[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 110 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9597-S9599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTORTIONS OF REGULATORY REFORM BILL
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, now that we have begun consideration of
regulatory reform, the defenders of the status quo have settled on the
weapon of last resort: fear. Thus, we have reporters and pundits
pronouncing in strident tones ``the rollback of 25 years of
environmental protection,'' the likelihood
[[Page S 9598]]
of increased outbreaks of E. coli food poisoning, and the horror of
placing a pricetag on human life.
The sky is falling is undoubtedly next.
The only problem with all these arguments is that they are absolutely
false, not just false in some small way, but false in every way.
Apparently, the Chicken Littles who have engaged in these scare tactics
did not even bother to read the legislation.
Had they done so, they would realize that most of the bill merely
codifies Executive orders issued by every President since the Ford
administration. Had they done so, they would realize this is a
bipartisan piece of legislation that balances commonsense reform with
the need to protect health, safety, and the environment. So here are a
few facts--although I am not certain from some of the reports I read,
the Ralph Naders, and the Bob Herberts of the New York Times, and
others, even care about facts--but just in case somebody might care
about facts, let me state some facts, and I quote directly from the
legislation conveniently ignored by these liberal distortions:
Our regulatory reform legislation protects existing environmental
health and safety laws.
Our legislation makes explicit that regulatory reform measures
supplement and [do] not supersede--supplement and do not supersede. We
are not going to supersede any law, we are going to supplement existing
environmental health and safety requirements. Congress chooses the
goals, and all we ask is that among several options achieving those
goals that the one imposing the least possible burden be selected.
We do not see a problem, if you are going to have all these options,
and one will accomplish the job with the least burden on the American
taxpayer, the American consumer, the American businessman, generally
small business men and women, why should we not choose that option?
However, a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations is not
required before issuing rules that address an ``emergency or health or
safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm to the
public or natural resources.'' If nonquantifiable benefits to ``health,
safety, or the environment'' call for a more costly regulatory
alternative, the agency is free to make that choice as well. And rules
subject to a proposed congressional 60-day review period may be
implemented without delay if ``necessary because of an imminent threat
to health or safety or other emergency.'' So it seems to me we have
made it rather clear.
Some rollback.
Our regulatory reform legislation protects food safety.
Perhaps the most cowardly argument has been the one that suggests
that our legislation would, in the words of one overly distraught
commentator, mount ``an all-out assault on food safety regulations''
and block implementation of the Agriculture Department's proposed meat
inspection regulations.
Does any reasonable person really believe that any politician,
Democrat or Republican, is trying to gut food safety laws? Of course
not. But for those who have made a career on scare tactics, this
argument will apparently do. If they make it, surely somebody in the
media will repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. That has been done
for the past several days.
All of the protections in the bill noted above apply here, too,
especially the one exempting a regulation from any delay if there is
``an emergency or health or safety threat.'' But there are several
additional ironies. First, the Agriculture Department already conducted
a cost-benefit analysis of the meat inspection rule, and it passed.
Second, in the entire bill the only time health inspections are
mentioned, it is to exempt them from risk assessment requirements under
this bill.
Our regulatory reform legislation does not place a price tag on human
life.
The argument that regulatory reform would place a price tag on human
life usually carries with it the notion that some lives will be worth
more than others. This is a cynical argument and is completely at odds
with what the bill would actually accomplish.
First, not only does the bill avoid putting a price tag on life, it
explicitly recognizes that some values are not capable of
quantification. Thus, both costs and benefits are defined in the
legislation to include nonquantifiable costs and benefits.
The legislation also provides that in performing a cost-benefit
analysis, there is no requirement to do so ``primarily on a
mathematical or numerical basis.'' And, second, agencies may choose
higher cost regulations where warranted by ``nonquantifiable benefits
to health, safety or the environment.''
Nothing could be more clear to this Senator, and we hope we have made
it clear in the bill, which is sponsored by Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. President, I have quoted from the bill wherever possible. It is
interesting that opponents of the bill never do. They probably have
never seen the bill and do not know the numbers, and they do not intend
to read it. They have bought into this nonsense that some Members of
Congress are for dirty meat, that we want dirty meat--that is what I
have read--that we want people to die of food poisoning.
I know they do not like to read these things because it is
inconvenient, and they do not want the facts in many cases. But I
challenge the opponents to stop distorting the truth and start seeking
it. They can read the bill. To help them, I have prepared a summary of
provisions that address the protections for health, safety, and the
environment that I will include with this statement in the Record.
Then opponents can start telling us why they are really upset by
regulatory reform. I suspect it has less to do with threats to the
environment and more to do with the threat to Federal power in
Washington, DC.
We have a lot of bureaucrats that might lose their jobs if we can
ease some of the burdens on consumers, farmers, ranchers, small
businessmen and women, the people who have to pay for all the
regulations, and, in some cases, the costs exceed the benefits. In some
cases, there are no benefits at all. The most costly regulations are
usually the ones that impose a Government-knows-best requirement, and
there is an entire culture devoted to telling the American people that
the Government knows best; Washington, DC, knows best.
Our legislation is a direct threat to a smug assertion. By golly, we
ordinary Americans hope you agencies do not take it personally, but we
would really like you to show us why a rule imposing hundreds of
millions of dollars makes sense and was the only way to do it.
So we think we are on to something here. It should not be a partisan
issue, and it is not a partisan issue. A lot of my good colleagues on
the other side of the issue are supporting this, and we hope to have
more before the week is out.
The opponents are right in one respect: This is one of the most
important pieces of legislation this Congress will address. Americans
pay more in regulatory costs than they do to Uncle Sam through income
taxes. Overregulation costs the American family an estimated $6,000 a
year. I believe we can ensure regulations that both promote important
goals like food safety and also minimize costs wherever possible, and I
believe it is our obligation to do so. In that respect, I am an
optimist. I have never succumbed to the chirpings of the Chicken
Littles and do not intend to start now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section
analysis of this legislation, particularly as it relates to protection
of human health, safety, and environment, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 343: Responsible Regulatory Reform That Protects Health, Safety and
the Environment
s. 343 does not override existing health, safety and environmental laws
Sec. 624(a)--Cost-benefit requirements ``supplement and
[do] not supersede'' health, safety and environmental
requirements in existing laws.
Sec. 628(d)--Requirements regarding ``environmental
management activities'' also ``supplement and [do] not
supersede'' requirements of existing laws.
s. 343 protects human health, safety and the environment
Sec. 622(f) and Sec. 632(c)(1)(A)--Cost-benefit analyses
and risk assessments are not required if ``impracticable due
to an emergency or health or safety threat that is likely to
result in significant harm to the public or natural
resources.''
[[Page S 9599]]
Sec. 624(b)(3)(B)--An agency may select a higher cost
regulation when
``nonquantifiable
benefits to health, safety or the environment'' make that
choice ``appropriate and in the public interest.''
Sec. 624(b)(4)--Where a risk assessment has been done, the
agency must choose regulations that ``significantly reduce
the human health, safety and environmental risks.''
Sec. 628(b)(2)--Requirements for environmental management
activities do not apply where they would ``result in an
actual or immediate risk to human health or welfare.''
Sec. 629(b)(1)--Where a petition for alternative compliance
is sought, the petition may only be granted where an
alternative achieves ``at least an equivalent level of
protection of health, safety, and the environment.''
Sec. 632(c)--Risk assessment requirements do not apply to a
``human health, safety, or environmental inspection.''
s. 343 does not delay health, safety and environmental rules
Sec. 622(f) and Sec. 632(c)--Cost-benefit and risk
assessment requirements are not to delay implementation of a
rule if ``impracticable due to an emergency or health or
safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm to
the public or natural resources.''
Sec. 533(d)--Procedural requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act may be waived if ``contrary to
the public interest.''
Sec. 628(b)(2)--Requirements for major environmental
management activities are not to delay environmental cleanups
where they ``result in an actual and immediate risk to human
health or welfare.''
Sec. 801(c)--Congressional 60-day review period before rule
becomes final may be waived where ``necessary because of an
imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.''
s. 343 does not place a ``price tag on human life''
Sec. 621(2)--``Costs'' and ``benefits'' are defined
explicitly to include
``nonquantifiable,
'' not just quantifiable, costs and benefits.
Sec. 622(e)(1)(E)--Cost-benefit analyses are not required
to be performed ``primarily on a mathematical or numerical
basis.''
Sec. 624(b)(3)(B)--An agency may choose a higher cost
regulation when
``nonquantifiable
benefits to health, safety or the environment'' dictate that
result.
____________________