As the 112th Congress convenes, a renewed battle over the role of government in protecting the public is being waged. The battle reflects the decades-old myth that regulations are "job-killers" and that government must either sacrifice jobs to provide public safety or sacrifice lives, health, and environmental quality to protect jobs.

Attacks on Public Protections

Before and since the 2010 midterm elections, opponents of government action have proposed rollbacks of public protections or obstacles to additional protections. For example:

• In July 2010, the Business Roundtable, a coalition of top corporate executives, submitted to the White House a list of laws and regulations that it believes are hurting businesses and that it wants rolled back. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce penned at the same time an open letter to President Obama proposing similar rollbacks. The groups' targets included financial reform, health care laws, greenhouse gas emissions rules, worker health and safety policy, food and auto safety legislation, government contractor responsibility measures, and oil spill prevention rules.
• In July 2010, then-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) endorsed a one-year moratorium on most new regulations. A moratorium "sends a wonderful signal to the private sector that they'll have some breathing room," he said.
• Boehner was one of 69 co-sponsors of H.R. 3765, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2009 (REINS Act), a bill that would require Congress to vote on and approve every new agency rule estimated to have an economic impact (either costs or benefits) of $100 million or more. The act would prohibit agencies from enforcing rules that do not garner congressional approval. This bill is likely to be reintroduced in the new session.
• In September 2010, House Republicans issued "A Pledge to America," which, among other things: 1) proposed to halt new regulations unless Congress approves each one; 2) pledged to impose a prescribed end date for all federal programs (known as "sunsets"); and 3) called for cutting federal spending back to Fiscal Year 2008 levels, which would cut the budgets of federal agencies. (Read OMB Watch's analysis of the Pledge.)
• In December 2010, the soon-to-be-chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), sent letters to more than 150 businesses, business groups, and think tanks requesting that these groups identify existing regulations and regulations under development that they believe hinder job growth.
• In a Jan. 6 Greenwire article (subscription required), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would introduce legislation requiring all federal regulations to expire in six months unless Congress votes to approve the rules. "If the EPA writes a regulation, it expires in six months, unless Congress votes on it and approves it," Paul said in the article.
• On Jan. 7, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) introduced a bill (H.R. 213) that would impose a moratorium of up to two years on all new regulations, making only limited exceptions for emergencies and other issues.

Anti-Regulatory Forces Target EPA's Climate Change Rules

Those acting at the behest of corporate special interests are going after a variety of America's public protections, and environmental regulations are drawing some of the most blatant attacks. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rules are a favorite target of anti-regulatory forces on K Street and in Congress. The agency is legally required to promulgate rules as a result of the U. S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act if EPA found them to be a danger to public health or welfare. EPA made the endangerment finding in December 2009.

EPA has crafted rules to control emissions from mobile sources (vehicles) and is in the process of setting standards for large stationary sources (power plants, oil refineries, and factories, for example), according to an agency press release. Congress has failed to enact climate change legislation, leaving the Obama administration no choice but to seek controls of emissions through regulations.

Congressional proposals to limit EPA's ability to act are being introduced and use a variety of strategies to handcuff the agency. For example, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) proposed last session a bill, S. 3072, to suspend for two years EPA's ability to promulgate greenhouse gas emissions rules on stationary sources. In a Jan. 6 press release, Rockefeller promised to reintroduce his bill in the 112th Congress. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduced a similar measure on Jan. 6, H.R. 199 (text not yet available online).

On Jan. 5, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a bill, H.R. 153 (text not yet available online), that would prohibit EPA from spending money on regulations that limit greenhouse gases. House members are expected to use the appropriations process to defund specific agency actions, as Poe's bill proposes, and to cut budgets for federal agencies (not just EPA) as proposed in the Pledge. Budget cuts place agencies in the difficult position of having to choose among regulatory options mandated by Congress and enforcement programs, leaving some problems unaddressed and major violators held unaccountable.

Also on Jan. 5, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced H.R. 97 (text not yet available online), which would amend the Clean Air Act so that it could not be used as the legal authority under which EPA regulates greenhouse gases.

Jackson, Boxer Defend EPA's Actions; General Public, Small Business Owners Support Climate Change Policies

Defenders of the administration's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions have promised to fight for the EPA’s authority. For example, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in the press release, "We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change … These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home."

On Jan. 6, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, gave a press conference in which she strongly supported environmental laws and promised to vigorously defend the EPA against attacks. According to Boxer's prepared remarks, she said, "Let me send a clear message to Chairman Upton [Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)], the new Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I congratulate him on his new position. And I want to tell him that I will use every tool available to me as Chairman of this Committee and as Senator from California to oppose any legislative effort that threatens the health, or safety, or well-being of the people of America. That includes his desire to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from carrying out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act."

Several 2010 polls show that the American public supports environmental policies including GHG emissions limits. Even polls of small business owners indicate support for climate and energy legislation.