[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.
     

                          ____________________