[Page: S10703]---
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in fiscal year, FY, 2000, some 54 federal departments and agencies and over 130,000 federal employees spent over $18.7 billion writing and enforcing federal regulations.
The number of full-time positions in regulatory agencies reached an all-
[Page: S10704]
Rochester Institute of Technology's Professor Thomas Hopkins estimates that the total cost of federal regulation will be $721 billion in 2000, which is equal to about 40 percent of all federal spending--representing a hidden tax of more than $6,800 per year for each American family. This represents direct compliance costs, not indirect costs such as the cost of lost productivity, increased cost of goods and services, as we are seeing with gas prices right now, and lower wages--among others.
These figures are very important for us in Washington to keep in mind--when we are developing laws and regulations. When considering the entire federal budget, $6,800 per year may seem like peanuts, but $6,800 is a great deal of money to millions of hard working Americans.
To put Professor Hopkins' estimates in perspective, current regulatory costs are about 40 percent of the size of the federal budget--which stands at an estimated $1.9 trillion in FY2000--and represent about 8 percent of America's gross domestic product. Moreover, Hopkins' estimates of annual U.S. regulatory costs exceed the entire 1998 GDP of such countries as Canada, $604 billion; Spain, $553 billion; Australia, $364 billion; and Russia, $275 billion.
Beyond the cost of regulations and the size of the federal bureaucracy, a very troublesome trend is occurring in the regulatory arena right now. In its last few days in office, the Clinton/Gore Administration is currently pushing through a number of new rules--particularly in the environmental arena. This last-minute regulatory push, also known as ``midnight-regulation,'' serves two purposes for the Clinton/Gore administration: (1) to pander to the special interest groups and (2) to make regulatory decisions more difficult for the next administration.
This administration is playing a zero sum loss game with the regulatory process. While special interests and bureaucrats are winning, the American people are losing. When well thought out and reflecting consensus, regulations can certainly provide benefits to the American people. However, what is most disturbing is the fact that this administration will promulgate these regulations at any cost--at the financial cost of the American people--at the cost of making a mockery of rulemaking due process--even at the cost of environmental protection. This isn't just my opinion, other experts agree. Wendy Gramm, former Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and Susan Dudley--both of whom are with George Mason University's Mercatus Center-- recently wrote in an article in The Atlanta Journal, ``when regulations are rushed into effect without adequate thought, they are likely to do more harm than good.''
Eighty-eight rulemakings are in the process at the EPA.
On August 25, 2000, a Washington Post article's byline read, ``[m]indful that Republicans could occupy the White House in less than six months, the Clinton administration is working feverishly to issue a host of new regulations supported by environmentalists and other liberal leaning groups .....'' The article goes on to state that, ``[a]t the EPA alone, officials have listed 67 regulatory decisions looming before Clinton's second term expires in January.''
In response to the Washington Post article, the National Manufacturers' Association requested this list of 67 pending ``regulatory decisions.'' However, NMA's request was denied. Thanks to the leadership of Representative DAVID MCINTOSH, the Clinton/Gore Administration submitted the
list of regulations. Representative MCINTOSH discovered that it was not 67 regulatory decisions--but rather 88! This does not include the numerous interim final regulations, policy statements, and guidance documents, which EPA is pushing through.
In fact, the average pages of regulations in the Federal Register is currently sky-rocketing. Currently, the Clinton/Gore Administration is averaging 210 pages of regulations per day in the Federal Register. The last time that the American people experienced such a flood of regulations was at the end of the Carter Administration--when the Federal Register had an average of 200 pages of regulations per day. Mr. President, there is a graph of the average number of regulations in the Federal Register during election years since the Ford Administration.
Here are some examples:
The Clinton/Gore administration's ``Total Maximum Daily Load'' or ``TMDL'' Rule.
The now final TMDL rule drew more than 30,000 public comments and has been the subject of 12 congressional hearings. An overwhelming majority of these citizens, including environmental, community, state, labor union, and business organizations, expressed their opposition to the rule. Their concerns have included such issues as the rule's effectiveness, costs, technical and scientific feasibility, and basic structure.
On June 30, 2000, in response to the testimony and thousands of letters that I and other Members of Congress received in opposition to EPA's proposed TMDL rule, Congress included a provision in the FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act that would prohibit EPA from implementing this rule. This provision was a bipartisan attempt to direct the EPA to take a step back and address the concerns of the American people--not a sneak attack on the environment as many extremist environmental groups tried to portray it.
The U.S. Congress sent a clear message to the White House and EPA. However, the Clinton/Gore Administration allowed EPA to finalize its proposed TMDL rule shortly before President Clinton signed the FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act into law. I have grave concerns about any Administration which seeks to make the will of Congress ``meaningless''--which is what the White House was quoted as saying. The very thought of such an action is a vulgar abuse of power and blatant disregard for the legislative branch of our government.
The Clinton/Gore EPA's poorly thought-out sulphur/diesel rule.
For some reason the EPA is shocked and surprised that fuel prices are spiking because of the introduction of the new RFG phase 2 regulations. The trouble is the EPA continues to roll out new restrictions and regulations on gasoline and gasoline formulas without any regard to what the consequences are to the consumer. I am concerned that the Clinton/Gore sulfur diesel regulation is a perfect example. This is a regulation which will cause price spikes for fuel over the next ten years, and EPA has done a miserable job in predicting the consequences of this regulation. I believe there will be severe shortages of diesel fuel which will lead to higher prices for truckers, farmers, and the home heating market. It is highly likely that instead of installing the expensive desulfurization equipment many companies will choose to export their diesel instead of selling in the U.S., creating greater shortages. While they are discussing finalizing this rule, they are also discussing the need for a technology review in three years on the pollution devices for the trucks themselves. It seems the EPA is not sure if the technology will be available which requires the low sulfur diesel fuel. But this review will take place after the refiners begin installing the expensive low sulfur equipment.
The real shame in this is that it could be avoided if the EPA were more reasonable in their expectations. Instead of calling for a 97 percent reduction in sulfur, they could have taken a 90 percent reduction in sulfur which would have produced the same benefits for particulate matter at half the cost. While it is true that NOx would only be reduced by 75 percent instead of 95 percent. I think we need to stop and look at it, 75 percent reduction at half the cost is a bargain. Once again the EPA appears bent on chasing pennies of benefits for dollars of costs.
My subcommittee will be looking even more closely at the cost of EPA's programs on our nation's fuel supply. I really think the lasting legacy of Carol Browner might very well end up being these gasoline price spikes over the next ten years, unless something is done to restore some sanity to this process.
EPA's arsenic regulation.
[Page: S10705]
The EPA is reconsidering its proposal for lowering the federal standard for arsenic in drinking water. The 5ppb standard, for which EPA is seeking comment, is scientifically unjustifiable. Many experts believe that ``given the available information EPA has provided, a final standard below 20 ppb can not be justified.'' This rule is anticipated to cost $1.5 billion annually and require $14 billion in capital investments--threatening to bankrupt small towns. EPA's own analysis reveals will impose net costs on users of drinking water systems. Unfortunately, this regulation is just another example of the EPA putting the policy ahead of the science--at the cost of the American people.
Mr. President, I could go on and on about these midnight regulations.
The Clinton/Gore administration is circumventing regulatory rulemaking due process.
A fundamental safeguard provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (the ``APA'') is to ensure that federal agencies provide an opportunity for informed and meaningful public participation as part of the regulatory rulemaking process.
As if midnight regulations were not bad enough, the Clinton/Gore administration attempts to short-cut APA safeguards by the issuance of interim final rules, guidance documents, and policy statements. These documents, which do not go through the notice and comment rulemaking process required by the APA, are not subject to review by the courts. Often, these documents suggest that regulated entities must comply with requirements beyond the requirements found in law or regulation. Though agencies deny the fact these documents are legally biding, it is clearly an attempt to make law outside the rulemaking process--in a way which tries to shield agencies from judicial review.
For example, on April 14, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Appalachian Power v. EPA, struck down EPA's ``Periodic Monitoring'' Guidance. Among it's findings, the Court found: (1) EPA was creating broad new authority through the guidance document; (2) EPA did intend the guidance document to have binding effect; and (3) the guidance was illegally issued outside the APA rulemaking procedures.
From 1992 to 1999, the Clinton/Gore EPA published over sixty-five interim final rules, guidance, and policy statements in the Federal Register. However, there are many more of these documents, which have never been published in the Federal Register--in violation of the Federal Register Act.
And the cycle continues ..... on August 28, 2000, EPA has just issued a guidance document on Environmental Justice. While I will reserve the policy discussion on environmental justice for another time, the process question arises again. Even though the Congress and many stakeholders urged EPA to issue an Environmental Justice Rule, which would be subject to the APA's opportunity for notice and comment as well as judicial review, the EPA refused to do so. Instead, the EPA again created a binding regulation, albeit through a guidance document, which is not subject to judicial review.
Additionally, in the case of many of the 88 rules, EPA will argue that the regulation has been a work in progress for years. EPA's claim begs the question, ``Then why cram through the final product when EPA is juggling so many balls at once.'' Though some of the regulations may have been proposed before, it does not mean that the proposal is still relevant--which we see with EPA's Proposed New Source Review Rule. In this and other cases, EPA should re-propose the rule rather than going final with it's obsolete, out-dated proposed rule.
In conclusion, the Clinton/Gore Administration is in overdrive to make policy by administrative edict where it has failed to do so by the legislative process or by following the regular regulatory order. President Clinton and Vice President GORE can't really believe that the less the public participates the better--but they're acting like they do. The fact that the EPA is cramming though scores of rules and other regulatory decisions without public discourse is irresponsible. I call on the Administration to exercise regulatory restraint and stop exceeding its legal authority without undergoing appropriate rulemaking procedures.
Rushed and poor judgement and deliberate acts that exceed an agency's authority can cause serious disruptions in the course of American families' lives. Therefore, I, along with other Members of Congress, will explore the various options, which Congress could use to address this Administration's numerous egregious political and anti-democratic actions. Environmental protection is vitally important, but so is the integrity of our government.
END