Environmentalists Urge Senate Committee To Reject So-Called Regulatory "Reform" Bill

So-called regulatory “reform” legislation (S. 981) scheduled to be voted on today by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee provides far too many opportunities for the regulated community to delay new public protections and divert resources from enforcement of existing ones, and will hinder and delay governmental decisions on health, safety, and the environment, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

“The serious problems with this bill are made evident by its shocking exemption of decisions on new products,” said Karen Florini, an EDF attorney. “If the bill’s complex procedures are really designed to produce better governmental decisions about restricting products to protect health and safety, why are all decisions about introducing products exempt from the process? The new-product exclusion heightens concerns that this legislation can be expected to hinder and delay governmental decisions on health, safety, and the environment.”

According to EDF, the legislation exacerbates many existing problems:

• Industry lawyers will have new and expanded opportunities to delve into agency cost-benefit determinations and cost-benefit analyses in lawsuits challenging newly adopted rules.
• Regulated agencies will move even more slowly in preparing new rules than they currently do, in an attempt to minimize the chances of unfavorable court action.
• Significant agency resources will be consumed in reviewing existing regulations, litigating over which ones warrant review, and defending second-bite-at-the-apple lawsuits involving rules already in effect.
• Substantial additional delays will be introduced by the bill’s complex 10-step process for preparing and reviewing risk assessments, without improving the ultimate outcome.
• Peer review panels are likely to be biased, given that the bill fails to bar participation by industry employees, although it bars all agency personnel.

Following the hearing, Florini submitted a letter to the hearing record further addressing one of the issues discussed during the hearing: the dissimilarities between key provisions of S. 981 and the so-called “Glenn-Chafee substitute,” which received 48 votes on the Senate floor during 1995 debates on regulatory reform. (No bill was enacted at that time.) Major distinctions include the much weaker “savings” language in S. 981, and significantly more expansive judicial review provisions in S. 981.