[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 110 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9599-S9600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SUPPORTING REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 343, the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act, which will be before us today and, 
I suspect, for the remainder of the week.
  I think that this is one of the most exciting opportunities that we 
have had this year. This is one of the opportunities for this Congress 
and this Senate, this Government, to take a look at some of the things 
that have been going on for 30 years, 40 years, without much 
examination, which have simply grown and have continued to become more 
expensive and larger, without a real examination of whether or not what 
is being done is the most effective way to do it, or whether or not it 
could be done in a less costly way. I think it is an exciting 
opportunity.
  I have just returned, as have most of our associates, from a week in 
my home State of Wyoming. We did a series of town meetings and met with 
the rangeland users and met with the sugar beet growers and the chamber 
of commerce and the Rotary. As has been the case for some time, the 
issue most often mentioned is overregulation and the cost of 
overregulation. So I am excited about the opportunity to do something 
about that.
  I suspect that we will run into the same kinds of discussions that we 
have when we talk about doing something about welfare reform--that 
somehow those of us who want some change in what we have been doing are 
less compassionate than those who want the status quo; that somehow 
those of us who want to take a look at and change the way regulation is 
imposed are less caring about the environment and about clean water and 
clean air than those who support the status quo. That is simply not 
true.
  I suspect that we will hear from the opposition on this bill that 
somehow this bill will remove all of the regulatory requirements that 
exist. Not so. We will hear that somehow the regulations that are in 
place to protect us for various kinds of water and air problems will be 
eliminated or superseded. That is simply not so.
  Many people can imagine what the last election was about. But I think 
we have talked about it a great deal. There were at least three things 
that I think were most important to the people of Wyoming. One was that 
the Federal Government is too big, that it costs too much, and that we 
are overregulating. I think those are genuine responses that people 
feel very strongly about.
  So, Mr. President, here is our opportunity to do something about 
that. Clearly, the regulatory system is broken. What is being proposed 
does not do away with regulations. It simply says there is a better way 
to do it.
  As our leader just indicated, overregulation is a hidden tax that is 
passed on to consumers. It is not absorbed by businesses. It is not a 
business issue, even though much of it affects business. The costs are 
passed on to you and to me. Furthermore, the regulations are not 
confined to business. It goes much beyond that, into small towns, 
cities, the universities, and other areas.
  Unfortunately, regulations have been applied generally. In our 
Wyoming Legislature, I am proud that we have a situation where the 
statute is passed by the legislature, the agency that is affected 
drafts and creates the regulation, and it comes back to the legislature 
for some overview to see, No. 1, if it is within the spirit of the 
statute; No. 2, to see if it is indeed cost beneficial, that what it is 
set to accomplish is worth the cost of accomplishment.
  We do not even have here an analysis of what the cost will be. The 
cost of regulation, as the leader indicated, is more than personal tax 
revenues. Some estimate it between $650 billion and $800 billion. Now, 
this bill will not eliminate all of that cost, of course, because there 
is a need for regulation, and there is a cost with regulation. The 
point is that we are looking for a way to apply that regulation in as 
efficient and effective a manner as can be and do something that has 
not been done for a long time, and that in the application of the 
regulation, to use some common sense in terms of what it costs with 
respect to what the benefits are, and to take a look at risk-benefits 
ratios to see if what will be accomplished is worth the cost and the 
effort of the application.
  Furthermore, it gives us an opportunity to go back to some 
regulations that have existed and look at them. Let me give an example. 
In Buffalo, WY, there are 3,500 people. The EPA said we need to enforce 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Fine. They are willing to do that. They 
are willing to put in a filtering system that costs $3 million for a 
town of 3,500 and made a good-faith effort to comply.
  One year later, EPA responded and said they would send a compliance 
schedule. Buffalo never received the schedule.
  Then when Buffalo proceeded as they had set forth in their schedule, 
EPA claimed that Buffalo never let them know what was going on.
  After that was worked out, EPA accepted, in writing, the town of 
Buffalo's plan. The following year, EPA again claimed the city did not 
let them know what was going on and referred the case to the Department 
of Justice for prosecution.
  When asked what happened, EPA said, ``We changed our mind.'' The 
bottom line, the city of Buffalo wanted to comply with the Federal 
mandate, but the Federal overregulation and bureaucracy prevented that.
  The University of Wyoming. We had several contacts from the 
University of Wyoming asking for a list of issues they were most 
concerned about. Do you know what was at the top of the list? 
Overregulation. Not grants, not money--overregulation. This is the 
university. This is not a business. This is the university, where a 
good amount of their resources were there to educate young people.
  We have the same problem in health regulations, in the disposal of 
health care waste, which goes far beyond the clean air. It will cause 
some of the small hospitals in Wyoming to be closed. 

[[Page S 9600]]

  Overregulation is particularly difficult for the rural areas of the 
West, where in our case more than half of the State belongs to the 
Federal Government. The things we do in our way of life, in our 
economy, our job creation, is always regulated more than most anywhere 
else in the country. We are very, very, concerned.
  Let me give one example. There are leases, of course, for livestock 
grazing on Bureau of Land Management lands and on lands of the Forest 
Service. The leases are renewed regularly. This year, it was decided 
there had to be a NEPA study--that is supposed to be confined to areas 
of national concern--for every renewal of a grazing lease. The 
irrigators have to spend $100,000 this year to do a NEPA review on 
their conservation land. The cost of this is paid by you and by me.
  Regulatory reform needs to have principles. This bill has them. It 
has cost-benefit analysis. I think that is a proper and reasonable 
thing. You and I do that. We make decisions for ourself and our family. 
We have a cost-benefit analysis, even though it may be informal. A risk 
assessment--it could be that the last few percentage points are too 
expensive to be reasonable and common sense. We need a look-back 
provision so we can go back and take a look at the regulations that now 
exist. There needs to be a sunset provision so that burdensome laws and 
burdensome regulations can be dropped or renewed. There needs to be a 
judicial review. S. 343 incorporates these principles.
  I think we have a great opportunity to make better use of the 
resources that we have, Mr. President, to provide greater protection 
for human health and safety in the environment at a lower cost and to 
hold regulators accountable for their decisions. What is wrong with 
that? I think that is a good idea, to hold the Congress accountable for 
the kinds of regulations, to limit the size of Government, so that we 
can create jobs that help consumers improve competitiveness overseas.
  We should take advantage of this opportunity. This week will be the 
time to do it, to be realistic, to apply common sense, to reduce the 
cost and the burden of regulation. I am delighted that we will have a 
chance this year, this week, Mr. President, to do that.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________