The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SUPPORTING REGULATORY REFORM” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S9599-S9600 on July 10, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SUPPORTING REGULATORY REFORM
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 343, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act, which will be before us today and, I suspect, for the remainder of the week.
I think that this is one of the most exciting opportunities that we have had this year. This is one of the opportunities for this Congress and this Senate, this Government, to take a look at some of the things that have been going on for 30 years, 40 years, without much examination, which have simply grown and have continued to become more expensive and larger, without a real examination of whether or not what is being done is the most effective way to do it, or whether or not it could be done in a less costly way. I think it is an exciting opportunity.
I have just returned, as have most of our associates, from a week in my home State of Wyoming. We did a series of town meetings and met with the rangeland users and met with the sugar beet growers and the chamber of commerce and the Rotary. As has been the case for some time, the issue most often mentioned is overregulation and the cost of overregulation. So I am excited about the opportunity to do something about that.
I suspect that we will run into the same kinds of discussions that we have when we talk about doing something about welfare reform--that somehow those of us who want some change in what we have been doing are less compassionate than those who want the status quo; that somehow those of us who want to take a look at and change the way regulation is imposed are less caring about the environment and about clean water and clean air than those who support the status quo. That is simply not true.
I suspect that we will hear from the opposition on this bill that somehow this bill will remove all of the regulatory requirements that exist. Not so. We will hear that somehow the regulations that are in place to protect us for various kinds of water and air problems will be eliminated or superseded. That is simply not so.
Many people can imagine what the last election was about. But I think we have talked about it a great deal. There were at least three things that I think were most important to the people of Wyoming. One was that the Federal Government is too big, that it costs too much, and that we are overregulating. I think those are genuine responses that people feel very strongly about.
So, Mr. President, here is our opportunity to do something about that. Clearly, the regulatory system is broken. What is being proposed does not do away with regulations. It simply says there is a better way to do it.
As our leader just indicated, overregulation is a hidden tax that is passed on to consumers. It is not absorbed by businesses. It is not a business issue, even though much of it affects business. The costs are passed on to you and to me. Furthermore, the regulations are not confined to business. It goes much beyond that, into small towns, cities, the universities, and other areas.
Unfortunately, regulations have been applied generally. In our Wyoming Legislature, I am proud that we have a situation where the statute is passed by the legislature, the agency that is affected drafts and creates the regulation, and it comes back to the legislature for some overview to see, No. 1, if it is within the spirit of the statute; No. 2, to see if it is indeed cost beneficial, that what it is set to accomplish is worth the cost of accomplishment.
We do not even have here an analysis of what the cost will be. The cost of regulation, as the leader indicated, is more than personal tax revenues. Some estimate it between $650 billion and $800 billion. Now, this bill will not eliminate all of that cost, of course, because there is a need for regulation, and there is a cost with regulation. The point is that we are looking for a way to apply that regulation in as efficient and effective a manner as can be and do something that has not been done for a long time, and that in the application of the regulation, to use some common sense in terms of what it costs with respect to what the benefits are, and to take a look at risk-benefits ratios to see if what will be accomplished is worth the cost and the effort of the application.
Furthermore, it gives us an opportunity to go back to some regulations that have existed and look at them. Let me give an example. In Buffalo, WY, there are 3,500 people. The EPA said we need to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act. Fine. They are willing to do that. They are willing to put in a filtering system that costs $3 million for a town of 3,500 and made a good-faith effort to comply.
One year later, EPA responded and said they would send a compliance schedule. Buffalo never received the schedule.
Then when Buffalo proceeded as they had set forth in their schedule, EPA claimed that Buffalo never let them know what was going on.
After that was worked out, EPA accepted, in writing, the town of Buffalo's plan. The following year, EPA again claimed the city did not let them know what was going on and referred the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
When asked what happened, EPA said, ``We changed our mind.'' The bottom line, the city of Buffalo wanted to comply with the Federal mandate, but the Federal overregulation and bureaucracy prevented that.
The University of Wyoming. We had several contacts from the University of Wyoming asking for a list of issues they were most concerned about. Do you know what was at the top of the list? Overregulation. Not grants, not money--overregulation. This is the university. This is not a business. This is the university, where a good amount of their resources were there to educate young people.
We have the same problem in health regulations, in the disposal of health care waste, which goes far beyond the clean air. It will cause some of the small hospitals in Wyoming to be closed.
Overregulation is particularly difficult for the rural areas of the West, where in our case more than half of the State belongs to the Federal Government. The things we do in our way of life, in our economy, our job creation, is always regulated more than most anywhere else in the country. We are very, very, concerned.
Let me give one example. There are leases, of course, for livestock grazing on Bureau of Land Management lands and on lands of the Forest Service. The leases are renewed regularly. This year, it was decided there had to be a NEPA study--that is supposed to be confined to areas of national concern--for every renewal of a grazing lease. The irrigators have to spend $100,000 this year to do a NEPA review on their conservation land. The cost of this is paid by you and by me.
Regulatory reform needs to have principles. This bill has them. It has cost-benefit analysis. I think that is a proper and reasonable thing. You and I do that. We make decisions for ourself and our family. We have a cost-benefit analysis, even though it may be informal. A risk assessment--it could be that the last few percentage points are too expensive to be reasonable and common sense. We need a look-back provision so we can go back and take a look at the regulations that now exist. There needs to be a sunset provision so that burdensome laws and burdensome regulations can be dropped or renewed. There needs to be a judicial review. S. 343 incorporates these principles.
I think we have a great opportunity to make better use of the resources that we have, Mr. President, to provide greater protection for human health and safety in the environment at a lower cost and to hold regulators accountable for their decisions. What is wrong with that? I think that is a good idea, to hold the Congress accountable for the kinds of regulations, to limit the size of Government, so that we can create jobs that help consumers improve competitiveness overseas.
We should take advantage of this opportunity. This week will be the time to do it, to be realistic, to apply common sense, to reduce the cost and the burden of regulation. I am delighted that we will have a chance this year, this week, Mr. President, to do that.
I yield the floor. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
