[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have 10 amendments before us, on three 
of which the yeas and nays have been ordered. Two of those three are 
Davis-Bacon amendments. One was offered by Senator Smith and the other 
by Senator Simpson.
  Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, the first vote is to 
occur at 3:45 on the Johnston amendment No. 1720.
  I ask unanimous consent that pending the disposition of the Johnston 
amendment No. 1720, the Senate proceed to vote on two Davis-Bacon 
amendments, namely, amendment No. 1728 and amendment No. 1730, that the 
vote occur on or in relation to those amendments; further, that no 
second-degree amendments pursuant to those two amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I understand the procedure now, at 
3:45, we will vote on the Johnston amendment dealing with risk 
assessment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I also understand that following disposition of that we 
will vote on the Smith amendment dealing with Davis-Bacon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Following the disposition of that, it is my understanding 
we will then vote on the Simpson amendment dealing with Davis-Bacon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again that is the understanding of the Chair. 
The Senator is correct.
  The Chair advises the Senator from Rhode Island that the votes on 
those three matters will be on or in relation to the matters stated.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Meaning not necessarily up or down?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1729

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole amendment, as 
we have some time here before these three votes occur. It has a 
tremendous impact and importance to the property owners in Montana and 
this country. Farmers, ranchers and business people, who would like to 
have some kind of control over their lands to make a living, are 
rallying behind this legislation that would help protect them from 
legislative or regulatory assault on private property rights. This 
problem is a concern to Montanans on all kinds of legislation.
  Private property rights are protected under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution which states ``nor shall private property be taken for 
public use without just compensation.'' Yet, we see many laws and many 
regulations being promulgated now that are encroaching further and 
further on this right, because people here inside this beltway do not 
respect or understand the importance of maintaining this right. In 
fact, it is the cornerstone of this free society.
  Wetlands and endangered species regulations in particular have had a 
devastating impact on Montana property owners. The opportunity to make 
a living is dramatically reduced. Their opportunity to conduct normal 
agricultural operations, build a house, or even utilize water from 
Federal storage projects is often threatened on the very land that they 
rightfully own and have a right to the activities on that land.
  I have taken several actions aimed at reducing the takings impact of 
Federal laws and regulations. In 1991, I submitted to the U.S. Supreme 
Court a friend-of-the-court brief which dealt with the taking of 
private property in South Carolina. In this case, the Court sided with 
the property owner, reaffirming every American's right. I have added my 
name as a cosponsor of S. 2006 by Senator Dole and several other pieces 
of legislation to reduce the impact of takings.
  I think that is what we are talking about here. It is not that some 
activities are done for the public good. But if they are, then the 
property owner has to be compensated for that taking.
  The amendment before you today is very simple. It is very 
straightforward. It merely requires Federal agencies to look before 
they leap when they promulgate regulations. It requires them to conduct 
takings impact assessments to determine what effect their actions will 
have on the use and the value of private property.
  If the action will result in a taking, the amendment requires 
agencies to consider the alternatives that would reduce the impact on 
private property. Not only does this amendment protect private 
property, but it also protects the Government agencies from expensive 
legal actions if they are initiated by a property owner as a result of 
a taking.
  So, Mr. President, with this amendment, Congress is merely 
reinforcing the Government's responsibility to reduce the impact of 
their actions on property owners, something Government should already 
be doing.
  In other words, it should not even have to be put in this 
legislation. In other words, all we have to do is look to the fifth 
amendment anytime the Government does something. But basically that is 
what we are doing. We are shoring up this fifth amendment. It is good 
for property owners. It is also good for this Government.
  I strongly urge your support of this amendment. It just says, 
``Government, look before you leap in the area of private property on 
any kind of a rule or regulation that is promulgated out of 
Washington.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon, I join with my colleague 
from Montana in support of Senator Dole's amendment on private property 
taking.
  The Senator has produced an amendment that is very similar to 
legislation that has several times passed the U.S. Senate. The Senator 
is calling this the Private Property Rights Act of 1994.
  I find it an interesting time in our Nation when we must once again 
affirm the right of our citizens under the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution; that, at the risk of an all-intrusive Federal Government, 
we must argue on the floor of this Senate that citizens are entitled 
once again to the property rights that were propounded for them in the 
Constitution by our Founding Fathers.
  But that is what we are about this afternoon. We are about it because 
for over three decades we have seen a progression of public policy that 
has continually eroded the private property value in the sense of the 
right of the landowner or the property owner in this country.
  How has that come about? Well, it has come about largely because we 
have failed as a Congress to be observant and to be critical of 
agencies in their administration of the public policy that we create.
  Let me this afternoon give you an example of the kind of issue that 
the Dole amendment would clarify. Because, as has been outlined by my 
colleague from Montana, the Dole amendment largely, in its protection 
of the private citizen through the fifth amendment, as it was made 
applicable by the 14th amendment in our Constitution, basically puts up 
a private property taking impact analysis that would require a Federal 
agency to submit a certification to the Attorney General of the United 
States that a property taking impact analysis had been completed before 
the issuing or promulgating of policy, regulation, proposal, or 
recommendation as it relates to their activities as it might impact 
private property.
  The example that I am referring to that is so typical resulted in a 
small community in Blaine County, ID. Well, to many of you, that does 
not make much sense, until I tell you it is right next to Sun Valley, 
ID. It is just a few miles from the home of Picabo Street, who now we 
honor as a medalist in the Olympics and bringing this Nation to the 
kind of respect we love to see coming from our athletes.
  Triumph, ID, is a small, rural, now retirement and recreational 
community that once upon a time was a mining community. About 1\1/2\ or 
2 years ago, the EPA, in its frustration because it could not 
administer Superfund in that we had so badly skewed it to become a 
lawyer's haven, began to search for areas around the United States that 
they could quickly bring the Superfund law over and show its worth and 
therefore prove to the American public that all is well with Superfund 
and we were going to clean up hazardous waste sites.
  And, lo and behold, they targeted Triumph, ID. It was an old mining 
community. It had old tailing ponds and a tailing pile and private 
homes were built all around it and wildlife abounded. And yet, they 
said, for some reason, this was going to become a Superfund site. Every 
citizen of that community could imagine large trucks rolling in, 
Caterpillars working, ground being removed, property values plummeting 
dramatically. Nobody wanted to live in the view of a Superfund site.
  So some very courageous citizens took the EPA on. They went out and 
they got their scientists. They discovered that every fact that the EPA 
had put out on Superfund as it related to arsenic in the soil and in 
the water and lead in the soil and the water simply was not true; that, 
in fact, EPA had rushed to judgment, and in rushing to judgment, they 
had badly damaged or put at risk the property and therefore sometimes 
the whole lifetime earnings of the citizens of this small community.
  Well, I helped those citizens some. But, let me tell you, they helped 
themselves. They spent literally thousands and thousands of dollars to 
protect their property against a big Federal Government that simply 
said, ``We don't care. We are going to do this because we have the 
right to do it. Property values be damned. We do not care about you 
citizens. We have a mandate and our mandate is going to drive us to 
assure that this is going to be a safer place to live.''
  Well, they got outsmarted by the citizens. But that fight still goes 
on and the citizens, in a very gallant and vital way, are holding the 
giant Federal Government at bay, because they have been able to argue 
and hire quality and bona fide and highly recognized scientists to 
prove that the EPA was wrong.
  The Dole amendment to protect private property, to force Federal 
agencies to do an analysis of impact, would have avoided the Triumph 
mine situation. That is one of literally hundreds of examples around 
this country today where a Federal agency, under the mandate of Federal 
law and rule and regulation, moves in and, by their action, begins to 
rapidly destroy private property values and they do not offer 
compensation under the fifth amendment as they are supposed to. They 
just simply walk away in their arrogance--the arrogance of power.
  We have actually seen people put in prison because they decided to 
change the nature of their private property, and Federal agents under 
the guise of wetlands protection came in and took these individuals to 
court and won when in fact it could be argued that, while the private 
property owner was working to improve the value of his or her property, 
the Federal Government was simply saying you could not do that.
  The Dole amendment would begin the process of correcting that 
tremendous threat that now hangs over the private property owner, the 
citizen of this country who once felt himself and herself whole under 
the fifth amendment as it was made applicable by the 14th. That is 
really the essence of this debate. And I am absolutely amazed that 
there are going to be Senators who will come to this floor and argue 
this is something we ought not to be engaged in, that this amendment 
does not apply, that somehow it ought to go away, that it is not 
important for the right of our citizens to be held whole in the value 
of their property.
  Why it is important is for all the reasons I have just given and many 
more. We now have a Secretary of a very important agency of our 
Government who recently said, in an interview in a national 
publication, that property lines and property rights are obsolete 
Anglo-Saxon concepts and that in the pursuit of a greater cause we 
ought to do away with these barriers or lines that ultimately define 
property rights and protect the citizen in his or her ownership and the 
values of their property.
  I am amazed by that statement. I think all of us were surprised by 
it, that one of the leading Federal officials of our Government would 
stand forth and make that kind of statement, that private property is 
an obsolete concept. Our whole Nation was founded on it. Our 
Constitution defines it and protects it for us. And why is it not 
proper for us today to be engaged in a debate to ensure that we work 
toward increasing the protection of private property values for the 
right of our citizens?
  I applaud Senator Dole today for bringing forth this amendment. I am 
a cosponsor of it. But to assure that we as a Senate continue to 
broaden our base of understanding of private property, just several 
months ago Senator Howell Heflin and I organized a private property 
caucus, that many Senators have now become members of, for the purpose 
of educating for better understanding and bringing about a base of 
knowledge for the Senate relative to the protection of private property 
in our country and the assurance we will not continue down that long 
road, that march toward increased law and public policy that somehow 
constantly puts this basic American right at jeopardy or destroys the 
value of this right when an individual may have invested his or her 
lifetime's savings or earnings into that right or into that property. 
That is really the debate here this afternoon. That is the issue that 
is at hand.
  While others may try to interpret it differently, the amendment is 
very straightforward. It simply puts up a test and a reasonable test 
that says that Federal agencies of our Government must examine through 
an analysis process whether the rules and regulations promulgated and 
the policies of the laws we pass have in some way a way of diminishing 
the value of private property that could be described as a taking and, 
therefore, under the fifth amendment, the citizen would find himself or 
herself to be justly compensated by their Government for that taking.
  I strongly support the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to join 
with us in the support of this amendment. It is fundamental to our 
country and to the strength of our economy.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 6 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from the State of Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. McCain pertaining to the introduction of S. 2128 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                       vote on amendment no. 1720

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 3:45 p.m. having arrived, the 
question occurs now on agreeing to amendment No. 1720, offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the Johnston 
amendment, which requires the EPA Administrator to publish in the 
Federal Register a cost-benefit and comparative risk analysis of EPA's 
proposed and final major regulation. Major regulations means a 
regulation that the Administrator determines may have an effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more in any one year.
  I have offered some cost-benefit amendments myself and am very 
supportive of the idea of weighing the benefits of proposed rules 
against projected costs and making commonsense decisions about what 
risks to regulate and how closely to regulate them. I have, in the 
past, offered amendments that would have required the EPA Administrator 
or head of an Agency to publish in the Federal Register the cost-
benefit analysis to both proposed and final regulations.
  So, I support the Johnston amendment. This is a good amendment 
although it could go even further. For instance, this amendment could 
be applied to all Agencies, and to all regulations with the exception 
of those regulations dealing with agency organization, management, or 
personnel matters, or regulations related to military or foreign 
affairs matters as outlined in the recent Executive order on regulative 
review.
  However, I am pleased to see that the amendment now applies to 
proposed rules, not just to final rules. This is absolutely essential 
and reflects language in the cost-benefit amendments that I have 
offered. Analyzing rules at the proposed stage provides the public with 
the knowledge it needs to fully comment on rules before the final rules 
are promulgated. It allows the public to comment with information 
regarding risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis.
  I congratulate my colleague, Senator Johnston, for his commitment to 
this needed reform in our regulatory process. I am also committed to 
remaining active in this area.
  I would now like to make some important points that I think Dr. 
Graham, the director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, has 
illustrated very well in an editorial that he wrote that was published 
in Risk Analysis, a peer-reviewed publication of the Society for Risk 
Analysis.
  His editorial is based on testimony delivered before the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources here in Washington, DC, on 
November 9, 1993. I testified at this hearing on the benefits of cost-
benefit analysis.
  The editorial asks the question whether it is ``Time for Congress to 
Embrace Risk Analysis?'' I think the Senate side has agreed that it is 
time.
  Dr. Graham makes some excellent points. Each of us is confronted with 
numerous risks when we get out of bed every morning. And, we do what we 
can to minimize these risks.
  Our resources are scarce. Any resources used to reduce low-level 
risks, which are often in the environmental area, are resources that 
can not meet other needs of our society that in many cases are more 
pressing and will save more lives.
  Dr. Graham wisely points out that:

       The scarce human and material resources devoted to 
     environmental protection are resources that we cannot use to 
     combat crime, educate our children, reduce poverty, improve 
     health reform, strengthen out national defense, and meet the 
     other basic needs of citizens and their families.

  Dr. Graham correctly states that the reality check of the high cost 
of reducing risks is hitting Congress and the President as we look at 
the health care system has not yet registered in environmental policy.
  Dr. Graham also points out that we have considered environmental 
legislation for pesticides to protect for a one-in-one-million lifetime 
cancer risk or beyond. He asks ``How small is this risk?''''
  According to Dr. Graham's editorial,

       By way of comparison, there is a tiny yet nonzero chance 
     that an airplane will inadvertently miss its destination and 
     strike one of us. It turns out that a baby born today in the 
     United States has not one chance but roughly four chances in 
     a million of suffering this unfortunate outcome in his or her 
     lifetime.

  Dr. Graham points out that:

       While we do regulate airplanes to minimize the frequency of 
     mishaps, no-one has seriously argued that we should ban 
     airplanes that violate a one-in-a-million rule, without even 
     considering the benefits of airplanes.

  Without oversight such as that provided by the Johnston amendment, 
EPA has charted a course spending millions to reduce risks to 
unnecessarily low levels.
  Dr. Graham concludes that:

       Whether the technology is airplanes, pesticides, or coal-
     based electric power production, sound regulatory legislation 
     must authorize consideration of the risks, costs, and 
     benefits of technologies and their potential substitutes.

  I agree with Dr. Graham. I think that common sense in a time of 
limited resources dictates this approach to policymaking.
  I do not necessarily agree with each and every statement made by Dr. 
Graham, but I agree with the main message of his editorial.
  I agree with Dr. Graham that Congress must promote a risk-based, 
cost-benefit approach to environmental policy. We must consider both 
what is actually known about the magnitude of risks and what citizens 
are willing to pay for various risk reductions in light of this 
knowledge.
  I would now like to submit for the Record the editorial written by 
Dr. Graham.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        [From the Risk Analysis]

            Time for Congress to Embrace Risk Analysis?\20\

                        (By John D. Grahsm\21\)

       Each day citizens are confronted with new information about 
     potential dangers to their health and safety, the well-being 
     of their families, and the quality of their natural 
     environment. What are citizens to make of this potpourri of 
     risks: the potential dangers of childhood cancer from living 
     in homes near electric powerlines, the chances of premature 
     death among the elderly from the inhalation of fine particles 
     from cars and factories, lung cancer from the naturally 
     occurring levels of radon in our basements, birth defects 
     from eating fish with trace amounts of PCBs and dioxin, 
     neurological effects in children from ingestion of lead 
     paint, aggravation of asthma from breathing excessive levels 
     of ozone in urban areas, breast cancer from consuming minute 
     amounts of pesticide residues on foods, and potentially 
     catastrophic changes in global climate from the release of 
     greenhouse gases?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Journalists, opinion leaders, policymakers, and the public 
     are looking for guidance about which dangers are real and 
     which are exaggerated, which are big enough to worry about, 
     and which can be reduced or prevented altogether through 
     feasible, cost-effective action. If our nation had unlimited 
     resources to devote to environmental protection, then there 
     would be less need for risk analysis. But the reality of 
     scarcity is more apparent today than ever before. The scarce 
     human and material resources devoted to environmental 
     protection are resources that we cannot use to combat crime, 
     educate our children, reduce poverty, improve health care, 
     strengthen our national defense, and meet the other basic 
     needs of citizens and their families.


                         misallocated resources

       The current debate on the economics of health care reform 
     foreshadows a vigorous national debate about the economics of 
     environmental protection. Take, for example, the Clean Air 
     Act Amendments of 1990. This single law, while promising 
     numerous benefits, is estimated to add $25 billion per year 
     to the nation's $150 billion annual investment in 
     environmental risk reduction.\1\ As Senator Daniel Patrick 
     Moynihan has observed, $150 billion per year is not 
     necessarily an excessive level of spending for clean air and 
     water but it is certainly too much to invest unwisely.\2\
       The ``reality check'' that is hitting the health care 
     system has not yet registered in environmental policy. 
     Compare, for example, the Clinton Administration's recent 
     proposals for investment in cancer prevention through medical 
     care and the control of pollution at industrial plants.
       In the case of early detection and treatment of cervical 
     cancer, the Clinton basic security plan covers women for one 
     screening every three years at an estimated marginal cost of 
     $14,000 per year of life saved. But why didn't the Clinton 
     plan authorize screens every two years, every year, or every 
     six months? It turns out that the cost-effectiveness of 
     authorizing more frequent screening deteriorates rapidly. The 
     best estimates are that the marginal cost of screening every 
     two years (instead of three) is about $200,000 per year of 
     life saved, and that the marginal cost of annual screens 
     (instead of every two years) would approach $675,000 per year 
     of life saved.\3\ Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues made a 
     difficult yet reasonable resource allocation decision by 
     limiting coverage to a screening frequency of once every 
     three years.
       In contrast, consider the cost-effectiveness of EPA's 
     proposed regulation of the pulp and paper industry, which was 
     announced recently. EPA estimates that the annualized cost of 
     this single rule will be $888 million per year. The agency's 
     mid-range estimates of benefits include $486 million in 
     environmental benefits plus 14 fewer cases of cancer per year 
     from less exposure to toxic chemicals such as dioxin and 
     chloroform.\4\ If each case of cancer would have been fatal 
     and would have shortened life by 15 years, then EPA's mid-
     range estimates imply that this regulation will cost about 
     $1.9 million per year of life saved. Thus, while Mrs. Clinton 
     has rejected cancer prevention investments that cost more 
     than $250,000 per year of life saved, the EPA is proposing to 
     enact rules that will cost millions of dollars per year of 
     life saved.
       Admittedly, the specific example of dioxin control does not 
     permit a perfect investment comparison. Dioxin is not only a 
     carcinogenic agent but is also known to cause adverse 
     ecological effects and various noncancer health 
     effects of unknown frequency and severity. Perhaps more 
     importantly, preventing the formation of cancer through 
     pollution prevention is certainly more desirable than 
     detecting a cancer early and successfully treating it. The 
     mere knowledge of tumor formation can cause enormous 
     suffering among patients, family members, and friends.
       We need to consider carefully the differences in the two 
     risk-reduction strategies, and ask ourselves how much society 
     should be willing to pay for primary prevention of cancer 
     through pollution prevention? Should it be $25,000 per life 
     year saved, $100,000 per life year saved, or over $1 million 
     per life year saved? If we do not address this issue, we may 
     create an economic crisis in environmental protection similar 
     to what we now face in the health care system. In fact, if 
     EPA-style risk management is applied unthinkingly to cleanup 
     decisions at sites managed by the Department of Energy and 
     the Department of Defense, it will not be difficult to 
     bankrupt the country's economic future!
       Another good example of our inability to apply sound risk 
     analysis to environmental protection occurs in legislation to 
     reform pesticide regulation. Some interest groups are 
     promoting a plan that would ban any pesticide shown to cause 
     cancer in rodents if the hypothetical lifetime cancer risk to 
     food consumers is estimated to be as small as one chance in a 
     million.\5\ How small is this risk? By way of comparison, 
     there is a tiny yet nonzero chance that an airplane will 
     inadvertently miss its destination and strike one of us. It 
     turns out that a baby born today in the United States has not 
     one chance but roughly four chances in a million of suffering 
     this unfortunate outcome in his or her lifetime.\6\
       While we do regulate airplanes to minimize the frequency of 
     mishaps, no-one has seriously argued that we should ban 
     airplanes that violate a one-in-a-million rule, without even 
     considering the benefits of airplanes. Unfortunately, in 
     recent testimony to a joint House-Senate hearing, EPA 
     proposed a plan that would ultimately prohibit any 
     consideration of the benefits of risky pesticides, even when 
     the cancer risks are slight. This prohibition of benefits 
     analysis was proposed without acknowledging the considerable 
     scientific progress that has been made in estimating the 
     benefits to consumers of pesticide use.\7\ The pesticide 
     example illustrates a broader point. Whether the technology 
     is airplanes, pesticides, or coal-based electric power 
     production, sound regulatory legislation must authorize 
     consideration of the risks, costs, and benefits of 
     technologies and their potential substitutes.
       The solution to the problem of resource misallocation must 
     be crafted carefully. A large-scale program of deregulation 
     at EPA would be counterproductive. Many EPA programs such as 
     the phase-out of lead in gasoline have generated human health 
     and economic benefits that were far in excess of costs.\8\ 
     Nor would it be appropriate to so overload EPA with 
     analytical requirements that a ``paralysis by analysis'' 
     ensues. What is needed are specific administrative and 
     legislative steps that induce EPA and other agencies to be 
     more selective in policy choice based on the findings of 
     insightful yet timely risk analysis, benefit-cost analysis, 
     and equity analysis.


                an agenda for congress and the president

       Given the widespread confusion in Washington about the 
     proper role of analysis in environmental policy, it is urgent 
     that the White House and Congress revamp the current 
     decision-making processes.
       The Clinton Administration has taken an important first 
     step with the 1993 executive order on regulatory planning 
     that reinforces the requirement that agencies conduct 
     benefit-cost studies of major rules. President Clinton's new 
     requirement that agencies conduct comparative assessments of 
     risks within their jurisdiction is a modest yet encouraging 
     innovation. The renewed openness of the regulatory review 
     process under the Clinton Administration is also encouraging 
     because it will foster better public understanding of risks, 
     costs, and benefits.
       The Administration needs to go further by building the 
     capacity of the Executive Office of the President to 
     participate in risk analysis and management. Other 
     commentators have noted the limited expertise within the 
     Office of Management and Budget on questions of risk.\9\ 
     Either more and new kinds of expertise need to be added to 
     OMB or the Office of Science and Technology Policy needs to 
     be better equipped to provide leadership in risk 
     analysis.\10\ The Council of Economic Advisers also needs to 
     become a more consistent and determined contributor in the 
     Administration's discussions of risk management reform.
       Regardless of how far the Clinton Administration goes in 
     this direction, it is absolutely critical that Congress enact 
     legislation to promote a risk-based approach to environmental 
     policy. Years of experience have taught us that EPA (as well 
     as Congress) have often been guilty of ``asking the wrong 
     questions'' (such as asking what is ``safe'' rather than 
     considering the magnitude of the risk and how much citizens 
     are willing to pay for various amounts of risk 
     reduction).\11\ If Congress does not endorse a risk-based 
     approach, the message to EPA will be that ``business as 
     usual'' is acceptable since EPA can simply say that they are 
     doing what Congress has told us to do.
       The most immediate step that Congress should take is to 
     elevate EPA to Cabinet status with legislation that 
     highlights the importance of risk analysis, cost-benefit 
     analysis, and equity analysis in the pursuit of pollution 
     prevention. In this regard, Senator Bennett Johnston's recent 
     amendment is a crucial first step in the correct direction, 
     particularly the provisions about use of best available 
     science, comparative risk assessment, and reporting of the 
     benefits and costs of each rule (where feasible). I also 
     support the efforts to promote environmental equity 
     considerations through statutory provisions that will 
     encourage the risk analysis community to document which 
     groups of citizens in the United States are incurring the 
     risks, costs, and benefits of environmental policies.
       To enhance the proper reporting of environmental risks to 
     the public, legislation aimed at improving risk 
     communications is urgently needed. Scientists in agencies 
     need more resources and congressional encouragement to play a 
     role in risk communication.\12\ The hands of government 
     scientists would be strengthened if Congress would insist 
     that the degree of scientific uncertainty in risk estimates 
     be reported to the public, particularly in ways that 
     facilitate valid comparisons of risks across EPA program 
     offices and even across agency jurisdiction. Only through a 
     consistent and accurate risk assessment process can Congress 
     gain access to the information necessary to allocate scarce 
     resources properly among competing programs and agencies.\13\ 
     A new bill (H.R. 2910) introduced in the House by 
     Representatives Moorhead and Brown deserves serious 
     consideration because it would set into motion the 
     development of promising new techniques of risk 
     characterization.\14\
       Finally, Congress needs to get serious about passing 
     Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's bill (S. 110) that would 
     promote rational priority setting at EPA through comparative 
     risk analysis.\15\ This technique is proving very useful at 
     the state and local levels of government and in other 
     countries by stimulating scientific and public debate about 
     what our environmental priorities should be.\16\ In contrast 
     to those who believe that comparative risk assessment 
     represents a tyranny of experts, I believe this tool can 
     provide policymakers and the public just the type of 
     information that Thomas Jefferson would have desired us to 
     have.
       The Moynihan bill could be strengthened by adding 
     provisions that call for a ranking of risk-reduction 
     opportunities (including their costs) as well as a ranking of 
     risks. I was encouraged to learn that Representative Richard 
     Zimmer (R-NJ) has played a leadership role in the House by 
     bringing risk-reduction concepts to the EPA Cabinet bill. In 
     the long-run, the efforts by Senator Moynihan and 
     Representative Zimmer will direct EPA's energies to the more 
     serious problems such as childhood lead poisoning.\17\ and 
     indoor air pollution.\18\ If recently published evidence on 
     the mortality effects of inhaling fine particles is 
     validated, this may also prove to be one of the largest 
     environmental problems from a public health perspective.\19\
       Momentum in Congress is building for legislation aimed at 
     strengthening the role of risk analysis in environmental 
     policy. This movement does not represent a retreat from 
     environmental protection or a backlash against the 
     environment, radical steps that the public will not and 
     should not take. Recent environmental ballot initiatives in 
     California, Ohio, and Massachusetts were defeated at the 
     polls precisely because these ambitious proposals were not 
     sensitive to public concerns about what would be accomplished 
     in a period of intensified scarcity. The risk-analysis 
     movement should represent a constructive effort to better 
     allocate our precious risk-reduction resources in ways that 
     are sensitive to the concerns of both efficiency and equity. 
     In the long run, the best defense of environmental policy is 
     clear justification in the basic principles of risk analysis 
     and management.


                               footnotes

     \1\Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment 
     (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 
     December 1990); Paul R. Portney, ``Policy Watch: Economics 
     and the Clean Air Act,'' Journal of Economic Perspectives 
     173-181 (1990); Richard Schmalensee, ``The Costs of 
     Environmental Protection'' (Center for Energy and 
     Environmental Policy, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 
     1993, Research Working Paper 93-015).
     \2\Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), ``Environmental 
     Risk Reduction Act,'' Congressional Record (January 21, 
     1993), p. S550.
     \3\David M. Eddy, ``Screening for Cervical Cancer,'' Annals 
     of Internal Medicine 113, 214-226 (1990).
     \4\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Effluent 
     Limitation Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
     Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Category; 
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants'' 
     (Proposed rules, 40 CFR Part 430, 40 CFR Part 63, 1993).
     \5\Alon Rosenthal, George M. Gray, and John D. Graham, 
     ``Legislating Acceptable Cancer Risk from Exposure to Toxic 
     Chemicals,'' Ecology Law Quarterly 19, 269-362 (1992).
     \6\Bernard D. Goldstein, Michele Demak, Mary Northridge, and 
     Daniel Wartenberg, ``Risk to Groundlings of Death Due to 
     Airplane Accidents: A Risk Communication Tool,'' Risk 
     Analysis 17, 339-341 (1992).
     \7\David Zilberman, Andrew Schmitz, Gary Casterline, Erik 
     Lichtenberg, and Jerome B. Siebert, ``The Economics of 
     Pesticide Use and Regulation,'' Science 253, 518-522 (1991).
     \8\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Costs and 
     Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline (Final Regulatory 
     Impact Analysis, Washington, D.C., 1985).
     \9\K.S. Crump and R. Gentry, ``A Response to OMB's Comments 
     Regarding OSHA's Approach to Risk Assessment in Support of 
     OSHA's Final Rule on Cadmium,'' Risk Analysis 13, 487-489 
     (1993); P.F. Infante, ``OMB Interference in Federal Agency 
     Risk Assessments and Health Study Design Protocols,'' Risk 
     Analysis 13, 491-492 (1993).
     \10\Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decision 
     Making (The Carnegie Corporation, New York, 1993).
     \11\Marc K. Landy, Marc J. Roberts, and Stephen R. Thomas, 
     The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong 
     Questions (Oxford University Press, New York, 1990).
     \12\John D. Graham (ed.), Harnessing Science for 
     Environmental Regulation (Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 
     1991).
     \13\John D. Graham, Laura C. Green, and Marc J. Roberts, In 
     Search of Safety: Chemicals and Cancer Risk (Harvard 
     University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988); M. Granger 
     Morgan and Max Henrion, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with 
     Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis 
     (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990).
     \14\H.R. 2910, 103rd Congress, 1st Session (August 6, 1993).
     \15\S. 110, 103rd Congress, First Session (January 21, 1993).
     \16\Richard A. Minard, Jr., Kenneth Jones, and Christopher 
     Paterson, State Comparative Risk Projects: A Force for Change 
     (Northeast Center for Comparative Risk, South Royalton, 
     Vermont, March 1993).
     \17\Karen L. Florini and Ellen K. Silbergeld, ``Getting the 
     Lead Out,'' Issues in Science and Technology, 9, 40-46 
     (1993).
     \18\Jonathan M. Samet and John D. Spengler (eds.), Indoor Air 
     Pollution (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1991).
     \19\Douglas Dockery and C. Arden Pope III, ``Acute 
     Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution,'' Annual 
     Review of Public Health (in press).
     \20\This editorial is based on testimony delivered before the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States 
     Senate, Washington, D.C., November 9, 1993. Helpful comments 
     were provided by Joshua Cohen, Adam Finkel, George Gray, 
     Richard Minard, Susan Putnam, and March Sadowitz. The 
     opinions are exclusively those of the author.
     \21\Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public 
     Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--8

     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Feingold
     Jeffords
     Metzenbaum
     Roth
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Riegle
     Shelby
       
  So the amendment (No. 1720) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                           amendment no. 1728

  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, is the pending order the Simpson 
amendment on the Davis-Bacon matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question will be on amendment No. 1728 
offered by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. LEVIN. As a former local official, I am very concerned over the 
burden Federal mandates can place on State and local governments. My 
own frustration over the lack of flexibility and responsiveness within 
the Federal Government to the unique needs and concerns of my community 
was one of the reasons I decided to come to Washington.
  I voted against the amendment offered by Senator Gregg because I do 
not feel we can effectively address this complex, overarching problem 
in a piecemeal, case-by-case fashion. If we are going to end up with a 
workable, realistic solution, there are a number of fundamental 
questions that need to be answered about the implementation of 
legislation to assist State and local governments in complying with 
Federal mandates.
  For example, there are many different views on what constitutes a 
mandate. How can we move ahead on legislation if we don't have an 
accepted definition for what we are trying to solve? Moreover, if we 
define a mandate, how broadly do we define the costs associated with it 
and how do we oversee the reimbursement process?
  An important issue that has not been, I think, adequately brought out 
in the debate is that we need to consider the benefits of Federal 
mandates as well. For instance, when we mandated 55-mile-per-hour speed 
limits, there was a cost associated with it--signs had to be changed, 
enforcement measures needed to be put in place. But, we cannot ignore 
the benefits associated with the 55 mph speed limit--namely decreased 
automobile accident injuries and fatalities and therefore, reduced 
medical costs. Even if we are confident we can measure the cost, should 
we not also measure the benefits?
  Questions such as these should not be an excuse for doing nothing, 
but they also cannot be ignored. We need to roll up our shirtsleeves 
and do the hard work if we want to get solid results. Senator Glenn is 
attempting to do just that in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
we should await the results of that effort.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the vote just completed was the first of 
three votes that have been ordered. The first was a regular 15-minute 
vote. I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes, including the 
one on the motion to table by the Senator from Ohio, be 10-minute 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Ohio to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator 
from New Hampshire. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--46

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Riegle
     Shelby
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1728) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1730

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on Amendment No. 1730 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson]. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise only for the purpose of 
clarifying the fact that we just had Davis-Bacon. We had Davis-Bacon 
yesterday. This is an additional Davis-Bacon. On the last vote there 
was a motion to table. So if you were opposed to Davis-Bacon you voted 
``aye.''
  I see no purpose in offering a motion to table on this particular 
amendment. I hope those who are opposed to changing the Davis-Bacon Act 
will vote ``no.''


                       vote on amendment No. 1730

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Wyoming. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Riegle
     Shelby
       
  So the amendment (No. 1730) was rejected.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 1722

  Mr. BAUCUS. It is now my intention to go to amendment No. 1722, the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, 
concerning offshore royalties.
  Essentially, Mr. President, this is a matter which was brought up in 
the Energy Committee and reported out of the Energy Committee. It is a 
bill that is at the desk. I understand several Senators have an 
interest in this measure. That is why this measure has not proceeded to 
the full Senate.
  It is for that reason, primarily, Mr. President, that I do not think 
it would be appropriate for that measure to be offered as an amendment 
to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  I think most Senators want the Safe Drinking Water Act to be passed 
fairly quickly. I think it is important we pass the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  It probably behooves us not to unnecessarily complicate it. This 
amendment, if it were adopted, would require a more complicated 
conference and would somewhat place the whole bill in jeopardy. I do 
not want to overstate that point.
  But, more importantly, this measure, more appropriately, lies in 
another arena, another forum, perhaps, to come up before the full 
Senate. But it should not be on this bill.
  Mr. President, for those reasons, I move to table the amendment and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I withhold the tabling motion at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator withholds his motion.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I do not intend to stand in the way of 
the Senator from Montana's offering his motion to table, and I support 
him. But I want the Members of this body to understand what this 
amendment is all about.
  This amendment would make it possible for the Secretary of the 
Interior to eliminate the royalties that are presently paid or to be 
paid in the future from oil leases. We have enough trouble trying to 
balance the budget around here without giving the Secretary of the 
Interior the right to vitiate an obligation entered into between an oil 
company and the Federal Government. If this motion to table is not to 
be agreed to, I know I as well as a number of other Senators are 
prepared to debate the subject and point out to the Senate all of the 
reasons why this just does not make sense.
  If you are a conservative Member of the U.S. Senate, I do not believe 
you can willingly agree to eliminate the obligation that oil companies 
have made to the Federal Government to pay royalties in connection with 
offshore leases. I say to my colleagues, no matter what your political 
philosophy is, this is no time for this Government to be giving away or 
forgiving debts or obligations that have been incurred in the normal 
course of business.
  I do not intend to speak to the issue any longer. It is my thinking 
the motion to table in all likelihood will be agreed to because 
certainly this amendment does not belong on this bill. There is another 
bill at the desk on this very subject. If and when it comes up, perhaps 
we could debate this at some length. But if we pass the Clean Water 
Act, I hope the Baucus motion to table will be agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I think it is only fair, if the Senator 
from Ohio wishes to speak on the amendment, that somebody have a moment 
to respond to him.
  This does not--keep it in mind--this does not cost the Federal 
Government any money. You cannot get royalties from a mineral that is 
not produced. And the idea is that these are so deep and so complex 
they will not be produced without some relief. Once they are produced, 
guess what. The United States gets some money. The United States gets 
some wealth. The Treasury retrieves some income. Absent that, there is 
no income.
  The Senator from Ohio's motion to table, or agreement to it, does 
nothing but cost this country money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues 
that realism dictates that unless there is an incentive, the industry 
is not going to go out in the deeper depths or in the ice fields 
offshore in Alaska to initiate exploration and production. The Senator 
from Wyoming is quite correct. There is not going to be any revenue 
lost. We are talking about using new technology to go out and drill 
safely in frontier areas where there is absolutely no existing 
infrastructure of any kind. There is no pipeline. You have, perhaps in 
my State, ice conditions where you have to build islands out there. 
Unless there is an inducement for a lower royalty, we will simply 
import more oil, we will export our dollars. And that is just what is 
happening.
  So it is not a matter of giving anything away. For Heaven's sake, 
what we are doing now is importing more than half our oil, we are 
exporting our dollars, exporting our jobs. We talk about the balance of 
payments around here. Half of it is the cost of imported oil. That is 
what it is. The other half is Japan. For Heaven's sake, let us be 
realistic and recognize we are talking about U.S. jobs and U.S. high 
technology to develop these frontier areas.
  What do you think the industry is going to do? As my friend from Ohio 
knows, unless the inducement for a return is there, they are going to 
import from overseas, and that is just the reality.
  So I urge my colleagues to recognize facts for what they are. The 
industry does not invest this kind of money unless there are prospects 
for a return. But if you do not have pipelines and do not have an 
infrastructure, there has to be an inducement, and the inducement is 
lower royalties. And you are not talking about losing anything. You are 
talking about a significant gain to the prosperity of the United States 
through jobs and taxation and the sales of equipment from Ohio and 
other States.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think the sides are pretty well 
delineated here. As we can tell, this is quite controversial; frankly, 
without reason. I do not think it should be on this bill. Without going 
into the merits, I urge us to vote in support of the tabling motion. I 
might say, if this amendment is on this bill, its outcome is somewhat 
problematic because we would have to conference with the House Natural 
Resources Committee, the House Merchant Marine Committee, and I think 
we all know that makes it unlikely the bill would survive conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair can state the parliamentary 
position, the question occurs on amendment 1734, offered by Senator 
Chafee on behalf of Senator Hatch.
  The Senator from Montana may call for the regular order with regard 
to amendment 1722, and that amendment would then recur.


               Vote on Motion to table Amendment No. 1722

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call for amendment 1722.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 1722.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Smith
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pressler
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Shelby
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1722) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas, the minority leader.

                          ____________________