(3 of 5)
UNFUNDED MANDATES This proposal, already passed in somewhat varying forms by the House and Senate, would discourage Washington from imposing rules on state and local governments without also providing the funds needed to comply with those rules. Congress could still pass such an unfunded mandate but only after a sEPArate vote acknowledging that the Federal Government would not be putting up the needed money. The proposal would apply to any new rule, whether it regulated the contents of school lunches or standards for prison construction, but it would hit especially hard at costly environmental regulations. President Clinton, who opposes many provisions of the contract, has agreed in general with this one, declaring, "It's time for Congress to stop passing onto the states the cost of decisions we make here in Washington."
But environmental groups fear that in an era of tight federal budgets, the roadblocks to unfunded mandates will mean no new man-dates at all. One potential ruling that could be stymied would require the treatment of municipal water supplies for Cryptosporidium, a tiny Protozoa that sickened close to 400,000 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993, and has been linked to more than 100 deaths. Milwaukee is voluntarily spending $90 million to protect its water supply against the invader, and scientists are studying the microbe to see if it presents risks to other water supplies. Should they recommend upgrading federal drinking-water standards to ward off further Protozoan disasters, Gingrich's mandate legislation would probably hamper any action-unless, says Jeff Fleming, a spokesman for the Milwaukee mayor's office, "the Federal Government wants to pay for upgrading all the treatment plants."
Will existing mandates be the next targets? Gingrich has proposed that once a month Congress have a "corrective actions" day, on which 20 or 30 provisions of federal laws that have "unintended consequences" could be rescinded or fixed.
RISK ASSESSMENT Is Alar on apples as risky as lead in paint chips? And what about radon, asbestos and second-hand smoke? Critics charge that the EPA focuses too much on threats that pose only tiny risks to the public. For example, under current regulations, the EPA can ban any products containing substances shown to be carcinogens in tests with laboratory animals. University of California chemist Bruce Ames, who developed the standard carcinogen test, notes that more than 500 chemicals found in roasted coffee can cause cancer in rats-if given in large enough doses. "This does not mean that coffee is dangerous," he says, only that the tests are so sensitive that they identify negligible risks.
The contract solution: 23 new hurdles for rulemakers that add up to a complex cost-benefit analysis, which would be reviewed by a panel of nongovernment experts. The panel would decide, using strict criteria, whether a particular health risk was great enough to justify the cost of the regulation. Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, is aghast: "It's going to be a waste of government money, and it's going to make it harder to do anything, even ease up on regulation." But Florida Republican John Mica, author of the leading House risk-assessment bill, is adamant. "If they think I am prEPAred to compromise," he warns, "they're in fantasy land."