Join
Search

Portman’s Proposals Would Endanger Both Science and Citizens

Bookmark and Share

As expressed in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) clearly sees little value in regulation, and generally fails to consider the benefits of public safeguards or their necessity when it comes to protecting us from food-borne illnesses, economic meltdowns, and lead-laden toys. He has launched his anti-regulatory campaign despite the fact that economists respected by both liberals and conservatives have concluded that regulations’ impact on job creation may be mildly positive because they tend to spur innovation.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has been the lead architect for numerous bills that would upend our regulatory system. Photo: Sen. Portman’s office.

Sen. Portman has been the chief architect and major cheerleader for a number of legislative proposals that would upend a system that permits agencies to use the best available science to issue rules that protect us from dirty air, unsafe workplaces, tainted drugs, and contaminated food.

The legislation he proposes does this by erecting more and more hurdles for resource-starved agencies to negotiate the already complicated rulemaking process, giving deep-pocketed special interests that want lax rules even more influence than they have now.

His current proposal is the Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act. While it sounds pretty wonky and harmless, it carries a potent punch and is very complex. The bill was just introduced late this summer. Co-sponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Warner (D-VA), the Act focuses on independent agencies that include the National Science Foundation, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A rushed vote

But despite the bill’s intricacy, and very serious implications, it’s being rushed to a vote.  A powerful Senate committee chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) may consider the bill as early as November 15.

U.S. Capitol

It is important to keep in mind that Congress created independent agencies to prevent political interference from the White House. Photo: Flickr User geetarchurchy

The consequences for public safety are significant. For example, the NRC would have a much more difficult time writing rules that would ensure that nuclear power plants operate safely in all circumstances, including earthquakes. That’s because this bill would give the President unprecedented authority to require this independent agency to submit its rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget. If the White House disagreed with the way the NRC was considering the costs and benefits of a proposed rule, or thought that the agency hadn’t considered enough business-friendly alternatives, that criticism would be part of the public record. Any company could use that critique to try to fight a critical safeguard in court.

Why does it matter whether one Senate committee votes on the Portman-Collins-Warner proposal? That key vote could well open the door to lame-duck shenanigans that permit the Portman-Collins-Warner bill to be added to a must-pass bill in the dead of night.

And it is not likely that foes of regulation will be content with passage of this bill, which affects only independent agencies. Last year, Sen. Portman proposed the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would upend 65 years of administrative process. Executive branch agencies would be required to adopt the least costly rule, not the most protective rule, overriding bipartisan laws—such as the Clean Air Act. They would  face many more procedural hurdles before they could implement substantive public protections, and more challenges in defending these protections if sued.

Here’s how the current system works. Congress, after much debate and informed by the desires of their constituents, passes laws. The laws give agencies their marching orders – keep our air clean and our water drinkable; protect us from unsafe food, drugs and consumer products; and prevent nuclear accidents. Based on those broad mandates in law, agencies use the best available science to create the rules to implement them.

The regulatory process gives any company or other stakeholder affected by any rule the chance to see and comment on proposed rules, to ask for changes, and to suggest alternatives. Agencies generally consider the cost and benefits of regulations as well. Small businesses get special consideration.

Rockland Drop-Slide Crib

These cribs were recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission earlier this year. Photo: Flickr User USCPSC

Far from perfect

This system is far from perfect. Too many rules are delayed, or are held up when companies sue, or emerge from the regulatory gauntlet too lax to adequately protect public health and safety. There are gaps in rules, and a shortage of resources to enable agencies to do their jobs. If you want a glimpse of just how badly the current system works, and how ill served we are, this recent indictment of our food safety system offers a pretty harrowing description of the dangers of insufficient regulation.

Sen. Portman’s efforts would make the system even worse, tipping the scales even more heavily against American families and in favor of corporate special interests.

Whether it’s food or nuclear power plants, clean air or cribs, safety should come first.  When polled, the American public agrees with that sentiment, however much they may hate the idea of ‘regulation’ in the abstract. We can’t let Sen. Portman, or any other lawmaker, rewrite the rules in a way that makes all of us more vulnerable.

 

Posted in: Scientific Integrity Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About the author: Celia Wexler is a senior Washington representative for the Scientific Integrity Initiative at UCS. A former award-winning journalist, Wexler is the author of Out of the News: Former Journalists Discuss a Profession in Crisis, published in 2012 by McFarland. At UCS, Wexler’s issue portfolio includes food and drug safety, protections for scientist whistleblowers, and government transparency and accountability. See Celia's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Comments are closed. Comments are automatically closed after two weeks.

13 Responses

  1. Inez says:

    At 81 years of age I am dismayed to think that the restrictions/priorities to safeguard ourlives against elements destructive to our HEALTH. AREN’T THE SPONSORS CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR OFFSPRINGS? We are a nation of rules and laws to protect us from harm. I like it that way!

  2. Harold Brown says:

    Regulations are important for the safety and well-being of people, animals and our environment. We cannot simply hope that corporations will make the right decisions as is so often the case, they put profits first, and the welfare of people and the environment either last or not on the list at all.

  3. Dan says:

    Why isn’t there an email fashioned to send to Congress to express our concerns regarding this issue? Adequate regulation keeps us safe. Deregulation is for corporate profit.

  4. Barbara Huszagh says:

    Independence of thought and decision-making, based on the best evidence, is crucial to keeping this country safe and healthy.

    • Celia Wexler says:

      I have been very impressed by the wisdom and passion of the comments over the past two days. The coming weeks and months will be crucial to our advocacy for science-based public protections. It is crucial that your elected officials know how you feel because special interests are telling them daily that they need laxer regulation. Thank you for caring enough to read this blog and to post a comment!

  5. Angela Smith says:

    I think that science and factual content needs to be considered by Congress. Their research has given the outcome of what needs to be accomplished to protect our earth and environment. Many steps need to be taken to protect the air we breath and to protect the food we eat. We need updated structural and infrastructure to many areas including; roads, buildings, bridges, subways and power plants. Congress needs to put their special interests and greed aside for once and protect the people, environment and anything that is within our land and ocean.

  6. Tim McCullough says:

    WE have had enough of this kind of nonsense. If this guy can not understand real science he should be removed from his position. When you are in school and make up your own answers you fail science. Why is it different in the real world or politics?

  7. Juliet Waldron says:

    We must be protected from Gilded Age Style Industry, who don’t care what hazards they leave behind after extracting coal/oil/gas/timber and taking their profits, virtually untaxed. This country cannot afford to become another smog-covered, industrial wasteland like many parts of China, just for the profits of a few. Save America the Beautiful.

  8. Please defeat this bill! PASS THE OBAMA JOBS BILL!

  9. Joseph G. Paquette says:

    I am opposed to Senator Portman’s current proposal of:
    The Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act.

  10. Jim Barry says:

    We have had way too much personal beliefs trumping science for too long. Whether it is rooted in religious beliefs, subjective studies funded by people who would benefit or lose based on the study results, global warning, etc. Science that is not tainted by special interests should be the yardstick for regulation. Look at the obscene amounts of money that poured in during this election as a result of citizens united, big money trying to peddle their influence for their advantage.

  11. Marilyn Hills says:

    This proposed legislation is an indictment of the people and their right to live with clear ability to respond to threats to our air, food and water. Without proper channels to help protect us, the people perish. Who wins what if this were to pass? Is this what you want for your children to have to live under?

  12. Barbara Brandom says:

    We should NOT be going backwards in public health measures.
    Safe food & water are basic human needs. As a physician and a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health I think it is deplorable that the US government could allow business interests to further compromise our food, water & air. The morbidity and the mortality rates in the USA are much worse than many other countries in the world. Why? Because there is in adequate appreciation of what the whole population needs and too much concern for how the rich can get richer. Food, water and air are scare resources that the people need to know are protected by the government