Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. There is a requirement on Mexico, and Mexico alone, Mexican companies; is that what the Senator is saying?

Mr. THOMPSON. That is, by definition, discriminatory and seemingly clearly contrary to the agreement. That is an interesting provision in and of itself. I am wondering whether or not an entire Mexican company is restricted, even if there is a problem, say, with just one or two trucks.

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not know what that limitation would be, but obviously that is very broad. I guess what is going through my mind is whether or not, even if we could under the agreement enter into such an arrangement, that would be a wise or fair thing to do because there is not a trucking company in the world that does not have some violations every once in awhile. It cannot be prevented. There is too much stuff going on, and having been a truckdriver a little bit myself, I am very much aware that, try as one might, one has to have a lot of rules and regulations and a lot of difficulties facing them. Obviously, nobody wants any renegades doing business anywhere, but to say any limitations ever placed on a company when they are doing business with regard to, say, maybe even one truck at one location, that in effect bans them for the rest of the Nation with regard to any other trucks, maybe even other trucks leased from another company, I do not see the wisdom in that, quite frankly. Regardless whether it is a good idea or not, it seems to be clearly discriminatory.

Mr. THOMPSON. Sure.

Mr. THOMPSON. I say to the Senator, that is sad but true. It has a great deal to do with competition, or the desire for lack of competition, and when I say I do not see the wisdom in it, I guess I do not see the wisdom in such a provision unless I am a competing trucker who wants to look for any opportunity to make sure they have less competition. Unfortunately, that is what free trade is all about-- competition. When we entered into NAFTA, we committed ourselves to free and open competition. So I hope we do not get into a situation where we try to hang on technicalities or other provisions that are not only contrary to the agreement but are designed to limit competition. I do not think we have a thing in the world to be afraid of. On the one hand, the implication seems to be that these are all terrible trucks and they do not know how to operate them. On the other hand, we are afraid of that kind of competition. It does not seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

Mr. THOMPSON. They have not had enough rest.

Mr. THOMPSON. For American trucks?

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator mean Mexican trucks?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think clearly so. I have a broader concern in this, and that is, what is the signal that is being received from Mexico and from Mexicans who watch this and listen to this debate and see all of these provisions which are clearly discriminatory, that we do not treat Canada this way, but we are treating Mexico this way. What kind of signal is that? We have a lot of highball rhetoric on the Senate floor about matters of discrimination, and worse, but I am wondering, in a situation such as this when it comes down to dollars or when it comes down to domestic interest groups that get involved in it, to try to pressure the United States to violate agreements we have entered into, what kind of signal that sends. And I wonder what President Fox, who has come in as a breath of fresh air, who has instituted components of democracy that they have not had, has reached out and is trying to get his arms around a tough economic situation in a complex culture and heritage, and has a good relationship with our President--I wonder what he must be thinking as he looks at all this. I don't think it is good.

Mr. THOMPSON. I imagine his political opponents would see this as an opportunity to question his effectiveness and his relationship to this country. It is coming at a time when he made certain commitments to work with us on problems that are very important to us. He has made commitments with regard to the illegal immigration problem knowing, as I believe most of us do, that before we can ultimately deal with that problem, we are going to have to have some progress in terms of the Mexican economy. We can't beggar our neighbor and get by with it in this world today. We especially can't with that common border we have of 1,200 miles. We cannot solve that problem without a better Mexican economy. NAFTA is at the heart of that. He has to be looking at all of that and seeing us move away from that. I say his political opponents have to be looking at that and seeing an excellent opportunity to do harm to NAFTA and the principles of NAFTA and to do harm to a new, fresh face on the scene who, as you say, is the best friend we have had down there in a long time, and who is trying to do the right thing. For all those reasons, it is extremely unfortunate we are moving in that direction. How much time remains on my hour?

Mr. THOMPSON. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1165 to Amendment No. 1030

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Dr. John Graham for the position of Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. On May 23, the Governmental Affairs Committee reported the nomination of Dr. Graham with a vote of 9-3 or 11-4, if you count proxies. The bipartisan vote included Republican members of the committee, as well as Senators Levin, Carper, and Carnahan. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in support of the confirmation of Dr. Graham. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as we will refer to it, was established in 1980 by the Paperwork Reduction Act, legislation developed to address policy issues that Congress was concerned were being neglected by the executive branch. OIRA is primarily charged with being a leader on regulatory review, reducing unnecessary paperwork and red tape, improving the management of the executive branch, reviewing information policy, and guiding statistical policy proposals. The decisions and actions of the OIRA administrator are very important to the public and should be made by a particularly capable and dedicated individual. John Graham fits this profile. John Graham has been a professor of policy and decision sciences at the Harvard School of Public Health since 1985. He is the founder and director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. He has worked with various Federal agencies through his research, advisory committees, and as a consultant. He holds a bachelor's degree in public affairs from Duke University and a Ph.D. in urban and public affairs from Carnegie Mellon University with an emphasis on decision sciences. In addition, the EPA funded his postdoctoral fellowship in environmental science and public policy, and he completed course work in research training and human health risk assessment. In 1995, Dr. Graham was elected president of the International Society for Risk Analysis, a membership organization of 2,000-plus scientists, engineers, and scholars dedicated to advancing the tools of risk analysis. We have received testimonials attesting to the credentials and integrity of Dr. Graham from hundreds of esteemed authorities in the environmental policy, health policy, and related fields. William Reilly, the former Administrator of EPA, said that ``over the years, John Graham has impressed me with his vigor, his fair-mindedness, and integrity.'' Dr. Lewis Sullivan, former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services said that ``Dr. Graham is superbly qualified to be the IORA administrator.'' Former OIRA Administrators from both Democratic and Republican administrations have conveyed their confidence that John Graham is not an opponent of all regulation but, rather, he is deeply committed to seeing that regulation serves broad public purposes as effectively as possible. Dr. Robert Leiken, a respected expert on regulatory policy at the Brookings Institution, stated that Dr. Graham is the most qualified person ever nominated for the job of OIRA Administrator. About 100 scholars in environmental and health policy and related fields joined together to endorse John Graham's nomination stating: While we don't always agree with John or, for that matter, with one another on every policy issue, we do respect his work and his intellectual integrity. It is very regrettable that some interest groups that disagree with John's views on the merits of particular issues have chosen to impugn his integrity by implying that his views are for sale rather than confronting the merits of his argument. Dialog about public policy should be conducted at a higher level. Having dealt with this nomination for many months, I think that quote really hits the nail on the head. Some groups oppose Dr. Graham because they don't agree with his support for sound science and better regulatory analysis. But they have chosen to engage in attacks against him instead of addressing the merits of his thinking. It is especially unfortunate since this nominee has done so much to advance an important field of thought that can help us achieve greater environmental health and safety protection at less cost. While some groups oppose the confirmation of Dr. Graham, I believe their concerns have been addressed and should not dissuade the Senate from confirming Dr. Graham. For example, Joan Claybrook, the President of Public Citizen, has charged that Dr. Graham's views are antiregulation. Yet Dr. Graham's approach calls for smarter regulation based on science, engineering, and economics, not necessarily less regulation. He has shown that we can achieve greater protections than we are currently achieving. Opponents have charged that Dr. Graham is firmly opposed to most environmental regulations. In fact, Dr. Graham and his colleagues have produced scholarships that supported a wide range of environmental policies, including toxic pollution control at coke plants, phaseout of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, and low-sulfur diesel fuel requirements. Dr. Graham also urged new environmental policies to address indoor pollution, outdoor particulate pollution, and tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles. Dr. Graham believes that environmental policy should be grounded in science, however, and examined for cost-effectiveness. Dr. Graham and his colleagues have also developed new tools for chemical risk assessment that will better protect the public against noncancer health effects, such as damage to the human reproductive and immune systems. Dr. Graham's basic regulatory philosophy was adopted in the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996, a life-saving law that both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported, including most of us here today. Critics have claimed that Professor Graham seeks to increase the role of economic analysis in regulatory decisionmaking and freeze out intangible and humanistic concerns. This is inaccurate. In both of his scholarly writings, and in congressional testimony, Professor Graham rejected purely numerical monetary approaches to cost-benefit analyses. He has insisted that intangible contributions, including fairness, privacy, freedom, equity, and ecological protection be given way in both regulatory analysis and decisionmaking. Dr. Graham and the Harvard Center have shown that many regulatory policies are, in fact, cost-effective, such as AIDS prevention and treatments; vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella; regulations on the sale of cigarettes to minors; enforcement of seatbelt laws; the mandate of lead-free gasoline; and the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals. Critics also claimed that Professor Graham's views are extreme because he has indicated that public health resources are not always allocated wisely under existing laws and regulations. Yet this is not an extreme view. It reflects the thrust of the writings on risk regulation by Justice Stephen Breyer, for example--President Clinton's choice for the Supreme Court--as well as consensus statements from diverse groups such as the Carnegie Commission, the National Academy of Public Administration, and the Harvard Group on Risk Management Reform. Professor Graham made crystal clear at his confirmation hearing that he will enforce the laws of the land, as Congress has written them. He understands that there is significant differences between the professor's role of questioning all ways of thinking and the OIRA Administrator's role of implementing the laws and the President's policy. I believe Dr. Graham will make the transition from academia to Government service smoothly, and that he will use his valuable experience to bring more insight to the issues that confront OIRA every day. A fair review of the deliberations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and the entire record, lead me and many of my colleagues to conclude that Dr. John Graham has the qualifications and the character to serve the public with distinction. A respected professor at the University of Chicago put it this way. He says: John Graham cannot be pigeonholed as conservative or liberal on regulatory issues. He is unpredictable in the best sense. I would not be surprised at all if in some settings he turned out to be a vigorous voice for aggressive governmental regulation. In fact, that is exactly what I would expect. When he questions regulations, it is because he thinks we can use our resources in better ways. It is because he thinks that we can use our resources in ways that do not necessarily meet the eye. On this issue, he stands as one of the most important researchers and most promising public servants in the Nation. I urge prompt confirmation of John Graham. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Michigan. I ask how much time he would require?

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we have speakers in support. I see my friend from Connecticut. In the interest of balance, if the Senator desires time, I yield. Not my time, of course.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. THOMPSON. Reserving the right to object, I ask my friend, are you suggesting a total of 15 minutes on each side?

Mr. THOMPSON. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in listening to the criticism of Dr. Graham and the implicit suggestion that he is a little less than a menace to society and that his opinions are for sale, my first reaction is that it is a very bad reflection on Harvard University that has let this kind of individual roam the streets for the last 15 years. They obviously are not aware of what he is doing. It makes me wonder also why a professor at the University of Chicago Law School would say ``in emphasizing that environmental protection sometimes involves large expenditures for small gains, Graham is seeking to pave the way with more sensible regulation.'' I wonder, in listening to why former EPA Administrator Mr. Reilly would say: Graham would help ensure the rules implementing our environmental laws are as effective and efficient as they can be in achieving their objectives. I am wondering in light of this man's ridiculous notions concerning scientific matters, matters of chemistry, for example, which we acknowledge we do not know anything about--we are not experts--we criticize him for not being an expert in his area; we criticize this Ph.D. scientist from Harvard for not knowing his subject matter, then we launch into a rendition of his deficiencies for his scientific analysis. Mr. President, we are wading in way over our heads in criticizing Dr. Graham for his scientific analysis based upon excerpts, based upon false characterizations, based upon unfair characterizations of what he has said and what he has done, and we will deal with some of those. Again, I wonder if there is any semblance of truth of this man who has headed up the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, who has been associated with Harvard for 15 years, who has received the endorsements of Democrats and Republicans alike, who has received the endorsements of the last two people who served in this position, who are from the Clinton administration, who has received endorsements from some of the foremost authorities in the areas involved, who has received endorsements from noted scientists from around the country, and I wonder why the dean of academic affairs for the Harvard School of Public Health would say that Dr. Graham is an excellent scientist who has encouraged rationality in the regulatory process. I wonder why a professor at Rollins School of Public Health would say: Often these public health issues are approached in a partisan way, but Dr. Graham is dedicated to using careful analysis to weigh the costs and benefits, et cetera. Dr. Hemmingway, director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center: Dr. Graham's interest is in improving the Nation's health in the most cost-effective manner. I am wondering how all these people could be so wrong. You are going to find people who disagree with anybody, and I respect that people have differences of opinion. I wish it were sufficient to argue on the basis of those differences of opinion, on the basis of the science that is involved to the extent that we can, as nonscientists, but instead of doing that, what we are being introduced to here is an unfair rendition, what I would call basically a know-nothing kind of approach to a very complex series of scientific decisions with which we are dealing, and placing an unfair characterization on them. I guess the one dealt with the most is dioxin. We would be led to believe that Dr. Graham's statements with regard to dioxin are outrageous. Why? Not because of any scientific knowledge we have or that has been presented on the floor of the Senate but because everybody knows dioxin is a bad thing. If he says any amount of it is not carcinogenic, he must not know what he was talking about. I was looking at the testimony that Dr. Graham gave before our committee. He was asked by Senator Durbin: Do you believe that exposure to dioxin can increase your likelihood of cancer? Mr. Graham: Thank you for reminding me. I think that at high doses in laboratory animals, there is clear evidence that dioxin causes cancer. Then he says: In humans, I think the database is more mixed and difficult to interpret. With regard to the low levels of dioxin not being carcinogenic, I refer to the Science Advisory Board. Their conclusion is as follows: There is some evidence that very low doses of dioxin may result in decreases in some adverse responses, including cancer, but can produce other adverse effects at the same or similar doses. The Science Advisory Board panel recommends that the totality of evidence concerning this phenomenon continues to be evaluated by the agencies as studies become available. This consensus conclusion by the panel is almost exactly in accord with Mr. Graham's stated position at the public meeting: the other adverse effects at the very low doses we are talking about are noncancerous. He is trying to be a responsible scientist. By placing so much emphasis on the low doses, we, because of the cancer issue, are missing the boat on the noncancer problems that dioxin causes. I don't have enough time to go into all of the detail on this, but I think we can see how unfair the characterization has been with regard to this complicated issue. We have a counterintuitive situation that Senator Levin pointed out with regard to thalidomide. Who would think doctors today would prescribe thalidomide under certain circumstances? At a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing a couple of days ago, a couple of scientists attending from the National Academy of Sciences had just done a study on global warming. They pointed out certain aerosols released into the atmosphere, which we all know is a bad thing, can actually have a cooling effect in the atmosphere. We are all concerned about global warming, and this has a cooling effect. Does this mean we need to release a lot of additional aerosol? Of course not. It does not mean that. It is a scientific fact that needs to be taken into consideration. I am sure, somewhere, if ever nominated for office, their opponents will take that statement from our hearings yesterday saying that these idiots believe we ought to be releasing aerosols in the atmosphere because it can have a cooling effect. I hope that does not happen. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the cost of public service today. It is pointed out this man is anti-EPA and that some official somewhere at some time in the EPA has disagreed with his assessment. EPA partially funded this man's education. EPA contracts with him to do work, as we speak--not since he has been nominated. The center at Harvard has been hired by EPA to do work. I should rest my case at that point. Of course, we never do when we should, so I will continue that fine tradition. I do have another point to make, in all seriousness, that is what this is about, which is Dr. Graham has been caught up in the debate over cost-benefit analysis. There are certain people in this country--I am sure their intentions are noble--who band together, who believe all regulations are good by definition; that there should be no questions asked about those regulations; that we should not take into account possible costs to society, whether they be tangible costs in dollars and cents or intangible costs; should not take into account whether resources could be better used for more significant environmental problems; should not take into account unintended consequences or any of those things; and that no one should ever bring up anything that challenges the common wisdom with regard to these issues, and we should only listen to sciences and promote the regulations. When times like this come about, they band together and pull excerpts together to try to defeat people who want to bring rationality to the regulatory process. I think they harm sensible, reasonable legislation, where moderate, reasonable people certainly want to protect us, protect this country, and protect our citizens, but, at the same time, know we are not doing our citizens any favor if we are using our resources in a way not most productive. For example, it is proven we have been spending money on regulations pertaining to water, when the real risk was not being addressed. Some of the money should have been placed elsewhere in our water program. How much time remains?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that is what has happened. It has to be recognized we make the cost-benefit tradeoffs all the time. If we really wanted to save lives at the exclusion of consideration of cost to society, we would take all the automobiles off the streets and not allow anybody to drive. We know the examples, I am sure, all of us, by heart. Or we would make people drive around in tanks instead of automobiles. There are tradeoffs we have to make. They need to be done in the full context of the political discourse by responsible people with proven records. I suggest that is the nominee we have before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, let's listen to the scientists on the Science Advisory Board to which the Senator referred. Dr. Dennis Passionback: I think John's point [meaning John Graham] is what you thought his point was, Mort, and that is in several studies and hypotheses over the years that there are some hormonic beneficial effects associated with dioxin and related chemicals for certain disease influences. Of course that is at very low dose of course. These are scientists. It is easy for the rhetoric to get out of hand here, and I want to try to do my part to not engage in escalating, but I find some of the statements attributed to this man amazing. I think our colleagues know better. I think the letters of endorsement and the public endorsements belie this. I think the reflection on Harvard University is unfair. It is not uncommon for centers doing work similar to Harvard's center to receive 40 to 60 percent of their funding from the private sector. I think what we have here is just a back and forth with regard to a man whose opponents are desperately trying to undermine this nomination. I think we have here a question concerning public service and whether or not we are going to get decent people to come into these thankless jobs to do them if we are going to see the confluence of scientific work on the one hand and the political process on the other produce such an ugly result. I think we need to ask ourselves that question. I think we need to ask ourselves also whether or not we want to have these decisions based upon sound scientific analysis, one that is endorsed by all of the people who endorsed Dr. Graham, and say that analysis, that sound analysis that will work to our benefit. I have a chart of all the areas where lead and gasoline, sludge, drinking water--where Dr. Richard Morganstern, economic analyst at the EPA, has shown where cost-benefit analysis, the kind that Dr. Graham proposes, has been beneficial both from a cost standpoint and increasing benefits. Let's not get into an anti-intellectual no-nothing kind of mode here and try to label these fine scientists and this fine institution with labels that do not fit and are not deserved. I sincerely hope my colleagues will vote for this nomination.