[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 19, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, July 5, 1995, into the Congressional Record.
                          Environmental Policy

       U.S. environmental policy is at a crossroads. On the 25th 
     anniversary of Earth Day, we can take great pride in the 
     advances that have been made in environmental protection. We 
     have succeeded in reducing the levels of lead and other 
     dangerous pollutants from the air. Lakes and rivers once so 
     contaminated they could catch on fire, now support large fish 
     populations. Endangered species like the eagle and the 
     buffalo have been saved from extinction and are now thriving.
       The challenge ahead is to build on these successes, but in 
     smarter, more cost-effective ways. The objectives of our 
     environmental laws are almost always worthy: cleaner air; 
     safer drinking water; protection of endangered species and so 
     forth. The issue is whether current laws go about achieving 
     these goals in the most sensible way.
       Cleaning up the environment has become much more 
     complicated. At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, 
     there was a broad consensus that the environment was a mess 
     and that the government had to do something about it. Today 
     that consensus is much less firm. There are competing claims 
     about the environment's condition, strong rivalries within 
     the environmental movement, and active opposition to 
     environmental regulation. Furthermore, the nature of 
     environmental regulation is changing. Whereas in the past 
     government regulators focused on large polluters, such as the 
     local factory, new regulations aim to curb pollution from 
     more diffuse sources, such as runoff from farm lands.


                          Command and control

       Most environmental programs are of a ``command and 
     control'' variety. The federal government sets regulations 
     which the public and private sectors must follow. For 
     example, the Clean Air Act mandates how much pollution 
     factories can emit and the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
     Act directs industry to dispose of hazardous waste in a 
     certain manner.
       This regulatory approach can be credited with improving 
     environmental quality over the last 25 years. The question 
     now is whether it is the correct approach for the 21st 
     Century. The current regulatory system offers the advantages 
     of uniformity, administrative efficiency, and predictability, 
     but it has drawbacks as well.
       First, ``command and control'' can be too inflexible. It 
     takes a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation. For 
     example, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires all localities 
     to test for a broad menu of contaminants even if there is 
     little or no chance that a community's water system has been 
     exposed to certain contaminants. Localities cannot pursue 
     innovative alternatives that could achieve the same level of 
     water quality at lower cost.
       Second, the current system can be very expensive. Pollution 
     controls, for example, cost an estimated $26 billion per 
     year. Protecting the environment will cost money--and in many 
     cases, that money is well spent--but I am concerned we are 
     not getting the best return on the dollar. Some programs 
     don't work as well as they should. The Superfund program, for 
     example, was designed to clean up the nation's most hazardous 
     waste sites, but too much funding has been wasted in overhead 
     and litigation costs. Other laws mandate, at great cost, 
     compliance from state and local governments or private 
     enterprises, often without any financial assistance from the 
     federal government.
       Third, the ``command and control'' approach can be too 
     complex. Our environmental statutes have evolved into a 
     cumbersome system that tends to over-specify compliance 
     strategies and mandate extensive reporting requirements.


                              new approach

       We need to rethink how we regulate the environment. This 
     does not mean repealing current standards, but rather 
     defining a sensible role for the federal government. There 
     continues to be a federal role in protecting the environment. 
     Many environmental problems, such as water and air pollution, 
     cross state and even international borders, and, 
     consequently, demand a national response. Furthermore, most 
     Americans want federal leadership on environmental issues.
       I believe the following principles should, where 
     appropriate, guide future environmental policy with the 
     objective of making regulation more flexible, less costly and 
     less complex.
       First, we should work to find market-based solutions to 
     environmental problems. Such an approach might entail 
     providing incentives to private business or local governments 
     to meet or exceed environmental standards; or creating a 
     system of marketable pollution permits. Market-driven 
     solutions offer the promise of achieving environmental 
     objectives in a way that is more cost-effective and less 
     disruptive to industry.
       Second, we should encourage cooperation between the federal 
     government and the regulated community. Environmental 
     regulation will always involve some tension between the two, 
     but the federal government can take steps to minimize such 
     conflict by working cooperatively with businesses, land-
     owners and other private interests to find solutions.
       Third, we should give more discretion to state and local 
     governments in managing environmental problems. The federal 
     government has the expertise to set national standards for 
     environmental protection and compliance strategies. State and 
     local governments, however, are often closer to the problems, 
     and may have better ideas about solving them in innovative, 
     cost-effective ways.
       Fourth, we should allocate federal resources to the most 
     pressing environmental problems, particularly in an era of 
     tight federal budgets. Too many federal dollars are wasted on 
     programs of marginal social or economic benefit. Federal 
     agencies should conduct risk assessment, based on scientific 
     evidence, and cost-benefit analysis before implementing new 
     regulations.


                               conclusion

       Protecting the environment today demands something more 
     than the standard regulatory prohibitions. The environmental 
     movement has taught us the responsibility of protecting our 
     own natural heritage. We now must reshape our efforts with a 
     new openness to what works and what does not work in 
     environmental protection.
     

                          ____________________