Lamar Smith: “I oppose the amendment. The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major regulations. These include…”

“I oppose the amendment. The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air. In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully implement Congress' intent. A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio. Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of hazardous air pollution. Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time. When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board. In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major rule. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. The CHAIR.…”