[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9995-S9996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah and wish 
the Chair a good day. I know it is late in the afternoon. I just wanted 
to make a few remarks with regard to the status of our regulatory 
reform debate that has been going on for an extended period of time.
  There is no question, Mr. President, that we all want to see 
regulatory reform legislation passed by this Congress for two very, 
very important reasons. They are simply fairness and common sense.
  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we passed 
out a bill that would accomplish fairness and common sense, and in so 
doing address corrections needed in our regulatory process. We passed a 
bill that was easily understood. And, as a consequence, we find 
ourselves immersed now in almost a legal discussion of various types of 
binding conditions associated with what was generally understood to be 
a high degree of frustration among the public, a public which was 
frustrated over policies of the Environmental Protection Agency such as 
the one that occurred in the largest city of Alaska, Anchorage, AK, 
where the city was notified that the water that accumulated after rains 
in the drains that ordinarily went out in Cook Inlet for disposal. Cook 
Inlet has some 30-foot tides twice a day.
  Suddenly, the city was advised that they were in violation because, 
prior to discharging that water, 30 percent of the organic matter had 
to be removed. In testing the water they found there was no organic 
matter to be removed, and they appealed to the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Surprisingly enough, the EPA simply came back and said, ``You 
are out of compliance and subject to fine.'' As a consequence, some 
enterprising member of the city council suggested that they add some 
fish guts to the drainage system so that they would have something to 
remove that was organic and, therefore, comply.
  Finally, the issue got so much publicity, Mr. President, that the 
Environmental Protection Agency saw fit to, so-called, ``clean their 
skirts.'' So they wrote a letter saying, ``Yes, these were the 
circumstances, but they did not make the city of Anchorage put the 
organic matter, the fish guts, into the water system.'' People of 
Alaska understood that. They understood the lack of sense that such a 
mandate made.
  We have these horror stories. We have heard them on the floor.
  Another concern that was expressed from time to time was the 
realization that citizens will not be asked to pay huge amounts of 
money to have trace amounts of arsenic or radon or chloroform removed 
from their drinking water when there was absolutely no evidence of any 
adverse health affects, no scientific proof of any kind.
  We heard cases where workers who have rushed to rescue a colleague 
from a collapsed ditch are subject to fines, subject to penalties for 
not having a hard hat on in the first place.
  We had a situation in Fairbanks--where it does snow occasionally in 
Fairbanks, AK--where the city was in violation of a wetland permit 
because they moved the snow off one lot where the city barn is to the 
next lot which was classified as a wetlands.
  These are things people understand. These are issues of frustration 
that 

[[Page S9996]]
have been expressed time and time again. But we find ourselves 
embroiled in a controversy on this legislation that has gotten beyond 
the ability of the general public to grasp why we are not getting on it 
and making the corrections that are needed.
  We passed a bill that would put consistent procedures for risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis in place for all agencies and make 
agencies accountable for the actions taken in reliance on those 
agencies.
  Why does this procedure lead to fairness and common sense? Very 
simply, because they ensure that regulations will direct our limited 
resources to the substance or activities that are most likely to harm 
us and prevent that harm in a cost-effective way. It is simply that 
simple.
  We find that we have an ally in this process. Let me quote from the 
statement of the President. I have this chart here, Mr. President, 
which I will read very briefly. It is from the President. I quote:

       The American people deserve a regulatory system that works 
     for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects 
     and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-
     being and improves the performance of the economy without 
     imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; 
     regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector 
     and private markets are the best engine for the economic 
     growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, 
     local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are 
     effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do 
     not have such a regulatory system today.

  Those are the words of our President. But in spite of what the 
President, what the Congress and what the American people all know, 
this legislation has been bogged down in discussions designed to play 
on emotions. It has become complex. It has become almost a lawyer's 
delight to deliberate the application.
  We went through it the other day on the issue of the Mammogram 
Quality Standards Act. We all know that this legislation would not in 
any way have interfered with the promulgation of the rules under that 
act.
  I have had some familiarity with that, Mr. President, because my wife 
and a group of women in Fairbanks, AK in the mid-1970's started a 
breast cancer clinic. They purchased a mammogram machine, and, as a 
consequence, provided free services to the women of interior Alaska for 
an extended period of time. However, 2 years ago, under the Mammogram 
Quality Standards Acts procedure, that particular machine became 
outdated. And in order to comply with the quality standards, it was 
necessary that a new machine be ordered.
  So a number of us got together and raised approximately $150,000 and 
bought a new machine. This year we are raising some more money to buy a 
mobile mammogram machine. This is done without any Federal Government 
assistance of any kind, and provides the service to the women of the 
interior who are on the road systems of Alaska, and it will be further 
extended to the villages because this unit will fit inside the National 
Guard C-130 aircraft. So when they go into the villages, the vehicle 
can be backed out and made available to serve women that otherwise 
would not be available for this type of care.
  So the point is, Mr. President, that we have a system under the 
Mammogram Quality Standards Act that works. Not only does this 
legislation that we are contemplating have an exemption for health 
emergencies, but it also specifically recognizes that risk and cost-
benefit analysis should only be done at the level of detail necessary, 
taking the need for expedition into consideration.
  So, as a consequence, we found ourselves spending a good deal of time 
debating whether or not--by not excluding mammograms--we were somehow 
risking the health of women in the United States. And while that 
argument was voiced extensively on this floor, there was absolutely no 
justification in my mind, or others who have examined the application 
of existing laws and regulations that were covered under this 
legislation, that indeed these services were in jeopardy.
  So what this bill does, Mr. President, under Executive Order 12866 
issued in 1983, there is a requirement for cost-benefit analysis for 
major regulations and the use of risk as a basis for regulating.
  There are 25 high priority actions which were initiated this past 
March to reinvent environmental regulations in recognition that the 
current regulatory system is broken.
  Further, after several years of no action, the Environmental 
Protection Agency recently decided to change a longstanding food safety 
policy related to residual levels of pesticides that treated flour and 
tomato paste as ready to eat.
 EPA has already compiled a list of obsolete, duplicative, or 
unnecessary regulations and obtained concurrence from States on planned 
revisions and terminations that would eliminate 16,000 pages from the 
Code of Federal Regulations.

  The administration is planning a project known as XL that would, for 
the first time, allow pollutant trading among different media such as 
air and water, as part of the President's plan to emphasize market-
based regulation.
  A high-level Clinton administration working group has crafted a far-
reaching set of proposed administrative, regulatory and legislative 
changes to reform cleanups under Superfund and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, including provisions that elevate the 
consideration of risk and cost in cleanup decisions.
  EPA has launched a major effort to review, streamline, and offer new 
flexibility for states in implementing the agency's Clean Water Act 
Permit Program. This is considered a key proposal in the initiative to 
modify or delete duplicative, burdensome, or obsolete rules.
  EPA is moving to pare back routine inspection and enforcement 
requirements, particularly for industrial wastewater and hazardous 
waste disposal facilities, to shift agency resources to focus 
enforcement efforts on high risk facilities or activities.
  EPA has changed its position from a December preproposal and decided 
not to regulation low-level radioactive waste storage sites already 
overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a position taken by six 
Senators that such regulation would be a wasteful duplication of 
effort.
  A major Clean Air Act rulemaking was initiated in January to allow 
States to automatically implement broad trading programs in emission 
reduction credits on the open market. In addition, a model rule 
allowing banking of credits is under consideration.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that each of 
these proposals covers areas addressed already in S. 343, so one has to 
ask why are some Members of this body, why are some of those at the 
White House fighting this legislation when we all know that we need 
this bill. The American people know we need this bill. We also know 
that we should not have to stand here and continually recite day after 
day, hour after hour, horror stories and examples of regulatory excess 
to get this legislation passed. We all know it has to be done, and it 
should be done without further delay.
  So it is my hope that the leadership on both sides of the aisle can 
get a handle on this legislation and recognize that the American people 
want efficiencies in Government; they want efficiencies in regulation; 
they want efficiencies in oversight; and they want to be able to 
understand the process that is occurring. They want it based on 
fairness, and they want it based on common sense, and they want it now.
  I thank the Chair. I wish my colleagues a pleasant weekend.
  Mr. President, 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________