is a couple of weeks old.
So I think the American public has something to be concerned about.
There really are too many regulations.
We have reason to believe that the American small business community
really is concerned, and with good reason, for thinking that
regulations do more harm than good.
I believe, Mr. President, that if you look at some, I should say,
unusual things that have gone on--we heard the Senator from Montana,
and during this debate that will take place this week, we will hear all
kinds of things that are going on--they really do not make a lot of
sense. Of course, there are a lot of things that make sense.
We need regulations, and the Senator from Nevada wants to make sure
people understand, I am not against all regulations. I just want some
commonsense direction for those regulations.
There is an article out of Business Week from a month or so ago that
talks about some of the good regulations, about when you go to the
airport and they have overbooked the airplane and you wanted to go
across the country; now there is a regulation that says they can give
you a free ticket if they bump you off the flight.
We have an example in the Clean Air Act where you can trade pollution
rights, which is certainly very important, because we have had
outlandish regulations.
A company, Amoco York County Refinery, was required to spend $31
million to reduce a small amount of benzene from its wastewater
treatment plant when it could have reduced five times as much benzene
elsewhere in the refinery at a cost of only $6 million. Those are some
of the things that literally drive small businesses crazy and drive
them out of business.
So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and this
legislation, Mr. President, is going to allow us to have more common
sense in the way regulations are promulgated.
I am convinced, and I have spoken with the Senator from Oklahoma at
some length in this regard, that one of the things that will flow from
this regulatory scheme that is in our substitute is that there will be
fewer regulations promulgated because they know there will be a legal
setup, a legal framework to review these regulations.
The Senator from Oklahoma and I have been long involved in trying to
do something about regulations. We have written op-ed pieces for
newspapers that have been published. We introduced legislation last
year that passed the Senate and was killed in conference that would
have put dollar limits on regulations.
Our approach this year with this substitute is an ongoing movement
which we have tried to initiate to put common sense in the way
regulations are promulgated. I repeat, I am convinced that our
substitute will stop the issuance of many regulations.
I believe the way to eliminate many of these problems is to establish
a safety mechanism that will enable Congress to look at these
regulations that are being promulgated and decide whether they achieve
the purpose they were supposed to achieve in a rational, economic, and
less burdensome way. This substitute, which I have already indicated I
have cosponsored with Senator Nickles, goes a long way toward
accomplishing this goal in a bipartisan fashion. I think this is
important because I believe Americans want Congress to work together to
make their Government work for them and not against them.
This bill, in my opinion--our substitute--should alleviate the talk
in this body about regulations. If this passes, I think we have a
framework established to take care of the problem. There will be some
who think we need to go a lot further, but I do not. I think if we can
get this in place, we will be in real good shape.
This bill has great potential, as I have indicated, for a bipartisan
solution to the problem of costly and unnecessary regulations. The
mechanics of this bill have been explained extremely well by the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I am going to touch on it briefly.
It provides a 45-day period for Congress to review new regulations.
If the rule has an economic impact over $100 million, it is deemed
significant and the regulation will not go into effect during the 45-
day review period. This 45-day review period will allow Congress to
hold Federal agencies accountable before they become law and start
impacting the regulated community.
Mr. President, if the rule does not meet the $100 million threshold,
the regulation will go into effect but will still be subject to fast-
track review. Even significant regulations may go into effect
immediately if the President, by Executive order, determines that the
regulation is necessary for health, safety, or national security, or is
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws. This is not subject to
judicial review.
So that is the general outline. We know the 45-day review process
will begin when the rule is sent to Congress.
We have spent a great deal of time, the Senator from Oklahoma and
myself and our staffs, making sure that this legislation is
constitutional. The Presiding Officer has had a long history of working
on legal matters, having been attorney general, and this regulation, I
am assured by all kinds of legal scholars, is constitutional.
In fact, the man that argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1983, the Chadha case, a man by the name of Mike Davidson, said:
The key to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
was that Congress had excluded the President altogether from
its repeal of the Kenyan's stay of deportation. By sending
any ``resolution of disapproval'' to the President for a
final decision, Congress sidesteps the separation-of-power
questions raised by the Chadha case.
So we are covered legally in this matter. If, during the course of
the debate, we need to get into more legal argument, I will be happy to
talk to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, or anyone
else concerned.
Mr. President, I believe that this is a significant step forward from
the underlying bill. I believe this substitute will allow an orderly
process whereby we can review regulations that the
[[Page
S4609]] Federal branch of Government initiates. It will cause
them to be more careful since the Chadha decision, in my opinion.
Government agencies have been reckless, recognizing that there is not
anything we can do about it. When this substitute passes, we will be
able to do something about it, and I think it will rein in what I
believe are some of the runaway rules that are being promulgated.
Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee
for their hard work on this issue. I do not support the underlying
legislation. I believe that this substitute is a significant
improvement over what has come to us in the form of
S. 219.
I also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the senior
Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. He has been a
stalwart ally over many years working on this issue. I believe that we
have now found a piece of legislation on which we can achieve a
bipartisan passage in this body and, hopefully, when the matter goes
before the conference, they will see the wisdom of adopting this very
workable procedure to rein in runaway Government bureaucracy.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague,
Senator Reid from Nevada, for his statement. I hope my colleagues had a
chance to listen to it because I think it is well reasoned and shows
there is bipartisan support for, I think, a commonsense idea, saying
Congress should have an opportunity to review regulations and, if you
are talking about really significant regulations, an expedited
procedure to reject those.
There are thousands of regulations. My guess is that we will reject a
very, very small percentage. But at least we will have the
congressional oversight and Congress will be hopefully more involved,
just as the Senator from Montana was in dealing with an OSHA regulation
in logging. Hopefully, more of our colleagues will become involved in
monitoring and reviewing and trying to limit excess regulations and
maybe in oversight find out the regulation is not acceptable. Maybe we
will find out that it is acceptable. The Senator from Nevada has helped
make that happen, and I am delighted to work with him in this effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a
piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about
S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it
is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support
this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in
scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time
on this legislation.
1. overview
We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in
serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly
regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our
businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal
agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs
and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory
reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium.
The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief
time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is,
however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all
significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for
as much a
s 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from
November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month
delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial
deadlines for agency action.
This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop
good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless,
stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my
remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price
that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death,
injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost
opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing.
Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with
Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli
infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat
inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't
think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs.
Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can
save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of
other parents like her, have suffered.
The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong.
Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very
clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that
its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to
replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional
veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand
what is going on here.
First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the
proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the
moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its
stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they
want to hide behind something new, something different, something that
will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate
passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the
House-passed moratorium would be negotiated.
Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for
bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a
blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are
now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be
subject to sunshine and amendment.
As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules.
Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills.
In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve,
just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the
Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an
essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform
bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate
owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of
Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very
tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill
that we should be discussing, not the moratorium.
Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is,
I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than
to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the
brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin.
Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly
proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version
being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of
the Levin proposal of 1979.
I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase
in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability
where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive
reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an
important role in providing review and accountability. At the same
time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which
is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform
proposals.
So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as
a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the
legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in,
and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills
now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it
would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a
substitute for
S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a
moratorium proposal.
If we pass
S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with
the House-passed moratorium bill. We
[[Page
S4610]] should not allow this result. We must not allow support
for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the
underlying moratorium proposal.
To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the
entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that
might contain any moratorium.
2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium
Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in
considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The proposal originated in the House as
H.R. 450. I ask unanimous
consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the
Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March
12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19,
1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5,
1995.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]
Forging an Alliance for Deregulation--Representative DeLay Makes
Companies Full Partners in the Movement
(By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)
The day before the Republicans formally took control of
Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear
conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the
first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman,
soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a
group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies
in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing
boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly
ringing telephones.
He could not wait to start on what he considered the
central mission of his political career: the demise of the
modern era of government regulation.
Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a
former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants
and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking
to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he
felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended
many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them
were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn
of the Republican
revolution, energized by a sense that their time was finally
at hand.
The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of
political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in
Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and
eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have
championed their legislative agenda as an answer to popular
dissatisfaction with Congress and the federal government. But
the agenda also represents a triumph for business interests,
who after years of playing a primarily defensive role in
Democratic-controlled Congresses now find themselves a full
partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional
priorities.
The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick
and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by
the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to
the sorts of government directives that Democrats has viewed
as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society but that many
businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive.
A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where
its chances of approval are not as certain.
Although several provisions of the ``Contract With
America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall
take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the
moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outline that day
in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy
lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as
the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first
draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on
rulemaking while the House pushed through the more
comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that
was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over
the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the
corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the
moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in
mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another
protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third
keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a
Labor Department requirement.
As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and
lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry
supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief,
sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than
a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar
communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition
provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate
moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping
out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to
Republican floor leaders.
Many of Project Relief'
s 350 industry members had spent the
past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic
governing circles and had made lavish contributions to
Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as
ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted
and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to
cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that
respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran
regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest
political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes
fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and
Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a
model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight
against Democratic alliances with labor unions and
environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than
theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they
have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is]
protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning
to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense,
according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in
the push for a moratorium is not without peril for
Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the
new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for
limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk
that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and
lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into
power in last November's elections.
William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent
strategy memos, help shape the conservative agenda, said the
way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict
could determine their prospects for consolidating
congressional power. ``If they legislate for special
interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the
Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business
is done in Washington.''
the exterminator
After graduating from the University of Houston with a
biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling
contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula
company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest
Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway
because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a
well-known brand of dog food.
By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the
Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest
homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased
in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal
worker safety rules, including one that required his termite
men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And
the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations,
he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a
chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first
considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By
the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it
was too late: Mirex makers had gone out of business.
The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in
the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out
government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I
better get involved in it.''
He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname
that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he
moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from
Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to
publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what
he considered the most frivolous regulations.
But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in
the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of
industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community
from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee
a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good,
Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and
environmental groups argued, had been well served by
government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been
prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles
were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by
federal mandates on sewerage.
DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of
commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of
regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion
a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they
thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing
liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace.
They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as
their point man.
The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident
last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the
best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for
other candidates. The large number of open congressional
seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered
him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of
business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly
prevailed on'' these allies, DeLay said.
[[Page
S4611]] In the 1994 elections, he was the second-
leading fund-riser for House Republican candidates, behind
only Gingrich. In adding up contributions he had solicited
for others, DeLay said, he lost count at about $2 million.
His persuasive powers were evident in the case of the
National-American Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which
already had contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time
DeLay addressed the group last September. After listening to
his speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business
Congress, they contributed, another $80,000 to Republicans
and consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be
recruited later by DeLay to chair his antiregulatory Project
Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles
in DeLay'
s 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path
into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were
David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan
Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of
Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of
the National Restaurant Association.
At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a
political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his
race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the
lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers,
drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and
calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money.
Contributions came in from various business PACs, which
Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got
the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new
members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be
here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.'''
For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and
brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC
community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an
Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on
Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow
Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of
the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. He hired We
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
(Senate - March 27, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S4604-S4641]
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 6
hours for general debate on the subject of
S. 219.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Federal
regulations. We are going to be on Senate bill
S. 219. I want to
compliment Senator Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee for
reporting this bill out. I also want to compliment the House of
Representatives for their move in trying to make some progress on
reining in the cost of excessive regulations. Federal regulations are
estimated to cost about $581 billion, by some sources. It is hard to
figure what that means, but per household, that is over $6,000--
actually $6,100 per household for the cost of Federal regulations. That
increases the cost of everything we buy. Whether you are talking about
your automobile or your home or your electric bill or the price that
you pay for gasoline, regulations are involved in all these and have
inflated the costs on every single thing that we buy.
Many of us feel these regulations have been excessive and they have
not been well thought out, or in some cases they are too expensive. I
might mention, I guess almost all are probably well intended, and I do
not fault anyone's intentions, whether it be the people who passed the
legislation authorizing the regulations or the regulators. They may be
well intended, but in many cases, the regulations have gone too far and
they are far too expensive.
So we have several measures that are working their way through this
body and through the Congress to try to limit excessive regulations.
The House passed a couple of measures. One was a measure called
regulation moratorium. A similar bill was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the bill we have on the floor
of the Senate today. I, along with my colleague and friend from Nevada,
Senator Reid, will be offering an amendment in the form of a substitute
to that bill. I will discuss that in a moment.
Also the Governmental Affairs Committee has reported out a
comprehensive bill dealing with regulation overhaul. I compliment them
for that effort. I think it is a giant step in the right direction.
Senator Dole, myself, and others have introduced a very comprehensive
bill. Likewise, I believe there is a markup scheduled in the Judiciary
Committee on that bill as well.
I compliment Senator Dole for his leadership because I think it makes
sense. We should have regulations where the benefits exceed the costs.
We should make sure we use real science. That is the purpose of both
Senator Roth's bill and Senator Dole's bill that we will be considering
on the floor my guess is sometime after the April recess.
But the bill we have before us many people support--the regulation
moratorium bill,
S. 219. I am a sponsor of that bill. I believe we have
36 sponsors. This is a bill that people have labeled a ``moratorium.''
I even have heard some people mislabel it, including the President, who
said it was a ``moratorium on all regulations,'' good and bad
regulations. I take issue with that because we had a lot of exceptions
for good regulations and we had a lot of exceptions for regulations
which people felt were necessary to go forward with, those regulations
that dealt with imminent health and safety and regulations that dealt
with ordinary administrative practices. The committee added more
exceptions. The Committee on Governmental Affairs limited it to
significant regulations. So we reduced the scope substantially.
Why was that bill introduced? That bill was introduced because on
November 14, the administration announced or published in the Federal
Register that they were working on 4,300 different regulations that
were in progress and that would be finalized in the year 1995 and
beyond. Many of us were concerned. That looked like an explosion of
regulations. Many of those regulations had been held up during the
previous year. It happened to be an election year, and they were held
up and published in the Federal Register on November 14.
So we wanted to stop those or at least we wanted to have a chance to
[[Page
S4605]] look at them. So this moratorium regulation was
introduced with a lot of sponsors. It eventually passed the House with
a lot of exceptions, came through the Senate, was marked up in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, which added more exceptions and limited
it to significant regulations. That was a moratorium.
The amendment that Senator Reid, myself, Senator Bond, and Senator
Hutchison are offering is a different approach. One, the moratorium
that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee is a temporary
moratorium. It expires when we pass comprehensive legislation, or it
expires at the end of the year. So it was only a temporary moratorium.
The legislation we are introducing today provides for 45-day
congressional review of regulations. During that time, Congress will be
authorized to review and potentially to reject regulations through a
resolution of disapproval before they become final.
This alternative provides an opportunity to move forward on the
critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I think
that is vitally important. This amendment will allow the authors of
legislation in Congress to review and to ensure that Federal agencies
are properly carrying out congressional intent. All too often agencies
issue regulations which go beyond their intended purpose.
For future significant rules, the alternative provides a 45-day
period following publication of the final rule before that rule can
become effective. Under the current law, most rules are already delayed
by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. This delay in the
effectiveness would only apply to significant regulations which the
amendment defines as final rules that meet one of four criteria set by
the administration under Executive Order 12866. For all other future
nonsignificant rules, the regulation of disapproval is in order, but
the final rule is not suspended during the 45-day period.
The alternative also provides an opportunity to review and reject
significant rules which became final on or after November 20, 1994, and
prior to the date of enactment. Such rules would not be suspended
during the review period. Final regulations addressing threats to
imminent health and safety or other emergencies, criminal law
enforcement or matters of national security, could be exempted by
Executive order from the postponement of the effective date provided
for in this bill. However, a joint resolution of disapproval will still
be eligible for fast-track consideration.
The expedited floor procedure has in it consideration of base closure
legislation as well as consideration of Federal Election Commission
regulations. Congress will have 45 calendar days to review final rules
and consider a resolution of disapproval.
All final rules that are published less than 60 days before Congress
adjourns sine die or that are published during sine die adjournment
shall be eligible for review and fast-track disapproval procedures for
45 days beginning on the 15th day after a new Congress convenes. A
joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of Congress, and the
fast-track process for moving the joint resolution of disapproval to
the calendar is enabled under two conditions; First, if the authorizing
committee reports out the resolution; or, second, if following the
resolution's introduction the committee does not act, the majority
leader of either House discharges the committee from further
consideration of the resolution and places the resolution of
disapproval directly on the calendar. The motion to proceed to
consideration of the resolution is privileged and is nondebatable.
I would like to note that last Thursday the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out the comprehensive reform bill which
includes this 45-day review proposal. However, it did not contain a
look back to past regulations. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to
the resolution of disapproval, the debate on the resolution is limited
to 10 hours equally divided with no motions other than a motion to
further limit debate or amendments being in order. If the resolution
passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the
floor of the other body.
The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be subject to a
Presidential veto and in turn a possible veto override. By providing
the mechanism to hold Federal agencies accountable before it is too
late, this alternative makes an important contribution to the critical
regulatory reform effort. I hope that my colleagues will join me in
this effort.
Mr. President, I would like to at this time mention and thank my
friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada for his support in
offering and working with me to offer this alternative or substitute to
the regulation moratorium. I have had the pleasure of working with
Senator Reid for many, many years now. We worked together on the
measures that we called the Economic and Employment Impact Statement, a
measure which is becoming law I guess as part of the unfunded mandate
bill. He has been a real leader in trying to reform and limit the cost
of excessive regulations. I compliment him for that successful effort
in the past, and I look forward to a successful effort on this bill as
well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my
friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation,
S. 219. Whenever
it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this
time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I
chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules
on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody.
We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest
Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really
out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place
regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging
industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it
has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to
that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the
horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and
regulations was really an eye opener for me.
We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks
from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that
Saturday field hearing.
Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training
consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the
same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA
forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards.
So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of
regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing
the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the
redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces
safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries
that are located within those States.
Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA
needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a
philosophical idea on what the rules should be.
Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States.
Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that
Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in
the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with
employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather
than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is
wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it,
that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In
other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe
workplace.
Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT.
The list goes on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a
couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as
they were given to me.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
My name is Arley Adams, doing business as Adams Wood
Products.
[[Page
S4606]] I'm a second generation logger in the timber
and saw mill industry. My son, Alan is the third generation
in the business and works with me.
We have a logging and sawmill operation that can be
operated by two or ten men, but with OSHA standards and
Workmans Compensation rates, there is no way we can hire one
man. You wonder why there is so much unemployment? Its called
cause and effect.
The rules and regulations that OSHA has at this time are so
far out of line that they will break every small operator.
Sure, our business is dangerous but so are a lot of other
industries and sports.
We are professionals in our business and we have an
excellent Safety Team in the Logging Association. We are well
aware of the dangers we are up against--we work with them
daily.
OSHA thinks that we are so incompetent that they must hold
our hands and impede us with so much gear that they ``OSHA''
will be the cause of the accidents they are trying to
prevent.
When they break us all--they will have to feed us because
surely we can't be trusted with a dinner fork.
The entire situation OSHA is trying to impose upon us is a
``Major Disaster.'' If California got Disaster Relief from
the earthquake, we should be eligible too!
Arley A. Adams.
____
March 9, 1995.
Dear Senator Burns: As a working foreman for a logging
company in the state of Idaho, I work with safety problems on
a daily basis. We have about thirty-five (35) other workers
on the job.
We pride ourselves in being able to have OSHA, the State,
or anyone else come on our job and see that we make the
working conditions as safe as humanly possible.
We work closely with the people from the Idaho Logging
Safety Program and we know that most of the other contractors
in our area do also. We've put together safety programs,
weekly safety meetings, monthly safety meetings, and anything
else they've asked for.
Then all of a sudden here come these new OSHA rules telling
us that we can't use diesel to start fires anymore and that
we can't fuel any of our machines with the engines running.
Do you people realize that you are talking to adults not five
year old kids. How many injuries have there been in the State
of Idaho from people using diesel to start a fire or from
fueling a vehicle with the engine running?
These rules and some of the others I've read in the book 29
CFR 1910 and 1928 really have no place in a logging standard.
Why don't you live with the Idaho Code. It as least let's
us use some common sense.
Sincerely,
Terry Streeter,
Foreman, Babbitt Logging, Inc.
____
Senator Burns, members of the committee: My name is Paul
Tisher. I live in Libby, Montana, My partner's name is Paul
Brown and we own and operate TBC Timber, a small family-owned
business. We've been in business for 15 years and have nine
employees other than ourselves. We are (also) working members
of our crew.
One of the new rules which concerns us most is under D.
General Requirements #5 called Environmental Conditions. It
read: All work shall terminate and each employee shall move
to a place of safety when environmental conditions, such as
but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslide and
darkness may endanger an employee in the performance of their
job. Senator, the interpretation of these conditions can mean
many things to different people. I can tell you, there have
been many times when our crew has had to sit out a storm,
whether it be wind, rain, or snow. But, the weather will be
what it will be, and we as stewards of this land will be out
there in the elements to support our families and sustain our
communities.
Another proposed rule that ties in with these environmental
conditions is under Tree Harvesting #2 Manual Felling Section
#3. It reads: Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of
snow and ice. Accumulation of snow and ice that may create a
hazard for an employee shall be removed before felling is
commenced in the area or the areas shall be avoided. I hope
that OSHA didn't intend for us to remove the snow and ice by
ourselves, especially knowing that this would create an even
greater hazard. That leaves us with the two things that
usually remove snow and ice from trees, and that is wind or
rain. Senator, this really becomes confusing at this point.
We can't work if there's too much snow or ice in the trees.
So we finally get a good hard rain or some chinook winds that
remove all the snow and ice, but we can't work under these
conditions either. Then as conditions turn colder it starts
to snow and we get more build up in the trees. This can go on
for six or seven months in Montana and leaves us wondering
how we're going to be able to work under this type of rule.
Who from OSHA can determine if conditions are too dangerous
to work in? What degree of wind, rain, snow, cold or fog will
constitute a total shutdown or the ensuing penalties if
operations are still working when they arrive. What
experience do they have in logging procedure and working with
outdoor elements that tell them one or more of these
conditions is too dangerous? We feel that the decisions on
Environmental Conditions should be left to the people who
make their living doing this and not by the Federal
Government.
Being members of the Montana Logging Association, we as a
crew have all had training in First Aid, CPR, Blood Borne
Pathogens, Material Safety Data, and Safe Operating
Procedures. This training is done annually and is a key to
recognizing unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions. Holding
ourselves to these standards has become the norm in this
profession we call logging.
Having said that, I would like to comment on a procedure
used by OSHA compliance officers during a jobsite visit. That
is the use of a video camera when questioning employers and
employees about the training they have had in reference to
what I just talked about. This, ``Camera In Your Face''
session gives one the feeling that you've already done
something wrong or why would the want to get it on film in
the first place. I am sure that somewhere, in all of the many
hours of training we have had, someone will forget something,
but that doesn't mean all of a sudden we are in a hazardous
situation. With the camera rolling and knowing that the wrong
answer to a question can result in a training violation and
cost an employer up to $7000 per violation and also knowing
that you haven't done anything wrong and that you're not in a
hazardous situation nor have you created a hazardous
situation for a fellow worker, is frustrating and
intimidating to the point that the easiest of answers can be
forgotten.
Senator, logging always has been and always will be a
dangerous occupation. We do not take this lightly. It is very
clear to us that training for, and providing a safe work
place will not only send us all home safely every night but
it is also essential for a company to stay in business. If we
believe in and practice these things then why do we need the
Federal Government to enforce what is already being done.
Common sense has been around a lot longer than OSHA and it
will be on the job when OSHA isn't. Please Senator, lets not
put any more rules into place that would jeopardize the use
of good common sense.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the
new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being
made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA
representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You
can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was.
For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the
employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other
words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer
responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is
overstepping a little bit.
Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a
little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt
with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to
it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when
you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard
of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He
said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a
Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a
kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again.
In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only
be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get
mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it
hang up and lose it? I do not think so.
But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an
industry which were written by an organization with basically very
little common sense when it comes to logging.
I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a
suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress,
after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into
law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless
bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence
that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the
legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the
Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of
jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the
legislation.
I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens,
Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned.
I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws
passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be
debated a little more.
[[Page
S4607]] But I think we in this body, if we have been remiss in
any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing
the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and
talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be
acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder
why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller
companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in
Montana are created by small business.
So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill.
It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the
rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially
if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do
with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a
living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also
ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to
do.
It was suggested after the elections last year that Government
reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8,
but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message
as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or
Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political
arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it
is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of
Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much
money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on
them that cost them more.
Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should
not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it
in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is
just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector
who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not
safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some
problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let
us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of
the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company,
plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not
his employees--he works with in the woods.
They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a
safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each
other, either. And they are all small.
But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal
Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he
can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what
we put into rules and regulations.
Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We
are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the
employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and
Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this
piece of legislation does it.
I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend
from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come
this weekend.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague
from Montana for his support for our amendment, and also thank him for
his statement.
I also wish to compliment the Senator from Montana, because he did
something that many of us have not been doing. He has held some
oversight hearings. He has had some of those people, many times we call
them faceless bureaucrats, but he has had them come into his State and
talk about some of the problems, whether it be in logging or forestry,
and let them talk and actually meet those that they regulate.
I believe the Senator said--correct me if I am wrong. The OSHA
official who was writing the regs had not actually been involved in the
logging industry but yet was writing rules and regulations dealing with
everything from trucks to boots, and he has not actually met some of
the people whom he was regulating.
Is that correct?
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from
Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to
the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but
he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when
we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and
they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that
is fine and dandy.
But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us
it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not
get ourselves into that kind of situation.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague having the hearing. My guess
is that meeting would not have transpired had it not been for the
Senator from Montana and his insisting on that meeting.
The fact is that those regulations or proposed regulations will
probably be changed and improved dramatically because of the insistence
of the Senator from Montana on having face-to-face meetings with people
who are making the regulations and making the rules to meet with people
that are directly impacted.
One of the real positive things which I hope will come out of this is
that Congress will become more active in oversight, just as the Senator
from Montana proved that it can make a difference, certainly in his
State.
Again, I compliment him for it, and I thank him again for his
statement.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow, pursuant to the order--the bill
not being before the Senate today--an amendment will be offered by the
senior Senator from Oklahoma and this Senator as a substitute to
S.
219. I believe, Mr. President, that the substitute is a good solution
to the problem that we are all concerned about, and that is excessive
bureaucratic regulation.
For example, Mr. President, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
estimated the cost of complying with regulations in the United States
on a yearly basis at over $500 billion. That is almost 10 percent of
our gross domestic product. It has also been estimated that the time
spent on paperwork is almost 7 billion hours.
Mr. President, I repeat that. Over $500 billion to comply with
regulations and almost 7 billion man-hours to do that paperwork.
We all know, Mr. President, that regulations serve a valid purpose
and an important purpose. In fact, because of the regulatory framework
that has been put in place for the last 50 or 60 years, we have
workplaces that are safer. Hard-working Americans are less likely to be
seriously injured on the job. There has been a tremendous reduction in
the loss of limb or permanent disfigurement in the workplace as a
result of Government regulations that were promulgated after we passed
laws in this and the other body.
We have, Mr. President, an airline industry that has the greatest
safety record in the world; food that meets very safe requirements, but
they are very strict. We have a country where, just 20-odd years ago,
80 percent of all rivers were polluted. Now, that is down to
approximately 20 percent. The numbers have been reversed as a result of
the Clean Water Act.
The problem is that all too often Congress passes a law with good
intentions and very sound policy only to have the agencies, the
governmental agencies, turn these simple laws into very complex
regulations that go beyond the intent of Congress and many times make
no sense. Ultimately, we create an environment where small
businessowners must hire legal departments--and I do not say
``lawyers''; legal departments--To comply with labor and environmental
laws and other issues.
In some instances, the regulations are so complex that a small firm
has to hire a multitude of experts so they can
[[Page
S4608]] comply with the labor laws, the environmental laws, the
tax laws. The reality has led Americans to become frustrated and
skeptical of their Government as a result of overregulation.
In a survey conducted by the Times Mirror, they found that, since
1987, the number of Americans who believe regulations affecting
businesses do more harm than good has jumped from 55 to over 63
percent. It was not very good in 1987. It has only gotten worse,
though.
Why are we concerned?
Well, Mr. President, if we look at the new regulations that have been
promulgated by Federal agencies--and this does not count State and
local agencies; we are not going to have any impact on that.
But I have in my possession, and I show the Presiding Officer,
regulations received since the 9th day of November 1994, that are
economically significant, and those that are not economically
significant.
Remember, for us, those are terms of art. For the American public,
they are not. We are talking about those that are economically
significant, to be over $100 million.
But look at them--page after page of these regulations. Those that
are economically significant, 3 pages; those not economically
significant, 12 pages of fine print.
Market promotion program regulations; Department of Defense selection
criteria for clothing and realigning military installations. It covers
everything. Protest disputes and appeals.
I would like to read that in more detail.
Wool and mohair payment programs for shorn wool, wool and unshorn
lambs, and mohair, even though, as you know, Mr. President, we repealed
the law, but we are still promulgating regulations in that regard.
Here is one that the Senator from California would, I am sure,
appreciate, the junior Senator, I believe. Use of the term ``fresh'' on
the labeling of raw poultry products.
As you may recall, there has been a dispute that has arisen, as to:
When you get a fresh turkey at Thanksgiving, is it really fresh? We
have regulations promulgated on that.
I am not going to go into more detail. We have 15 pages. And this is
not up to date. This is a couple of weeks old.
So I think the American public has something to be concerned about.
There really are too many regulations.
We have reason to believe that the American small business community
really is concerned, and with good reason, for thinking that
regulations do more harm than good.
I believe, Mr. President, that if you look at some, I should say,
unusual things that have gone on--we heard the Senator from Montana,
and during this debate that will take place this week, we will hear all
kinds of things that are going on--they really do not make a lot of
sense. Of course, there are a lot of things that make sense.
We need regulations, and the Senator from Nevada wants to make sure
people understand, I am not against all regulations. I just want some
commonsense direction for those regulations.
There is an article out of Business Week from a month or so ago that
talks about some of the good regulations, about when you go to the
airport and they have overbooked the airplane and you wanted to go
across the country; now there is a regulation that says they can give
you a free ticket if they bump you off the flight.
We have an example in the Clean Air Act where you can trade pollution
rights, which is certainly very important, because we have had
outlandish regulations.
A company, Amoco York County Refinery, was required to spend $31
million to reduce a small amount of benzene from its wastewater
treatment plant when it could have reduced five times as much benzene
elsewhere in the refinery at a cost of only $6 million. Those are some
of the things that literally drive small businesses crazy and drive
them out of business.
So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and this
legislation, Mr. President, is going to allow us to have more common
sense in the way regulations are promulgated.
I am convinced, and I have spoken with the Senator from Oklahoma at
some length in this regard, that one of the things that will flow from
this regulatory scheme that is in our substitute is that there will be
fewer regulations promulgated because they know there will be a legal
setup, a legal framework to review these regulations.
The Senator from Oklahoma and I have been long involved in trying to
do something about regulations. We have written op-ed pieces for
newspapers that have been published. We introduced legislation last
year that passed the Senate and was killed in conference that would
have put dollar limits on regulations.
Our approach this year with this substitute is an ongoing movement
which we have tried to initiate to put common sense in the way
regulations are promulgated. I repeat, I am convinced that our
substitute will stop the issuance of many regulations.
I believe the way to eliminate many of these problems is to establish
a safety mechanism that will enable Congress to look at these
regulations that are being promulgated and decide whether they achieve
the purpose they were supposed to achieve in a rational, economic, and
less burdensome way. This substitute, which I have already indicated I
have cosponsored with Senator Nickles, goes a long way toward
accomplishing this goal in a bipartisan fashion. I think this is
important because I believe Americans want Congress to work together to
make their Government work for them and not against them.
This bill, in my opinion--our substitute--should alleviate the talk
in this body about regulations. If this passes, I think we have a
framework established to take care of the problem. There will be some
who think we need to go a lot further, but I do not. I think if we can
get this in place, we will be in real good shape.
This bill has great potential, as I have indicated, for a bipartisan
solution to the problem of costly and unnecessary regulations. The
mechanics of this bill have been explained extremely well by the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I am going to touch on it briefly.
It provides a 45-day period for Congress to review new regulations.
If the rule has an economic impact over $100 million, it is deemed
significant and the regulation will not go into effect during the 45-
day review period. This 45-day review period will allow Congress to
hold Federal agencies accountable before they become law and start
impacting the regulated community.
Mr. President, if the rule does not meet the $100 million threshold,
the regulation will go into effect but will still be subject to fast-
track review. Even significant regulations may go into effect
immediately if the President, by Executive order, determines that the
regulation is necessary for health, safety, or national security, or is
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws. This is not subject to
judicial review.
So that is the general outline. We know the 45-day review process
will begin when the rule is sent to Congress.
We have spent a great deal of time, the Senator from Oklahoma and
myself and our staffs, making sure that this legislation is
constitutional. The Presiding Officer has had a long history of working
on legal matters, having been attorney general, and this regulation, I
am assured by all kinds of legal scholars, is constitutional.
In fact, the man that argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1983, the Chadha case, a man by the name of Mike Davidson, said:
The key to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
was that Congress had excluded the President altogether from
its repeal of the Kenyan's stay of deportation. By sending
any ``resolution of disapproval'' to the President for a
final decision, Congress sidesteps the separation-of-power
questions raised by the Chadha case.
So we are covered legally in this matter. If, during the course of
the debate, we need to get into more legal argument, I will be happy to
talk to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, or anyone
else concerned.
Mr. President, I believe that this is a significant step forward from
the underlying bill. I believe this substitute will allow an orderly
process whereby we can review regulations that the
[[Page
S4609]] Federal branch of Government initiates. It will cause
them to be more careful since the Chadha decision, in my opinion.
Government agencies have been reckless, recognizing that there is not
anything we can do about it. When this substitute passes, we will be
able to do something about it, and I think it will rein in what I
believe are some of the runaway rules that are being promulgated.
Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee
for their hard work on this issue. I do not support the underlying
legislation. I believe that this substitute is a significant
improvement over what has come to us in the form of
S. 219.
I also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the senior
Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. He has been a
stalwart ally over many years working on this issue. I believe that we
have now found a piece of legislation on which we can achieve a
bipartisan passage in this body and, hopefully, when the matter goes
before the conference, they will see the wisdom of adopting this very
workable procedure to rein in runaway Government bureaucracy.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague,
Senator Reid from Nevada, for his statement. I hope my colleagues had a
chance to listen to it because I think it is well reasoned and shows
there is bipartisan support for, I think, a commonsense idea, saying
Congress should have an opportunity to review regulations and, if you
are talking about really significant regulations, an expedited
procedure to reject those.
There are thousands of regulations. My guess is that we will reject a
very, very small percentage. But at least we will have the
congressional oversight and Congress will be hopefully more involved,
just as the Senator from Montana was in dealing with an OSHA regulation
in logging. Hopefully, more of our colleagues will become involved in
monitoring and reviewing and trying to limit excess regulations and
maybe in oversight find out the regulation is not acceptable. Maybe we
will find out that it is acceptable. The Senator from Nevada has helped
make that happen, and I am delighted to work with him in this effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a
piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about
S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it
is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support
this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in
scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time
on this legislation.
1. overview
We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in
serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly
regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our
businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal
agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs
and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory
reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium.
The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief
time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is,
however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all
significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for
as much a
s 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from
November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month
delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial
deadlines for agency action.
This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop
good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless,
stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my
remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price
that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death,
injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost
opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing.
Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with
Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli
infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat
inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't
think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs.
Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can
save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of
other parents like her, have suffered.
The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong.
Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very
clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that
its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to
replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional
veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand
what is going on here.
First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the
proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the
moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its
stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they
want to hide behind something new, something different, something that
will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate
passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the
House-passed moratorium would be negotiated.
Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for
bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a
blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are
now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be
subject to sunshine and amendment.
As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules.
Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills.
In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve,
just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the
Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an
essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform
bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate
owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of
Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very
tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill
that we should be discussing, not the moratorium.
Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is,
I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than
to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the
brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin.
Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly
proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version
being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of
the Levin proposal of 1979.
I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase
in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability
where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive
reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an
important role in providing review and accountability. At the same
time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which
is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform
proposals.
So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as
a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the
legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in,
and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills
now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it
would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a
substitute for
S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a
moratorium proposal.
If we pass
S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with
the House-passed moratorium bill. We
[[Page
S4610]] should not allow this result. We must not allow support
for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the
underlying moratorium proposal.
To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the
entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that
might contain any moratorium.
2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium
Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in
considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The proposal originated in the House as
H.R. 450. I ask unanimous
consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the
Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March
12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19,
1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5,
1995.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]
Forging an Alliance for Deregulation--Representative DeLay Makes
Companies Full Partners in the Movement
(By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)
The day before the Republicans formally took control of
Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear
conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the
first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman,
soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a
group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies
in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing
boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly
ringing telephones.
He could not wait to start on what he considered the
central mission of his political career: the demise of the
modern era of government regulation.
Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a
former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants
and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking
to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he
felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended
many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them
were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn
of the Republican
revolution, energized by a sense that their time was finally
at hand.
The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of
political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in
Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and
eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have
championed their legislative agenda as an answer to popular
dissatisfaction with Congress and the federal government. But
the agenda also represents a triumph for business interests,
who after years of playing a primarily defensive role in
Democratic-controlled Congresses now find themselves a full
partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional
priorities.
The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick
and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by
the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to
the sorts of government directives that Democrats has viewed
as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society but that many
businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive.
A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where
its chances of approval are not as certain.
Although several provisions of the ``Contract With
America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall
take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the
moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outline that day
in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy
lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as
the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first
draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on
rulemaking while the House pushed through the more
comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that
was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over
the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the
corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the
moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in
mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another
protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third
keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a
Labor Department requirement.
As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and
lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry
supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief,
sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than
a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar
communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition
provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate
moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping
out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to
Republican floor leaders.
Many of Project Relief'
s 350 industry members had spent the
past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic
governing circles and had made lavish contributions to
Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as
ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted
and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to
cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that
respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran
regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest
political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes
fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and
Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a
model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight
against Democratic alliances with labor unions and
environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than
theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they
have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is]
protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning
to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense,
according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in
the push for a moratorium is not without peril for
Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the
new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for
limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk
that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and
lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into
power in last November's elections.
William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent
strategy memos, help shape the conservative agenda, said the
way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict
could determine their prospects for consolidating
congressional power. ``If they legislate for special
interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the
Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business
is done in Washington.''
the exterminator
After graduating from the University of Houston with a
biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling
contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula
company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest
Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway
because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a
well-known brand of dog food.
By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the
Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest
homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased
in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal
worker safety rules, including one that required his termite
men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And
the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations,
he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a
chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first
considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By
the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it
was too late: Mirex makers had gone out of business.
The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in
the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out
government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I
better get involved in it.''
He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname
that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he
moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from
Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to
publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what
he considered the most frivolous regulations.
But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in
the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of
industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community
from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee
a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good,
Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and
environmental groups argued, had been well served by
government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been
prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles
were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by
federal mandates on sewerage.
DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of
commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of
regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion
a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they
thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing
liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace.
They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as
their point man.
The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident
last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the
best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for
other candidates. The large number of open congressional
seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered
him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of
business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly
prevailed on'' these allies, DeLay said.
[[Page
S4611]] In the 1994 elections, he was the second-
leading fund-riser for House Republican candidates, behind
only Gingrich. In adding up contributions he had solicited
for others, DeLay said, he lost count at about $2 million.
His persuasive powers were evident in the case of the
National-American Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which
already had contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time
DeLay addressed the group last September. After listening to
his speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business
Congress, they contributed, another $80,000 to Republicans
and consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be
recruited later by DeLay to chair his antiregulatory Project
Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles
in DeLay'
s 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path
into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were
David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan
Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of
Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of
the National Restaurant Association.
At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a
political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his
race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the
lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers,
drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and
calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money.
Contributions came in from various business PACs, which
Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got
the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new
members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be
here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.'''
For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and
brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC
community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an
Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on
Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow
Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of
the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. H
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
(Senate - March 27, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S4604-S4641]
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 6
hours for general debate on the subject of
S. 219.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Federal
regulations. We are going to be on Senate bill
S. 219. I want to
compliment Senator Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee for
reporting this bill out. I also want to compliment the House of
Representatives for their move in trying to make some progress on
reining in the cost of excessive regulations. Federal regulations are
estimated to cost about $581 billion, by some sources. It is hard to
figure what that means, but per household, that is over $6,000--
actually $6,100 per household for the cost of Federal regulations. That
increases the cost of everything we buy. Whether you are talking about
your automobile or your home or your electric bill or the price that
you pay for gasoline, regulations are involved in all these and have
inflated the costs on every single thing that we buy.
Many of us feel these regulations have been excessive and they have
not been well thought out, or in some cases they are too expensive. I
might mention, I guess almost all are probably well intended, and I do
not fault anyone's intentions, whether it be the people who passed the
legislation authorizing the regulations or the regulators. They may be
well intended, but in many cases, the regulations have gone too far and
they are far too expensive.
So we have several measures that are working their way through this
body and through the Congress to try to limit excessive regulations.
The House passed a couple of measures. One was a measure called
regulation moratorium. A similar bill was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the bill we have on the floor
of the Senate today. I, along with my colleague and friend from Nevada,
Senator Reid, will be offering an amendment in the form of a substitute
to that bill. I will discuss that in a moment.
Also the Governmental Affairs Committee has reported out a
comprehensive bill dealing with regulation overhaul. I compliment them
for that effort. I think it is a giant step in the right direction.
Senator Dole, myself, and others have introduced a very comprehensive
bill. Likewise, I believe there is a markup scheduled in the Judiciary
Committee on that bill as well.
I compliment Senator Dole for his leadership because I think it makes
sense. We should have regulations where the benefits exceed the costs.
We should make sure we use real science. That is the purpose of both
Senator Roth's bill and Senator Dole's bill that we will be considering
on the floor my guess is sometime after the April recess.
But the bill we have before us many people support--the regulation
moratorium bill,
S. 219. I am a sponsor of that bill. I believe we have
36 sponsors. This is a bill that people have labeled a ``moratorium.''
I even have heard some people mislabel it, including the President, who
said it was a ``moratorium on all regulations,'' good and bad
regulations. I take issue with that because we had a lot of exceptions
for good regulations and we had a lot of exceptions for regulations
which people felt were necessary to go forward with, those regulations
that dealt with imminent health and safety and regulations that dealt
with ordinary administrative practices. The committee added more
exceptions. The Committee on Governmental Affairs limited it to
significant regulations. So we reduced the scope substantially.
Why was that bill introduced? That bill was introduced because on
November 14, the administration announced or published in the Federal
Register that they were working on 4,300 different regulations that
were in progress and that would be finalized in the year 1995 and
beyond. Many of us were concerned. That looked like an explosion of
regulations. Many of those regulations had been held up during the
previous year. It happened to be an election year, and they were held
up and published in the Federal Register on November 14.
So we wanted to stop those or at least we wanted to have a chance to
[[Page
S4605]] look at them. So this moratorium regulation was
introduced with a lot of sponsors. It eventually passed the House with
a lot of exceptions, came through the Senate, was marked up in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, which added more exceptions and limited
it to significant regulations. That was a moratorium.
The amendment that Senator Reid, myself, Senator Bond, and Senator
Hutchison are offering is a different approach. One, the moratorium
that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee is a temporary
moratorium. It expires when we pass comprehensive legislation, or it
expires at the end of the year. So it was only a temporary moratorium.
The legislation we are introducing today provides for 45-day
congressional review of regulations. During that time, Congress will be
authorized to review and potentially to reject regulations through a
resolution of disapproval before they become final.
This alternative provides an opportunity to move forward on the
critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I think
that is vitally important. This amendment will allow the authors of
legislation in Congress to review and to ensure that Federal agencies
are properly carrying out congressional intent. All too often agencies
issue regulations which go beyond their intended purpose.
For future significant rules, the alternative provides a 45-day
period following publication of the final rule before that rule can
become effective. Under the current law, most rules are already delayed
by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. This delay in the
effectiveness would only apply to significant regulations which the
amendment defines as final rules that meet one of four criteria set by
the administration under Executive Order 12866. For all other future
nonsignificant rules, the regulation of disapproval is in order, but
the final rule is not suspended during the 45-day period.
The alternative also provides an opportunity to review and reject
significant rules which became final on or after November 20, 1994, and
prior to the date of enactment. Such rules would not be suspended
during the review period. Final regulations addressing threats to
imminent health and safety or other emergencies, criminal law
enforcement or matters of national security, could be exempted by
Executive order from the postponement of the effective date provided
for in this bill. However, a joint resolution of disapproval will still
be eligible for fast-track consideration.
The expedited floor procedure has in it consideration of base closure
legislation as well as consideration of Federal Election Commission
regulations. Congress will have 45 calendar days to review final rules
and consider a resolution of disapproval.
All final rules that are published less than 60 days before Congress
adjourns sine die or that are published during sine die adjournment
shall be eligible for review and fast-track disapproval procedures for
45 days beginning on the 15th day after a new Congress convenes. A
joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of Congress, and the
fast-track process for moving the joint resolution of disapproval to
the calendar is enabled under two conditions; First, if the authorizing
committee reports out the resolution; or, second, if following the
resolution's introduction the committee does not act, the majority
leader of either House discharges the committee from further
consideration of the resolution and places the resolution of
disapproval directly on the calendar. The motion to proceed to
consideration of the resolution is privileged and is nondebatable.
I would like to note that last Thursday the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out the comprehensive reform bill which
includes this 45-day review proposal. However, it did not contain a
look back to past regulations. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to
the resolution of disapproval, the debate on the resolution is limited
to 10 hours equally divided with no motions other than a motion to
further limit debate or amendments being in order. If the resolution
passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the
floor of the other body.
The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be subject to a
Presidential veto and in turn a possible veto override. By providing
the mechanism to hold Federal agencies accountable before it is too
late, this alternative makes an important contribution to the critical
regulatory reform effort. I hope that my colleagues will join me in
this effort.
Mr. President, I would like to at this time mention and thank my
friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada for his support in
offering and working with me to offer this alternative or substitute to
the regulation moratorium. I have had the pleasure of working with
Senator Reid for many, many years now. We worked together on the
measures that we called the Economic and Employment Impact Statement, a
measure which is becoming law I guess as part of the unfunded mandate
bill. He has been a real leader in trying to reform and limit the cost
of excessive regulations. I compliment him for that successful effort
in the past, and I look forward to a successful effort on this bill as
well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my
friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation,
S. 219. Whenever
it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this
time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I
chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules
on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody.
We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest
Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really
out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place
regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging
industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it
has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to
that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the
horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and
regulations was really an eye opener for me.
We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks
from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that
Saturday field hearing.
Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training
consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the
same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA
forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards.
So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of
regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing
the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the
redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces
safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries
that are located within those States.
Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA
needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a
philosophical idea on what the rules should be.
Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States.
Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that
Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in
the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with
employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather
than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is
wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it,
that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In
other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe
workplace.
Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT.
The list goes on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a
couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as
they were given to me.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
My name is Arley Adams, doing business as Adams Wood
Products.
[[Page
S4606]] I'm a second generation logger in the timber
and saw mill industry. My son, Alan is the third generation
in the business and works with me.
We have a logging and sawmill operation that can be
operated by two or ten men, but with OSHA standards and
Workmans Compensation rates, there is no way we can hire one
man. You wonder why there is so much unemployment? Its called
cause and effect.
The rules and regulations that OSHA has at this time are so
far out of line that they will break every small operator.
Sure, our business is dangerous but so are a lot of other
industries and sports.
We are professionals in our business and we have an
excellent Safety Team in the Logging Association. We are well
aware of the dangers we are up against--we work with them
daily.
OSHA thinks that we are so incompetent that they must hold
our hands and impede us with so much gear that they ``OSHA''
will be the cause of the accidents they are trying to
prevent.
When they break us all--they will have to feed us because
surely we can't be trusted with a dinner fork.
The entire situation OSHA is trying to impose upon us is a
``Major Disaster.'' If California got Disaster Relief from
the earthquake, we should be eligible too!
Arley A. Adams.
____
March 9, 1995.
Dear Senator Burns: As a working foreman for a logging
company in the state of Idaho, I work with safety problems on
a daily basis. We have about thirty-five (35) other workers
on the job.
We pride ourselves in being able to have OSHA, the State,
or anyone else come on our job and see that we make the
working conditions as safe as humanly possible.
We work closely with the people from the Idaho Logging
Safety Program and we know that most of the other contractors
in our area do also. We've put together safety programs,
weekly safety meetings, monthly safety meetings, and anything
else they've asked for.
Then all of a sudden here come these new OSHA rules telling
us that we can't use diesel to start fires anymore and that
we can't fuel any of our machines with the engines running.
Do you people realize that you are talking to adults not five
year old kids. How many injuries have there been in the State
of Idaho from people using diesel to start a fire or from
fueling a vehicle with the engine running?
These rules and some of the others I've read in the book 29
CFR 1910 and 1928 really have no place in a logging standard.
Why don't you live with the Idaho Code. It as least let's
us use some common sense.
Sincerely,
Terry Streeter,
Foreman, Babbitt Logging, Inc.
____
Senator Burns, members of the committee: My name is Paul
Tisher. I live in Libby, Montana, My partner's name is Paul
Brown and we own and operate TBC Timber, a small family-owned
business. We've been in business for 15 years and have nine
employees other than ourselves. We are (also) working members
of our crew.
One of the new rules which concerns us most is under D.
General Requirements #5 called Environmental Conditions. It
read: All work shall terminate and each employee shall move
to a place of safety when environmental conditions, such as
but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslide and
darkness may endanger an employee in the performance of their
job. Senator, the interpretation of these conditions can mean
many things to different people. I can tell you, there have
been many times when our crew has had to sit out a storm,
whether it be wind, rain, or snow. But, the weather will be
what it will be, and we as stewards of this land will be out
there in the elements to support our families and sustain our
communities.
Another proposed rule that ties in with these environmental
conditions is under Tree Harvesting #2 Manual Felling Section
#3. It reads: Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of
snow and ice. Accumulation of snow and ice that may create a
hazard for an employee shall be removed before felling is
commenced in the area or the areas shall be avoided. I hope
that OSHA didn't intend for us to remove the snow and ice by
ourselves, especially knowing that this would create an even
greater hazard. That leaves us with the two things that
usually remove snow and ice from trees, and that is wind or
rain. Senator, this really becomes confusing at this point.
We can't work if there's too much snow or ice in the trees.
So we finally get a good hard rain or some chinook winds that
remove all the snow and ice, but we can't work under these
conditions either. Then as conditions turn colder it starts
to snow and we get more build up in the trees. This can go on
for six or seven months in Montana and leaves us wondering
how we're going to be able to work under this type of rule.
Who from OSHA can determine if conditions are too dangerous
to work in? What degree of wind, rain, snow, cold or fog will
constitute a total shutdown or the ensuing penalties if
operations are still working when they arrive. What
experience do they have in logging procedure and working with
outdoor elements that tell them one or more of these
conditions is too dangerous? We feel that the decisions on
Environmental Conditions should be left to the people who
make their living doing this and not by the Federal
Government.
Being members of the Montana Logging Association, we as a
crew have all had training in First Aid, CPR, Blood Borne
Pathogens, Material Safety Data, and Safe Operating
Procedures. This training is done annually and is a key to
recognizing unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions. Holding
ourselves to these standards has become the norm in this
profession we call logging.
Having said that, I would like to comment on a procedure
used by OSHA compliance officers during a jobsite visit. That
is the use of a video camera when questioning employers and
employees about the training they have had in reference to
what I just talked about. This, ``Camera In Your Face''
session gives one the feeling that you've already done
something wrong or why would the want to get it on film in
the first place. I am sure that somewhere, in all of the many
hours of training we have had, someone will forget something,
but that doesn't mean all of a sudden we are in a hazardous
situation. With the camera rolling and knowing that the wrong
answer to a question can result in a training violation and
cost an employer up to $7000 per violation and also knowing
that you haven't done anything wrong and that you're not in a
hazardous situation nor have you created a hazardous
situation for a fellow worker, is frustrating and
intimidating to the point that the easiest of answers can be
forgotten.
Senator, logging always has been and always will be a
dangerous occupation. We do not take this lightly. It is very
clear to us that training for, and providing a safe work
place will not only send us all home safely every night but
it is also essential for a company to stay in business. If we
believe in and practice these things then why do we need the
Federal Government to enforce what is already being done.
Common sense has been around a lot longer than OSHA and it
will be on the job when OSHA isn't. Please Senator, lets not
put any more rules into place that would jeopardize the use
of good common sense.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the
new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being
made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA
representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You
can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was.
For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the
employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other
words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer
responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is
overstepping a little bit.
Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a
little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt
with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to
it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when
you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard
of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He
said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a
Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a
kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again.
In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only
be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get
mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it
hang up and lose it? I do not think so.
But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an
industry which were written by an organization with basically very
little common sense when it comes to logging.
I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a
suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress,
after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into
law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless
bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence
that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the
legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the
Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of
jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the
legislation.
I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens,
Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned.
I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws
passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be
debated a little more.
[[Page
S4607]] But I think we in this body, if we have been remiss in
any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing
the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and
talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be
acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder
why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller
companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in
Montana are created by small business.
So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill.
It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the
rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially
if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do
with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a
living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also
ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to
do.
It was suggested after the elections last year that Government
reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8,
but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message
as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or
Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political
arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it
is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of
Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much
money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on
them that cost them more.
Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should
not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it
in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is
just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector
who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not
safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some
problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let
us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of
the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company,
plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not
his employees--he works with in the woods.
They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a
safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each
other, either. And they are all small.
But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal
Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he
can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what
we put into rules and regulations.
Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We
are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the
employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and
Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this
piece of legislation does it.
I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend
from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come
this weekend.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague
from Montana for his support for our amendment, and also thank him for
his statement.
I also wish to compliment the Senator from Montana, because he did
something that many of us have not been doing. He has held some
oversight hearings. He has had some of those people, many times we call
them faceless bureaucrats, but he has had them come into his State and
talk about some of the problems, whether it be in logging or forestry,
and let them talk and actually meet those that they regulate.
I believe the Senator said--correct me if I am wrong. The OSHA
official who was writing the regs had not actually been involved in the
logging industry but yet was writing rules and regulations dealing with
everything from trucks to boots, and he has not actually met some of
the people whom he was regulating.
Is that correct?
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from
Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to
the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but
he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when
we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and
they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that
is fine and dandy.
But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us
it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not
get ourselves into that kind of situation.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague having the hearing. My guess
is that meeting would not have transpired had it not been for the
Senator from Montana and his insisting on that meeting.
The fact is that those regulations or proposed regulations will
probably be changed and improved dramatically because of the insistence
of the Senator from Montana on having face-to-face meetings with people
who are making the regulations and making the rules to meet with people
that are directly impacted.
One of the real positive things which I hope will come out of this is
that Congress will become more active in oversight, just as the Senator
from Montana proved that it can make a difference, certainly in his
State.
Again, I compliment him for it, and I thank him again for his
statement.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow, pursuant to the order--the bill
not being before the Senate today--an amendment will be offered by the
senior Senator from Oklahoma and this Senator as a substitute to
S.
219. I believe, Mr. President, that the substitute is a good solution
to the problem that we are all concerned about, and that is excessive
bureaucratic regulation.
For example, Mr. President, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
estimated the cost of complying with regulations in the United States
on a yearly basis at over $500 billion. That is almost 10 percent of
our gross domestic product. It has also been estimated that the time
spent on paperwork is almost 7 billion hours.
Mr. President, I repeat that. Over $500 billion to comply with
regulations and almost 7 billion man-hours to do that paperwork.
We all know, Mr. President, that regulations serve a valid purpose
and an important purpose. In fact, because of the regulatory framework
that has been put in place for the last 50 or 60 years, we have
workplaces that are safer. Hard-working Americans are less likely to be
seriously injured on the job. There has been a tremendous reduction in
the loss of limb or permanent disfigurement in the workplace as a
result of Government regulations that were promulgated after we passed
laws in this and the other body.
We have, Mr. President, an airline industry that has the greatest
safety record in the world; food that meets very safe requirements, but
they are very strict. We have a country where, just 20-odd years ago,
80 percent of all rivers were polluted. Now, that is down to
approximately 20 percent. The numbers have been reversed as a result of
the Clean Water Act.
The problem is that all too often Congress passes a law with good
intentions and very sound policy only to have the agencies, the
governmental agencies, turn these simple laws into very complex
regulations that go beyond the intent of Congress and many times make
no sense. Ultimately, we create an environment where small
businessowners must hire legal departments--and I do not say
``lawyers''; legal departments--To comply with labor and environmental
laws and other issues.
In some instances, the regulations are so complex that a small firm
has to hire a multitude of experts so they can
[[Page
S4608]] comply with the labor laws, the environmental laws, the
tax laws. The reality has led Americans to become frustrated and
skeptical of their Government as a result of overregulation.
In a survey conducted by the Times Mirror, they found that, since
1987, the number of Americans who believe regulations affecting
businesses do more harm than good has jumped from 55 to over 63
percent. It was not very good in 1987. It has only gotten worse,
though.
Why are we concerned?
Well, Mr. President, if we look at the new regulations that have been
promulgated by Federal agencies--and this does not count State and
local agencies; we are not going to have any impact on that.
But I have in my possession, and I show the Presiding Officer,
regulations received since the 9th day of November 1994, that are
economically significant, and those that are not economically
significant.
Remember, for us, those are terms of art. For the American public,
they are not. We are talking about those that are economically
significant, to be over $100 million.
But look at them--page after page of these regulations. Those that
are economically significant, 3 pages; those not economically
significant, 12 pages of fine print.
Market promotion program regulations; Department of Defense selection
criteria for clothing and realigning military installations. It covers
everything. Protest disputes and appeals.
I would like to read that in more detail.
Wool and mohair payment programs for shorn wool, wool and unshorn
lambs, and mohair, even though, as you know, Mr. President, we repealed
the law, but we are still promulgating regulations in that regard.
Here is one that the Senator from California would, I am sure,
appreciate, the junior Senator, I believe. Use of the term ``fresh'' on
the labeling of raw poultry products.
As you may recall, there has been a dispute that has arisen, as to:
When you get a fresh turkey at Thanksgiving, is it really fresh? We
have regulations promulgated on that.
I am not going to go into more detail. We have 15 pages. And this is
not up to date. This is a couple of weeks old.
So I think the American public has something to be concerned about.
There really are too many regulations.
We have reason to believe that the American small business community
really is concerned, and with good reason, for thinking that
regulations do more harm than good.
I believe, Mr. President, that if you look at some, I should say,
unusual things that have gone on--we heard the Senator from Montana,
and during this debate that will take place this week, we will hear all
kinds of things that are going on--they really do not make a lot of
sense. Of course, there are a lot of things that make sense.
We need regulations, and the Senator from Nevada wants to make sure
people understand, I am not against all regulations. I just want some
commonsense direction for those regulations.
There is an article out of Business Week from a month or so ago that
talks about some of the good regulations, about when you go to the
airport and they have overbooked the airplane and you wanted to go
across the country; now there is a regulation that says they can give
you a free ticket if they bump you off the flight.
We have an example in the Clean Air Act where you can trade pollution
rights, which is certainly very important, because we have had
outlandish regulations.
A company, Amoco York County Refinery, was required to spend $31
million to reduce a small amount of benzene from its wastewater
treatment plant when it could have reduced five times as much benzene
elsewhere in the refinery at a cost of only $6 million. Those are some
of the things that literally drive small businesses crazy and drive
them out of business.
So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and this
legislation, Mr. President, is going to allow us to have more common
sense in the way regulations are promulgated.
I am convinced, and I have spoken with the Senator from Oklahoma at
some length in this regard, that one of the things that will flow from
this regulatory scheme that is in our substitute is that there will be
fewer regulations promulgated because they know there will be a legal
setup, a legal framework to review these regulations.
The Senator from Oklahoma and I have been long involved in trying to
do something about regulations. We have written op-ed pieces for
newspapers that have been published. We introduced legislation last
year that passed the Senate and was killed in conference that would
have put dollar limits on regulations.
Our approach this year with this substitute is an ongoing movement
which we have tried to initiate to put common sense in the way
regulations are promulgated. I repeat, I am convinced that our
substitute will stop the issuance of many regulations.
I believe the way to eliminate many of these problems is to establish
a safety mechanism that will enable Congress to look at these
regulations that are being promulgated and decide whether they achieve
the purpose they were supposed to achieve in a rational, economic, and
less burdensome way. This substitute, which I have already indicated I
have cosponsored with Senator Nickles, goes a long way toward
accomplishing this goal in a bipartisan fashion. I think this is
important because I believe Americans want Congress to work together to
make their Government work for them and not against them.
This bill, in my opinion--our substitute--should alleviate the talk
in this body about regulations. If this passes, I think we have a
framework established to take care of the problem. There will be some
who think we need to go a lot further, but I do not. I think if we can
get this in place, we will be in real good shape.
This bill has great potential, as I have indicated, for a bipartisan
solution to the problem of costly and unnecessary regulations. The
mechanics of this bill have been explained extremely well by the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I am going to touch on it briefly.
It provides a 45-day period for Congress to review new regulations.
If the rule has an economic impact over $100 million, it is deemed
significant and the regulation will not go into effect during the 45-
day review period. This 45-day review period will allow Congress to
hold Federal agencies accountable before they become law and start
impacting the regulated community.
Mr. President, if the rule does not meet the $100 million threshold,
the regulation will go into effect but will still be subject to fast-
track review. Even significant regulations may go into effect
immediately if the President, by Executive order, determines that the
regulation is necessary for health, safety, or national security, or is
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws. This is not subject to
judicial review.
So that is the general outline. We know the 45-day review process
will begin when the rule is sent to Congress.
We have spent a great deal of time, the Senator from Oklahoma and
myself and our staffs, making sure that this legislation is
constitutional. The Presiding Officer has had a long history of working
on legal matters, having been attorney general, and this regulation, I
am assured by all kinds of legal scholars, is constitutional.
In fact, the man that argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1983, the Chadha case, a man by the name of Mike Davidson, said:
The key to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
was that Congress had excluded the President altogether from
its repeal of the Kenyan's stay of deportation. By sending
any ``resolution of disapproval'' to the President for a
final decision, Congress sidesteps the separation-of-power
questions raised by the Chadha case.
So we are covered legally in this matter. If, during the course of
the debate, we need to get into more legal argument, I will be happy to
talk to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, or anyone
else concerned.
Mr. President, I believe that this is a significant step forward from
the underlying bill. I believe this substitute will allow an orderly
process whereby we can review regulations that the
[[Page
S4609]] Federal branch of Government initiates. It will cause
them to be more careful since the Chadha decision, in my opinion.
Government agencies have been reckless, recognizing that there is not
anything we can do about it. When this substitute passes, we will be
able to do something about it, and I think it will rein in what I
believe are some of the runaway rules that are being promulgated.
Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee
for their hard work on this issue. I do not support the underlying
legislation. I believe that this substitute is a significant
improvement over what has come to us in the form of
S. 219.
I also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the senior
Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. He has been a
stalwart ally over many years working on this issue. I believe that we
have now found a piece of legislation on which we can achieve a
bipartisan passage in this body and, hopefully, when the matter goes
before the conference, they will see the wisdom of adopting this very
workable procedure to rein in runaway Government bureaucracy.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague,
Senator Reid from Nevada, for his statement. I hope my colleagues had a
chance to listen to it because I think it is well reasoned and shows
there is bipartisan support for, I think, a commonsense idea, saying
Congress should have an opportunity to review regulations and, if you
are talking about really significant regulations, an expedited
procedure to reject those.
There are thousands of regulations. My guess is that we will reject a
very, very small percentage. But at least we will have the
congressional oversight and Congress will be hopefully more involved,
just as the Senator from Montana was in dealing with an OSHA regulation
in logging. Hopefully, more of our colleagues will become involved in
monitoring and reviewing and trying to limit excess regulations and
maybe in oversight find out the regulation is not acceptable. Maybe we
will find out that it is acceptable. The Senator from Nevada has helped
make that happen, and I am delighted to work with him in this effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a
piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about
S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it
is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support
this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in
scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time
on this legislation.
1. overview
We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in
serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly
regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our
businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal
agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs
and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory
reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium.
The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief
time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is,
however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all
significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for
as much a
s 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from
November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month
delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial
deadlines for agency action.
This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop
good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless,
stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my
remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price
that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death,
injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost
opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing.
Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with
Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli
infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat
inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't
think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs.
Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can
save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of
other parents like her, have suffered.
The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong.
Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very
clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that
its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to
replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional
veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand
what is going on here.
First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the
proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the
moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its
stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they
want to hide behind something new, something different, something that
will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate
passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the
House-passed moratorium would be negotiated.
Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for
bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a
blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are
now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be
subject to sunshine and amendment.
As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules.
Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills.
In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve,
just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the
Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an
essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform
bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate
owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of
Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very
tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill
that we should be discussing, not the moratorium.
Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is,
I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than
to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the
brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin.
Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly
proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version
being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of
the Levin proposal of 1979.
I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase
in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability
where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive
reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an
important role in providing review and accountability. At the same
time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which
is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform
proposals.
So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as
a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the
legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in,
and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills
now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it
would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a
substitute for
S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a
moratorium proposal.
If we pass
S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with
the House-passed moratorium bill. We
[[Page
S4610]] should not allow this result. We must not allow support
for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the
underlying moratorium proposal.
To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the
entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that
might contain any moratorium.
2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium
Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in
considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The proposal originated in the House as
H.R. 450. I ask unanimous
consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the
Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March
12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19,
1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5,
1995.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]
Forging an Alliance for Deregulation--Representative DeLay Makes
Companies Full Partners in the Movement
(By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)
The day before the Republicans formally took control of
Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear
conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the
first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman,
soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a
group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies
in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing
boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly
ringing telephones.
He could not wait to start on what he considered the
central mission of his political career: the demise of the
modern era of government regulation.
Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a
former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants
and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking
to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he
felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended
many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them
were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn
of the Republican
revolution, energized by a sense that their time was finally
at hand.
The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of
political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in
Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and
eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have
championed their legislative agenda as an answer to popular
dissatisfaction with Congress and the federal government. But
the agenda also represents a triumph for business interests,
who after years of playing a primarily defensive role in
Democratic-controlled Congresses now find themselves a full
partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional
priorities.
The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick
and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by
the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to
the sorts of government directives that Democrats has viewed
as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society but that many
businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive.
A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where
its chances of approval are not as certain.
Although several provisions of the ``Contract With
America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall
take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the
moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outline that day
in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy
lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as
the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first
draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on
rulemaking while the House pushed through the more
comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that
was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over
the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the
corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the
moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in
mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another
protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third
keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a
Labor Department requirement.
As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and
lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry
supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief,
sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than
a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar
communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition
provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate
moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping
out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to
Republican floor leaders.
Many of Project Relief'
s 350 industry members had spent the
past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic
governing circles and had made lavish contributions to
Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as
ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted
and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to
cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that
respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran
regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest
political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes
fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and
Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a
model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight
against Democratic alliances with labor unions and
environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than
theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they
have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is]
protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning
to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense,
according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in
the push for a moratorium is not without peril for
Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the
new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for
limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk
that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and
lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into
power in last November's elections.
William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent
strategy memos, help shape the conservative agenda, said the
way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict
could determine their prospects for consolidating
congressional power. ``If they legislate for special
interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the
Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business
is done in Washington.''
the exterminator
After graduating from the University of Houston with a
biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling
contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula
company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest
Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway
because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a
well-known brand of dog food.
By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the
Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest
homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased
in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal
worker safety rules, including one that required his termite
men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And
the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations,
he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a
chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first
considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By
the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it
was too late: Mirex makers had gone out of business.
The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in
the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out
government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I
better get involved in it.''
He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname
that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he
moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from
Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to
publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what
he considered the most frivolous regulations.
But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in
the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of
industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community
from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee
a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good,
Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and
environmental groups argued, had been well served by
government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been
prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles
were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by
federal mandates on sewerage.
DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of
commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of
regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion
a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they
thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing
liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace.
They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as
their point man.
The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident
last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the
best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for
other candidates. The large number of open congressional
seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered
him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of
business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly
prevailed on'' these allies, DeLay said.
[[Page
S4611]] In the 1994 elections, he was the second-
leading fund-riser for House Republican candidates, behind
only Gingrich. In adding up contributions he had solicited
for others, DeLay said, he lost count at about $2 million.
His persuasive powers were evident in the case of the
National-American Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which
already had contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time
DeLay addressed the group last September. After listening to
his speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business
Congress, they contributed, another $80,000 to Republicans
and consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be
recruited later by DeLay to chair his antiregulatory Project
Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles
in DeLay'
s 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path
into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were
David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan
Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of
Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of
the National Restaurant Association.
At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a
political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his
race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the
lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers,
drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and
calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money.
Contributions came in from various business PACs, which
Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got
the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new
members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be
here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.'''
For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and
brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC
community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an
Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on
Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow
Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of
the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. He hired We
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
(Senate - March 27, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S4604-S4641]
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 6
hours for general debate on the subject of
S. 219.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Federal
regulations. We are going to be on Senate bill
S. 219. I want to
compliment Senator Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee for
reporting this bill out. I also want to compliment the House of
Representatives for their move in trying to make some progress on
reining in the cost of excessive regulations. Federal regulations are
estimated to cost about $581 billion, by some sources. It is hard to
figure what that means, but per household, that is over $6,000--
actually $6,100 per household for the cost of Federal regulations. That
increases the cost of everything we buy. Whether you are talking about
your automobile or your home or your electric bill or the price that
you pay for gasoline, regulations are involved in all these and have
inflated the costs on every single thing that we buy.
Many of us feel these regulations have been excessive and they have
not been well thought out, or in some cases they are too expensive. I
might mention, I guess almost all are probably well intended, and I do
not fault anyone's intentions, whether it be the people who passed the
legislation authorizing the regulations or the regulators. They may be
well intended, but in many cases, the regulations have gone too far and
they are far too expensive.
So we have several measures that are working their way through this
body and through the Congress to try to limit excessive regulations.
The House passed a couple of measures. One was a measure called
regulation moratorium. A similar bill was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the bill we have on the floor
of the Senate today. I, along with my colleague and friend from Nevada,
Senator Reid, will be offering an amendment in the form of a substitute
to that bill. I will discuss that in a moment.
Also the Governmental Affairs Committee has reported out a
comprehensive bill dealing with regulation overhaul. I compliment them
for that effort. I think it is a giant step in the right direction.
Senator Dole, myself, and others have introduced a very comprehensive
bill. Likewise, I believe there is a markup scheduled in the Judiciary
Committee on that bill as well.
I compliment Senator Dole for his leadership because I think it makes
sense. We should have regulations where the benefits exceed the costs.
We should make sure we use real science. That is the purpose of both
Senator Roth's bill and Senator Dole's bill that we will be considering
on the floor my guess is sometime after the April recess.
But the bill we have before us many people support--the regulation
moratorium bill,
S. 219. I am a sponsor of that bill. I believe we have
36 sponsors. This is a bill that people have labeled a ``moratorium.''
I even have heard some people mislabel it, including the President, who
said it was a ``moratorium on all regulations,'' good and bad
regulations. I take issue with that because we had a lot of exceptions
for good regulations and we had a lot of exceptions for regulations
which people felt were necessary to go forward with, those regulations
that dealt with imminent health and safety and regulations that dealt
with ordinary administrative practices. The committee added more
exceptions. The Committee on Governmental Affairs limited it to
significant regulations. So we reduced the scope substantially.
Why was that bill introduced? That bill was introduced because on
November 14, the administration announced or published in the Federal
Register that they were working on 4,300 different regulations that
were in progress and that would be finalized in the year 1995 and
beyond. Many of us were concerned. That looked like an explosion of
regulations. Many of those regulations had been held up during the
previous year. It happened to be an election year, and they were held
up and published in the Federal Register on November 14.
So we wanted to stop those or at least we wanted to have a chance to
[[Page
S4605]] look at them. So this moratorium regulation was
introduced with a lot of sponsors. It eventually passed the House with
a lot of exceptions, came through the Senate, was marked up in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, which added more exceptions and limited
it to significant regulations. That was a moratorium.
The amendment that Senator Reid, myself, Senator Bond, and Senator
Hutchison are offering is a different approach. One, the moratorium
that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee is a temporary
moratorium. It expires when we pass comprehensive legislation, or it
expires at the end of the year. So it was only a temporary moratorium.
The legislation we are introducing today provides for 45-day
congressional review of regulations. During that time, Congress will be
authorized to review and potentially to reject regulations through a
resolution of disapproval before they become final.
This alternative provides an opportunity to move forward on the
critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I think
that is vitally important. This amendment will allow the authors of
legislation in Congress to review and to ensure that Federal agencies
are properly carrying out congressional intent. All too often agencies
issue regulations which go beyond their intended purpose.
For future significant rules, the alternative provides a 45-day
period following publication of the final rule before that rule can
become effective. Under the current law, most rules are already delayed
by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. This delay in the
effectiveness would only apply to significant regulations which the
amendment defines as final rules that meet one of four criteria set by
the administration under Executive Order 12866. For all other future
nonsignificant rules, the regulation of disapproval is in order, but
the final rule is not suspended during the 45-day period.
The alternative also provides an opportunity to review and reject
significant rules which became final on or after November 20, 1994, and
prior to the date of enactment. Such rules would not be suspended
during the review period. Final regulations addressing threats to
imminent health and safety or other emergencies, criminal law
enforcement or matters of national security, could be exempted by
Executive order from the postponement of the effective date provided
for in this bill. However, a joint resolution of disapproval will still
be eligible for fast-track consideration.
The expedited floor procedure has in it consideration of base closure
legislation as well as consideration of Federal Election Commission
regulations. Congress will have 45 calendar days to review final rules
and consider a resolution of disapproval.
All final rules that are published less than 60 days before Congress
adjourns sine die or that are published during sine die adjournment
shall be eligible for review and fast-track disapproval procedures for
45 days beginning on the 15th day after a new Congress convenes. A
joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of Congress, and the
fast-track process for moving the joint resolution of disapproval to
the calendar is enabled under two conditions; First, if the authorizing
committee reports out the resolution; or, second, if following the
resolution's introduction the committee does not act, the majority
leader of either House discharges the committee from further
consideration of the resolution and places the resolution of
disapproval directly on the calendar. The motion to proceed to
consideration of the resolution is privileged and is nondebatable.
I would like to note that last Thursday the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out the comprehensive reform bill which
includes this 45-day review proposal. However, it did not contain a
look back to past regulations. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to
the resolution of disapproval, the debate on the resolution is limited
to 10 hours equally divided with no motions other than a motion to
further limit debate or amendments being in order. If the resolution
passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the
floor of the other body.
The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be subject to a
Presidential veto and in turn a possible veto override. By providing
the mechanism to hold Federal agencies accountable before it is too
late, this alternative makes an important contribution to the critical
regulatory reform effort. I hope that my colleagues will join me in
this effort.
Mr. President, I would like to at this time mention and thank my
friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada for his support in
offering and working with me to offer this alternative or substitute to
the regulation moratorium. I have had the pleasure of working with
Senator Reid for many, many years now. We worked together on the
measures that we called the Economic and Employment Impact Statement, a
measure which is becoming law I guess as part of the unfunded mandate
bill. He has been a real leader in trying to reform and limit the cost
of excessive regulations. I compliment him for that successful effort
in the past, and I look forward to a successful effort on this bill as
well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my
friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation,
S. 219. Whenever
it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this
time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I
chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules
on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody.
We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest
Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really
out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place
regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging
industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it
has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to
that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the
horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and
regulations was really an eye opener for me.
We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks
from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that
Saturday field hearing.
Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training
consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the
same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA
forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards.
So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of
regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing
the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the
redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces
safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries
that are located within those States.
Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA
needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a
philosophical idea on what the rules should be.
Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States.
Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that
Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in
the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with
employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather
than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is
wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it,
that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In
other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe
workplace.
Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT.
The list goes on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a
couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as
they were given to me.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
My name is Arley Adams, doing business as Adams Wood
Products.
[[Page
S4606]] I'm a second generation logger in the timber
and saw mill industry. My son, Alan is the third generation
in the business and works with me.
We have a logging and sawmill operation that can be
operated by two or ten men, but with OSHA standards and
Workmans Compensation rates, there is no way we can hire one
man. You wonder why there is so much unemployment? Its called
cause and effect.
The rules and regulations that OSHA has at this time are so
far out of line that they will break every small operator.
Sure, our business is dangerous but so are a lot of other
industries and sports.
We are professionals in our business and we have an
excellent Safety Team in the Logging Association. We are well
aware of the dangers we are up against--we work with them
daily.
OSHA thinks that we are so incompetent that they must hold
our hands and impede us with so much gear that they ``OSHA''
will be the cause of the accidents they are trying to
prevent.
When they break us all--they will have to feed us because
surely we can't be trusted with a dinner fork.
The entire situation OSHA is trying to impose upon us is a
``Major Disaster.'' If California got Disaster Relief from
the earthquake, we should be eligible too!
Arley A. Adams.
____
March 9, 1995.
Dear Senator Burns: As a working foreman for a logging
company in the state of Idaho, I work with safety problems on
a daily basis. We have about thirty-five (35) other workers
on the job.
We pride ourselves in being able to have OSHA, the State,
or anyone else come on our job and see that we make the
working conditions as safe as humanly possible.
We work closely with the people from the Idaho Logging
Safety Program and we know that most of the other contractors
in our area do also. We've put together safety programs,
weekly safety meetings, monthly safety meetings, and anything
else they've asked for.
Then all of a sudden here come these new OSHA rules telling
us that we can't use diesel to start fires anymore and that
we can't fuel any of our machines with the engines running.
Do you people realize that you are talking to adults not five
year old kids. How many injuries have there been in the State
of Idaho from people using diesel to start a fire or from
fueling a vehicle with the engine running?
These rules and some of the others I've read in the book 29
CFR 1910 and 1928 really have no place in a logging standard.
Why don't you live with the Idaho Code. It as least let's
us use some common sense.
Sincerely,
Terry Streeter,
Foreman, Babbitt Logging, Inc.
____
Senator Burns, members of the committee: My name is Paul
Tisher. I live in Libby, Montana, My partner's name is Paul
Brown and we own and operate TBC Timber, a small family-owned
business. We've been in business for 15 years and have nine
employees other than ourselves. We are (also) working members
of our crew.
One of the new rules which concerns us most is under D.
General Requirements #5 called Environmental Conditions. It
read: All work shall terminate and each employee shall move
to a place of safety when environmental conditions, such as
but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslide and
darkness may endanger an employee in the performance of their
job. Senator, the interpretation of these conditions can mean
many things to different people. I can tell you, there have
been many times when our crew has had to sit out a storm,
whether it be wind, rain, or snow. But, the weather will be
what it will be, and we as stewards of this land will be out
there in the elements to support our families and sustain our
communities.
Another proposed rule that ties in with these environmental
conditions is under Tree Harvesting #2 Manual Felling Section
#3. It reads: Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of
snow and ice. Accumulation of snow and ice that may create a
hazard for an employee shall be removed before felling is
commenced in the area or the areas shall be avoided. I hope
that OSHA didn't intend for us to remove the snow and ice by
ourselves, especially knowing that this would create an even
greater hazard. That leaves us with the two things that
usually remove snow and ice from trees, and that is wind or
rain. Senator, this really becomes confusing at this point.
We can't work if there's too much snow or ice in the trees.
So we finally get a good hard rain or some chinook winds that
remove all the snow and ice, but we can't work under these
conditions either. Then as conditions turn colder it starts
to snow and we get more build up in the trees. This can go on
for six or seven months in Montana and leaves us wondering
how we're going to be able to work under this type of rule.
Who from OSHA can determine if conditions are too dangerous
to work in? What degree of wind, rain, snow, cold or fog will
constitute a total shutdown or the ensuing penalties if
operations are still working when they arrive. What
experience do they have in logging procedure and working with
outdoor elements that tell them one or more of these
conditions is too dangerous? We feel that the decisions on
Environmental Conditions should be left to the people who
make their living doing this and not by the Federal
Government.
Being members of the Montana Logging Association, we as a
crew have all had training in First Aid, CPR, Blood Borne
Pathogens, Material Safety Data, and Safe Operating
Procedures. This training is done annually and is a key to
recognizing unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions. Holding
ourselves to these standards has become the norm in this
profession we call logging.
Having said that, I would like to comment on a procedure
used by OSHA compliance officers during a jobsite visit. That
is the use of a video camera when questioning employers and
employees about the training they have had in reference to
what I just talked about. This, ``Camera In Your Face''
session gives one the feeling that you've already done
something wrong or why would the want to get it on film in
the first place. I am sure that somewhere, in all of the many
hours of training we have had, someone will forget something,
but that doesn't mean all of a sudden we are in a hazardous
situation. With the camera rolling and knowing that the wrong
answer to a question can result in a training violation and
cost an employer up to $7000 per violation and also knowing
that you haven't done anything wrong and that you're not in a
hazardous situation nor have you created a hazardous
situation for a fellow worker, is frustrating and
intimidating to the point that the easiest of answers can be
forgotten.
Senator, logging always has been and always will be a
dangerous occupation. We do not take this lightly. It is very
clear to us that training for, and providing a safe work
place will not only send us all home safely every night but
it is also essential for a company to stay in business. If we
believe in and practice these things then why do we need the
Federal Government to enforce what is already being done.
Common sense has been around a lot longer than OSHA and it
will be on the job when OSHA isn't. Please Senator, lets not
put any more rules into place that would jeopardize the use
of good common sense.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the
new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being
made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA
representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You
can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was.
For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the
employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other
words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer
responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is
overstepping a little bit.
Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a
little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt
with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to
it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when
you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard
of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He
said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a
Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a
kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again.
In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only
be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get
mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it
hang up and lose it? I do not think so.
But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an
industry which were written by an organization with basically very
little common sense when it comes to logging.
I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a
suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress,
after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into
law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless
bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence
that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the
legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the
Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of
jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the
legislation.
I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens,
Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned.
I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws
passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be
debated a little more.
[[Page
S4607]] But I think we in this body, if we have been remiss in
any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing
the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and
talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be
acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder
why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller
companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in
Montana are created by small business.
So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill.
It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the
rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially
if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do
with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a
living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also
ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to
do.
It was suggested after the elections last year that Government
reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8,
but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message
as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or
Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political
arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it
is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of
Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much
money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on
them that cost them more.
Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should
not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it
in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is
just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector
who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not
safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some
problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let
us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of
the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company,
plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not
his employees--he works with in the woods.
They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a
safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each
other, either. And they are all small.
But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal
Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he
can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what
we put into rules and regulations.
Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We
are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the
employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and
Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this
piece of legislation does it.
I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend
from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come
this weekend.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague
from Montana for his support for our amendment, and also thank him for
his statement.
I also wish to compliment the Senator from Montana, because he did
something that many of us have not been doing. He has held some
oversight hearings. He has had some of those people, many times we call
them faceless bureaucrats, but he has had them come into his State and
talk about some of the problems, whether it be in logging or forestry,
and let them talk and actually meet those that they regulate.
I believe the Senator said--correct me if I am wrong. The OSHA
official who was writing the regs had not actually been involved in the
logging industry but yet was writing rules and regulations dealing with
everything from trucks to boots, and he has not actually met some of
the people whom he was regulating.
Is that correct?
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from
Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to
the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but
he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when
we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and
they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that
is fine and dandy.
But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us
it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not
get ourselves into that kind of situation.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague having the hearing. My guess
is that meeting would not have transpired had it not been for the
Senator from Montana and his insisting on that meeting.
The fact is that those regulations or proposed regulations will
probably be changed and improved dramatically because of the insistence
of the Senator from Montana on having face-to-face meetings with people
who are making the regulations and making the rules to meet with people
that are directly impacted.
One of the real positive things which I hope will come out of this is
that Congress will become more active in oversight, just as the Senator
from Montana proved that it can make a difference, certainly in his
State.
Again, I compliment him for it, and I thank him again for his
statement.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow, pursuant to the order--the bill
not being before the Senate today--an amendment will be offered by the
senior Senator from Oklahoma and this Senator as a substitute to
S.
219. I believe, Mr. President, that the substitute is a good solution
to the problem that we are all concerned about, and that is excessive
bureaucratic regulation.
For example, Mr. President, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
estimated the cost of complying with regulations in the United States
on a yearly basis at over $500 billion. That is almost 10 percent of
our gross domestic product. It has also been estimated that the time
spent on paperwork is almost 7 billion hours.
Mr. President, I repeat that. Over $500 billion to comply with
regulations and almost 7 billion man-hours to do that paperwork.
We all know, Mr. President, that regulations serve a valid purpose
and an important purpose. In fact, because of the regulatory framework
that has been put in place for the last 50 or 60 years, we have
workplaces that are safer. Hard-working Americans are less likely to be
seriously injured on the job. There has been a tremendous reduction in
the loss of limb or permanent disfigurement in the workplace as a
result of Government regulations that were promulgated after we passed
laws in this and the other body.
We have, Mr. President, an airline industry that has the greatest
safety record in the world; food that meets very safe requirements, but
they are very strict. We have a country where, just 20-odd years ago,
80 percent of all rivers were polluted. Now, that is down to
approximately 20 percent. The numbers have been reversed as a result of
the Clean Water Act.
The problem is that all too often Congress passes a law with good
intentions and very sound policy only to have the agencies, the
governmental agencies, turn these simple laws into very complex
regulations that go beyond the intent of Congress and many times make
no sense. Ultimately, we create an environment where small
businessowners must hire legal departments--and I do not say
``lawyers''; legal departments--To comply with labor and environmental
laws and other issues.
In some instances, the regulations are so complex that a small firm
has to hire a multitude of experts so they can
[[Page
S4608]] comply with the labor laws, the environmental laws, the
tax laws. The reality has led Americans to become frustrated and
skeptical of their Government as a result of overregulation.
In a survey conducted by the Times Mirror, they found that, since
1987, the number of Americans who believe regulations affecting
businesses do more harm than good has jumped from 55 to over 63
percent. It was not very good in 1987. It has only gotten worse,
though.
Why are we concerned?
Well, Mr. President, if we look at the new regulations that have been
promulgated by Federal agencies--and this does not count State and
local agencies; we are not going to have any impact on that.
But I have in my possession, and I show the Presiding Officer,
regulations received since the 9th day of November 1994, that are
economically significant, and those that are not economically
significant.
Remember, for us, those are terms of art. For the American public,
they are not. We are talking about those that are economically
significant, to be over $100 million.
But look at them--page after page of these regulations. Those that
are economically significant, 3 pages; those not economically
significant, 12 pages of fine print.
Market promotion program regulations; Department of Defense selection
criteria for clothing and realigning military installations. It covers
everything. Protest disputes and appeals.
I would like to read that in more detail.
Wool and mohair payment programs for shorn wool, wool and unshorn
lambs, and mohair, even though, as you know, Mr. President, we repealed
the law, but we are still promulgating regulations in that regard.
Here is one that the Senator from California would, I am sure,
appreciate, the junior Senator, I believe. Use of the term ``fresh'' on
the labeling of raw poultry products.
As you may recall, there has been a dispute that has arisen, as to:
When you get a fresh turkey at Thanksgiving, is it really fresh? We
have regulations promulgated on that.
I am not going to go into more detail. We have 15 pages. And this is
not up to date. This is a couple of weeks old.
So I think the American public has something to be concerned about.
There really are too many regulations.
We have reason to believe that the American small business community
really is concerned, and with good reason, for thinking that
regulations do more harm than good.
I believe, Mr. President, that if you look at some, I should say,
unusual things that have gone on--we heard the Senator from Montana,
and during this debate that will take place this week, we will hear all
kinds of things that are going on--they really do not make a lot of
sense. Of course, there are a lot of things that make sense.
We need regulations, and the Senator from Nevada wants to make sure
people understand, I am not against all regulations. I just want some
commonsense direction for those regulations.
There is an article out of Business Week from a month or so ago that
talks about some of the good regulations, about when you go to the
airport and they have overbooked the airplane and you wanted to go
across the country; now there is a regulation that says they can give
you a free ticket if they bump you off the flight.
We have an example in the Clean Air Act where you can trade pollution
rights, which is certainly very important, because we have had
outlandish regulations.
A company, Amoco York County Refinery, was required to spend $31
million to reduce a small amount of benzene from its wastewater
treatment plant when it could have reduced five times as much benzene
elsewhere in the refinery at a cost of only $6 million. Those are some
of the things that literally drive small businesses crazy and drive
them out of business.
So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and this
legislation, Mr. President, is going to allow us to have more common
sense in the way regulations are promulgated.
I am convinced, and I have spoken with the Senator from Oklahoma at
some length in this regard, that one of the things that will flow from
this regulatory scheme that is in our substitute is that there will be
fewer regulations promulgated because they know there will be a legal
setup, a legal framework to review these regulations.
The Senator from Oklahoma and I have been long involved in trying to
do something about regulations. We have written op-ed pieces for
newspapers that have been published. We introduced legislation last
year that passed the Senate and was killed in conference that would
have put dollar limits on regulations.
Our approach this year with this substitute is an ongoing movement
which we have tried to initiate to put common sense in the way
regulations are promulgated. I repeat, I am convinced that our
substitute will stop the issuance of many regulations.
I believe the way to eliminate many of these problems is to establish
a safety mechanism that will enable Congress to look at these
regulations that are being promulgated and decide whether they achieve
the purpose they were supposed to achieve in a rational, economic, and
less burdensome way. This substitute, which I have already indicated I
have cosponsored with Senator Nickles, goes a long way toward
accomplishing this goal in a bipartisan fashion. I think this is
important because I believe Americans want Congress to work together to
make their Government work for them and not against them.
This bill, in my opinion--our substitute--should alleviate the talk
in this body about regulations. If this passes, I think we have a
framework established to take care of the problem. There will be some
who think we need to go a lot further, but I do not. I think if we can
get this in place, we will be in real good shape.
This bill has great potential, as I have indicated, for a bipartisan
solution to the problem of costly and unnecessary regulations. The
mechanics of this bill have been explained extremely well by the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I am going to touch on it briefly.
It provides a 45-day period for Congress to review new regulations.
If the rule has an economic impact over $100 million, it is deemed
significant and the regulation will not go into effect during the 45-
day review period. This 45-day review period will allow Congress to
hold Federal agencies accountable before they become law and start
impacting the regulated community.
Mr. President, if the rule does not meet the $100 million threshold,
the regulation will go into effect but will still be subject to fast-
track review. Even significant regulations may go into effect
immediately if the President, by Executive order, determines that the
regulation is necessary for health, safety, or national security, or is
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws. This is not subject to
judicial review.
So that is the general outline. We know the 45-day review process
will begin when the rule is sent to Congress.
We have spent a great deal of time, the Senator from Oklahoma and
myself and our staffs, making sure that this legislation is
constitutional. The Presiding Officer has had a long history of working
on legal matters, having been attorney general, and this regulation, I
am assured by all kinds of legal scholars, is constitutional.
In fact, the man that argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1983, the Chadha case, a man by the name of Mike Davidson, said:
The key to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
was that Congress had excluded the President altogether from
its repeal of the Kenyan's stay of deportation. By sending
any ``resolution of disapproval'' to the President for a
final decision, Congress sidesteps the separation-of-power
questions raised by the Chadha case.
So we are covered legally in this matter. If, during the course of
the debate, we need to get into more legal argument, I will be happy to
talk to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, or anyone
else concerned.
Mr. President, I believe that this is a significant step forward from
the underlying bill. I believe this substitute will allow an orderly
process whereby we can review regulations that the
[[Page
S4609]] Federal branch of Government initiates. It will cause
them to be more careful since the Chadha decision, in my opinion.
Government agencies have been reckless, recognizing that there is not
anything we can do about it. When this substitute passes, we will be
able to do something about it, and I think it will rein in what I
believe are some of the runaway rules that are being promulgated.
Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee
for their hard work on this issue. I do not support the underlying
legislation. I believe that this substitute is a significant
improvement over what has come to us in the form of
S. 219.
I also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the senior
Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. He has been a
stalwart ally over many years working on this issue. I believe that we
have now found a piece of legislation on which we can achieve a
bipartisan passage in this body and, hopefully, when the matter goes
before the conference, they will see the wisdom of adopting this very
workable procedure to rein in runaway Government bureaucracy.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague,
Senator Reid from Nevada, for his statement. I hope my colleagues had a
chance to listen to it because I think it is well reasoned and shows
there is bipartisan support for, I think, a commonsense idea, saying
Congress should have an opportunity to review regulations and, if you
are talking about really significant regulations, an expedited
procedure to reject those.
There are thousands of regulations. My guess is that we will reject a
very, very small percentage. But at least we will have the
congressional oversight and Congress will be hopefully more involved,
just as the Senator from Montana was in dealing with an OSHA regulation
in logging. Hopefully, more of our colleagues will become involved in
monitoring and reviewing and trying to limit excess regulations and
maybe in oversight find out the regulation is not acceptable. Maybe we
will find out that it is acceptable. The Senator from Nevada has helped
make that happen, and I am delighted to work with him in this effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a
piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about
S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it
is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support
this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in
scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time
on this legislation.
1. overview
We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in
serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly
regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our
businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal
agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs
and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory
reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium.
The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief
time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is,
however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all
significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for
as much a
s 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from
November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month
delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial
deadlines for agency action.
This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop
good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless,
stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my
remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price
that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death,
injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost
opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing.
Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with
Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli
infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat
inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't
think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs.
Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can
save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of
other parents like her, have suffered.
The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong.
Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very
clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that
its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to
replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional
veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand
what is going on here.
First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the
proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the
moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its
stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they
want to hide behind something new, something different, something that
will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate
passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the
House-passed moratorium would be negotiated.
Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for
bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a
blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are
now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be
subject to sunshine and amendment.
As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules.
Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills.
In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve,
just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the
Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an
essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform
bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate
owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of
Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very
tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill
that we should be discussing, not the moratorium.
Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is,
I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than
to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the
brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin.
Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly
proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version
being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of
the Levin proposal of 1979.
I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase
in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability
where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive
reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an
important role in providing review and accountability. At the same
time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which
is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform
proposals.
So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as
a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the
legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in,
and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills
now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it
would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a
substitute for
S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a
moratorium proposal.
If we pass
S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with
the House-passed moratorium bill. We
[[Page
S4610]] should not allow this result. We must not allow support
for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the
underlying moratorium proposal.
To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the
entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that
might contain any moratorium.
2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium
Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in
considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The proposal originated in the House as
H.R. 450. I ask unanimous
consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the
Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March
12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19,
1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5,
1995.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]
Forging an Alliance for Deregulation--Representative DeLay Makes
Companies Full Partners in the Movement
(By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)
The day before the Republicans formally took control of
Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear
conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the
first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman,
soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a
group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies
in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing
boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly
ringing telephones.
He could not wait to start on what he considered the
central mission of his political career: the demise of the
modern era of government regulation.
Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a
former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants
and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking
to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he
felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended
many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them
were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn
of the Republican
revolution, energized by a sense that their time was finally
at hand.
The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of
political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in
Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and
eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have
championed their legislative agenda as an answer to popular
dissatisfaction with Congress and the federal government. But
the agenda also represents a triumph for business interests,
who after years of playing a primarily defensive role in
Democratic-controlled Congresses now find themselves a full
partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional
priorities.
The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick
and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by
the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to
the sorts of government directives that Democrats has viewed
as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society but that many
businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive.
A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where
its chances of approval are not as certain.
Although several provisions of the ``Contract With
America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall
take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the
moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outline that day
in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy
lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as
the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first
draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on
rulemaking while the House pushed through the more
comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that
was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over
the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the
corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the
moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in
mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another
protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third
keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a
Labor Department requirement.
As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and
lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry
supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief,
sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than
a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar
communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition
provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate
moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping
out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to
Republican floor leaders.
Many of Project Relief'
s 350 industry members had spent the
past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic
governing circles and had made lavish contributions to
Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as
ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted
and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to
cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that
respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran
regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest
political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes
fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and
Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a
model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight
against Democratic alliances with labor unions and
environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than
theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they
have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is]
protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning
to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense,
according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in
the push for a moratorium is not without peril for
Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the
new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for
limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk
that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and
lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into
power in last November's elections.
William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent
strategy memos, help shape the conservative agenda, said the
way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict
could determine their prospects for consolidating
congressional power. ``If they legislate for special
interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the
Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business
is done in Washington.''
the exterminator
After graduating from the University of Houston with a
biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling
contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula
company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest
Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway
because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a
well-known brand of dog food.
By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the
Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest
homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased
in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal
worker safety rules, including one that required his termite
men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And
the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations,
he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a
chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first
considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By
the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it
was too late: Mirex makers had gone out of business.
The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in
the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out
government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I
better get involved in it.''
He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname
that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he
moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from
Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to
publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what
he considered the most frivolous regulations.
But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in
the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of
industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community
from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee
a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good,
Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and
environmental groups argued, had been well served by
government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been
prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles
were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by
federal mandates on sewerage.
DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of
commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of
regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion
a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they
thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing
liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace.
They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as
their point man.
The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident
last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the
best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for
other candidates. The large number of open congressional
seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered
him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of
business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly
prevailed on'' these allies, DeLay said.
[[Page
S4611]] In the 1994 elections, he was the second-
leading fund-riser for House Republican candidates, behind
only Gingrich. In adding up contributions he had solicited
for others, DeLay said, he lost count at about $2 million.
His persuasive powers were evident in the case of the
National-American Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which
already had contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time
DeLay addressed the group last September. After listening to
his speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business
Congress, they contributed, another $80,000 to Republicans
and consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be
recruited later by DeLay to chair his antiregulatory Project
Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles
in DeLay'
s 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path
into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were
David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan
Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of
Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of
the National Restaurant Association.
At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a
political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his
race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the
lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers,
drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and
calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money.
Contributions came in from various business PACs, which
Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got
the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new
members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be
here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.'''
For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and
brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC
community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an
Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on
Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow
Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of
the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. H
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
