THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
| Congressional Record article 4 of 50 | Full Display - 10,523 bytes.[Help] |
[Page: S841] GPO's PDF---
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have seen in the last several months, and I suspect we will continue to see from now until the end of this administration, a considerable effort to implement programs that bypass the Congress, programs that, indeed, bypass public input into those programs.
We have seen a great many Executive orders regarding regulations that have had limited, if any, public input. We have seen the use of the Antiquities Act and a number of other activities of this kind.
It is important that we remember the constitutional requirements of this Government, that there is a division within Government. That is what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches were designed to do, and they were purposely put in place to ensure that none of the three branches developed a domineering position and became a czar of the Government.
It is terribly important we take a look at this in Congress; that we ensure, to the extent we can, that this does not happen; that there is, indeed, as we move forward with various programs--whether they be regulatory, whether they be legislative--an opportunity for people to participate.
The current regulatory system encompasses more than 50 Federal agencies, more than 126,000 workers, and annual spending of more than $14 billion in the area regulations.
From April 1, 1996, until March 31, 1999, Federal agencies issued nearly 13,000 final rules. Of these, 188 were major final rules that each carried an annual cost of more than $100 million in our Nation's economy.
The paperwork burden of these Federal regulations is approaching $190 billion annually. A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute concluded that all EPA rules promulgated between mid-1982 and mid-1996 under environmental statutes such as Superfund, the Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, have had negative net benefits; that is, they hurt more than they helped.
When these regulations come into place, we hear that there is going to be a partnership, a partnership between the communities, a partnership between the State, a partnership with the Federal Government. Unfortunately, it has been our experience, particularly in the area of public lands, the partnership is a little one sided, a one-horse, one-dog arrangement, not an equal partnership.
[Page: S842] GPO's PDF
One example is the clean water action plan, an Executive order establishing 111 key actions designed to improve the Nation's remaining water impairment problems. Everyone wants to do that. Imagine putting into place in one move 111 different regulatory actions, done without the NEPA process, without the process of input, without the process of having public discussion.
The administration has requested roughly $2 billion annually since 1998 for implementation. It has been an interesting process, particularly with EPA and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is taking a strong look at this and, in one instance, declared this agency had gone beyond its statutory authority.
One of the difficulties is, first of all, the nonpoint source idea which was never authorized in the Clean Water Act. It was only point sources which were authorized.
What is happening now is they have moved toward an implementation of the plan that is designed more to control the land use than, in fact, to control nonpoint source water.
The Environmental Protection Agency structured the plan around data that the GAO, the Government auditing organization, has criticized. In 1999, GAO cautioned the methodology used in determining both impairment levels and impacts from nonpoint source was underfunded and, consequently, results were very possibly inaccurate.
Specifically, GAO highlighted concerns relating to how the agency identified waters polluted by nonpoint sources, the need for more data to develop cost estimates, and the extent to which the Federal Government contributes to water pollution.
Instead of pulling back, having found out this information, EPA is moving forward with the implementation of the program. States and impacted industries have complained to EPA through the Congress, through the committees, that EPA's plan places a financial burden and amounts to an unfunded mandate.
This could be reasonable, if they went through the process of involving people before putting the regulations in place. But when the regulations are put there by fiat, certainly that is not something we expect to happen and should not allow to happen in our system of government.
Even USDA wrote a letter, saying when they were doing these activities in the old Soil Conservation Service, they were much more efficient. When we questioned EPA about that, they got the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to change his mind and say: I really did not mean that at all.
Of course, 2 weeks ago I was in Wyoming for a week. Half of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. Much of our State is in public ownership. The use of those lands is vital to the economy. A multiple-use concept is what has made these lands useful, not only to preserve the environment, which can be done, but as well to be able to use them for hunting, recreation, grazing, mineral production--all the things that go together to make up an economy in the West.
Now we are faced with some other propositions. In this case, the Forest Service has declared by regulatory fiat that there would be 40 million acres dedicated to roadless areas . Of course, we have roadless areas in the public lands. We have wilderness that has been set aside by congressional action. By the way, when it was set aside in Wyoming, the statute also said there would be no more wilderness set aside unless Congress made that proposal.
It has been very difficult. We have had several hearings with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service to determine what ``roadless'' means, whether or not it is another way of having wilderness areas . The interesting part of it is, most of the lands that have been structured in this plan for roadless areas have roads on them; they are not roadless at all. But the Forest Service has done nothing to identify or solicit cooperating non-Federal agencies in the EIS.
Several of our States have asked to be cooperating agencies, which is what the Environmental Quality Group in the White House has said they are going to implement in all these kinds of programs, but the Forest Service has said: No, we are not going to have the States; we are not going to have the counties; we are not going to have these non-Federal agencies participate.
Hearings were held. Actually, they were not hearings; they were information systems. People were invited to come, but there was no information there. They were asked to respond to something without knowing what was being done. So there was really not public involvement of that kind.
The other thing is that we already have forest plans in place. Each forest is required to have a forest plan. I have no objection to the idea of limited roads, but it ought to be done in a way in which people can participate, and it ought to be done in a way in which Congress can participate. We are finding more and more of that happening in this so-called land legacy that is being put forth by the administration.
Last week, the Secretary of the Interior announced there would be literally millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands that would be set aside simply for their scenic value. That is very important to western public land States, where much of that land is part of our economy. It can be preserved for the environment. However, we also have to have multiple use. Those things will go together.
The Antiquities Act is another. In 1996, we put into law the Congressional Review Act which requires regulations be submitted to the Congress. They are interpreted by OMB. Those that have over $100 million of value or cost are submitted to the Congress, with an opportunity to take a look--oversight--to see if those regulations are carrying out the spirit of the legislation which authorized them or, indeed, to see if in some cases they are being put into place without any statutory or regulatory authority.
Unfortunately, it has not worked well. The idea was to have it come to the Congress. It has to go through OMB first to decide whether it has the $100 million impact. Then it comes to the Congress, but the Congress has not had an opportunity to deal with it.
Unfortunately, from April 1 of 1996 until March 1 of 1999, Federal agencies issued, as I said before, 13,000 final rules. And 188 fell within this category of $100 million. Unfortunately, not one has been changed by the Congress because this bill is not workable.
We have to make it work. We need to create a congressional regulatory analysis group that has the opportunity to look into these bills. Much like CBO, Congress needs an entity to take a look at them. Right now, unfortunately, it does not work. I think certainly we have to do something to keep this administration from running roughshod over my constituents' interests, the Presiding Officer's constituents' interests, and others. There needs to be this balance. I think the Congressional Review Act could be that balance, if it has some changes.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Utah for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to note two events, one
historic today and one somewhat historic tomorrow--one looking a little bit back
with some nostalgia and the other looking back with some degree of finality.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents