You have big shoes to fill. Your predecessor, Senator Kempthorne, did a great job. He had conservative views. But he was willing to listen carefully to other points of view and try to find middle ground. I am confident that you'll measure up.
This is an important hearing, for two reasons. First, it shows follow-through. All too often, we pass a law but don't keep a close eye on how the law is implemented. The kind of oversight that we are conducting today is refreshing and important.
Second, the hearing gives us a chance to consider the lessons of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, which is one of this committee's great success stories. Some of the lessons are substantive. The bill takes innovative approaches to solving environmental problems.
A flexible state revolving fund. Special attention to the needs of small rural communities. The public empowerment that comes from consumer confidence reports. The measured use of cost-benefit analysis. A flexible, multi-media approach to the regulation of radon.
By considering how well these approaches are working, we may get some insight into other environmental laws within the Committee's jurisdiction.
But there's another lesson. A political lesson. The enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 shows that we can achieve consensus and find positive solutions to environmental problems.
The leadership came not only from Senator Kempthorne, but also from Senators Chafee, Reid, and other members of the Committee. And it came from many others who are here in this room. Cynthia Dougherty of EPA, who worked closely with Administrator Browner and Bob Perciasepe. Eric Olsen of the NRDC. Diane Van de Hei with the water utilities.
And still others from the environmental community, drinking water providers, state and local governments, and the agriculture community.
People had different perspectives and different interests. But they listened to each other and found common ground. As a result, we were able to produce a bill that reduces regulatory burdens while increasing the protection of public health.
That should serve as a model, for how we come up with bipartisan, consensus-based legislation that's good for the environment and good for the economy. I commend the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony.