[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 9 (Monday, January 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as one who is firmly in the camp of
not just supporting the benefits but the necessity of government
regulation, I nonetheless welcomed the President's recent op-ed in the
Wall Street Journal and his executive order to review the regulations
we have in place.
This is a unique opportunity to reframe at least part of the
regulatory debate to satisfy both sides and better serve the public.
The area of opportunity lies in creating a new generation of
environmental protections that are performance based. Pioneering
efforts to protect the environment, like the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act, were regulatory based that worked well for their time.
Public health requirements, citizen expectations have evolved.
Subsequent efforts have become more difficult, expensive, and time
consuming.
Having these agencies dictate specifics is not necessarily providing
the most innovative, timely, nor cost-effective solutions.
There is an alternative to rules-based procedures, command-and-
control rules process. Such a model would give latitude to parties on
how they comply with the standards for protection as long as they met
or exceeded the requirement.
In Oregon, we were able, some years ago, in partnership with the EPA
and the State Department of Environmental Quality, to work with a major
industrial presence in our community, Intel, on a plant expansion where
latitude was granted for air quality compliance. The company made an
enforceable commitment to the requisite clean air and environmental
regulations, but the environmental agent regulators did not micromanage
how the company complied. The result? Clean air with less cost and
time.
There are countless opportunities for this principle to save time,
money, and create innovation, and importantly, the potential to reduce
opposition to the regulatory process itself: building trust and
confidence, partnerships between the regulator and the regulated with
more control, more flexibility, producing a cleaner, safer environment.
This requires first and foremost an administration that can be
trusted to act in good faith because too often, regulatory reform is a
tactic of those who are simply opposed to the regulation in its first
instance.
{time} 1210
This approach will only invite fierce opposition to watered-down
protection. The Obama administration has established its environmental
credentials and should be able to avoid, or at least lay to rest, that
sort of concern.
There are two other necessary elements. The standards must be clear,
and the parties must be both responsible and have the capacity to be
held accountable. Nothing must allow the protection in question to be
undercut. Indeed, it may be reasonable for performance-based approaches
to require higher standards and environmental protection. And we
certainly don't have to suspend current rules or regulations. Just give
an alternative path for compliance that we can always fall back upon if
people fall short.
Once it's clear that we can produce the environmental or other
desired protections on a performance basis, perhaps we can tackle
redundant regulatory processes. For instance, California has arguably
more stringent environmental regulations than the United States
Government itself. Can we figure out a way to apply that single, more
stringent standard rather than forcing individuals, government agencies
to comply with both?
In sum, it's always helpful for an administration to make sure our
efforts at government regulation are effective and relevant. By all
means, eliminate the unnecessary or the ineffective. What is more
important, however, is to usher in a new era of performance-based
protections to improve regulations, save money, and protect the public
welfare.
____________________