The onslaught of air regulations bearing down on the manufacturing sector is having a chilling effect on our economy. Some regulations are mandated by statute, but many have been reopened due to litigation and others are being reconsidered at EPA’s discretion.

Over the past several years, we’ve seen regulations reopened before compliance has even be realized. The soon-to-be final ozone rule is being reissued a full 18 months ahead of the five-year schedule. The Boiler MACT rules were completely redone due to court challenges, as the previous rules were vacated just months before the compliance date and after companies had made compliance investments.

The forest products industry is heavily regulated, and we have worked closely with EPA to strive toward smart regulations that can provide certainty for businesses. These capital investments take years to implement, and they are expected to last for a decade or two.

At the beginning of the year, President Obama issued an Executive Order directing agencies to design their regulations to impose the least burden, taking into account the cumulative costs of regulations. We welcomed that Executive Order in January, and now the country needs to see real action. Unemployment remains north of 9 percent, and like the jobs numbers, the regulatory environment has not improved enough to give businesses the certainty they need to make investments to compete in a global marketplace.

Businesses in the forest products industry, both large and small, employ people. Those people depend on these manufacturing jobs, which are often the highest paying jobs in the community. They employ an array of professionals including scientists, engineers and production workers. If those jobs go away, they likely won’t come back in that community, and that has an even greater ripple effect in many of these rural local economies.

The current “spin-cycle” of regulations must be stopped: Regulations that are vacated, reopened and constructed in a way that, at times, cannot be achieved given the best technology available. To be clear, our industry is not asking for ‘no regulation.’ We are asking for achievable regulation, affordable regulation –regulation that protects the public health while also protecting the ability to maintain and grow manufacturing jobs in America.

The current regulatory system offers wild swings from one direction to the other, court challenges and do-overs. That kind of system does more to lead to no regulation than if we simply set out to craft reasonable regulations to make the necessary improvements and ensure they can be achieved. That kind of regulation could withstand such challenges and provide employers the ability to invest and grow. When businesses are able to compete, they are able to grow and hire more qualified people. Would anyone question that we need more manufacturing jobs in this country?

There is a light shining in the distance, particularly on the Boiler MACT regulation. Democrats and Republicans have come together in both chambers of Congress with legislation that would give EPA the time they told the courts they needed to fix the Boiler MACT rules, and make the necessary corrections to get the rules right. When the court denied EPA the 15-month extension they requested, they said Congress wrote the statute and Congress would have to change it. Thus, Congress is doing its part to provide a pathway for the Boiler MACT rules to be affordable and achievable, allowing environmental protection and job growth to work together. If given the opportunity, businesses will be our best option to keep America working. But if businesses continue to find the regulatory goal posts have been moved, it is the American worker who will be left on the bench.

On behalf of myself and the nearly 400 members of Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations, I would like to thank the experts who commented on this week’s prompt. Constructive dialogues like these that detail the impacts of regulations on various groups—especially small businesses—must be placed on the radar of the administration and lawmakers.

When asked, most small business owners are quick to name one regulation which is unnecessarily hindering their ability to grow and hire. Many offer up more. In this economy more than ever, regulators must carefully weigh the benefits and costs of new regulations. The justification for additional regulations must be based on thorough independent analysis and objective peer review of the quality and integrity of the data.

With your input this week in mind, I intend to continue to bring attention to these important issues with NFIB through Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations. We must continue to bring attention to these issues and protect small businesses and American jobs from the impacts of regulations handed down from Washington.

In our struggling economy there are policies that could help boost employment if anyone cared to do so. Reducing distortionary taxes on work, like the payroll tax; helping workers relocate for jobs; or raising the Earned Income Tax Credit—these are all measures that would help improve the labor market and ultimately cut unemployment.

On the other hand, cutting environmental regulations would do little, if anything, to address the jobs crisis and would cost the American public billions in economic benefits.

Regulations from the Clean Air Act Amendments alone deliver a staggering $1.3 trillion in benefits for the American public per year, with compliance costs of only $53 billion. And that is just one set of environmental rules. Failing to realize these net benefits in exchange for an illusory effect on jobs would be terrible public policy.

Senator Lincoln says we must “ensure these rules aren’t doing more harm than good.” That is exactly the purpose of cost-benefit analysis, which has been central to the system of regulation in the United States since the 1980s. An analysis conducted by OMB found that most recent standards have been cost-benefit justified, meaning they deliver more for the public than businesses pay to comply. Cost-benefit analyses of EPA’s rules in particular produced the same result: the benefits generated massively outweigh the costs.

That doesn’t mean regulations are free—businesses responsible for harming public health will incur some costs. Senator Lincoln cites a study purporting to find that all U.S. regulations combined cost $1.7 trillion. There are several flaws with this study. First, and most importantly, it looks only at costs failing to examine the massive benefits that are generated by public protections. Examining only one side of the ledger is bound to be misleading because we do not see what those investments are buying the American people.

There have also been significant questions raised about the methodology in the report. Sidney A. Shapiro, an administrative law scholar, and the Economic Policy Institute have offered persuasive critiques. Perhaps most troubling is how the report authors use the World Bank’s Regulatory Quality Index (RQI), which the World Bank recognizes is “based exclusively on subjective or perceptions-based data.” From this survey data, the study authors extrapolate U.S. GDP loss due to regulation, a highly problematic conclusion to draw from this extremely limited data. For example, some regulatory benefits may improve GDP, so well-designed rules, even if perceived to be strict, may have small GDP impacts. EPA modeled this effect with its Clean Air Act Amendments rules, finding that, indeed, when benefits were considered, GDP costs were much smaller.

Looking at the benefits of reducing ozone emissions in particular, we see that the proposed regulation could generate major savings for the American public—hospital bills, sick days, and premature death can be avoided thanks to this rule. That can add up to billions annually.

One of industry's main argument against the ozone rule is that many of the avoided early deaths that the EPA includes in its calculation of benefits come from a reduction in soot (or particulate matter) not smog (or ozone). But the reduction of one causes a reduction in the other—they are linked because many of the steps taken to reduce ozone (like cutting fossil fuel consumption) will also reduce soot. Best practices for economic analysis require that these "co-benefits" or "ancillary benefits" be included. Without them, the full scope of what a rule can provide to the public is obscured.

Meanwhile, industry groups are quick to count the indirect costs of doing business when slamming EPA rules as too expensive. But sound economics demands that both negative and positive side effects are considered when evaluating environmental regulations.

In her question, Senator Lincoln says the ozone rule is being pushed forward “under the banner of public health.” The medical research on the connection between smog and reduced lung function and irritated respiratory systems is strong and the link between breathing soot and cardiovascular disease and asthma is extremely strong. Some members of Congress have taken to questioning basic public health science, but presumably Senator Lincoln has not. If we accept the science, then we need to accept that these rules have massive benefits.

If it were important to legislators to get the economy moving again, they have many policy options at their disposal. But cutting back on public health is not one of them—it will not even be a drop in the bucket towards improving economic situation. What it would do is continue to harm the health of our families, costing them serious cash as a result.

As difficult as it may be to fathom, sometimes it seems we just may not all be inhaling the same air. Considering just more than half of the nation is plagued with polluted air that is often too dangerous to breathe, it’s astonishing how anyone would want themselves or even their families to continue to be subjected to such a widespread and preventable threat that steals thousands of American lives each year and causes heart attacks, strokes, worsens lung disease and even impairs children’s lung development.

Contrary to the ideologies shared by some in Congress and big corporate polluters, the majority of everyday Americans want relief from pollution. The American Lung Association’s most recent bi-partisan opinion poll revealed that 75 percent of voters support the EPA setting stricter limits on smog, and a significant majority of voters reject the notion that stronger standards will impede economic recovery, with most believing that updated standards are likely to create more jobs as a result of innovation and investment in new technologies.

The Lung Association has been around for more than 100 years, and we’ve come to learn over the past century that some things never change. Take for example the fear tactics big polluters and their allies trumpet in their never ending cat and mouse game to skirt their public health obligations by employing clever mistruths to avoid or delay legally mandated clean up measures. The economic gloom and doom forecast is decades old. Yet, the truth always reveals itself, reinforcing time and again that clean air is both a win for the economy and public health. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has helped cut toxic emissions by more than 60 percent while the gross domestic product has increased by 209 percent.

We still have a long way to go before we can all breathe clean air. Fortunately, the basic tenants of the Clean Air Act continue to provide the sensible and clear direction needed to secure a healthier future. Most notably, the decision to set air quality standards is to be based on the level that best protects public health. Backed by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, this law says that factors beyond health are not to be taken into account when states and local governments draft pollution reduction plans not before.

Public health is far from receiving adequate protection under the smog standard presently in place. The findings of 22 independent scientists were ignored when the Bush Administration proposed a new ozone standard of 75 ppb back in 2008. Recognizing this standard does not provide adequate public health protection, the EPA has agreed that the Bush standard is legally indefensible. Those of us in the public health community call it deadly.

While it’s disappointing that the current administration has been slow to safeguard public health from ozone pollution, we still firmly believe in the integrity of the Clean Air Act and the ability of the EPA and its scientific advisors to enforce and administer this landmark law accordingly. We urge the President to acknowledge the transparent and ever escalating bullying tactics of polluters by swiftly setting new smog standards at the most protective level of 60 ppb in concurrence with the ample scientific evidence he has been presented.

Continued delay costs the nation between 4,000 and 12,000 lives; 58,000 asthma attacks; and 21,000 hospital and emergency room visits annually. With lives at stake, can we really afford to let polluters continue to have their way?

Life is about trade offs. If you choose more of one thing, you are choosing to get less of something else. Wisdom is about striking a balance. Environmental laws and regulations should reflect these two facts.

Environmental protection has become a strong environmental value in our society. Our laws and regulations need to be modified to reflect that fact instead of continuing the command and control approach that is embedded in laws originally passed four decades ago. Out dated laws produce waste and the process of reauthorization has not lead to bringing them in line with objective realities.

The challenge facing our nation today is continuing the path of environmental progress while restoring the economy to a path of strong economic growth. That will not happen as long as EPA makes decisions without regard to their real cost or economic consequences. The proposed revision to the ozone standard is a case writ large.

Today states, except for California, are treated as implementers of EPA decisions instead of partners in continuing progress on air, water, and waste. That condition needs to change as well.

Balance will be achieved when technology is allowed to evolve instead of being mandated, when real trade-offs are identified along with there costs, when states are given greater responsibility and authority, when real as opposed to hypothetical risks are considered and when Congress takes a more active role in approving major rules that have serious economic consequences.

There are multiple reasons for today's distressed economic conditions. While it would be wrong to put a major part of the blame on environmental regulations, it would be equally wrong and disingenuous to act as if their impact was trivial. Rationalizing our regulatory system could save businesses, the engines of growth, hundreds of billions of dollars that are now essentially wasted.

OK, let’s try again. The way to grow our economy, AND the way to protect our families and our communities, is to focus on the long-term, not the next quarter; to invest in the future, not hold on to the past; and to insist that all businesses pay the full costs of their activities, not dump their bill on their neighbors, the rest of the world, or the future.

Blanche Lincoln laments that regulations are “draining” $1.75 trillion a year from the American economy. How these numbers are arrived at it not clear – for example, what is the “cost” of an FAA regulation establishing minimum distances between planes landing at Kennedy Airport? And does this $1.75 trillion number include the BENEFITS of that regulation, in terms of lives saved, and airspace chaos prevented?

But it’s fascinating that Lincoln focuses on this one number. It purports to be the gross bill for ALL federal regulations, and it sounds like a big number until you take the benefits into account. Yet the last poster on the blog has been Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute. If you want something that really “drains” the American economy, how about Gerard’s main product – imported oil. (Most of our petroleum, of course, is anything but “American.” ) This single product drains out of the United States $300-$500 billion a year, all cost, no gain. That’s a net drain equal to 20-30% of the gross cost of all federal regulations – before considering their benefits. And American businesses, small and large, pay most of this bill. Directly, in higher prices to get their raw material to the plant and their products to market; indirectly, when American households spend money at the gas pump supporting the Saudi or Venezuelan economy instead of their own; and collectively with the impact on our economy of the millions of jobs which have been exported to oil producing nations through our continued dependence on imported oil.

They even pay at tax time, because some of the tax subsidies which the oil industry so fiercely defends are actually subsidies to the Saudi and Venezuelan treasuries! Why aren't we talking about the drain of oil imports, instead of the drain of regulations?

Just this week President Obama issued one of those ferocious, “job killing” environmental regulations – requiring truck manufacturers to give their customers more efficient engines. But engine manufacturers and their customers alike agreed that this regulation was going to save them money in the long term – even though short term is has a price tag. How did a business journal like Bulk Transporter cover the announcement this way: “Trucking industry groups voiced general support for the fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks and other commercial vehicles that were announced August 9 by the Obama Administration….”

And Obama's regulation will make a signfiicant debt in our imported oil bill, and the bottom line of small business, especially those that rely on trucks.

This disconnect, between the practical realities in industry and the sound bites of their hired guns, always responsive to the slowest and least innovative in the pack, is why our economy is in trouble. For decades we have worried about tomorrow, and said that next year would take care of itself. Meanwhile our competitors have looked 10, 15, 25 years ahead and invested in the future.

There’s an interesting lesson from Japan this summer. After a devastating earthquake/tsunami/nuclear debacle, the world’s second largest economy has lost 37 out of its 54 nuclear reactors to either the catastrophe or to post-catastrophe safety-related shut downs. Japan still faces significant long term economic challenges loom from a generating shortfall of this magnitude – but if this happened in the US, the result would make the great Depression would look modest. Yet Japan is already getting more value out of each electron than the US by far – so the long-hanging opportunities to do more with less were plucked long ago.

But in Japan, a results oriented, future focused perspective still dominates – and enables the nation to begin to grow even out of a catastrophe like the earthquake.When 37 nuclear power plants go down, the Japanese start investing in an even more efficient, more competitive future.

So the simple answer to today’s question is, “invest in the future, and don’t cook the books.” The challenge we face is not about federal regulation – it’s about where we put our focus.

(These comments were submitted by Rick Melberth, Director of Regulatory Policy OMB Watch.)

Like most corporate complaints opposing environmental, health, safety, and consumer protections, Blanche Lincoln's attack on EPA regulations is based on myth. First, to read her criticism of EPA, one would think there are no benefits to the congressionally mandated or court-ordered rules EPA pursues. The ozone rule alone has substantial benefits that outweigh its costs, including the prevention of death and illness. Moreover, evidence shows that EPA's environmental regulations have significant health, safety, and economic benefits. And the costs of final rules undertaken by the Obama administration amount to less than 0.1 percent of the economy.

Second, it's clear that Big Business has no qualms about using discredited "facts" to support its myth about the so-called "harms" of regulations. The SBA report and cost figure that Lincoln cites have not only been widely debunked, but the authors themselves have stated that the report should not be used for policy purposes.

Third, the premise that the anti-regulatory argument rests on is also a myth. Regulations have little to no adverse effect on job creation, and some regulations, particularly environmental ones, can have a positive impact on jobs. Even more importantly, if we've learned anything from recent events like the BP oil spill disaster, the Massey mine explosion, and the Wall Street meltdown that destroyed more than 8 million jobs and caused the Great Recession, it's that deregulation has the potential for widespread economic harm.

Lastly, what often gets lost in the debate over regulations is the mission of the agency under attack. In this instance, EPA exists to promote a clean, robust environment that protects the health of all Americans. In order to do this, EPA must be guided by the best available scientific evidence, and it must be allowed to use all of the tools at its disposal. Demanding special favors for special interests corrupts both the process and the mission of the agency, and it does a great disservice to the American public. We, the people, count on agencies like the EPA to ensure that we have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and the knowledge to protect our families and communities from toxic chemicals and other harmful substances.

I’m happy to see so many have joined this week’s forum to comment on the issue of regulatory reform. Whether in favor or opposed, this is a dialogue that needs to be brought to the forefront of the U.S. jobs debate.

Recent monthly jobless claims data indicates the economy continues to shed more jobs than it creates, and financial experts are left scratching their heads. While discussing U.S. economic stagnation, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently admitted, “We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting.” Many large U.S. businesses have witnessed a return to profitability, yet national unemployment remains above nine percent and government revenue continues to fall far short of spending, creating annual deficits.

One factor is that small and independent businesses—those responsible for 2/3 of domestic hiring—are bearing the brunt of the costly regulations being handed down from Washington. Currently, federal regulations are draining nearly 12 percent of U.S. GDP annually. In the past five years alone, more than 220 individual regulations have been flagged as “economically significant”—costing the economy over $100 million. And companies with fewer than 20 employees are forced to spend disproportionate amounts of time and money to comply.

As a former U.S. Senator and Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I saw firsthand the benefits that many regulations had on communities, human health and the environment. But I also witnessed the impacts of overly burdensome and duplicative federal regulations and used my time in office trying to identify and remove these barriers. In continuation of that effort, I am partnering with the National Federation of Independent Business to chair Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations: a multi-year campaign to promote solutions to the steady escalation of costly rules that are delaying economic recovery and job growth.

So I ask: What steps should our leaders take to continue America’s proud legacy of safe work environments, clean water, and clean air while also remaining the land of opportunity?

Just consider these 4 areas in which the administration can work to restore balance to the federal regulatory process:

1. Maximize the quality and integrity of data used to justify new regulations by requiring thorough analysis of any rule’s long-term impacts on jobs, economic growth, and other indirect cost impacts (like the competitiveness of U.S. industries), which can be particularly damaging to small businesses.

2. Remove conflicts of interest by ensuring that federal agency responsible for a new regulation is not the same one assessing its costs and benefits. New rules require rigorous review and robust independent analysis by independent experts outside the federal family.

3. Review existing requirements across the federal government (ie. Federal Advisory Committee Act, OMB Peer Review Bulletin, etc.) to ensure that external review panels are able to take a full and fresh look at all available data underpinning new regulations.

4. Ensure agencies are following the requirements for setting new regulations and standardize how risk is defined—consider establishing an inter-agency committee to define and maintain robust science-based methodologies for risk assessment.

(These comments were submitted by Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.)

There are many reasons why the U.S. economy is doing poorly. A Wall Street-induced housing bubble popped. Wealth and income inequality has skyrocketed. The United States is running chronic trade deficits. Healthcare costs have spiraled out of control. Corporations are stacking up profits yet not putting people to work.

Yes, there are many reasons why the U.S. economy is doing poorly – but the regulatory system is not among them.

In fact, it is regulatory failures – above all, the failure to regulate Wall Street – that led to the current economic crisis.

In this context, it is fanciful to say that America should delay issuance of regulations to facilitate economic growth.

Health, safety, environment, financial and other regulatory protections save lives, reduce illness and make our economy stronger. Less pollution means fewer cases of asthma and lung disease. Safer toys on store shelves means fewer children dying after choking on small parts. Sound mining conditions mean fewer workers dying in coal mines. Financial rules stop banks from ripping off consumers and endangering the stability of the economy.

Why in the world should we wait to strengthen America?

Senator Lincoln references a fanciful claim that regulation costs the United States $1.75 trillion a year. That statistic comes from a study that relies on a regression analysis based on a dubious World Bank index which itself relies on a survey of business leaders. Making matters worse, analysts at the Economic Policy Institute found that the regression analysis was improperly carried out; done properly, the purported correlation between regulation quality and slower growth evaporates. Not for nothing has the White House labeled this study “an urban legend.”

In fact, regulations benefit us far more than they cost. The Office of Management and Budget finds that, from 2000 to 2010, the benefits of major regulations exceeded costs by two to 15 times.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Big Business – now with the apparent assistance of the National Federation of Independent Business – have invented a regulatory crisis. The Wall Street meltdown of 2008 that sent 8 million Americans to the unemployment line, the BP oil spill disaster, the Massey mine explosion, lead toy scandals, salmonella outbreaks – corporate catastrophes all traceable to regulatory failures – remind us that we need stronger, not weaker public safeguards.

President Obama’s renewed focus on job creation is the right move for the administration. However, instead of trying to cajole Congress into approving more stimulus spending, the president should focus on the anti-stimulus effects of his administration’s own regulatory agenda.

From greenhouse gases to boiler standards to ozone to proposed new fuel blend requirements, the EPA continues to move ahead with regulatory proposals whose only outcome will be to discourage industries from growing and creating new jobs. It’s not just the EPA. Nearly half-a-million potential new jobs hang on the State Department’s environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Leaders of the oil and gas industry joined other business organizations in a recent meeting with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to convey our concerns. She listened, but there appears to be no agreement from her on what we hold to be fact: higher regulatory costs and increased uncertainty will keep U.S. industries from growing and hiring.

Regardless of the harm to job creation, the EPA will continue to press forward with its regulatory agenda. At this point, only President Obama has the ability to set a proper balance of environmental regulation and economic growth.

If the president doesn’t take action to slow the EPA’s agenda, there’s little point in pressuring Congress to enact more stimulus measures, as job-killing regulations like the new ozone standards would likely devour any growth

A study by the Manufacturers Alliance estimates that new ozone NAAQS rules would kill as many as 7.3 million jobs by 2020 and cost the economy $1 trillion annually between 2020 and 2030. The EPA’s own numbers show that heightened ozone standards would cost the economy between $19 and $90 billion a year.

It’s confusing why the EPA is pressing forward with these ozone standards when there is no legal or statutory requirement to change the standards now, air quality is improving, and when states and counties – who will be tasked with enforcing these rules – are still trying to meet the 1997 and 2008 standards.

Environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is also positive, but despite three years of review, it still waits for the go-ahead. Not only would the pipeline give our nation enhanced access to the largest oil field outside of Saudi Arabia, it would also support more than 500,000 American jobs.

Our industry provided $476 billion in direct support to the economy in 2010, and has the power to further stimulate the economy moving forward. We share the president’s optimism that our country can grow its workforce once again – all it takes are some common-sense decisions from this administration.

It is outrageous to suggest that during economic hardship the government should put a hold on protecting public health. Standing in the way of the EPA’s ability to finalize and implement new protections would jeopardize the water we drink and air we breathe, endangering the health and well-being of all Americans.

The fact is that the American public overwhelmingly trusts the EPA to enforce public health safeguards. For example, a nationwide poll from the American Lung Association, conducted in June, found that 66 percent of voters believe that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards. Additionally, a CNN poll, conducted immediately after the budget showdown this spring, found that a staggering 71 percent say the federal government should continue to provide financing to the EPA to enforce regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

And after forty years the impacts of the agency’s work could not be clearer.

The Clean Air and Clear Water Acts have effectively protected public health for decades with the EPA’s strict oversight. EPA safeguards have successfully addressed the dangers of acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT, lead and secondhand smoke. The agency has also sought pollution reductions through improvements to the lives of every American. And time after time, the EPA has demonstrated that safeguarding our environment goes hand-in-hand with economic prosperity as all of these actions have spurred innovations that have created countless jobs and saved consumers money.

It is paramount that the EPA be allowed to continue to do its job, especially with regards to its ability to address dangerous pollution and protect public health. After four decades the agency has more than earned our trust and should continue to be trusted to do what it does best: using the best available science to protect the environment and public health, while spurring innovation and holding corporate polluters accountable.

Corporate polluters and their allies in Congress are trying to dismantle the EPA – we cannot let these attacks go unanswered. President Obama and Congress should stand firm in protecting the EPA’s ability to continue to set commonsense limits on pollution and protect public health.

It is important to remember that smog standards exist because smog is dangerous to human health. It causes respiratory illness, cardiac disease, and premature death. Setting a limit on how much smog polluters may release saves thousands of American lives and avoids hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks every year.

It saves money too. The EPA estimates that the new proposed standard for smog will save as much as $37 billion per year in health benefits.

Businesses will incur costs to reduce their ozone pollution, just as they have to pay to haul away garbage, make sure transit fleets don't endanger drivers, and make sure their food products don’t sicken people. These are some of the costs of doing business. In the case of ozone standards, the costs won't kick in for several years, long after the current economic downturn.

But clean air investments yield enormous returns. Clean Air Act standards generated approximately $1.3 trillion in public health and environmental benefits in 2010 alone for a cost of $50 billion. That's a value worth more than 9 percent of GDP for a cost of only .4 percent of GDP. The ratio of benefits to costs is more than 26 to 1.

Americans know it's cheaper to stay healthy than it is to pay for asthma attacks, missed work days, emergency room visits, and hospital stays. That's why a June poll of likely 2012 voters from all parties found that 75 percent support the EPA's effort to set stronger smog standards and 66 percent believe that EPA scientists-not Congress-should establish clean air standards.

Strengthening the standards for smog isn't just popular. It's required by law.

Back in 2008, the Bush EPA adopted ozone standards outside the range unanimously recommended by the EPA's science advisors. As a result, those standards were challenged by more than a dozen states, the American Lung Association, NRDC, and others for being unlawfully harmful to public health.

When the Bush EPA ignored its own science advisors on another air quality standard, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned those standards. Lisa Jackson, the current EPA administrator, wanted to avoid a similar legal fate on ozone. She concluded that the Bush-era ozone rules are "not defensible" under the Clean Air Act, and she committed to creating a legal standard that protects Americans' health.

Critics may paint the new standard as "overreach," but in fact it represents an effort to comply with legal obligations that were delayed, disregarded, or completely defied during the Bush Administration. In 2008, the Bush EPA said that 94 of its Clean Air Act rules were being challenged in court. As of today, 37 of those cases have been decided, and in two-thirds of those cases, the courts overturned the Bush EPA rules because they violated the Clean Air Act, almost all because they weren’t strong enough to protect human health.

Yet when federal courts ordered the EPA to correct its unlawful regulations, the Bush Administration delayed action, allowing the clock to run out on its responsibility. The Obama Administration inherited a list of court orders it is endeavoring to honor.

Tea Party leaders would prefer to ignore these legal obligations. They complain that reducing respiratory disease is too much bother, and they think polluters shouldn't be asked to pay for their mess. But most Americans value fair play. And we know that some things in life-losing weight, saving money, raising good kids-require upfront work. The same goes for cleaning up our air. In the end, these investments lay the foundation for a better life for all of us.

Uncertainty over political policy is the biggest obstacle to companies making the investments and plans necessary for new growth and jobs. Consistent implementation of regulatory rules and clearly defined options for compliance can actually help companies make investments in innovative new technologies, if it reflects political commitment to national goals. The Renewable Fuel Standard provides an illustrative example.

The EPA made clear in its rulemaking that the RFS should incentivize the advanced biofuels industry to grow according to Congressionally established goals – namely to increase U.S. energy security, reduce reliance on imported oil, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. EPA has been consistent in its implementation of the RFS since the program started, making it possible for U.S. companies to invest in needed new technology.

This consistency provides a clear signal that if companies can produce advanced biofuels at a competitive price, the market will be open for them. This is vital for opening up a fuel market dominated by petroleum. And it has supported investment in research and development by advanced biofuels companies.

While setting appropriately aggressive goals for production of advanced biofuels, Congress and EPA recognized that the risks of investment in new technology could affect price and availability of new biofuels. The RFS therefore contains a mechanism to adjust the cellulosic biofuel standard to the level achievable by producers as well as a credit that gives obligated parties an alternate means of compliance. BIO’s recent white paper shows how this mechanism provides certainty for both biofuel producers and refiners and blenders who are obligated to meet the regulations.

Congress and EPA established a clear statutory formula for calculating the price of the waiver credit option, and the price is set each November for the upcoming compliance year. Further, EPA provides real-time information to companies throughout the year on the market prices for advanced biofuels, allowing obligated parties to calculate the costs of both compliance options. Advanced biofuel producers in turn can calculate the price at which their product will compete with the alternative compliance options.

Investment in advanced biofuel production was slowed by the economic recession in 2007 and 2008. Continued commitment to the goals of the RFS is vital to restarting investment in this industry.

Investment in biotechnology for cleaner fuels, energy and manufacturing processes can generate economic growth and create far more new jobs than rolling back environmental regulations. Reports from the World Economic Forum and the WWF demonstrate the potential for economic growth in a biobased economy.

(These comments were submitted by Rena Steinzor, President of the Center for Progressive Reform and professor at the University of Maryland School of Law.)

Is preventing 6000 to 12000 deaths each year really that important? What about preventing more than 2 million lost school days for children sickened by air pollution, and some 420,000 lost days of work? Those, after all, some of the many estimated benefits of pending revised ozone NAAQS standards. But Blanche Lincoln calls them a “relatively small benefit.”

We’ve seen this technique over and over again this year: hype up cost estimates, and stifle discussion of the benefits. Industry lobbyists hope that they can force the administration to set a weaker air quality standard when EPA issues its updated ozone rule, arguing that a strong standard will cost jobs. But the law says EPA is required to set the air quality standard at a level that will provide an “adequate margin” of safety for public health, especially for the most vulnerable among us—kids, asthmatics, and the elderly. That’s what a unanimous Supreme Court determined in 2001, in an opinion written by Antonin Scalia. Corporate profits aren’t supposed to be a factor; preventing respiratory diseases and death is. People have to be well enough to get to work and school, after all.

Anti-regulatory campaigners claim that regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion each year. That’s from an SBA-commissioned study. What they don’t mention: more than 70 percent of that estimate is based on a regression analysis using opinion polling data about perceived regulatory climate in different countries. The SBA study called itself “peer reviewed” but the first expert’s comments were mostly ignored, while the second (there were two) wrote simply “I looked it over and it's terrific, nothing to add. Congrats.” CPR issued a report in February finding numerous flaws in the SBA study, and the non-partisan Congressional Research Service published its skeptical view of the SBA study in April.

Absurd estimates of regulatory costs also aren’t new. Industry lobbyists claimed that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 would bring a “quiet death for businesses across the country.” We are still waiting for that apocalypse. Instead, the lack of financial regulations put us in this fix, and weakening pollution laws won’t get us out of it, although it might strengthen short-term industry profits.

The administration can’t placate industry even if it tries; regulatory opponents won’t be satisfied no matter what the administration does, as we saw after the EPA weakened or delayed a series of proposals earlier this year. But EPA can follow the law, protecting the health of our children – that’s something the EPA should do.

Oh my. The sky is falling. And it’s all the fault of clean air and clean water. That’s the message you’d get from the first six posts to this blog, and the frame in which Blanche Lincoln, currently employed as a lobbyist to block government regulations, had placed today’s conversation.

Well, we’ve heard these laments before. And we know how it works out when we listen to them. Back in the 1990’s through 2006 the American auto industry’s lobbyists lamented and complained that if we required Detroit to make more fuel efficient vehicles by improving clean air standards, the industry would lose market share, workers would lose jobs, and the economy would collapse.

We didn’t improve auto standards. Detroit didn’t modernize its auto lines. And the end of the road came when the industry’s market share collapsed because it offered products that were not innovative. Hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs, two of the Big Three went into bankruptcy, and we almost lost the entire automotive supply chain.

Look at the banking crisis – was the problem too much regulation? No, it was too little. Same story with predatory mortgages – regulations were not tough enough to keep Wall Street insiders from fleecing the public.

Or look at the recent debate on the deficit. What’s the real long-term threat to the fiscal solvency? Health care. What’s the most cost effective way to improve it? Prevention. What the key to preventing diseases and deaths caused by reckless polluters? Yes, regulation.

Look at EPA’s proposed new rule to clean up mercury, arsenic and acid gasses from old, outmoded coal power plants. This rule will produce total health and economic benefits of $59- $141 billion, at a cost of about $12 billion. That’s a phenomenal return on investment any way you look at it.

In her , Lincoln quotes the potential costs of the proposed new ozone health standard – she doesn’t discuss the benefits. But the data she cites also shows that, if EPA should choose a 70 ppb standard, the most likely outcome is a net cost of only $1 billion.

As far as today’s economy is concerned, the ozone rule will not even take effect until years in the future, so it’s not a factor – except that it sends businesses a signal of long-term predictability, it tells them that we need to keep on innovating, keep in investing, keep on cleaning up our outmoded industrial plant. The argument that we should delay these rules because of today’s economy means that businesses will have more uncertainty, not less, about how they should invest and prepare for the future. This is exactly the kind of short-term thinking that took the auto industry off the cliff and that has devastated America’s current economic landscape.

As for the mercury and acid gas rules, they will encourage public utilities to put thousands of people to work modernizing or replacing outmoded coal plants – a stimulus program that doesn’t add to the short-term deficit, but dramatically improves our long term fiscal posture by cutting down long term health care costs.

Smart regulation is not a threat to the American economy – it can be the lever that stimulates private investment in new technologies and approaches, and puts America back on the road to prosperity. We;ve listened to long to the siren-song of short-term irresponsibility.

The partisan debate over the debt ceiling may have subsided, but the urgency to take steps to repair America’s struggling economy has not. With Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgrade of the country’s AAA rating for the first time in history last week adding to uncertainty in our economy, it’s time we start focusing on how to ease consumer and industry burdens rather than adding to them.

This is a message the EPA is unfortunately deaf to. Rather than fully examining a regulation’s impact before it is proposed, the EPA rushes new standards out the door without full analysis of everything else they are doing – adding further uncertainties for businesses, consumers and the economy as a whole.

But the economy isn’t our only concern. One need walk no further than their front door to feel the heat wave that is currently gripping much of the nation – and without a reliable energy grid, good luck keeping your house and families cool in the midst of summer heat and warm in the dead of winter.

If the EPA is allowed to follow through with a number of recent regulations, consumers will pay the price both in increased electricity prices and comfort. In fact, a recent study by National Economic Research Associates estimates the EPA’s proposed Utility MACT and recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will result in an 11.5 percent increase in average retail electricity prices.

From coast to coast, organizations are lining up to file comments with the EPA expressing concern over regulations and what it will mean for consumers. The overwhelming consensus is the EPA should allow for more time to fully examine the rules’ impact and, at the very least, extend the deadline for compliance to give the industry ample time to meet new standards. The alternative is for much of the nation’s industry providers to shut their doors altogether.

Submitting comments on the EPA’s proposed Utility MACT rule, Scott H. Segal with the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council wrote, “There is simply too much at stake for the Agency to fail to perform sufficient analysis to ensure this rule is based on accurate data.” Segal added the industry will face perhaps its costliest and most pressing challenge if the EPA’s stringent timelines for compliance are not adjusted.

Matthew Bell with the Regional Chamber of Northwest Indiana also shared similar concerns to the EPA with the draft Rule, “With the billions of dollars at stake in the form of additional capital needed to comply plus the impact on customers, your duty to the public would demand that this rule be implemented without creating unnecessary costs for consumers.”

And the National Association of Manufacturers, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the Unions for Jobs and the Environment, the American Public Power Association and numerous others have all also filed comments to express their concerns with the EPA’s burdensome new rules and unreasonable timelines for compliance.

The concern with the timeline for compliance with these rules is not just one that those on the front line of complying with the rules care about either. In fact, just last week every member of the Texas Congressional Delegation (minus one) wrote to Cass Sunstein in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House to enlist his help in reviewing the timeline for compliance in the recently finalized Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

With so many writing with the same request, you’d think the EPA would see the error of their ways. Yet there appears to be no end in sight as numerous other troublesome rules are in their pipeline.

The EPA should take heed of these warnings. If these numerous rules are not reconsidered, the economy will stand no chance of recovery. Consumers are already struggling, and with America’s finances in crisis I encourage the EPA to admit their shortsightedness and do what’s right for our country.

Congress needs to step in and stop the EPA, which is an out-of-control rogue agency. It is a gross perversion of our system of government for an agency to use 40-year-old laws – passed when almost none of the current Congress was in office – for broad self-created new authority that is not subject to the democratic process. Moreover, this continues in the aftermath of an election that specifically repudiated expensive energy regulations like cap-and-trade, over which dozens of House Democrats lost their jobs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should not just delay but outright end its greenhouse gas rules and other regulations designed to achieve a backdoor implementation of cap-and-trade. The American people decisively rejected energy taxes and rationing in the 2010 election, yet the administration has remaining committed to disregarding Congress and the American people.

The day after the election President Obama said:

“Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

That was a green light for the EPA to regulate away. In fact, the abatement schedule from the failed Waxman-Markey bill was written into the president’s FY2012 budget request for the EPA.

Make no mistake: the EPA’s entire astonishingly anti-growth agenda is another means to the skyrocketing energy prices Obama supports.

As I show in my new book Democracy Denied, under Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the power to make these decisions resides in Congress, not the EPA. If the EPA refuses to recognize that fact and back off, the political consequences should be severe for members of Congress who refused to do their job and stand up to the EPA, as well as for Obama himself.

The first critical test vote, not just on the EPA but on the administration’s astonishing regulatory agenda across the board, will come when the House considers the REINS Act, HR 10, this fall. Under this bill, Congress would reclaim its proper responsibility as the legislative branch, taking up or down votes on economically significant regulations.

Voters will have to think hard before reelecting a congressman or senator who would rather let bureaucrats and regulators make the most important economic decisions.

Moreover, Obama campaigned on restraining abuses of presidential power, then proceeded to embrace everything Bush had done and push things much, much further as the EPA agenda demonstrates. It is therefore critical that presidential aspirants take clear, strong position on regulations now, and commit to signing the REINS Act into law if they are elected.

There is little doubt EPA imposes a tremendous burden on job creators. Most economists will admit that regulations operate ostensibly as a hidden tax on American consumers. The higher EPA’s regulatory burden, the more Americans must pay, and the more our economy suffers.

According to American Action Forum research, EPA imposed more than $25 billion in compliance costs since January 1. In addition, EPA’s own estimates reveal that its recent proposals could cost more than 61,000 jobs. With the exception of its greenhouse gas regulation, most of these measures implement existing federal law. The problem of runaway regulators, however, is widespread.

Net neutrality, the Department of Education’s Gainful Employment rule, and a slew of NLRB rulemakings embody regulators routinely circumventing Congress and imposing their own legislative agenda.

With these obvious problems and the current political climate, bipartisan regulatory reform must pass. President Obama’s recent Executive Order was a first step, but major rescissions are rare. Bipartisan support exists in the House and Senate to restrict onerous regulations.

History provides doubters with a glimmer of hope. President Clinton worked with a Republican Congress to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Both measures helped. Despite these efforts, the Federal Register contained more than 80,000 pages last year and in 2011, agencies have added more than 45.9 million hours of paperwork.

Previous reform attempts haven’t slayed our regulatory beast yet, but several worthy suitors in the 112th Congress could reform the system. For example, the REINS Act gives Congress the chance to review significant regulations; rules would not be implemented if they fail to receive an affirmative vote from Congress.

Even if Congress passes the REINS Act, it’s difficult to fathom that President Obama would voluntarily curb his own power. Presidents are rarely in the mood to become less relevant.

Any measure that manages to emerge from Congress must be bipartisan, especially if it has any chance in the Senate. The broad goals of regulatory reform should be: 1) comprehensive: reforms aimed at a particular rule or agency will do little for long-term relief, 2) flexible: give businesses time to comply with rules and an array of options, not just one federal standard, and 3) balanced: Congress will attempt to restore some authority over the implementation of federal law – go too far and a veto will result – too weak and nothing will change.

Meager economic growth and daunting regulatory burdens make the task of reforming our regulatory state seem impossible. If history serves as any guide, then there is hope. Regulatory reform shouldn’t be an option for this Congress. It is a must.

At a time when the Obama administration should be embracing policies to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and increase production of American energy, the EPA is engaging in counterproductive, aggressive regulatory overreach. Taken together, EPA’s regulatory initiatives continue to make it more expensive and difficult to develop American energy, and result in lost jobs while providing little incremental environmental protection. EPA’s own annual air trends analysis shows that air quality has improved by 60% since 1970, yet EPA rhetoric centers on the need to quickly address urgent health concerns from air pollution.

Western Energy Alliance recently completed a study showing that by 2020, the western U.S. alone could produce as much oil and natural gas as the US imports from Russian, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria and Colombia combined. However, over regulation by the federal government threatens producers’ ability to meet that full potential. Therefore, in our Blueprint for Western Energy Prosperity, Western Energy Alliance calls for a moratorium on new regulations until the economy rebounds, unemployment drops, and new regulations are properly justified and implemented.

EPA is in such a rush to implement new requirements that it is not properly conducting cost-benefit analyses or ensuring new regulations make sense. Independent oil and natural gas producers, which provide the majority of America’s domestic supply and average twelve employees, are struggling to comply with new regulations that in many cases are poorly thought out and lack guidance that works in the real world. EPA is attempting to implement more regulations simultaneously than it is able to manage effectively.

Furthermore, EPA often claims specious economic benefits and job creation from new rules, while ignoring the true cost of compliance. For example, EPA recently announced amendments to air regulations for the oil and natural gas industry requiring emissions reductions measures that companies already voluntarily use. EPA then turns around and attributes the cost savings to the rules. We call on President Obama to prevent EPA from implementing new regulations and focus his Administration instead on job creation.

Balancing sound regulatory policy with economic growth is a difficult challenge. The EPA however has pursued a host of regulations that poses significant economic harm to jobs and the U.S. economy.

In addition to the high costs of EPA’s new proposed standard on ozone, the economic impact of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) also bear a high price tag. Despite EPA’s specious claims of $3 trillion in economic benefits from the CAA, the agency’s own modeling shows substantial losses of GDP, as I presented in my June testimony before Senate subcommittees. See chart on EPA’s stated impact here.

In addition, the agency's stringent efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, impact the cost of capital, new investment spending, job growth and economic recovery. See my testimony from earlier this year before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Analysis with IMPLAN, an input-output model, shows that regulations under the Clean Air Act could result in U.S. capital spending declines by $25 to $75 billion. This could lead to economy wide job loss of 476,000 to 1,400,000 in 2014 when direct, indirect and induced effects are included. As a result, GDP would be $47 billion to $141 billion less in 2014. The impact on U.S. businesses, large and small, will be far-reaching and severe and will prolong the weakness we are witnessing in the economic recovery.

With an economy still struggling, Congress should do all it can to rein in EPA’s regulatory overreach and mandate the use of cost-benefit analysis based on accepted, peer reviewed, methodologies.

Our nation is in an economic crisis. The quality of our environment is another story. Indeed, our air and water quality improve each year and will continue to so as a result of regulations now in effect. In light of these facts, the President should impose a regulatory moratorium until unemployment gets to 7% or the economy grows at a rate greater than 3.5% for three consecutive quarters. Exceptions could be made if the President personally certifies a clear and present danger.

This may seem radical, but it is not. The impact of having 14 million people unemployed and millions more under employed is greater than any perceived environmental damage associated with such a moratorium.

One example makes the case clearly. EPA's proposed NAAQS regulation would impose enormous damage on the economy without producing anything other than theoretical benefits. It was not that long ago when it was 0.1, and it has only been a couple of years since it was lowered to the current .76 level. The new proposal would put virtually the entire nation in non-attainment. Even EPA lowball numbers cost $90 billion annually.

Without job growth and a robust economy, it is likely that real environmental progress will stall. Certainly technological development and innovation will.

The time has come to rethink our regulatory system and regulate smarter. The code of Federal Regulations has grown over 50% since 1980—now exceeding 150,000 pages. The burdens of an over regulated society have been documented in depth. "The chickens have finally come home to roost" by way of a very sick economy.