Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would improve title II of H.R. 712 to ensure that the effectiveness of agency regulations are not solely evaluated by the basis of the cost to industry.

Rather, the primary importance of agency rulemaking to the improved health, safety, and security of the American people demands that we also consider the significant benefits of agency regulations in analyzing whether or not they contribute to protecting the public and promoting the general welfare.

In particular, my amendment would require Federal agencies to provide an estimate of the individual benefits of a proposed regulation, just as H.R. 712 currently requires them to report individual regulatory costs.

This amendment would also require the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to include the total benefits of proposed and final agency rules in the annual report that it would be required to issue under H.R. 712.

In its current form, the underlying bill expressly provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs must publish only the total cost of all proposed and finalized agency rules without reducing the cost by any offsetting benefits in its calculation of the cumulative cost of agency regulations.

Not surprisingly, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards has issued a formal opposition letter to the language that is included as title II of H.R. 712. The Coalition is an alliance of over 150 businesses, consumer protection, labor, environmental, and good government groups that includes the American Sustainable Business Council and its 200,000 member businesses.

According to the Coalition: ``This bill's one-sided focus on regulatory costs provides a highly distorted picture of the value of critical safeguards that all Americans depend on . . . By focusing exclusively on regulatory costs, this bill gives the misleading impression that regulations are an inescapable drain on the American economy.''

The recent draft report of the costs and benefits of major Federal regulations issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in October 2015 serves to further illustrate the transparency that is lacking when we only consider the costs associated with an agency regulation.

Among its principal findings, the report provides that, from October 2004 through September 2014, spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations, Federal agencies estimated the aggregate benefits of major Federal regulations to range between $216 billion and $812 billion. In stark contrast, the approximate annual cost of major Federal regulations ranges between $57 billion and $85 billion.

Importantly, several Clean Air rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation have significantly high estimated benefits that are attributable to the reduction in public exposure to air pollutants.

According to the report, the Clean Air Fine Particle Rule of 2007 had benefits ranging from $19 billion to $167 billion per year. These regulatory benefits would not be considered under H.R. 712.

Other health and safety rules were similarly identified as having a sizable benefit on the American people. Patient safety rules that address dietary supplement oversight, medical error, and safety requirements for long-term care facilities had estimated benefits between $13 billion and $17 billion per year.

Transportation-related safety rules designed to reduce the risk of injury and death associated with airplane, vehicle, and train travel had estimated benefits of between $16 billion and $28 billion per year. These regulatory benefits would not be considered under H.R. 712, as currently drafted.

Mr. Chairman, if our goal is to maximize transparency in the regulatory process, we can't simply give the American people and this Congress one side of the story.

Rather, full transparency and informed decisionmaking require that our analysis does not only include the regulatory costs, but also the extent to which an agency bill improves and protects the health, safety, and security of the American people. My amendment would ensure that this was the case.

Mr. Chairman, it is the primary mission of every Federal agency to protect the American public from harmful and developing situations, whether we are talking about a new prescription painkiller on the market that the FDA finds to be highly addictive, or an emerging financial practice that the Securities and Exchange Commission determines is predatory on American consumers, or dangerous materials that the Environmental Protection Agency deems to be an imminent public hazard.

That public mission is severely undermined if the merits of an agency regulation are evaluated solely on the basis of costs to the industry and at the expense of the significant benefits to the American people.

Again, in closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source