Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, April 15, 1994 TAG: 9404160001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By DON L. GARDNER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
They're insisting that a cost-benefit analysis be considered as a basis for EPA rule-making, something that's very unpopular among environmental extremists. We hope this sudden attack of reason isn't a fluke.
The EPA Cabinet bill passed the Senate last year, with overwhelming support for an amendment requiring that new regulations be shown to be cost-effective. Opponents of cost-benefit analysis in the House, unable to muster a coherent case, could only prevail by preventing a vote.
The Rules Committee obliged, disallowing the amendment as ``not germane.'' But 227 House members representing both parties wisely disagreed, refusing to act on the bill.
Thus lawmakers appear to be discovering what ordinary Americans long have known: The nation can no longer afford the unchecked expansion of environmental regulation. Unfunded mandates are crushing states and local governments. Property rights are under siege. And the EPA's record on acid rain, alar, asbestos, dioxin, global warming and radon is slimier than an oil spill.
The very day that common sense visited the House, EPA Administrator Carol Browner targeted chlorine, one of the most basic elements in medicine and manufacturing, as a chemical non grata. Soon after, President Clinton unveiled what environmental activists now tout as the ``Earth Budget'': a proposed 13 percent hike for EPA operations, to $3 billion. It also includes nearly $1 billion for wetlands protection, an increase of 41 percent; $1.8 billion, or 24 percent more for global-warming research; $521 million for ecosystem preservation; and $172 million, a 34 percent increase, for environmental technologies.
All of which makes Vice President Al Gore and his Greenpeace pals happier than a Superfund lawyer. But huge infusions of cash simply cannot redeem policies that overstate risks and exaggerate results. Congress can, and should, quit funding them unless or until their work is proved. Most Americans are willing to contribute their fair share to environmental protection. By opposing a cost-benefit approach, the Clinton administration and Democratic leadership prey like professional con artists on that generous spirit.
Along with action on the budget, Congress is scheduled this session to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, Superfund and the Clean Water Act, regulatory behemoths all. Yet month by month, new bills also are being introduced to restore property rights, stem unfunded mandates, and force EPA and other agencies to justify regulatory costs. Lawmakers now have lots of opportunity to prove they're capable of more than one sensible action.
Don L. Gardner of Huddleston owns his own veterinarian practice.
by CNB