Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 450 - Regulatory Transition Act of 1995

(House) and Senate
(DeLay (R) Texas and 143 others)

The President has stated that a moratorium on regulations, as provided for in H.R. 450, is not acceptable.

The Administration is committed to regulatory reform. It has already made real progress in improving the regulatory system. It has made the system more open and accountable and it has produced more tailored, cost-effective, and sensible rules. The President has committed to continue reforming not only how regulations are developed but also how they are implemented. On February 21st, he announced specific actions, including a page-by-page review of existing regulations with instructions to delete those that are burdensome and unnecessary.

This legislation moves beyond reasonable reform to undercut necessary health and safety protections. Instead of improving the regulatory system, H.R. 450 would impose a moratorium that would stop rules from being issued regardless of their merit. Among others, H.R. 450 would stop in their tracks Federal actions that protect consumers, protect workers, and protect the environment. It would also stop Federal actions that promote economic growth. In fact, it would bring to a halt many positive and noncontroversial activities of the Government. And it applies retroactively, a provision that will spawn litigation and confusion for the private sector.

Consequently, if H.R. 450, as reported by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, were presented to the President, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would recommend that it be vetoed.

Pay-As-You-Go Scoring

H.R. 450 would affect direct spending and receipts; therefore, it would be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Preliminary estimates indicate that the effect could be to increase the deficit by $1 billion or more over FYs 1995-1998. The bill does not contain provisions to offset the increased deficit spending. Therefore, if the bill were enacted, its deficit effects could contribute to a sequester of mandatory programs. Final scoring of this legislation may deviate from this estimate.