Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has introduced an amendment to the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act (H.R. 2419) which would add another analytical burden to the regulatory process. Bond's amendment would require federal agencies to perform additional impact analyses on any rules that may affect a "substantial number of agricultural entities." Because of the way the amendment is written, this designation could apply to almost any business or even entire industries.

In addition to the analytical requirements, the amendment would force EPA and the Department of the Interior (two big environmental regulatory agencies) to convene special panels of agricultural industry representatives who would be allowed to review and edit rules before they are released to the public.

For more information, see a factsheet OMB Watch has sent to all Senate members. Ultimately, the amendment could further slow the rulemaking process and give industry representatives yet another opportunity to alter public policy.

The Senate may consider Bond's amendment as early as this afternoon. Call your senators and tell them to oppose Bond amendment 3771. Senate office phone numbers: senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Update on the Bond Amendment

Reg•Watch often complains about the flaws of cost-benefit analysis and the overemphasis policy makers place on it as a tool in decision making. However, when discussing cost-benefit analysis in the abstract, it is difficult to show the practical problems associated with its use.

For a case example showing just how problematic cost-benefit analysis can be, read OMB Watch's new analysis, Polluted Logic: How EPA's ozone standard illustrates the flaws of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision making.

Polluted Logic tracks EPA's current revision of the national standard for ozone and shows how the use of cost-benefit analysis in the rulemaking has been useless to policy makers and has only complicated the debate over whether to tighten the standard.

As the paper discusses, EPA's ozone standard serves as a case example of some of the big problems with cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision making:

• Cost-benefit analysis is problematic for health, environment, civil rights, and safety rulemakings because of the magnitude of intangible and invaluable benefits;
• Cost-benefit analysis often runs counter to congressional intent expressed in federal law; and
• Cost-benefit analysis allows the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to manipulate regulations to serve an intended ideological agenda.

Download the paper here: Polluted Logic: How EPA's ozone standard illustrates the flaws of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision making.