Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think we are once again faced with a critical decision in the debate as it is setting up here; it is showing the basic difference in philosophy in how we are going to approach the critical concerns in this country about Federal regulation. This process will change the bill in a very fundamental and important way. The bill, as it now stands, stops the Federal regulators from continuing the abusive growth of Federal regulations in unjustified ways for the future. This process, the petition process, allows a look back at some of the existing regulations. It has already been said in debate on this floor that the existing regulatory burden we face in this country is the issue that is bringing us to this debate itself. If all we do is protect ourselves against future abuses, we fail to look back at the very reason that brings us to the floor for this debate, and that is the existing Federal regulatory bureaucracy that is crushing our economy and invading the lives of Americans in almost every aspect of their lives. It has been discussed today that we have, and I have seen studies that show the burden on the American economy from the Federal regulatory system is anywhere from $400 billion to over $1 trillion, and that is every bit as real as a tax, as the taxes collected from the taxpayer every April. We have got to recognize that we must allow us to look back and correct the abuses in the regulatory system. The arguments being made against it are the same as well. First, it is thrown up this is going to allow for more lawyers to get into the act and for us to have more litigation. It seems that every time we want to correct the abuse in the Federal regulatory system, the counterargument is, well, that we take lawyers. The fact is we have got to decide as a Congress whether we want to move forward and create the mechanism for people to fight back against the regulatory abuse and the explosion of regulations in this country, or whether we want to say because we are afraid that it might take some legal review that we are going to take no action. I do not think that is a justification. The argument has been made that it is going to open up rules that businesses and people across this country are already adjusted to living under, and we ought to leave it alone. Frankly, as I have said, that is the very reason we are here. Yes, people in this country are living under those rules and regulations, but, no, they are not happy; no, it is not right for this Congress to just wink its eye at what has happened in the past and say we are going to go on in the future and let what now stands be unchecked and unreviewed. And then it is said, well, this legislation lets any person bring a proposal before the agencies for review. Well, frankly, I think that any person ought to have, who is affected by these regulations, the ability to bring it forward and have it reviewed. But we have provided in the bill for protections. Every 6 months the agency is entitled to collect the various petitions, organize them, and assemble them and review them under a specific regulation to which they apply. We have a funneling system put in place that will keep the agencies from being inundated by repeated petitions. They collect them all in a 6-month period and act on them one at a time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical. You could say it is the core of the issue we are facing here today. We have got the vehicle there. Let us allow us now to look back.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the legislation we are debating goes further to say that ``When a significant risk assessment document or characterization document subject to title I is part of the administrative record in a final agency action, in addition to any other matters that the court may consider in deciding whether the agency's action was lawful, the court shall consider the agency action unlawful if such significant risk assessment document or significant risk characterization document does not substantially comply with the requirements of this section.'' The point is when agencies promulgate a rule it does so under statutory authority. When it has finalized its statutory authority and has promulgated a rule, then and only then does this allow the requirements of this statute to be brought in under administrative review. It does not allow a piece-by-piece administrative review and does not increase litigations by one case over what is already the situation in current law.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CRAPO. Reclaiming my time, I think it is very important to point out this act does not eliminate the Clean Air Act, and any impression, indication, of that is wrong. What this act says is that a cost-benefit analysis must be done and that if a cost-benefit analysis done by the very agency that manages the Clean Air Act shows that what we are doing is costing us much more than the benefits that it is yielding, then we have got to look at that law and find a better way to approach it.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the points that were made earlier with regard to whether this statute supersedes all other health codes or requirements and requires us to look at only cost. In the statute itself, under decisional criteria, it talks about the fact that the agencies promulgating rules subject to this statute must certify, and then in subsection 3 on page 29, that they are to be the less cost-effective at achieving a substantially equivalent reduction in risk, or B, to provide less flexibility to state, local, and tribal governments or regulated entities in achieving the otherwise applicable objectives of the regulation. What it says is flexibility at state and local level as well as cost effectiveness are written into the statute. The point I make is as we address the question of the Federal regulatory burden that faces this country, this statute says let us look at what benefits these regulations are giving us and what the cost of those benefits is. The point is that every time we take a societal resource and allocate it to one benefit, that means we cannot use it on another benefit. If we find that we can save one or two lives by spending a million dollars here and save 100 lives by spending it over here, this statute says let us find that out and let us put our money where it will do us the best good.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think one of the things that needs to be looked at here is the fact that under the clean air standards one of the tests that many industries have had to meet is an opacity standard even though the smokestack was cleaned up to a point that there was no health risk. EPA went on and suggested that they had to achieve an opacity standard which then says that it has to be completely clean coming out of the stack. Well, what we are suggesting is that maybe the cost-benefit of achieving the opacity standard, which has nothing to do with health, is too great, and it ought to be looked at as a part of doing the work.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CRAPO. What it says is: If the health benefit standard is not beneficial, then we must find a more cost-beneficial use for the funds.

Mr. CRAPO. This bill does not eliminate any health standard.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CRAPO. That is exactly right. The point is we have limited resources in this society, and we must place them and use them most effectively. If we are spending the last 80 percent of our money on a very minor increase in the safety to our people when we could use that money for significant safety and environmental and health increases, we need to know that and we need to function in that way.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for his comments. The point is very clearly made. This bill does not change any standard. It requires us to look at what is done under existing statues and any new regulations that seek to impose further requirements under that statute we must first assess under that statute what kind of a risk, how big is that risk, and what benefit will it give us and at what cost to society to get to that point?

Mr. CRAPO. I yield further to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to understand precisely what this debate is about. The legislation we are discussing today would require that under the existing Federal system of law under which the regulations are now implemented, that we look at whether what we are doing is cost-beneficial. It requires first that we assess the risks which our regulations seek to reduce and then we assess the cost of what the regulations are requiring us as a society to pay in order to reduce those risks. If it is determined that we are getting only a very minute increase in the reduction of the risk at a very expensive cost, then it is expected that the agency will say that this is not a cost-beneficial decision and we as a society can better spend our limited resources in another way. Yet there are previous statutes that often set absolute requirements that the Federal agency will then say they must meet. The central debate here is: If we determine after a cost-benefit analysis that moneys can be expended, better for the environment, better for our health, better for our safety in another way, should we let a prior statute tell us that that cannot be done? Should we let a prior set of laws tell us that we cannot conduct a cost-benefit analysis, that we cannot find a better way, that we cannot go forward and use common sense in application of Federal regulations and must continue to follow old approaches? No. This legislation does not change by itself any previous law; this legislation says we are going to look at the regulations that come out and we are going to see what new efforts by the agencies do and compare what the costs of those regulations, whether it is justified by this benefit. The current costs of our Federal regulatory programs are estimated to be between $430 billion and $700 billion every year, and are increasing every day. Yet Congress has never in a significant way reformed our regulatory program to consider meaningful risk assessment and incremental cost- benefit analysis. We have to reform the way our Federal Government operates and take the burden of unreasonable regulations off the backs of the American people.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me just make one example, and then I will yield back my time. I think that maybe we could look at an example. Right now we have a Federal standard, the Delaney clause, that basically has been interpreted to say that we must, in that particular health area, reach a zero tolerance, a zero risk standard. That is what the law says, as the gentlemen over here have said, and we had significant agreement last year in this Congress that we should address that so that we can use our resources

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAPO. I think that the point that we are trying to make is that the only circumstances in which this statute would supersede any other statute is in that case where an agency has made a cost-benefit analysis and a risk assessment and has determined that the increment of increased safety, or increased health or increased environmental protection that is obtained is not justified by the cost.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, it is an important time that we have reached finally in the debate for regulatory reform. People across America know all of the examples, the schools that are facing a tremendous burden our regulations put on them, the libraries across our country, the hospitals, the people in every walk of life who have to face the significant requirements that are burdens of our regulations put upon them to require them to increase the safety to vary increasingly minute risks with virtually no analysis of whether the cost of reaching those increasingly minute risks or safety factors are justified. Today we have an opportunity to correct that, to require that common sense be applied when we are crafting regulations, to require that when we say that a certain goal is something that should be reached by the people in this country, that we know what it is going to cost them and that the benefits that are going to be gained by that expenditure money are justified by the analysis. This is what the American people want. It is no less than we should give them in the administration of our laws.