[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10081-S10082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Saturday President Clinton gave his 
Saturday speech wherein he justified defeating the regulatory reform 
bill.
  I really believe that so many people who are opposed to this 
regulatory reform bill did not get the message that came from the 
American people on the 8th of November because, loudly and clearly, 
they wanted to redefine the role of Government in our lives.
  The President talked about how you are going to be poisoned by your 
hamburgers. He talked about how people are dying in the streets because 
they are not adequately protected from exposure to the physical 
elements, and from food, as if Government has a role of taking care of 
everyone and people's responsibility for themselves is nonexistent. And 
the theme of all of this was that Government really does things better 
than people do. That is not what this country is all about.
  The other day we were talking about some reforms that were necessary 
insofar as the EPA is concerned. The EPA is a good example of a 
regulator that has gone far beyond the intent of what we have always 
felt a regulator should do.
  I remember in my city of Tulsa, OK, there is a lumber company called 
Mill Creek Lumber Co. owned by the Dunn family. It is a third 
generation lumber company owned by the family. It is a competitive 
business. It is a tough business.
  I got a call from Jimmy Dunn, the owner and CEO of Mill Creek Lumber 
Co., that family lumber company on 15th Street in Tulsa, OK. He said, 
``The EPA just put me out of business after three generations of family 
running this business.'' I said, ``What did you do wrong?'' He said, 
``I do not think I did anything wrong.'' He said, ``About 10 years ago 
I sold used crankcase oil to a licensed contractor, and the licensed 
contractor apparently disposed of it in the wrong place.'' It was 
called the Double Eagle site.
  So this guy 10 years later, after disposing of crankcase oil, long 
before the law was even in effect, ended up with a letter from the EPA 
Administrator saying that you are going to be fined $25,000 a day, and 
you are going to maybe even have criminal sanctions.
  Then a year ago Christmas, about 4 or 5 days before Christmas, I got 
a phone call from a guy named Keith Carter. Keith Carter was a man of 
very modest means. He had developed a business in Skiatook, OK, which 
was in my congressional district at that time. He called up one day 4 
days before Christmas and he said, ``Congressman Inhofe, I have a 
serious problem. The EPA just put me out of business, and right before 
Christmas, I have to fire my six employees.'' I said, ``What 
happened?'' He said, ``Well, about 2 years ago I moved from the 
basement in my home three blocks down the street to another location 
because the business was kind of good and I needed a little bit more 
room. Apparently they say that I did not advise the EPA that I made my 
move.'' I said, ``My gosh. You have been operating for 2 years in an 
area where they did not know where you were?'' He said, ``Oh, no. I 
told the regional office in Texas. But apparently they did not tell the 
office in Washington.'' They called up and put him out of business.
  It took me about a week to get him back in business. He called up a 
week later, and he said, ``I have another problem, Congressman.'' He 
said, ``They let me back in business but I cannot use the number that I 
had before because they said during that 1 week I was out of business, 
they assigned it to somebody else. I had $25,000 worth of inventory.''
  So we finally got it corrected. But for each one who calls a 
Congressman or someone to intervene in behalf of decency and honesty 
and good sense, there are hundreds of them who do not do that. If he 
had not called, then Keith Carter would have been out of business and 
his employees would be unemployed today, most likely. That is the kind 
of abuse that takes place by regulators in our society.
  I suggest, Mr. President, the theme of this thing is far greater than 
we have been talking about. We are talking about freedom. That is what 
this whole thing is about; freedom, individual freedom. That is what 
this country is supposed to be all about.
  I remember a few years ago when we had the problems down in 
Nicaragua. And I know, Mr. President, you were serving over in the 
House at that time and remember it also. At that time, it was, 
fortunately, driven home to me how we are perceived around the world, 
that we are the bastion of freedom, that we are the beacon of freedom. 
If you lose it here, you do not have it anywhere else. That is what 
this regulation is about, the theme that Government knows better how to 
take care of our lives than we do.
  This is what was happening in Nicaragua at that time, if you will 
remember the big controversy we had here in both Houses of the U.S. 
Congress with people saying, ``Well, the freedom fighters are really a 
bunch of rebels. We should not get involved in this thing.'' Yet, we 
knew that the Communists at that time were supplying them with the best 
of armaments, with the best of tanks, and with the best of helicopters.
 And so you had the freedom fighters risking their lives.

  I can remember going down to Honduras. I think we were only about 7 
miles from the Nicaraguan border. And I went through a hospital tent 
down there where they were bringing the freedom fighters in and nursing 
them back to health. The tent was about the size of these Chambers. It 
was a very large tent. And all around the periphery they had hospital 
beds that were in a circle. And then they did their surgical procedures 
in the center. About all they did was amputations at that time because 
most of the young people who were in there, the freedom fighters from 
Nicaragua, were in there because they had stepped on land mines or 
something like that, so most of them were amputations. The average age 
of the freedom fighter was 18 at that time, because the older ones had 
either died or lost their arms or legs.
  I remember, I went all the way around--I speak Spanish--and I talked 
to each one of those individuals. I tried to get in my own mind: What 
is it that is driving these people? What is it that they risk their 
lives for that so many of them are dying? And so I asked the question 
to each of them. The last one was a young girl 19 years old. Her name 
was Maria Lynn Gonzalez. I will always remember her because she was an 
itty-bitty girl. It was her third visit to the hospital tent; she kept 
coming back. But she would not go back to fight again because that 
morning they amputated her left leg and blood was oozing through the 
bandages.
  As she lay there, with her large eyes looking up after having gone 
through all that terror, I asked her that question. She responded to 
me, and she said:

       Es porque han tomado nuestras casas, campos, todo lo que 
     tenemos. Pero, de veras, ustedes en los Estados Unidos 
     entienden. Porque ustedes tuvieron que luchar por su libertad 
     lo mismo que estamos luchando ahora.

  What the little girl was saying was well, of course, we are fighting; 
we are fighting because they have taken our farms and our houses and 
everything we own. But surely you in the United States do not have to 
ask that question because you had to fight for your freedom from an 
abusive government the same as we are fighting for our freedom today.
  It occurred to me at that time this little girl, Maria Lynn Gonzalez, 
who could not read or write, she was not well educated; she had never 
gone to school; she was brilliant in her knowledge and appreciation of 
freedom, and she was willing to die for it. She looked at our 
revolution in this country, that revolution which we could not have won 
any other way than our reliance upon God and the principles that made 
this country so great, and she did not know whether we won that 
revolution 5 years ago or 200 years ago; she did not have any concept 
of when all this was happening, but to her it was a fight for freedom 
against all odds, and we were that beacon of freedom that led them to 
their success down there.
  It has been that way for 200 years. The whole world looks at us. And 
while the world looks at us as the example that people are bigger than 
government, and that totalitarian government, centralized government 
that is in charge of people's lives does not perform as people do when 
they are unleashed and can do as they wish and 

[[Page S 10082]]
have the product of their labors, then that means so much more.
  So while we are the beacon of that freedom, the administration is 
trying to hold on to the old, abusive governmental waste of the past 
with white knuckles.
  And so I say to you, Mr. President--not this Mr. President but Mr. 
President Clinton--that you are not going to win this battle because 
there was an election. When that election took place in November 1994, 
there were a lot of loud messages. They wanted to rebuild a strong 
national defense at the same time they wanted to balance the budget. We 
are going to do both.
  They wanted to change the role of Government so it no longer has 
abusive control and power over the citizenry, and that is exactly what 
is going to happen.
  So this is a very important debate that we are in the middle of right 
now, Mr. President, the debate on the role of Government, how abusive 
is Government, and for all those people around the world who look to us 
as that beacon of freedom we are going to keep that beacon very bright 
and shiny for them.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          ____________________