[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S2624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        EPA'S COSTLY REGULATIONS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has 
proposed new rules to modify the ambient air standards for ozone and 
particulate matter. I recently wrote to the EPA and urged the agency to 
reaffirm the current standards, conduct additional monitoring of 
particulate matter and related air quality issues, and allow our States 
to complete action on the ambitious clean air standards that are 
already in place before implementing additional regulations. I was 
joined in this letter by Senators Rockefeller, Ford, Glenn, and Robb.
  These proposed rules have been extremely controversial, and have been 
sharply criticized by State Governors, municipal leaders, and business 
organizations. I have recently been made aware that these rules have 
also been criticized by other Federal agencies.
  During the interagency review of these rules overseen by the Office 
of Management and Budget, several Federal agencies submitted comments 
which questioned many aspects of the proposed rules, including their 
scientific basis and cost effectiveness. These comments are part of the 
public record. Judging by the tone of the comments from the interagency 
review process, it appears that many Federal agencies are concerned 
about these proposed rules.
  In but one example, the EPA has stated that the total national cost 
of implementing the ozone rule would be $2.5 billion. However, the 
Council of Economic Advisers has stated that the cost of full 
attainment of just the ozone rule could be $60 billion, or $57.5 
billion more than estimated by the EPA. This is a substantial 
discrepancy. The Department of Transportation, in its initial 
interagency review submission, concluded that ``it is incomprehensible 
that the administration would commit to a new set of standards and new 
efforts to meet such standards without much greater understanding of 
the problem and its solutions.'' The U.S. Small Business Administration 
stated that EPA's proposed regulation ``is certainly one of the most 
expensive regulations, if not the most expensive regulation faced by 
small businesses in 10 or more years.'' The SBA said that ``considering 
the large economic impacts suggested by EPA's own analysis that will 
unquestionably fall on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands 
of small businesses, this (proposal) would be a startling proposition 
to the small business community.''
  I understand that some of these Federal agencies had also planned on 
submitting comments to the EPA as part of the public comment period. 
However, the Oil Daily, a trade publication, has reported that these 
agencies were prevented from doing so. The Oil Daily reported that 
``according to a leaked memo, the agencies were muzzled [by OMB] * * * 
'' The article further quotes the memo as instructing agencies that 
``based upon reports from a meeting this morning * * * Federal agencies 
will not [I repeat not] be transmitting comments on the EPA 
proposals.''

  Although the agencies provided critical comments during the 
interagency review process, there is no evidence that the proposed 
rules were significantly modified to reflect their concerns. OMB 
cannot, therefore, defend its ``muzzling'' of Federal agencies--as 
characterized by the Oil Daily--by arguing that the proposed rules 
reflect the collective wisdom and judgment of Federal agencies, when 
the exact opposite is the case. I would also note that the interagency 
review comments from last fall are part of the public record, and so 
there is no reason why the agencies could not also submit comments 
during the public comment period. EPA and OMB are apparently holding 
conversations with some of the Federal agencies, but the critical 
comments of other agencies will not be shared with Congress and other 
interested parties. On its face, this becomes a private comment period, 
rather than a public comment period.
  I am disturbed by this apparent lack of candor and public 
accountability on the part of the administration in discussing these 
rules. These proposed rules will impose significant costs, not only on 
our Nation, but also on Federal agencies themselves. Many agencies and 
departments operate facilities that will be directly affected by these 
rules. As the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I 
believe that these impacts and costs must be considered and reviewed as 
part of the appropriations process.
  I am, therefore, today writing to various Federal agencies requesting 
that these agencies individually comment on the cost of the proposed 
EPA rules, both with regard to the operations of the individual 
departments, and upon that aspect of the Nation's infrastructure that 
is regulated by the departments in question. I am also writing to the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, requesting his 
comments on the cost of these proposed rules to the Federal Government 
in its entirety.
  As our Nation strives to balance the budget, while at the same time 
providing Federal programs and services desired by the public, it is 
important that the significant costs of new regulations, such as these, 
be made available and taken into account as part of the budget process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not want to take much time. Am I 
correct in assuming that the Senate is ready to recess shortly?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senate is still waiting for 
the House with respect to the adjournment resolution.
  (The remarks of Mr. DOMENICI and Mr. GORTON pertaining to the 
submission of S. Con. Res. 16 and S. Con. Res. 17 are located in 
today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate 
Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the concurrence of my good friend from 
North Dakota, I will just proceed for a moment.

                          ____________________