A discourse-theoretic approach to negotiated rulemaking

In 1996 and in 1997, Congress ordered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a process of negotiated rulemaking, which is authorized under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, on three separate rulemaking matters. Other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, have also made use of this procedure. As part of the program to reinvent government, President Clinton has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to engage in some negotiated rulemaking procedures. I present an analytic, interpretative and critical approach to looking at the statutory and regulatory provisions for negotiated rulemaking as related to issues of democratic governance surrounding the problem of delegation of legislative power. The paradigm of law delineated by Jürgen Habermas, which sets law the task of achieving social or value integration as well as integration of systems, provides the background theory for a critique of such processes. My research questions are two. First, why should a citizen obey a regulation which is the result of negotiation by directly interested parties? Second, what is the potential effect of negotiated rulemaking on other institutions for deliberative democracy? For the internal critique I argue that the procedures for negotiated rulemaking will not produce among the participants the agreement and cooperation which is the legislative intent. For the external critique I argue that negotiated rulemaking will not result in democratically-legitimated regulation. In addition, the practice of negotiated rulemaking will further weaken the functioning of the public sphere, as Habermas theorizes it, as the central institution of deliberative democracy. The primary implication is the need to mitigate further development of administrative agencies as isolated, self-regulating systems, which have been loosened from the controls of democratic governance, through the development of a robust public sphere in which affected persons may achieve mutual understanding. ^

Process to develop a State Model Law to reduce prescription drug trafficking while protecting pain management

This paper will discuss the intersection of pill mills and the under-treatment of pain, while addressing the unintended consequence that cracking down on pill mills actually has on medical professionals' treatment of legitimate pain in clinical settings. Moreover, the impact each issue has on the spectrum of related policy, regulatory issues and legislation will be analyzed while addressing the national impact on medical care. Lastly, this paper will outline a process to develop a State Model Law on this subject. This process will include suggestions for the future and how we can move forward to adequately address public safety needs and how we can attempt to mitigate the unintended impact prescription drug trafficking has had on a patient's right to appropriate pain management. This balance is achievable and this paper will address ways we can find this elusive balancing point through the development of a State Model Law. ^

SUPERFUND: AN ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION FAILURE (CERCLA, HEALTH LAW POLICY)

In December, 1980, following increasing congressional and constituent-interest in problems associated with hazardous waste, the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed. During its development, the legislative initiative was seriously compromised which resulted in a less exhaustive approach than was formerly sought. Still, CERCLA (Superfund) which established, among other things, authority to clean up abandoned waste dumps and to respond to emergencies caused by releases of hazardous substances was welcomed by many as an important initial law critical to the cleanup of the nation's hazardous waste. Expectations raised by passage of this bill were tragically unmet. By the end of four years, only six sites had been declared by the EPA as cleaned. Seemingly, even those determinations were liberal; of the six sites, two were identified subsequently as requiring further cleanup.^ This analysis is focused upon the implementation failure of the Superfund. In light of that focus, discussion encompasses development of linkages between flaws in the legislative language and foreclosure of chances for implementation success. Specification of such linkages is achieved through examination of the legislative initiative, identification of its flaws and characterization of attendant deficits in implementation ability. Subsequent analysis is addressed to how such legislative frailities might have been avoided and to attendant regulatory weaknesses which have contributed to implementation failure. Each of these analyses are accomplished through application of an expanded approach to the backward mapping analytic technique as presented by Elmore. Results and recommendations follow.^ Consideration is devoted to a variety of regulatory issues as well as to those pertinent to legislative and implementation analysis. Problems in assessing legal liability associated with hazardous waste management are presented, as is a detailed review of the legislative development of Superfund, and its initial implementation by Gorsuch's EPA. ^