Department of Plant Biology
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois
Senator Paul Simon, D-IL was considered to have one of the finest environmental voting records in the United States Senate until he left in February of 1997 to start The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute and teach courses in policy, history and journalism at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale Illinois. Senator Simon had offers to teach at several of the nation's top universities, but choose SIU because it is 10 miles from his hometown of Makanda, Illinois. Simon's personal integrity has made him one of the most highly respected statesmen on either side of the aisle. It is his intent to pursue a non-partisan approach to political problem solving through the Institute.
The Senator graciously consented to be interviewed for the Policy Corner of Economic Botany Leaflets (EBL). The interview took place on May 8, 1997 with most questions submitted a few days before. Though not every question was addressed in full, their content is included here where they may offer more background on these issues to the reader.
About people
EBL: The Senate is currently controlled by conservative Republicans with an environmental record many biologists find dismal. They are also disenheartened by the lackluster response on the part of Democrats inspite of Vice-President Gore's stated positions. At the time of your own retirement from the Senate, other Democrats left as well, such as Senator Bill Bradley of new Jersey. The public was left with the perception that these retirements were related to frustration with the "new" Senate and an inability to work with them in a meaningful way. It is particularily disenheartening as you and Bradley were powerful pro-environment voices. Currently the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works is chaired by John Chafee, R-RI. Chairs of the following subcommittees are: Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property & Nuclear Safety, Lauch Faircloth, R-NC; Drinking Water, fisheries & Wildlife, Dirk Kempthorne, R-ID; Superfund, Waste Control & Risk Management, Robert C. Smith, R-NH. In addition chairman Pat Conner, R-AZ and Vice-Chairwoman Ann Day, R-AZ, head the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture & Environmental Committee.
You must have some ideas on how to approach this majority or you would not be putting your efforts into the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at this time. What can you tell us about the above list of people, their priorities, especially in environment and research and how to reach them both as individuals and as a group
Senator Simon: John Chafee is very sensitive, one of the "good guys". As for the others, work through people in their states because they're not as sensitive on this issue as John Chafee, not that sensitive, but interested in getting reelected.
They're not hostile, some of them may tilt in the direction of hostility, but they can become convinced, this is an area that is politically sensitive and they know it.
EBL: Senator Simon, you are well known for your ability as a statesman. Surely you've had many dealings with the House as well as the Senate. How do you see Mr. Gingrich's priorities in environment and research, and is he still the man to watch on issues for the House
Senator Simon: I haven't discussed environment with Gingrich.
EBL: Apparently without the support of pro-environment Republicans in both houses the environmental successes of the last four years would not have been possible. Who do you see are the current major supporters and detractors for environmental legislation amongst both the Republicans and the Democrats
Senator Simon: Olympia Snow and John Chafee are the (Republican) good guys for the environment. You don't need that many to have clout. If you get one or two Senators fighting your cause, unless there is hostility toward it, you can make headway.
About the Democratic Party platform
EBL: The 1996 Democratic Party platform made a number of statements including, "we believe Americans should insist that toxic waste cleanup is paid for by those responsible for it in the first place-- and not foisted off on the tax payers." Where are the bills supporting this concept
The platform states in the environmental section the importance of environmental concerns to the economy, trade and foreign policy. But inspection of those specific areas do not clearly reflect back these considerations in those sections. Why isn't the importance of environmental issues better integrated into discussions of these overlapping concerns if this commitment is real
Senator Simon: Nothing is as unimportant as a party platform. No one pays attention to it after it's been adopted. I have never read a party platform through and I doubt that any other member of the Senate has.
Business and research
EBL: Clinton-Gore claim Project XL challenges businesses to find cheaper more efficient ways to surpass government pollution regulations. How successful is this effort, where's the teeth needed to assist the less altruistic elements within the business community to also find it in their interest to participate Also where are the bills to put more federal research dollars into the effort to support this kind of change
Senator Simon: In terms of federal research dollars we're not doing the kind of research we should in any field, environment, health care, that is a deficiency. Take education as an example. The National Federation for Independent Business-- a front for the Republican Party. They're anti every environmental bill, telling the public they are, "horrible, it'll ruin your business".
Automakers and oil
EBL: The Democratic platform also takes credit for bringing together the big U.S. automakers to discuss so-called green cars. This is a great concept, but it opens a number of questions about whether federal money is going into this research, if so which budget does it come out of, who will benefit directly from the technology, and will any of the dollar return come back to the U.S. taxpayers at least in the form of recycling the money for other environmentally sound research which directly benefits business as well as the public at large
Senator Simon: The big thing here is that we should be pushing research on the electric car. California is doing more than the federal govenment by establishing standards. GM and Ford are reacting by doing some work. Ford has a car which operates on a fuel cell instead of a battery.
EBL: Some geologists and petroleum researchers claim we are running out of oil, perhaps as soon as in thirty years. What about this
Senator Simon: Most oil claims are exaggerated/ O'Leary predicted by 1985 that we'd run out of natural gas. We have more than ever before My instinct is that deep oil drilling will be less damaging than regular drilling.
EBL: What about CO2 emissions
Senator Simon: We still need electric cars due to CO2 emissions. There is a tendency for the Senate, the House and the Administration to be very short term in its thinking.
EBL: Even Clinton
Senator Simon: Yes.
Industry and federally funded research partnerships
EBL: Academic and research partnerships
Senator Simon: I'm all for them. It's tough to get money for education.
EBL: Frequently in a number of disciplines within universities researchers are increasingly in the habit of, even required to, in order to survive, combine federal research dollars from NSF (National Science Foundation), NIH (National Institutes of Health) and other federal funding sources with money from industrial sources. Two questions arise from these partnerships. One concerns the impact of industrial dollars on academic freedom, pursuit of basic research and what best serves the public. How does the current Congress perceive these issues and what if any protections might they legislate with use of federal dollars for these partnerships to protect these interests Secondly, frequently businesses ice the cake, by giving money to labs already well equipped by federal dollars. In return they can usually walk away with all or most of the financial return from discoveries in these labs. How can Congress best recoup the taxpayer's financial interests in these ventures without killing the much needed additional support from big business in research
Senator Simon: The industires generally have prevailed in this matter. We (the Senate) have talked about this in the past. It is a problem.
Ozone
EBL: Are there any bills under consideration to control the ozone problems at home and to pressure trading partners to also make changes needed in this area
Senator Simon: We have been dragging our feet on international meetings in Montreal and Rio. We're better than some of the developing nations. We've 5% of the world's population, we cause 5 to 10 times that in damage.
Bill for the National Institute for the Environment
Though many bi-partisan Senators and Congressmen have supported the bill for the National Institutes for the Environment (NIE), this does not seem to have much priority at this time. Why not and what would it take to prioritize this effort Also currently the pressure seems to be on to have any NIE type of program be under the auspices of the NSF. Considering NSF's past inability to formulate the type of multidisciplinary approach needed for NIE to be meaningful, would it be better to hold out for an independent NIE, or take what we can get now
Senator Simon: I can't remember even getting a letter supporting the NIE. One can't believe that might makes right. Right plus a whole lot of hard work makes right. People in the environmental movement have to speak up. They don't as much as they should. You have some groups that are doing a good job. When I was in the Senate I got 1,000 letters a day. I would be startled if I was told that 1% of those letters urged me to do anything about the environment.
EBL: What were most of the letters about
Senator Simon: Ahead of envionment some of the big ones were tax cuts, budget, education and health issues.
Intellectual property rights and foreign affairs
EBL: What is the current Congress' outlook on these (intellectual property) issues, especially relevant to biology This includes everything from copyrights on genetic sequences to Indigenous rights for traditional knowledge of not only medicinals but also agricultural varieties. These issues are of particular interest to SEB members for whom this interview is targeted.
The lack of support by the United States for the Convention on Biological Diversity in Rio in 1992 was shocking to American biologists. Why has it taken so long to get Congressional support for this effort and why is what is so obvious to most academic scientists so unclear to policy makers What lessons have been learned in the effort to gather support for the convention which can be applied to other environmental policy efforts today
Senator Simon: Everyone is more sensitive to environmental issues now compared to when I first started in the Senate. There's gradually been an education but we need a lot more. We need people to speak up, attend town meetings, write letters. There's no silver bullet, it's a mosaic and there's a lot of pieces.
Environment comes up occasionally but it is usually by those who are not environmental. For example those who opposed NAFTA used the environmental issue as a wedge to try and stop it. They didn't win but we entered into some side agreements with Mexico on the environment which were good and needed.
EBL: How has the European OECD's (Organization for European Community Development) commitment to the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment & Development, and the United State's reluctance to do the same affected US-European relations
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) in 1994 made a number of policy recommendations on development, international trade and the environment. What type of response to these recommendations is made by the current Congress and why
Senator Simon: In terms of international agreements it's very tough to get Congress to act on these things. For example, the chemical weapons treaty which we just approved, we should have done that a long time ago and that's a major issue.
EBL: What did it take to get the treaty signed
Senator Simon: Bill Clinton got George Bush and Jimmy Carter and about five former Secretaries of State from both parties to speak on its behalf.
General
EBL: Where would increased funding for research come out of
Senator Simon: The Pentagon received 9&1/2 billion dollars more than requested for this fiscal year, October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997, due to efforts by the defense industry.
EBL: How do you believe biologists and others concerned about environmental issues best make their voices heard in Washington D.C. What is the Republican Science Agenda
Senator Simon: As to their agenda, I think it is fluid, subject to influence through the methods previously outlined.
EBL: Thank you for your time.
For more information on the National Institute for the Environment:
Committee for the National Institute for the Environment
More on the Convention on Biological Diversity:
Biodiversity Treaty and Trade
EBL HOME PAGE