REGULATIONS: EPA Remains Center of Reform Controversy

John McArdle and Jean Chemnick, E&E reporters

February 8, 2011

With the House Rules Committee expected to consider a resolution today that would direct 10 House panels to review government regulations to see which should be nixed, sparring continues over Republican lawmakers' contention that U.S. EPA rules are most in need of reform.

The Rules Committee is scheduled to hold a markup today of a resolution that would direct House panels to conduct an inventory and review of existing, pending and proposed rules with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth.

The markup comes after House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) yesterday unveiled a list of government regulations that industry groups believe should be wiped from the books for the sake of the United States' future job growth. An analysis of the letters sent by more than 160 industry groups shows that EPA was the most-cited agency.

Issa released the letters ahead of this week's hearing titled, "Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation," saying his committee's efforts are intended to complement the new effort by the White House to cut government red tape and spur job creation.

Brushing off the criticism leveled at the agency in the letters, EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said yesterday that the agency has helped create new job opportunities while fulfilling its mission of protecting American families from harmful pollutants and ensuring access to clean drinking water.

"We will continue to work with industry -- and a wide range of stakeholders -- to ensure the standards we develop to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink are reasonable and achievable," Gilfillan said in an e-mail yesterday. "This is in line with the President's commitment to removing outdated and unnecessary regulations and ensuring that rules don't needlessly stifle job creation and economic growth."

He added that over EPA's 40 years of existence "we have found ... that the reasonable steps we've taken to upgrade our nation's environmental laws have led to innovation, new markets and new jobs -- not only protecting our health, but also strengthening our economy."

Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella said yesterday that the effort to reach out to industry groups was not about targeting any one agency or any one specific regulations. He said that when the committee reached out to industry groups there were no parameters put on what rules or agencies they should tailor their responses to.

"It was just a very broad question to get as much information as possible and whatever comes from that that will be determined as this debate unfolds," Bardella said.

Center for Progressive Reform President Rena Steinzor, who has been a voice against excessive deregulation, said that the efforts by Republicans amount to an attempt to tie up agencies by forcing them to spend their time reading old rules rather than doing their jobs.
"I am sure this is far more than the president had in mind and what this also boils down to ... is repealing laws in the middle of the night because a lot of the rules they are complaining about are statutorily mandated," Steinzor said.

Steinzor, who spent yesterday reading through the nearly 2,000 pages of documents that Issa released, said her group plans to bring to light the lack of proof included in those industry reports. She also plans to bring to light "some of the more ridiculous proposals" that were included.

Senate Dems

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, told reporters last night that Issa and the House Republican majority are using congressional oversight prerogatives to improperly pressure EPA to stop regulating carbon and other pollutants.

In addition to the Issa hearing, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) will be holding a subcommittee hearing tomorrow to discuss a bill by Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that would bar EPA from regulating carbon.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has had his own concerns about the way EPA regulations could impact his home state's manufacturers, but he said hearings like Issa's and bills like Upton's are part of an "anti-science agenda" dictated by the interest groups that make up the Republican base.

"The purpose of them is to deny climate change exists, which has become the new Republican [requirement]. To run for president you've got to deny climate change exists," he said.

Brown said the 2010 midterm elections demonstrated that independence on issues like energy and the environment would not be rewarded by Republican primary voters. He pointed specifically to the defeat of former Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), who lost his party's nomination to a candidate supported by the tea party movement because he was not perceived as conservative enough.

"I think it will be seen by reasonable people for what it is. I think it will be seen by the right-wing base as more red meat for them," he said.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is concerned Issa's scrutiny of the agencies may not be motivated by a genuine desire to see that laws are implemented properly.

"If the purpose of oversight is to be a partner, to make sure the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act are enforced the way they should be, that's fine," he said. "But they're being used to undermine those laws, then I will obviously have some exceptions to that."

"I think it would be outrageous to ask the EPA to relax its standards," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). "I think one of the biggest threats to my mind is the radical changes to the environment. The death of species. The disappearance of coral. All these things that we see happening in front of us.

"To pretend that it's either a hoax or has no significance is outrageous," he added.