January 31, 2001 After eight years of doing battle with the Clinton administration – which frequently backed stronger protections for public health, safety, and the environment – business interests see an opportunity to roll back the clock with President George W. Bush. As reported in the Washington Post, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have been busy drawing up a list of existing standards for Bush to rescind, as well as regulatory “reform” proposals they would like implemented. Unfortunately, President Bush (whose campaign relied heavily on corporate contributions) appears to be listening. Just recently, for instance, Bush seized on California’s energy crisis as an opportunity to make the case for relaxing environmental standards (even though this is likely to have very little impact on the problem at hand). And in nominating Paul O’Neil as Treasury Secretary several weeks ago, Bush argued that “regulatory relief” is essential for economic stimulus. In pursuing this agenda, attacks on public health, safety, and the environment are likely to come in a number of different ways. Specifically, this includes:

• Abandoning unfinished work from the Clinton administration. In one of the very first actions of the new administration, President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, issued a memorandum temporarily halting agency regulatory activity – effectively blocking last-minute actions by the outgoing administration. Among the blocked rules, for instance, was a requirement for producers of hot dogs and other ready-to-eat meats to conduct periodic testing for listeria bacteria, which sickened 100 people and killed 21 others during an outbreak several years ago. This standard, and others like it, may now be scrapped at the urging of affected industry. Moreover, the new administration must decide how to handle ongoing rulemakings and proposed rules that still need to be finalized. For instance, OSHA has proposed a standard on tuberculosis in the workplace, and EPA recently proposed new requirements to upgrade many older power plants and industrial facilities with new pollution control equipment. It will be up to the Bush administration to carry this work forward and issue final standards. Will it happen? If the business lobby has its way, the answer is no.
• The roll back of existing protections for health, safety, and the environment. The new administration is currently in the process of reviewing major Clinton-era standards, and Bush aides have said publicly that many may be rescinded. Likely targets of the Bush administration include: 1997 clean air standards to clamp down on smog (ozone) and soot (particulate matter); a recent EPA rule to curb pollution from diesel fuel used by heavy-duty trucks and buses; a new ergonomics rule to prevent repetitive motion injuries on the job; and a recently-finalized rule requiring federal procurement officers to consider past law-breaking by prospective contractors – including violations of health, safety, and environmental rules.
• A more aggressive OMB. All agency rules are subject to OMB review under executive order and must be approved before they can take effect. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, OMB used this review authority to routinely involve itself in substantively shaping rules protecting public health, safety, and the environment – often making them less protective at the urging of affected industry – even though it had no statutory authority and lacked the substantive expertise to do so. Frequently, rules would languish at OMB pending approval, often for years with little or no explanation. Upon taking office, President Clinton responded to this problem with Executive Order 12866, which put in place a time-frame of 90 days for OMB reviews and required new disclosure to help the public understand OMB actions. Unfortunately, E.O. 12866 is likely to be revoked and redone by President Bush. This could mean new powers for OMB – reminiscent of the previous Bush administration – and one big barrier for new health, safety, and environmental protections.
• A new Quayle Council. The previous Bush administration created the Council on Competitiveness – headed by Vice President Quayle – to further monitor agency rulemakings. The Quayle Council frequently injected itself into agency rulemakings and regulatory reviews at OMB in a constant effort to weaken regulatory protections. In this way, the Council – which unlike the agencies, did not have to disclose any of its dealings – acted as a backdoor conduit for special interests seeking to stop agency action, out of public view. Upon taking office, President Clinton immediately terminated the Council on Competitiveness, but Bush may now resurrect a new version of it.
• Emphasis on costs to business in the rulemaking process. President Bush will attempt to elevate cost considerations in rulemaking decisions. Statutes instructing a health-based approach to rulemaking are likely to be largely ignored, as they were in the previous Bush and Reagan administrations. Moreover, Clinton’s E.O. 12866, which requires agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis of all major rules, is likely to be redone to put a greater emphasis on monetization. Since benefits are often difficult to put in terms of dollars and cents, monetization inevitably has the effect of deflating benefits relative to costs. With benefits understated and costs overstated, the process is inevitably biased in favor of inaction. No doubt a Bush administration will use such cost-benefit analysis to justify its failure to address health, safety, and environmental problems, as well as its willingness to toe the industry line.
• Lax enforcement of public protections. In Texas, Bush put an emphasis on “voluntary compliance” programs. These programs have generally been regarded as a failure, yet the president has persisted in defending them. Given this philosophy, enforcement of public protections – which is currently inadequate – is likely to wane even further. In the past, enforcement has received very little attention by the public interest community, the media, and Congress. This is likely to further encourage Bush to see lax enforcement as a convenient way to defang health, safety, and environmental protections without having to pay a heavy political price.

It is important to note that the Bush administration will not have to worry about congressional oversight, which was instrumental in bringing accountability to the earlier Reagan and Bush administrations. Unlike the 1980s, neither house of Congress is controlled by the opposite party. This lack of congressional oversight may embolden the Bush administration in pursuing “regulatory relief.” As a result, the public interest community will need to put much more emphasis on research and monitoring, as well as the use of the news media, to hold the executive branch accountable.