U.S. Senate Committee Hears Testimony on Regulatory Reform Bill

Part II of a RiskWorld special report on the proposed Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997 (see also Part I)

By Amy Charlene Reed, RiskWorld staff editor
E-mail to: reed@tec-com.com.

September 16, 1997 – At the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs hearing on the bipartisan Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997 (bill S.981) on Friday, two risk experts testified in favor of the legislation. The bill, which is sponsored by U.S. Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, and U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, R-TN, would require risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of major new regulations.

Paul Portney, president of the research organization Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., and John Graham, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston, Massachusetts, both expressed strong support of the bill.

"Of all the proposed legislation I’ve seen regarding regulatory reform, this bill is by far the best," Portney said in an interview with RiskWorld. "It combines many of the best features of the regulatory reform bills of the past without retaining the baggage that caused some of the other bills to be called into question. It asks regulatory agencies to make better use of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, while recognizing that both techniques are much less precise than some proponents think they are. It asks agencies to be more clear and transparent, but it doesn’t impose unrealistically quantitative burdens on them. It requires peer review for important analyses."

[Editor's note: The full text of Portney’s testimony is on line.]

Graham also lauded the bill for its flexibility in regard to cost-benefit analysis requirements. "Although the bill emphasizes the importance of the regulator’s cost-benefit determination, I was pleased to see the flexibility accorded to the regulator in a situation where other values (e.g., equity) are judged to have overriding significance," he wrote in a letter of support to U.S. Senator Thompson dated July 7, 1997. "My overall view is that this bill, if enacted in its present form, would represent an important step forward in the rigorous application of science and analytic methods in the regulation of hazards to human health, safety, and the environment." Graham also provided technical comments on ways to improve the bill.

Several speakers testified against the bill, including David Hawkins, senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council environmental organization in Washington, D.C. "We believe that the additional analysis requirements of this bill will delay and weaken regulations that are needed to protect health, safety, and the environment," he said in an interview with RiskWorld.

In his testimony before the committee, Hawkins said the bill "would create detailed statutory analysis and review procedures in three overlapping areas: specific mandates for analysis of costs and benefits of rules and alternatives; risk assessment requirements; peer review procedures. Taken together these requirements will present agencies with a much more difficult task in adopting new safeguards."

[Editor's note: Hawkins' full testimony is on line.]

The hearing also included testimony by representatives of industry, small businesses, and state and federal government regarding cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, judicial review, updating old rules, comparative risk analysis, and the regulatory review process under the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

The full list of participants who testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee at the hearing is as follows:

• Ernest Gellhorn, professor of law at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia

• John Graham, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston, Massachusetts

• C. Boyden Gray, partner with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, D.C., and former White House Counsel and Counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief

• David Hawkins, senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C.

• Sally Katzen, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C.

• James L. Martin, director of the Office of State-Federal Relations of the National Governors Association in Washington, D.C.

• Paul Portney, president of Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C.

• Sal Risalvato, small business owner and representative of the National Federation of Independent Businesses in Nashville, Tennessee.

• L. Nye Stevens, director of federal management and workforce issues in the General Government Division of the U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

• David Vladeck, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C.

• Thomas F. Walton, director of economic policy for General Motors Corporation in Detroit, Michigan, on behalf of Alliance USA

Related Links

RiskWorld news article "Risk Science and Law Panel Weighs Regulatory Reform" published September 16, 1997

Full text of Paul Portney's testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs hearing on the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997 (bill S.981)

Full text of David Hawkin's testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs hearing on the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997 (bill S.981)

RiskWorld news article "Regulatory Reform Bill Requires Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis" published June 27, 1997

Summary of the Levin-Thompson Regulatory Improvement Act

Statement of U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., on June 27, 1997

Joint Press Release from U.S. Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., and U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

Posted September 16, 1997.

Go to:

Copyright © 1997 by Tec-Com Inc.