skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

David Goldston’s Blog

"Regulatory Accountability Act" would make it harder to safeguard the public.

David Goldston

Posted July 11, 2013 in Health and the Environment, U.S. Law and Policy

Tags:
, ,
Share | | |

Here’s testimony I gave this week to a House Judiciary Subcommittee about the misguided “Regulatory Accountability Act”:

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cohen and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on H.R. 2122.

            NRDC believes H.R. 2122 is a fundamentally flawed bill.  Though designated the “Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA),” the measure might be better named the “Regulatory Atrophy Act” because its primary effect would be to prevent the government from exercising its responsibility and duty to protect the public.  The title is also misleading because it implies that the current system lacks checks and balances when, in reality, Congress and the courts already have ample authority to hold agencies to account, and the entire system gives industry and others numerous opportunities, formal and informal, to influence the development of regulations. 

            But the bill is not designed to codify an objective sense of “accountability,” in any event.  There is nothing in the bill that would enable anyone to take an agency to task if it failed to recognize a problem or to safeguard the public.  No provision of the bill would make an agency more likely to, say, deal with shoddy lending practices that could cause an economic meltdown, or prevent an outbreak of a food-borne illness or limit emissions of a pollutant.  H.R. 2122 instead would make it much more difficult and time consuming to address such problems.

            Indeed, the bill is a kind of anthology of bad ideas that have already proven to interfere with efforts to protect the public.  For example, H.R. 2122 would require agencies to hold formal hearings on many proposals.  Formal hearings are a procedure that fell into disuse years ago because experience showed that they ate up huge quantities of time without contributing much to the quality of regulations.  But apparently the potential for inordinate delay is a good enough reason to bring hearings back with a vengeance in H.R. 2122.

            Even more pernicious is the reasonable-sounding requirement that agencies “adopt the least costly rule” to deal with a problem.  Now, no one objects to the notion that safeguards should achieve their goals as inexpensively as possible, and there are plenty of existing incentives – administrative and political – to do just that.  But the bill’s language sets up a nearly impossible legal hurdle: for a rule to be upheld, an agency would have to prove that it had carried out an exhaustive analysis of virtually any and every alternative, including any alternative thrown in its way to sidetrack the process. 

            We don’t have to guess what the impact of the bill’s language would be because similar wording has already made a dead letter of key provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the law that is supposed to regulate most chemicals.  A court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not ban asbestos – a material with cancer-causing properties that are beyond dispute – because it could not prove that it had analyzed every alternative.

            It’s ironic, if unsurprising, that conservatives are embracing alternatives analysis in H.R. 2122, given that at the same time, they are trying to remove the much simpler and more reasonable alternatives analysis from the National Environmental Policy Act.  But that’s just more evidence that the alternatives provisions in H.R. 2122 are expected to be hurdles to block progress rather than pathways to facilitate reaching a goal. 

            There are other ironies in H.R. 2122.  Conservatives have often made a “whipping boy” of the federal courts, but the bill requires the courts to take on a more activist role, substituting their judgment for the agencies’ – even on technical and scientific matters. 

            And the bill claims to seek transparency – requiring agencies to make public virtually anything they’ve touched during the regulatory process – but H.R. 2122 shields the involvement of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from scrutiny, even while expanding its role and  enshrining it in law.  Under the bill, OIRA will likely play the most political and determinative part in the entire regulatory process, yet its guidelines are not subject to comment, and its workings can remain private.

            All of this would be inexplicably inconsistent if its overall purpose were not so abundantly clear – to block new safeguards with an ornate process and to slow anything that cannot be stopped entirely.  This is not “accountability” – not an effort to ensure that agencies are effectively and efficiently carrying out their legal duties.  Rather, this is an effort to amend and weaken existing law and future statutes to boot, by overlaying a suffocating blanket of anti-regulatory bias.  The result will be fewer needed safeguards despite public support for protection and study after study showing that the benefits of regulation have far outweighed the costs.  Moreover, studies have found regulation to have a neutral to positive impact on employment.

             Time prevents me from describing all the problematic provisions of H.R. 2122.  But let me close by saying that it’s appropriate to hold this hearing during the summer movie season.  H.R. 2122 has a plot a bit like a summer suspense movie or novel, where a pleasant-seeming character insinuates his way into a household and slowly but surely begins annihilating it.  H.R. 2122 traffics in reasonable concepts and unthreatening language, but its cumulative effects on regulatory law will leave agencies hamstrung and the public exposed.    

Share | | |

Comments (Add yours)

Gail TalbotJul 14 2013 01:50 PM

It is no surprise that H.R. 2122, and its sister bill in the Senate S. 1029, are being heavily lobbied for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a member of ALEC, the American Legislative Executive Council, a corporate legislation mill that hands member legislators "model" laws, designed to protect corporate concerns, to be stewarded through America's legislatures.

It is suspicious that, concurrently, the U.S. is participating in the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) talks. The evolving TPP trade agreement gives foreign corporations privileges that override domestic environmental, as well as product and food safety laws affecting all Americans. The next TTP discussions convene July 15-25 in Malaysia.

Why is the mainstream media so uninformed, or silent, on these issues yet keeps the public up to date on the current status of Justine Bieber?

WC JacksonSep 5 2013 06:42 AM

Have fines and mandates for non-compliance of the EISA 2007 Law by 12/31/2013 in Industrial (Metal Halide lamps-specifically) CFL, Incandescent, Halogen been published by DOE or EPA or OIRA. Where may these fines or mandates be found published? Thx

Join the Conversation

Comment on this post:

All pertinent comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Off-topic comments, commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. We are also required to remove any express or implied statement endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for political office. Valid email addresses are required. (NRDC respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: David Goldston’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In