[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10832-S10833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             WHY TAMPER WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUCCESS STORY

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that, once again, 
American business has succeeded in significantly reducing the amount of 
chemicals released into the environment. According to the most recent 
report from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Data Release of 1994, 
releases of chemicals declined nearly nine, percent between 1993 and 
1994. Since the TRI began in 1988, overall chemical releases have 
dropped more than 44 percent. This decline is particularly impressive 
because it has occurred in tandem with economic growth. This is an 
environmental success story.
  This successful reduction affirms that an approach to environmental 
protection which encourages the participation of states and businesses 
can and does work. It argues for a continuation of approaches to 
environmental protection that use voluntary solutions, technological 
innovations and increased flexibility. As the report shows, we should 
have confidence in this successful public policy strategy.
  Unfortunately, though, these promising statistics have been ignored. 
The TRI facts have not deterred the Clinton Administration from 
considering further burdens on America's society.
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it plans 
to require businesses to file new extensive reports about how chemicals 
are used in the manufacturing process. This proposal is called 
``Materials Accounting,'' and it is flawed for several reasons.
  First, the proposal to track materials would place a new and very 
costly hardship on the business community. Initial estimates indicate 
that the additional cost to our Nation's businesses in direct reporting 
paperwork costs alone could be as much as $800 million. In addition to 
being extremely costly, this proposal is completely at odds with the 
President's pledge in March 1995 to simplify and ease paperwork burdens 
on American businesses.
  I'm even reminded of the President's recent speech in Kalamazoo, MI, 
where he reaffirmed this goal to reduce administrative burdens. Well, 
for me, nearly $1 billion is real money. It is a real cost for 
America's business community. It is a real paperwork burden that cannot 
be ignored.
  Already TRI generates 80,000 reports per year. And, it takes EPA 
nearly 2 years to provide this existing information to the communities 
nearest to the facilities producing these reports. It seems very 
basic--before EPA unilaterally increases the size of its two-inches 
thick report and further delays its publication, specific statutory 
authority should be provided. The EPA's actions to expand it reporting 
requirements are not authorized in law. How can EPA be responsive and 
concerned about the risks faced by communities living near the 
reporting facilities, when it requires a 2-year detour of the data with 
its Washington bureaucrats?
  Apart from the billion-dollar administrative cost, 
Materials Accounting will jeopardize America's global competitiveness 
by putting our most innovative technologies at risk. Our country's 
position in the world's economy is dependent upon the development of 
superior technology and the ability to protect that technology from 
competitors, both international and domestic. Information about the 
amounts of chemicals used in and created during a production process 
will provide competitors with access to trade secrets. This does not 
make good business sense. In fact this seriously endangers the 
confidentiality of proprietary business information which is essential 
in the marketplace.

  Third, this approach would make sense only if substantial, tangible 
and quantified environmental benefits clearly exceeded the costs. 
However, I have seen no analysis which supports this premise. On the 
contrary, I believe

[[Page S10833]]

the implementation of a Materials Accounting program will dilute the 
focus of TRI by forcing businesses to commit finite resources to 
trivial or even nonexistent risks, rather than more pressing, real 
risks. It will also unnecessarily confuse citizens. This does not make 
good policy sense. Chemical use is not directly related to information 
a community must receive about the real risks faced from actual 
releases from neighborhood facilities.
  In my view, TRI should focus on telling the American public about the 
risks directly associated with exposure to chemical releases. This was 
the view of Congress back in 1988 when TRI was enacted. If EPA is 
looking for a new mission, it should expand its public outreach efforts 
by the communication of risk information that is both meaningful and 
understandable.
  EPA should undertake practical and timely risk communications which 
are locally based. Risk communication is the heart and soul of a 
community's right-to-know. Reporting to citizens the number of pounds 
per year release of a certain chemical is neither valuable nor 
worthwhile information. It says nothing about potential risks to human 
health or the environment. Real risk depends on three factors: First, 
inherent toxicity of the material; second, its concentration; and 
third, its location relative to humans. Unfortunately, this simple 
scientific formula has been ignored by EPA.
  EPA also should stop trying to increase the number of chemicals on 
the list without first ensuring that sound science-based criteria are 
in place. More listings without scientific criteria will not 
automatically make a community safer. EPA must first have a clear 
understanding of the real exposure risk to avoid public confusion. EPA 
should use the accepted basic risk formula.
  Last, EPA does not have the statutory authority to collect and then 
disseminate information about chemical use. The Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act explicitly states the types of information 
that may be collected by EPA. While all this information bears an 
indirect relationship to potential releases and emissions, the Act does 
not allow EPA to disperse sensitive chemical use information. This 
proposal, therefore, is well beyond the scope of the basic statute 
which established the TRI Program.
  Let me remind my colleagues that Congress considered the use aspect 
when the original program was created. And, chemical use was explicitly 
and consciously rejected.
  ``Materials Accounting'' raises more questions than it answers.
  Regulations are powerful, but they shift America's resources poorly. 
Because regulations cause consumers and businesses to spend a good deal 
of their money in ways they do not freely choose, Congress must first 
consider the consequences of this coerced spending before it becomes 
our public policy. A rule that has a $1 billion consequence is a rule 
that deserves the attention of Congress.
  With claims, counterclaims and even the withdrawal-of-claims that 
there are growing risks from everything around us, it is even more 
imperative for every citizen to know where the true risks are coming 
from. I believe the American people want their elected officials to 
look carefully into all aspects of environmental protection. The 
following questions need to have a response in the public record:
  (a) What benefit does the public derive from the publication of 
incomprehensible data on chemical use which has no correlation to risk 
from exposure?
  (b) Would the public benefit more from a prioritization of ``worst 
case'' emission risks to human health then use reporting?
  (c) How will EPA protect the proprietary formulations that are a 
valuable intellectual property?
  Mr. President, it is clear that the administration's materials 
accounting approach has no statutory basis. It is also clear that it 
will place an enormous burden on America's industrial communities. As a 
result, American jobs will be sacrificed for questionable, even 
limited, community environmental benefit.
  It is clear to me that congressional action must precede any 
administration action.
  Mr. President, I stand here today, along with many of my Senate 
colleagues who are committed to protecting and informing communities in 
our home States. We want to work on refining the policies which will 
update the TRI program. We want to make it truly responsive to the 
communities living nearest the facilities while preserving the right of 
businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
  I would like to pause and take a philosophical view for just a 
moment. Let's step back from TRI and consider all regulations in 
general. In the aggregate, regulatory compliance costs Americans around 
$670 billion every year--nearly 10 percent of our economy's GDP. This 
is substantial both in terms of dollars and percentage. This is why our 
public policy must meet this challenge in a systematic, responsive and 
balanced manner.
  Basic fairness must be an integral part of the solution as Congress 
reviews and updates any regulation. Basic fairness should also be part 
of the equation used by the administration as it approaches new 
initiatives. Basic fairness is the American way.
  The focus of the issue must not be whether we need environmental 
protection enforcement--of course we do. Rather we must look at how to 
achieve effective and appropriate environmental protection. Congress 
must ensure that both the enforcement agencies and the regulated 
community have incentives to encourage compliance. There must also be a 
mechanism for the agencies to prioritize environmental initiatives. 
And, of course, this process must respect our Bill of Rights.

  I started today by reporting on TRI's success story, and the agency's 
response of adding more reports and more costs. This could undermine 
the existing voluntary efforts of industry. I think everyone would 
agree that cooperative problem solving approaches work better than 
adversarial methods. The latter could even produce disdain and 
lawlessness.
  I also started by saying that states deserve part of the credit for 
the TRI success story. State governments have come a long way in terms 
of developing their own core levels of expertise. As regulations are 
updated, Congress must recognize states as a genuine partner in 
protecting our environment.
  The wisdom of this is demonstrated in a separate but vital 
illustration of state ingenuity. Seventeen states, including my own 
state of Mississippi, have developed a voluntary environmental audit 
process, and early indications are that the process is working. It is 
an alternative to the one-size-fits-all, Washington-expert, command-
and-control methods mandated in the past. It is common sense, and it 
actually produces positive results for our environment at less cost. It 
represents basic fairness. This is what Congress ought to be 
advocating.
  Mr. President, I want to conclude by saying that Congress needs to 
turn the spotlight back to TRI's original intent. This can be achieved 
by having both Congress and the EPA answer one fundamental question: 
What chemical release information will be useful to people living near 
an industrial facility?

                          ____________________