[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10069-S10070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     REGULATORY REFORM DISTORTIONS

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in their ongoing efforts to frighten the 
American people, the opponents of regulatory reform continue to spread 
their distortions through the media.
  Last night, in a report on ABC's ``World News Tonight,'' President 
Clinton's EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, made the following 
outrageous statement about our regulatory reform bill. That is the one 
we are considering right now.

       If these provisions had been in place over the last 10 
     years, EPA would not have been able to ban lead in gasoline, 
     and a whole generation of children would have suffered real 
     and permanent brain damage.

  Now, that is a catchy sound bite, but it is flatly false, and it went 
unchallenged in the report.
  Here are the facts viewers did not get last night. When a rule on 
lead phaseout was being considered in 1982, EPA resisted doing a cost-
benefit analysis. However, when a cost-benefit analysis was performed, 
it demonstrated the benefits outweighed the costs of eliminating lead 
from gasoline. Only then did EPA issue a rule providing for quick 
phaseout of lead. And in fact, as a result of that analysis, EPA issued 
a tougher standard than it would have previously. So getting lead out 
of gasoline occurred precisely because a cost-benefit analysis 
supported doing so.
  Rather than undermining our reform effort, as Ms. Browner suggests, 
this example actually validates it.
  This is not the first time we have heard this phony story from the 
administration. Even though we have set the record straight on that 
point during this debate, the EPA and some folks in the media do not 
seem to notice.
  Mr. President, I am hardly the only one who has been disappointed by 
the spread of distortions about this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I 
received from the Governor of Ohio, George Voinovich, and the Governor 
of Iowa, Terry Branstad, taking exception to another ABC report last 
night that framed the debate on environmental regulations in 
Washington-knows-best terms.
  Mr. President, this is certainly a complicated piece of legislation, 
but sometimes the facts are very simple. And dealing in facts is not 
too much to ask even for the media.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 14, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: As strong supporters of your efforts to 
     pass regulatory reform legislation, we were very disappointed 
     with an ABC News report last night on environmental 
     regulation.

[[Page S10070]]

       We are dismayed by the suggestion that enhanced flexibility 
     for states in making environmental and regulatory decisions 
     would inherently harm the environment. In essence, their 
     coverage seems to propose that regulatory reform should not 
     be pursued because states cannot be trusted as regulators. As 
     you well know, Mr. Majority Leader, states and local 
     governments already are responsible for implementing and 
     overseeing these laws.
       ABC is correct in noting that ``dirty air travels.'' 
     However, the proposition that regulatory and environmental 
     reform supported by governors would allow states to ``set 
     their own environmental standards'' is patently false. 
     Governors and other state and local officials do not seek to 
     set our own environmental standards, nor would pending 
     legislation permit us to do so. rather, we support enhanced 
     flexibility to implement remedies specific to our states and 
     communities to meet federally established standards.
       EPA Administrator Carol Browner's assertion that reforms 
     would lead states to ``race to lower standards'' is 
     particularly insulting. It is typical beltway arrogance to 
     presume that state and local elected officials are somehow 
     less interested in protecting the environment than officials 
     in Washington. We are truly puzzled that a former state 
     environmental director would say such a thing.
       We also want to point out that environmental reform is a 
     partisan issue only in Washington. Across the country 
     Republican and Democrat governors, state legislators, county 
     officials, and mayors support environmental and regulatory 
     reform legislation to provide greater flexibility and 
     unfunded mandate relief for states and local governments. In 
     fact, a bipartisan meeting of state and local government 
     officials last month in Baltimore determined that 
     environmental reform legislation is the top priority of the 
     state-local government coalition in the 104th Congress.
       Thank you for your leadership in support of environmental 
     and regulatory reform. We look forward to continuing to work 
     with you to enact reform legislation that ensures that new 
     regulations justify their costs and provides states and local 
     governments with enhanced flexibility to meet the federal 
     standards.
           Sincerely,
     George V. Voinovich, Governor of Ohio.
     Terry E. Branstad, Governor of Iowa.
     

                          ____________________