White House Conference on Regulatory Reform Remarks at a Meeting of the Conference.

We have a packed house, a lot of people trying to escape from excessive regulation. [Laughter] Well, I hope in the months ahead that you can come to Washington to escape regulation and find that you've had a successful journey.

I've been President now almost exactly 3 years, and there are some overwhelming commitments or facts, impressions, convictions that I've acquired. One is that our people must have confidence in their government for our government to function properly and for our Nation to be strong and united. Another is for our people to be free, individually, to receive the benefits of our constitutional guarantees—the right of each person to stand on his or her own feet, to make one's own decision, to participate in public affairs without any unwarranted interference in their functioning as an individual.

I'm also a product of the free enterprise system. It needs to be protected and enhanced. Threats to it should be eliminated or reduced. Our country can only be strong within its free enterprise system if there is a constant recommitment to competition for the benefit not only of consumers of goods and products and services but also for those who provide them.

Our Nation faces, in government and in private life, constant, changing problems. The most serious problem that I faced 3 years ago was unemployment. Since then we've added a net increase of 9 million new jobs—unprecedented in the history of our country.

Our most pressing problem now is inflation. And we, together—Federal, State, local officials, private citizens of all kinds—have to face the problem or threat of inflation, along with others, with a new approach when required, but maintaining the principles that have guided us and provide stability in our own lives in a rapid, fast-changing, technological world. We analyze daily, more often than daily, the reasons for inflation, how we might approach the resolution of this problem, this threat to the well-being of Americans, particularly those who are most vulnerable.

OPEC raises its prices. There's very little that we can do about it. Proper, gentle persuasion, influence with our friends who provide oil to the international market can help, but very little. But there are some other threats to inflation, as you well know, and I won't delineate them. But the one we're talking about today is one over which we do have some control—regulations, which generate a tremendous waste, not only of energy itself but also waste of human life, human resources, natural resources; which destroy the fabric of government; and which nobody can address successfully except those of us assembled in this room and others like us, who are represented by us.

We've got a pressing need to get rid of the regulations that are unwarranted, and many of them are absolutely unwarranted. And we've got a need to manage those that are needed in the most effective and enlightened and sensitive way.

There has been built up in our society a new profession, broad reaching, employing many people, just to deal with regulations for people who are bound by them. For someone building houses or building factories or operating a business or providing a service, quite often the regulations at the local, State, and Federal level are so complicated that there has to be a special profession evolved to guide the average American citizen, who is not averse to regulation, through the maze of conflicts and the overcoming of obstacles, created in an unwarranted way, to the proper functioning of our societal structure.

Regulations are quite often counterproductive. Many regulatory agencies at the local and the State government level, which I know from bitter experiences as a local and State official, and from the Federal Government level protect monopolies.

One of the constant pressures on me as Governor was to create, as my former Attorney General here, Arthur Bolter, knows, new, so-called licensing bureaus for professions, to enhance the well-being of consumers of their service. That was hard for me to understand at first. How could people be so unselfish? [Laughter] How could they be so generous to others? And then I always read the fine print, and there was always an effort to include a grandfather clause: "Let's don't put the restraints on those already practicing, and let's make darned sure that no competition comes in to endanger our own privileged position and restrict the number who can provide services and to provide protection for them."

That exists in the Federal regulatory agencies, as well, and has a more farreaching effect. We've tried to stamp out some of those regulations, in the airline industry, for instance. We're now moving toward the trucking industry, the railroad industry, the communication industry, health industry. It's not easy. Financial institutions, banks complain quite often that they are too rigidly bound by regulations. But just try to remove one of those regulations, and there's an outcry, because the protection that they have very carefully carved out for themselves might be removed.

The average consumer doesn't know the inner workings and the secret mechanisms of a regulatory agency; it's too confusing. They don't have legal advice to guide them into a knowledge of the regulatory agency that is designed to protect them, the consumers. But those who are regulated study the agency and its regulations and its procedures avidly, because it's economic life or death to be protected as a provider, quite often at the expense of the consumer.

We've made some initial progress. The Environmental Protection Agency, represented by Doug Costle over here, has, I think, made notable progress. We've got to retain some regulations to protect the public against mislabeled chemicals or nonproven medicines, or to prevent the despoliation of our air and our water, to enforce the law, to provide for safety of Americans, to make sure that when a product is bought, it is accurately labeled or described.

There are obviously needs for regulations. But they can be simplified, and they can be administered well, and they can be compatible with regulations of the same people by other Government entities. Quite often, there is a profound conflict between Federal regulations and State regulations, or between State regulations and local regulations.

I read a news article the other day in the local paper that quoted Fred Kahn as saying there are 8,000 different sets of regulations for constructing homes. And quite often, a homebuilder only has a small group of employees, supposedly carpenters, roofers, concrete pourers, some minimal design work, and no legal staff to study the regulations that bind him or her and might cause an interruption of business. And every time a house is delayed a month, in some communities that adds 1 percent or 2 percent to the cost of a home. And when the construction of that house is delayed a year, the house is no better, but the cost is much greater, and literally no one benefits. No one benefits. The homebuilder doesn't benefit; the home buyer doesn't benefit; the regulators don't benefit; the providers of services and building materials don't benefit.

I know that you realize the points that I'm making are true, because you've come here out of a deep concern for the addressing of the excessive regulation problem.

OSHA¹ was probably the most despised four letters— [laughter] —that I knew about when I was a small businessman, trying to operate a cotton gin or to build a peanut-shelling plant or delivering fertilizer or employing 50 or 60 people. It was a constant threat to me, and I felt that there was no understanding of my problems.

¹ Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Since I came in office, working with many of you in this room and others, I think OSHA has taken on a new character and a new image. Forty thousand businesses with very low risk have been excluded completely from OSHA regulations. And on one notable day, which was one of the high points of my Presidency, a thousand different OSHA regulations were stricken from the books. [Laughter] That was a great day. [Laughter]

I believe it's accurate to say that we've now brought under control the conflicting regulations that exist under 35 or 40 major Federal agencies. Doug Costle is the Chairman of our Regulatory Council, and he meets with high-level representatives of all those agencies. And they discuss with one another what they are trying to do to protect the public and to hold down confusion and to hold down paperwork. And they eliminate conflict among agencies. They are trying to reduce the number of reports required, applications required. This is a very important work, and we are just now in the beginning stages of it, the embryonic stages of what can be realized in correcting this defect on our political structure.

In addition to that, we've developed a regulatory calendar so that there will be a predictable publication of regulations and so that they can be carefully considered. And quite often, there is a goal to be achieved that can be achieved at a given level of expenditure of work and money, and that same goal can substantially be achieved by a much lower level of human effort and expenditure of money. We are exploring those things now in the early months of this effort.

Doug Costle, I think, has done a superb job. The bubble concept of air quality protection is a major step forward, and our environment will be just as clean. The costs will be much lower.

We've reduced paperwork in the Federal Government 15 percent, and we still have a long way to go. And I've had into my Cabinet Room presidents of a large number of American universities, private and public. I've had invited to the White House, for an evening session with me personally, every State school superintendent in the country, representatives of small business, of other professions, to tell me in practical terms, "You give me an example of a report required or a form to be filled out that you think is unwarranted or has to be made too frequently or is too elaborate in its requirements or overlaps another report, and I will personally look into it"—which I have done.

We've still got a long way to go. I'm not trying to brag on what we've accomplished, because this meeting would not be worthwhile if that was the goal of it. I'm very proud that some of the States have made even greater progress. It's very important to us. Arizona, in motor carriers, for instance, has done a good job; West Virginia in holding down health costs. Georgia, I'm proud to say, now has a one-stop application process for environmental approval of a project. There is no reason why all 50 States can't do the same, and there is no reason, in the future, why the Federal Government can't do the same.

The average citizen suffers when you have to go to a multiplicity of agencies to get one single answer, and quite often there are different answers given at every different agency. The coordination of them must be done completely, and there's no reason why it can't be done.

Quite often, you confront very powerful political pressure groups, because to disturb the status quo is a dangerous thing in politics. The status quo exists because it's valuable to somebody. And it's valuable to somebody who is powerful enough to have protected it for a long time, at the expense of the general public. I don't say that in criticism of any special group, but I say it as a fact. And when a problem is publicized and the general public's interest is aroused and State legislators and mayors and county officials and Congress Members and presidents and regulatory administrators, there can be an addressing of a defect without an adverse influence or impact on a provider of services or goods or the consumers involved.

Well, I'd like to say this in closing: It's easy to recognize a problem; it's difficult to do something about it. And I hope this conference will inspire all of you to learn from one another—yes, that's very important-and to learn from us and also to provide a sense of partnership, that we are in it together.

This is not a meeting which has any possibility of accomplishing the ends that we seek. It ought to be a kind of introductory meeting. And all of you have, I'm sure, notable examples of progress in a particular element of your life, within your responsibility, that is important for the rest of us to know. We don't have the time to let everyone speak up and say, "I know about something good that's happened," but I hope, following this meeting, that you will share, through Fred Kahn or through Doug Costle, your experience in a county or in a city, or in your own industry or profession, or at the State level, or perhaps at another Government agency, what has been done that might be emulated by the rest of us around the country.

We can have a better government. We can have a better society. We can have a better free enterprise system. We can have more respect for all leaders by citizens who've suffered too long. We can have a better country, and I'm sure we will.

Thank you very much.