Skip to main content

tv   Panel Discussions about the Trump Administration Federal Deregulation  CSPAN  June 26, 2018 1:36am-3:36am EDT

1:36 am
the max good afternoon and the director and general counsel at consumer federation of america i also the body team of the coalition and this afternoons panel will focus on the deregulation of federal agencies specifically what types of deregulatory efforts are happening federal agencies right now? how are these efforts undertaken and how can we believe the regulatory system that protects workers in environment and consumers for
1:37 am
example most effectively challenge the deregulatory effort. our panel includes and i cannot do justice to the panel amazing accomplishment but i will very briefly describe what they are currently doing but it is an incredible honor to be on the panel with them. first the professor from law at georgetown univ and inexpert environmental and administrative law and next the 30 year veteran who is former director of science and technology epa office of water in the near economist and director of policy as economic policy institute and former chief economist at the department of labor so how we run the panel this afternoon we will have them introduce
1:38 am
themselves and provide the initial framing with their perspective then we have a number of questions that we will discuss so first professor? >> it is wonderful to be in such a crowded room at lunchtime talking about regulation. [laughter] we already heard from senator ward about deregulation so my message isn't surprising that the deregulatory administration comes from the top down. i'm sure you know president trump has issued dozens of executive orders and presidential memoranda and many of the
1:39 am
1:40 am
>> to alleviate the problem for the current fiscal year the omb and the agency's regulatory budget that is zero or negative years for agencies to make the amount of money will take to pay for new regulations and it will take years partly because the cost from any rollback so far are not very substantial what the executive order really does is shut down regulation even
1:41 am
while there is a surplus it is not yet certain. in addition under executive order a reduction of regulatory cost is considered a success no matter how dearly we pay for that with benefit agencies are frequently cited this order as a reason for their deregulation but executive orders do not change the statute under which agency operates the president cannot change statute that is for congress so agencies that try to undo existing regulation by referencing the executive order could find themselves in legal trouble a fixation on regulatory cost alone does affect the legislative choices if congress cares only about regulatory costs it would not
1:42 am
pass regulatory statutes. now omb also is perceived to be in compliance with the executive order but yet omb report to conclude that it paved its way with benefits that it produces and the epa benefit in particularly well to do this type of analysis they pay more in benefits and costs to industry and as we just heard that epa has the most romantic changes in this administration. in addition the office within omb office of information regulatory affairs has allowed regulatory proposals to pass the approval process with very little analysis essentially know how analysis are little
1:43 am
attention to any factual record or the benefits of regulation very little to the underlying statute even since president reagan was in office the information regulatory affairs has been in the white house in our protection against government irrationality we need control of the agency to prevent the president from doing foolish things and for years we thought was the office of information does this wart ambitious program by agencies that are following the statute congress has passed but now it turns out this is come full circle now information regulatory affairs is exposed it is simply an office that
1:44 am
stops regulation even without considering the consequences of what it is doing. thank you. [applause] now we will go to the end as i as i thank you. we will get the question and answer we can talk about the repeal specifically but now i will just give you an overview right now scott pruitt has already processed 56 public health and safety repeal and each one of those 66 he talks only to his political donors and industry and agribusiness without any fun epa scientists engineers or economists report states between eight and ten years to develop for further without any evidence that
1:45 am
those rules had any technical or procedural law to require a repeal. we do do voluntary reman however the way he justifies his repeal and in particular ones under executive order under tom just arbitrarily goes into change and reduces or deletes the monetized benefit of the rules developed. so he can say that rationale was that the cost far exceed the benefits that is the rationale and furthermore trumps office of management and edges just published in january a review of all of the federal regulations not just pa but we were a good portion
1:46 am
all of the regulation from 2006 through 2016 and what they need term and is the benefits before they were arbitrarily changed or deleted they far exceeded the cost of all those regulation and furthermore there was no effect on jobs or economic growth report that just came out but despite that he will keep that false narrative so we will continue with a 66 repeal that pa without getting into each individual who will give you three main impacts for each one number one, abandoned the principle that undermine every environmental statute transferring the cost of dealing with the pollutants
1:47 am
the companies are discharging to the downwind or downstream public either have to with that contamination or find some way to pay for the cleanup of the air water land in there the end this makes absolutely no economic sense because it is well-documented the cost of treating out the source is always less than treating those commuting once dispersed into the environment. impact number two as it ensures that communities will be exposed to ongoing pollution that would have been prevented back in 2015 or 2016 and i can i can assure you there is a much higher chance today of an environmental crisis with public health
1:48 am
implications because so many rules are under repeal right now but if you realize the process we have to go through, we have to wait four years for pruitt to finalize the repeal and then wait for those environmental groups to litigate so probably 2024 before they will all be put back i am convinced they will be put back even the omb has said there is no rationale for these repeals other than the fact to promote a false narrative in the result benefit the third and final impact is it has eliminated regulatory scrutiny actually. life the company that come into compliance with these rules that have been on the
1:49 am
books and reward the recalcitrant companies that use their resources to argue for exceptions or to litigate. that is it for me now i pass it on to the labor department and i thank you so much max thank you for inviting me to be here this incredibly important event the backdrop of this conversation is heated rhetoric from the administration and majorities in congress saying regulations are costly and destroying the economy and jobs that is not the real backdrop is that is so at odds with the evidence and if you look at the evidence on the impact of federal regulations on the economy, it shows benefits minus costs are positive so
1:50 am
for example there was the office of management and budget looked at regulations promulgated under the obama administration and net benefits were over $100 billion billion dollars per year those numbers are consistent with other reports looking at major regulations between 202010 and 2010 and benefits for seven times the cost and all that evidence is more significant when you take into account there is other evidence that shows cost is typically overestimated with the cost-benefit analysis and many of the benefits were not even monetize like, just that were to have a healthy workplace that they don't fit
1:51 am
in that the cost is always monetized to say i know how much it costs to buy this safety equipment they are more concrete so that is the effect on net benefits if you look at the impact of federal regulations on jobs will find they have essentially no effect on the aggregate numbers of jobs in the economy and the keyword is aggregate because you will see some results but pass the regulation to outlaw what i think because lead poisoning is incredibly serious or fatal for children we don't want med pay out there we have the regulation you promulgate the rule that eliminates lead paint jobs were lost in the lead paint industry but jobs are being for alternatives in the research shows they
1:52 am
typically offset each other and it doesn't have an impact on the overall number of jobs. that is what research shows the economic impact thatou have the trump administrion majority in congress right now engaging in the unprecedented attack on regulation and my area is worker protection so i will just tick down the things that are happening that most of them met department of labor also at pa and usda but i will go through a few of these. to give you a sense of what is going on. rolling back the rule that requires lawyers to keep accurate records of injuries and illnesses for five years it gives them get out of jail free card for businesses that don't feed crucial workplace safety record proposing to go back provision of tax
1:53 am
proposing a rule that usda increase hogs water volume fees in the meat producing industry repacking industry is already one of the most dangerous industries this isn't just bad for workers but also animal welfare and food safety rule to weaken regulations protecting farmworkers from pesticides taking money out of 41st pockets to abandon a rule to increase the threshold below which all workers could not be denied overtime pay working more than 40 hours a week holding back transparency to allow workers to know if there employer had hired a unionbusting during a union election with the safer place rule that would have made it or help ensure that federal
1:54 am
contractors and taxpayer dollars were not going to federal contractors who have a history of time and proposing a rule to make it legal for employers to take workers this had an interesting outcome different than the others from a huge amount of pressure during that process to come to the table to compromise which they did because it was revealed that they had conducted the required costs benefit analysis but they buried it when it showed that analysis that it would've been terrible for workers so when all of that came out they were quick to compromise that was a good outcome and then what i
1:55 am
will end up with no the freeing regulatory agenda shows there is a plan proposal to make it easier for 16 and 17 -year-olds to work in high-risk occupations job growth has been very strong economy the last seven and a half years including notably during the period when many of the regulations now taken down were implemented. wage growth remains weak and inequality is rising week wage growth cannot be attributed to regulations it got way worse during reagan and bush years over the last four and a half decades is the only. with the median worker saw a beam was the clinton administration wage growth over the last one half decades
1:56 am
is the result of our policy on font to shift leverage away from the low middle workers and majorities really did want to help create an economy for everyone instead of everybody that was asked they would not pass regulations but instead tackle the policies share prosperity putting policies that support good jobs and i thank you so much. now to build on that what the regulatory efforts are you observing at the agency you follow? so what are other concrete examples of what you are observing now?
1:57 am
>> what i follow the most in one of the things i am struck by beyond the individual are the things that epa is doing to undermine the ability to regulate teachers and not only with the same powerplant or their full backup car standards to save everybody money that we have proposals what the epa can consider that the office of management and budget right now having to do with cost-benefit analysis so there are these proposals the agency is putting in place virtually. we will limit the litigant future in the agency. >> i work with a group of people that work with the
1:58 am
congressional subcommittees all the time they try to think of a good analogy but they are following the big tobacco strategy to the t that there is a four step process. number one hide all the studies that there are health effects and that is the new science trend transparency where epa according to the proposed rule would not be alive to you any studies unless patient confidentiality is fully waived and that will never happen ladies and gentlemen number two you hire bogus experts for the scien that is out there because you cannot control it and that is what he did basically replace renowned university scientists
1:59 am
on all of our panels and replace them with industry and state scientists to our well-known open advocates to get rid of environmental regulation. number three to discredit anyone who criticizes your action and that is what the taxpayer-funded epa does it remove those about public hearings or public information from the epa or people like myself take out and actually in the office of the administrator resulted in five or six or seven people to other people in the agency play cannot raise issues and then death number four is in litigation drained resources and that is what pruitt did
2:00 am
you say i will sue and settle acting as if it was a terrible thing but we did learn those mandatory mp -- epa was required to act in 90 days without his nine years later so settling in that case is far preferable than going to court that they want to go to court but again he planned to drain their resources so there will not be litigation resources available to tackle his appeal.
2:01 am
2:02 am
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
2:22 am
2:23 am
2:24 am
2:25 am
2:26 am
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am
2:30 am
2:31 am
2:32 am
2:33 am
2:34 am
2:35 am
2:36 am
2:37 am
2:38 am
2:39 am
2:40 am
2:41 am
2:42 am
2:43 am
2:44 am
2:45 am
2:46 am
2:47 am
2:48 am
2:49 am
2:50 am
2:51 am
2:52 am
2:53 am
2:54 am
2:55 am
2:56 am
2:57 am
2:58 am
2:59 am
3:00 am
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
washington journal continues. host: joining us, taught harrison, the defense budget analysis director for the center for strategic and international studies, to talk about the call by the president for a space force. what does the president envisioned by the space force, and why do you think his call comes now? caller: he is talking -- guest:

1 View

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on