National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Milton Friedman once said that if you give the Federal Government control of the Sahara Desert, within 5 years there will be a shortage of sand. I tend to agree, and it worries me anytime a consensus builds to federalize anything.

I have spent the last week reading this bill, this sweeping Federal takeover of chemical regulations, and I am now more worried than I was before I read the bill. Most worrisome, beyond the specifics, is the creeping infestation of the business community with the idea that the argument is no longer about minimizing regulations but about making regulations regular. Businesses seem to just want uniformity of regulation as opposed to minimization of regulation.

A good analogy is that of how businesses respond to malingerers who fake slip-and-fall injuries. Some businesses choose to limit expenses by just paying out small amounts, but some brave businesses choose to legally defend themselves against all nuisance claims. Federalizing the chemical regulations is like settling with the slip-and-fall malingerers and hoping he or she will keep their extortion at a reasonable level.

In the process, though, we have abandoned principle. We will have given up the State laboratories where economic success and regulatory restraint are aligned. It is no accident that regulatory restraint occurs in States that host chemical companies and ensures that State legislatures will be well aware that the economic impact of overbearing regulation will be felt in their State. As a consequence, there is a back-and-forth and consideration both of the environment and health of the economy.

Federalization of regulations separates the people who benefit from a successful chemical industry from the unelected bureaucrats who will write the regulations. Once you sever the ties, once there is no incentive, once nobody cares about the jobs anymore, the tendency is to regulate and to overregulate. Once that tie is severed, the joint incentive to minimize regulation is lost. In fact, this legislation explicitly bans the consideration of a regulation's economic cost when deciding whether chemicals will be put into a high-risk category. Once a chemical has been labeled ``high risk,'' the legal liability and stigma that will attach will effectively ban the substance without the effect on the economy ever being considered. Regardless of what the final regulations actually say, the subsequent public reaction and lawsuits will have the effect of driving the chemical out of the market if it is considered to be a high-risk chemical.

If we are to ignore the cost of regulations, if we are to ignore the relationship between regulations and job loss, there is basically no limit to the fervor and ferocity that will be unleashed by bureaucrats whose perpetual mandate is to regulate.

I always thought we needed more balance, not less, in deciding on new regulations. I always thought we should balance the environment and the economy. Instead of balancing the economic effects and the environmental effects, this bill explicitly says to regulators that their goal is to regulate, period. This bill explicitly states that the economic impact of regulations is only considered after the EPA has decided to regulate, after a substance has been categorized as high risk. Is this really the best we can do?

Sometimes I wonder if we deserve the government we get. When the business community gets together and seeks Federal regulations, I wonder: Have they not paid any attention to what is going on in Washington? Are they unaware of the devastating explosion of Federal regulations? Are they unaware that today's overbearing regulations were yesterday's benign advisories? Everything starts out nice and easy: We are not going to overregulate you. But it never goes down; it always ratchets up. Are they unaware that the most benign and well-intended regulations of the 1970s are now written and rewritten by a President mad with regulatory zeal?

For those who are unaware of the devastation the EPA has wreaked upon our people, I request that you come and visit us in Eastern Kentucky. Come and visit us in West Virginia. The EPA's War on Coal has spread a trail of despair amongst a proud people. Many of these counties have unemployment over twice the national average.

The regulations that are crippling and destroying our jobs in Kentucky were not passed by Congress; these job-killing regulations are monsters that emerged from the toxic swamp of Big Government bureaucrats at the EPA. The Obama-Clinton War on Coal largely came from regulations that were extensions of seemingly bland, well-intended laws in the early 1970s, laws like the Clean Water Act that were well- intended, legislating that you can't discharge pollutants into a navigable stream. I am for that, but somehow the courts and the bureaucrats came to decide that dirt was a pollutant and your backyard might have a nexus to a puddle that has a nexus to a ditch that was frequented by a migratory bird that once flew from the Great Lakes, so your backyard is the same as the Great Lakes now. It has become obscene and absurd, but it was all from well-intentioned, reasonable regulations that have gotten out of control. Now the EPA can jail you for putting dirt on your own land. Robert Lucas was given 10 years in prison for putting dirt on his own land.

Now, since that craziness has infected the EPA, we now have the Feds asserting regulatory control over the majority of the land in the States.

Will the Federal takeover of the chemical regulations eventually morph into a war on chemical companies, similar to what happened to the coal industry? I don't know, but it concerns me enough to examine the bill closely.

Anytime we are told that everyone is for something, anytime we are told that we should stand aside and not challenge the status quo, I become suspicious that it is precisely the time someone needs to look very closely at what is happening.

I also worry about Federal laws that preempt State laws. Admittedly, sometimes States, such as California, go overboard and they regulate businesses out of existence or at least chase them to another State. However, California's excess is Texas's benefit.

I grew up along the Texas coast. Many of my family members work in the chemical industry. Texas has become a haven because of its location and its reasonable regulations.

Because Texas and Louisiana have such a mutually beneficial relationship with the chemical industry, it is hard to imagine a time when the Texas or the Louisiana Legislature would vote to overregulate or to ignore the cost of new regulations. It is not in their best interest. But it is much easier to imagine a time when 47 other States gang up on Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma to ratchet up a Federal regulatory regime to the point at which it chokes and suffocates businesses and their jobs. Think it can't happen? Come and visit me in Kentucky. Come and see the devastation. Come and see the unemployment that has come from EPA's overzealous regulation.

How can it be that the very businesses that face this threat support this bill, support the federalization of regulation? I am sure they are sincere. They want uniformity and predictability--admirable desires. They don't want the national standard of regulations to devolve to the worst standard of regulations. California regulators--yes, I am talking about you. Yet the bill before us grandfathers in California's overbearing regulations. It only prevents them from getting worse.

But everyone must realize that this bill also preempts friendly States, such as Texas and Louisiana, from continuing to be friendly States. As Federal regulations gradually or quickly grow, Texas and Louisiana will no longer be able to veto the excesses of Washington. Regulations that would never pass the Texas or Louisiana State Legislature will see limited opposition in Washington. Don't believe me? Come and see me in Kentucky and see the devastation the EPA has wrought in my State.

So why in the world would businesses come to Washington and want to be regulated? Nothing perplexes me more or makes me madder than when businesses come to Washington to lobby for regulations. Unfortunately, it is becoming the norm, not the exception. Lately, the call to federalize regulations has become a cottage industry for companies to come to Washington and beg for Federal regulations to supersede troublesome State regulations. It seems like every day businesses come to my office to complain about regulatory abuse, and then they come back later in the day and say: Oh, and by the way, can you vote for Federal regulations on my business because the State regulations are killing me? But then a few years later, they come back--the same businesses--and they complain that the regulatory agencies are ratcheting up the regulations.

Food distributors clamor for Federal regulations on labeling. Restaurants advocate for national menu standards. Now that we have Federal standards, lo and behold, we also have Federal menu crimes. You can be imprisoned in America for posting the wrong calorie count on your menu. I am not making this up. You can be put in prison for putting down the wrong calorie count. We have to be wary of giving more power to the Federal legislature.

With this bill, chemical companies lobby for Federal regulations to preempt State legislation. None of them seem concerned that the Federal regulations will preempt not only aggressive regulatory States, such as California, but also market-oriented States, friendly States, such as Texas and Louisiana. So the less onerous Federal regulations may initially preempt overly zealous regulatory States, but when the Federal regulations evolve into a more onerous standard, which they always have, there will no longer be any State laboratories left to exercise freedom. Texas and Louisiana will no longer be free to host chemical companies as the Federal agencies ratchet higher.

Proponents of the bill will say: Well, Texas and Louisiana can opt out; there is a waiver. Guess who has to approve the waiver. The head of the EPA. Anybody know of a recent head of the EPA friendly to business who will give them a waiver on a Federal regulation? It won't work.

The pro-regulation business community argues that they are being overwhelmed by State regulations, and I don't disagree. But what can be done short of federalizing regulations? What about charging more in the States that have the costly regulations? In Vermont, they have mandated GMO labeling, which will cost a fortune. Either quit selling to them or jack up the price to make them pay for the labeling. Do you think the Socialists in Vermont might reconsider their laws if they have to pay $2 more for a Coke or for a Pepsi to pay for the absurd labeling?

What could chemical companies do to fight overzealous regulatory States? What they already do--move to friendly States. If California inappropriately regulates your chemicals, charge them more and by all means, move. Get the heck out of California. Come to Kentucky. We would love to have your business.

What these businesses that favor federalization of regulation fail to understand is that the history of Federal regulations is a dismal one. Well-intended, limited regulations morph into ill-willed, expansive, and intrusive regulations. What these businesses fail to grasp is that while States like California and Vermont may pass burdensome, expensive regulations, other States, like Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, are relative havens for business. When businesses plead for Federal regulations to supersede ill-conceived regulations in California and Vermont, they fail to understand that once regulations are centralized, the history of regulations in Washington is only to grow. Just witness regulations in banking and health care. Does anyone remember ever seeing a limited, reasonable Federal standard that stayed limited and reasonable?

It is not new in Washington for businesses to lobby to be regulated. Some hospitals advocated for ObamaCare and now complain that it is bankrupting them. Some small banks advocated for Dodd-Frank regulations, and now they complain the regulators are assaulting them as well.

The bill before us gives the Administrator of the EPA the power to decide at a later date how to and to what extent he or she will regulate the chemical industry. In fact, more than 100 times this bill leaves the discretionary authority to the EPA to make decisions on creating new rules; 100 times it says the Administrator of the EPA shall at a later date decide how to regulate. That is a blank check to the EPA. It is a mistake.

Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many pages of regulations will come from this bill? The current Code of Federal Regulations is 237 volumes and more than 178,000 pages. If ObamaCare is any guide, it will be at least 20 pages of regulations for every page of legislation. Using the ObamaCare standard, this bill will give us nearly 2,000 pages of regulations. ObamaCare was about 1,000 pages. The regulations from ObamaCare have morphed into nearly 20,000 pages. It is not hard to see how this bill, which requires review of more than 85,000 chemicals now on the market, could quickly eclipse that lofty total.

No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA. This is an important point. No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA. No one disputes that this bill transfers power from the States to the Federal Government. The National Journal recognizes and describes this bill as granting extensive new authority to the EPA. If you don't think that is a problem, come to Kentucky and meet the 16,000 people in my State who have lost their jobs because of the overregulatory nature of the EPA. Ask them what they think of Hillary Clinton's plan to continue putting coal miners out of business in my State. Ask them what they think of granting extensive new authority to the EPA. Look these coal miners in the face and tell them to trust you and that your bill will not increase EPA's power. Tell them to trust you.

Is there anything in the recent history of regulatory onslaught that indicates a reasonable Federal standard will remain reasonable? When starting out, everybody says that they are going to preempt these terrible States like California. It is going to preempt California and Vermont and all of these terrible liberal States, and it will be a low level. Business was involved so business has made it a low and easy standard for chemicals. It will be ratcheted up because regulations never get better; they always get worse.

I rise today to oppose granting new power to the EPA. I wish we were here today to do the opposite--to vote to restrain the EPA and make sure that they balance regulations and jobs. I wish we were here today to vote for the REINS Act that requires new regulations to be voted on by Congress before they become enforceable. Instead, this legislation will inevitably add hundreds of new regulations.

I rise today to oppose this bill because it preempts the Constitution's intentions for the Federal Government.

I rise today to oppose this bill because the recent history of the EPA is one that has shown no balance, no quarter, and no concern for thousands of Kentuckians they have put out of work.

I rise today to oppose this bill because I can't in good conscience, as a Kentuckian, vote to make the Federal EPA stronger.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source