[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9729-S9730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE REGULATORY REFORM BILL

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, just a few words about various things. 
First, with regard to the efforts of Senator Hatch, Senator Dole, and 
others, on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Johnston, with 
regard to regulatory reform, I think it is very vital that we continue 
our efforts in a bipartisan way on this issue. It is a very simple 
issue out in the land. People are pretty well fed up with the quality 
and quantity of regulations over the years that have been ground out by 
the Federal Government.
  It is long past time that we did something to interject common sense 
and sound science into the regulatory process, and the bill that 
Senator Dole, 

[[Page S 9730]]
Senator Hatch, and Senator Johnston put together will really go a very 
long way in doing that.
  We have tried to ensure that Members on both sides of the aisle make 
their concerns known about various provisions in the legislation. We 
have worked very hard to include everyone. It is time to start walking 
the walk instead of talking the talk. So I hope we will continue our 
vigorous efforts.
  We have seen in Wyoming so many issues with regard to coal mining. We 
are the largest coal-producing State in the Union; yet, we would have 
EPA come to our State where we have laws that are more strict than the 
Federal Government, and come to the mining area and set up air quality 
monitors for things like ``fugitive dust,'' in an area where the wind 
blows 60 miles an hour three times a week and will peel the vegetation 
right off the prairie. They set up their monitors and tell us about 
regulating and reducing fugitive dust. This is absolutely absurd. It 
reflects no common sense. Some EPA regulators are people of zeal, 
without any intellectual understanding of others or of their situation. 
Remember, too, that this community of Congress is populated by 
privileged people, many of whom have never met a payroll, many of whom 
know nothing about real life or how to work--really work--digging a 
ditch, tamping concrete forms, working for a construction company, 
cowboying--enough. I think it is time to give them a wake-up call, and 
I think we will do that.
  Hopefully, we will, at the same time, try to deter the trend in this 
country that has been to try to get every single chemical out of every 
food, drink, and tube of lipstick known to man or woman. That type of 
activity causes our society to shoulder exorbitant costs that are just 
not necessary--$140 billion year on pollution control. We must decide 
how much will we spend to get the last 5 percent of the pollution out 
of the smokestack or the waste stream, because it is those expenditures 
that are so excessive.
  We are being forced to recognize that the really tough choices are 
now unavoidable.
  The administration and the environmental groups have been critical of 
our efforts to mandate that risk assessment and cost benefit analysis 
be used by the bureaucracy. But even the Washington Post stated in a 
recent editorial: ``Surely it makes sense to do the kind of analysis 
that weighs one health threat against another, and shows where 
reductions in pollution will pay off most effectively in lower rates of 
illness and death.'' And the Post editorial goes on to correctly 
recognize that the regulatory reform bill ``. . . addresses defects . . 
. that are real.'' And ``within it lies the genuine opportunity to 
strengthen the protection of the country's air and water.''
  I find it disturbing that the environmental groups have run radio ads 
attacking Members of Congress who support this legislation. These ads 
greatly oversimplify the issues we are considering and as usual the 
environmental groups are using fear and emotion to try and turn the 
public against regulatory reform efforts. So when I hear groups say 
this is a back door assault on our environmental and health laws I 
recognize that they are resorting to what Senator Gary Hart used to 
call ``Mau Mau politics.''
  This kind of activity is real quite uncalled for.
  I am fond of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, 
but nobody is entitled to their own facts. And the fact is that 
injecting sound science into the regulatory process can enhance our 
efforts to protect the public
 health and the environment.

  We have a real opportunity to stop the tendency that Federal 
regulators have to overreact to any newly discovered dangers by 
diverting disproportionate financial and human resources into hastily 
conceived remedies. We have seen examples of that with superfund, or 
the asbestos in schools program and in so many other areas.
  In the case of asbestos in schools we were told we had to get the 
asbestos out or we were going to kill or injure all the children. So 
Congress rushed to pass a law and the regulators issued regulations and 
we began a rush job to get the asbestos removed. But what we ended up 
doing was to release more asbestos into the air and to cost the 
taxpayers millions of dollars in remediation costs. And more 
importantly, we have inadvertently exposed more children to more 
asbestos and greater risk than if we had simply left it in place and 
contained it. So that is the type of thing that we want to avoid in the 
future and risk assessment and cost benefit analysis will help do that.
  Some in Congress and in the bureaucracy have tried to provide the 
public with a risk free environment. That is a purely quixotic 
exercise. We cannot afford to provide a risk free environment and in 
fact it is not possible to do that in the real world. So let us 
recognize that and get on with the business of making certain that 
logical and well informed regulatory
 decisions are made in the future. We cannot do that without passing 
legislation such as the Dole bill and I am so very pleased that we are 
finally going to do something constructive with regard to regulatory 
reform since we can no longer afford to live with the status quo.

  We will hear a metric ton of the tired old rhetoric about how we must 
protect the children and save the babies. How if we tinker with the 
current regulatory regime we will cripple the bureaucracy and cause 
regulatory gridlock. We will hear that it is arrogant to assign a value 
for human life, or that this is just an attempt to let industry and 
curses--big business--off the hook. But Mr. President, this is 
beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf too many times. The 
American people are more sophisticated than that. They have heard these 
tired old phrases time after time. They are beginning to tune it out. 
They are suffering from what one journalist calls ``environmental 
compassion fatigue.'' So I trust the larger majority of Senators will 
not view this as a partisan issue or as an industry versus 
environmental group issue. But as a chance to help everyday citizens to 
get sensible and understandable regulations, based on real costs, 
risks, and common sense--in order that we can restore some of the 
credibility that the Federal agencies and Congress have lost over the 
years. This debate is about change. Bureaucrats don't like change. And 
this administration doesn't like any change that they didn't think of 
first.
  But we must overcome this aversion to constructive change with 
goodwill, facts, common sense, and perseverance. So I trust my 
colleagues will put aside partisan rhetoric and fear mongering and we 
will all join together to truly reform our regulatory system for the 
benefit of a majority of the American people. They do not expect 
anything less from us, and I do trust we will not disappoint them.


                          ____________________