[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9695-S9708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Carolyn Clark, 
a fellow on Senator Paul Wellstone's staff, be granted the privilege of 
the floor during the debate and vote on S. 334, regulatory reform bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold? I think there is 
still some unfinished business with reference to the last amendment 
there, under the consent agreement.


                           Amendment No. 1492

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1492 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1492) was agreed to.


                Amendments Nos. 1494 And 1495 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments 1494 and 
1495 are withdrawn.

  The amendments (Nos. 1494 and 1495) were withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 1496 to Amendment No. 1487

  (Purpose: To clarify that the bill does not contain a supermandate)

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Levin, Senator 
Hatch, Senator Roth, and Senator Johnston, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] for himself, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Johnston, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1496 to amendment No. 1487.
       On page 35, line 10, delete lines 10-13 and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``(A) Construction with other laws.--The 
     requirements of this section shall supplement, and not 
     supersede, any other decisional criteria otherwise provided 
     by law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     override any statutory requirement, including health, safety, 
     and environmental requirements.''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues, because I 
know a lot of people are wondering about the balance of the evening, we 
are trying to find an additional amendment or two we can bring up 
tonight and have votes on.
  Again, let me indicate it is not very long to when the August recess 
is supposed to start. We would like to get some of this work done. So I 
think it is incumbent on all of us, if we can maybe have the Johnston 
amendment on thresholds offered and voted on tonight? The $50 to $100 
million?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. We have that ready. We can put that in.
  Mr. DOLE. You will do that this evening?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. We can do that.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think this amendment will be accepted. Let 
me just say for the record here, there is an effort to try to work 
these things out on a bipartisan basis. We have had some success in 
this area. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his cooperation. I 
think it does answer some of the questions that some have raised, 
legitimate questions. We have tried to address legitimate questions as 
we did in the last amendment, though I do not think the amendment was 
necessary--nor, for that matter, that this one is 

[[Page S 9696]]
necessary. But if it helps to move the bill along, obviously we are 
prepared to do that.
  Mr. President, opponents of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill, have 
repeatedly expressed concern that it would override existing laws 
providing for protection of health, safety, and the environment. They 
have made this argument despite the fact that the bill clearly states 
that its requirements ``supplement and do not supersede'' requirements 
in existing law.
  They have made this argument despite the fact that every sponsor of 
S. 343 has insisted that its provisions do not override requirements of 
existing law.
  It is ironic that this language is similar to language in other 
statutes, and no one seems to have had difficulty understanding the 
plain meaning of the phrase before. As I stated yesterday, I do not for 
1 minute really believe that Ralph Nader or President Clinton's staff 
are unaware of the language in our bill. But it apparently is 
inconvenient to focus on the facts--that tends to get in the way of 
demonizing the bill and its supporters.
  Mr. President, I, and the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, 
and every other supporter who has spoken has made crystal clear that 
what we seek to achieve with this legislation is that cost-benefit 
criteria are put on an equal footing with requirements of existing law, 
where that is permitted by existing law. We do not seek to trump 
health, safety, and environmental criteria.
  Many opponents, in the guise of criticizing what they call a 
supermandate, really want a supermandate in the opposite direction. 
That is, they want any perceived conflict between an existing statute 
and considerations of cost resolved in a way that would effectively 
deprive a cost-benefit analysis of any real meaning. There are times, 
as I have said--and the bill says--that such a result is appropriate. 
But it cannot be appropriate in all instances. Otherwise, what the 
opponents are really saying is that the tremendous costs to the 
American family--about $6,000 a year--are an irrelevant consideration.
  Well, I do not think it is an irrelevant consideration to the 
American family. I do not think it is irrelevant to the American small 
or medium-sized business struggling to survive.
  And it should not be irrelevant to us.
  So, I reject such an extreme approach. Other opponents however, 
insist that they want the same thing as we do--that is, a level playing 
field where considerations of cost are just one part of the agency 
decisionmaking process, no less and no more important than the 
requirements of existing law. Where Congress has already spoken and 
stated a policy judgment that considerations of cost are not 
appropriate, that policy judgment would stand. Our regulatory reform 
legislation does not seek to change that result.
  For those who have suggested that we seek the same objective, it 
appears that the problem is one of interpreting the current language--
they have suggested that it would be more clear to state clearly that 
S. 343 does not override existing laws.
  In my view, there is no reason not to reemphasize as clearly as 
possible what the bill does not does not do. Therefore, Mr. President, 
I offer an amendment making clear that the requirements of S. 343 are 
not intended to ``override any express statutory requirements, 
including health, safety or environmental requirements.''
  This is an effort to remove any perceived confusion or murkiness in 
the former language, and I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the majority leader was correct. We have 
checked on our side of the aisle. We will be glad to accept this 
amendment. I do not know whether there will be other amendments to 
perfect this same idea here a little bit further on or not, but I think 
this is acceptable. I would be glad to accept it on behalf of our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think this is just another illustration 
of how we have been trying to work together to try to resolve any 
conflicts on this bill. There have been over a hundred changes in the 
bill that we have done through our negotiations with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. We just appreciate the cooperation of Senators on 
both sides in doing this.
  We are prepared to accept the amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Dole amendment? 
The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would simply like to thank Senator 
Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Glenn, and others who have taken part in 
debate on this. They have identified the problem in very specific 
terms. This amendment deals fully and completely, in my view, with the 
question of the supermandate which is now laid to rest.
  There is no--N-O, none--super- mandate in this bill. It is 
made absolutely crystal clear and repeated again in this amendment.
  I congratulate all concerned for getting it worked out and making it 
clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, many observers and many of us have viewed 
this bill as having a serious problem, which is raising the possibility 
that there is an inconsistency between what this bill requires and what 
other laws require.
  This amendment addresses one part of that issue and it does it, I 
believe, in a useful way. That is the reason why the amendment does 
make a contribution to further progress on the bill.
  This amendment makes it clear that if, with respect to any action to 
be taken by a Federal agency, including actions to protect human 
health, safety, and the environment, it is not possible for the agency 
to comply with the decisional criteria of this section and the 
decisional criteria provisions of other law--as interpreted by court 
decisions--the provisions of this section shall not apply to the 
action.
  I have expressed my concern about this issue to the sponsors for 
several weeks now. I am concerned that there may be situations where 
the statute which is the basis for the issuance of a regulation may 
conflict or be inconsistent with the requirements of the decisional 
criteria in section 624. The sponsors say they believe that is not 
possible because of the way section 624 is drafted. I have not shared 
their confidence in that belief, but this amendment makes that now 
clear. Where there is an inconsistency or a conflict between the lawful 
requirements of the statute that is the basis for the regulatory action 
and the requirements of this section, the requirements of the statute 
that is the basis for the regulatory action govern or control.
  This amendment ensures that the requirements of the Clean Air Act, 
the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other important 
environmental and health and safety laws are not altered by the 
decisional criteria contained in section 624. When push comes to shove, 
the underlying regulatory statutes are primary.
  I welcome this amendment and think it does improve the bill, but I 
want to be clear that this is but one problem I have with the 
decisional criteria provisions of section 624. Other amendments are 
necessary in order to make this particular section acceptable, and we 
will be proposing those as the debate on this bill progresses.
  Mr. President, let me also add on that note that I hope that the 
sponsors of the Dole-Johnston amendment would address the document 
which has now been submitted to them as of about 10 days ago, which 
specifies approximately 9 major issues and 23 smaller issues that a 
number of us have with particular language in the Dole-Johnston 
alternative. The Senator from Utah had requested that document when we 
were involved in discussions on the bill. It has been submitted as of 
about 10 days ago. I hope there could be a response, because, even 
though this amendment does address part of one of those issues, there 
are many other issues which I think a bipartisan effort could address 
and make some progress on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  
[[Page S 9697]]

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could respond, we are, as far as I am 
concerned, going to continue ongoing negotiations and keep the door 
open to do what we can to resolve these problems.
  On many of the points that were raised, I thought the Senator from 
Michigan was well aware that there are objections to a number of the 
provisions, on both sides. So we will just keep working together and 
see what we can do to continue to make headway like we have on this 
amendment.
  If we can continue to do that, we will. And we will certainly 
mention--where we disagree, where we disagree. But we will keep working 
with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, and others who were very concerned about this matter.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1496) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think if we could now have a time 
agreement on the Johnston amendment, then that would let our Members 
know how much time they might have between now and the time of the 
vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been consulting with the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana. He is prepared--I will let him 
speak for himself--but on our side we would be satisfied with a very 
short timeframe, perhaps a half-hour, 45 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. An hour equally divided?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would say 30 minutes, really, ought to 
do it. It is very straightforward. It is just a question of setting the 
threshold at $100 million.
  I hope it is not controversial; 30 minutes would suit us fine, 
equally divided.
  Mr. DOLE. Could we make that 40 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 40 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. If there is no objection, when the Senator lays down his 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent there be 40 minutes equally divided 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the time agreement? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 1497 to Amendment No. 1487

(Purpose: To revise the threshold for a definition of a ``major rule'' 
      to $100 million, to be adjusted periodically for inflation)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1497 to amendment No. 1487.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 14, line 4, strike out subsection (5)(A) and insert 
     in lieu thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(A) a rule or set of closely related rules that the 
     agency proposing the rule, the Director, or a designee of the 
     President determines is likely to have a gross annual effect 
     on the economy of $100,000,000 or more in reasonably 
     quantifiable increased costs (and this limit may be adjusted 
     periodically by the Director, at his sole discretion, to 
     account for inflation); or''.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators withhold? The Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It sets 
the definition of a major rule at $100 million and gives to the 
director, at his sole discretion, the ability to adjust that $100 
million for inflation.
  Mr. President, $100 million has been the threshold for triggering the 
review of proposed major rules since the Ford administration. The 
effect over the years has been that $100 million now is much less.
  Mr. GLENN. Could we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is correct. Could 
conversations on the floor be removed elsewhere?
  Would the Senate be in order, in order that debate can be heard?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the trigger for a major rule 
reevaluation was begun in the Ford administration at $100 million. If 
we use that same amount today in value, $100 million in the Ford 
administration would now be worth $252 million, and in the Carter 
administration it would be $231 million, or in the Reagan 
administration it would be $154 million. In other words, this is only a 
fraction of the definition we have used since the Ford administration 
for triggering major rules.
  The problem here, Mr. President, is simply one of agency overload. We 
are requiring these agencies any time they put out a new rule--and we 
think there will be probably over 135 major new rules that are in 
process right now at the $100 million threshold--they will have to do 
cost-benefit analysis, they will have to do risk assessment with peer 
review, and judicial review, all of those things for rules which the 
administration now has in process.
  In addition to that, they are going to have to go back and review all 
rules which they select for review, all rules that cannot meet the 
present cost-benefit ratio, the cost-benefit test, and the risk 
assessment test. And the question again is what is a major rule? Is it 
$50 million or is it $100 million? In addition to that, you have a 
petition process so that any person who feels themselves aggrieved by a 
present rule will be able to petition to have that put on the schedule 
for review. It is an enormous amount of work.
  So what we want to do is set this limit at $100 million for a major 
rule rather than at $50 million hopefully to make the amount of work to 
be done manageable. We do not want to kill these agencies with so much 
kindness or so much work that they are not able to do anything. What 
industry wants is to be able to get some of these rules that are 
burdensome and adopted without science and adopted without proper 
procedures. They want to get them reviewed. If you allow for a review 
of any rule at $50 million as opposed to $100 million, it may so 
overburden the agencies that they cannot do anything, that you will 
have gridlock, that you will not be able to do whatever one wants to do 
and which is to have good risk assessment, good cost-benefit analysis, 
good science brought into rulemaking. It is a very straightforward 
amendment. It simply ups it to $100 million.
  I hope my colleagues are willing to accept this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President I support the current amendment to raise the 
dollar threshold for major rules from $50 to $100 million. I support 
this amendment because it would help ensure that this bill will work 
for us, not against us.
  The purpose of S. 343 is to ensure better, more rational regulations 
and to reduce the regulatory burden while still ensuring that important 
benefits are provided. S. 343 aims to restrain regulators from issuing 
ill-conceived regulations. It requires better analysis of costs, 
benefits, and risks, so that regulators will issue smarter, more cost-
effective regulations. This is common sense reform, not rollback. We 
want agencies to work for the public's best interests, not against 
them.
  But we cannot so overburden the agencies with analytical requirements 
that they cannot properly carry out their mission to serve the public. 
That is why we need a dollar threshold before requiring regulators to 
subject rules to detailed analysis--cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment. Costly rules, of course, merit detailed analysis. But less 
costly rules do not. The reason is simple. Cost-benefit analysis and 
risk assessment are themselves costly and time-consuming.
  This is why, since cost-benefit analysis was first required by 
President Ford over 20 years ago, it only applied to major rules 
costing over $100 million. Every President since then, including 
Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, have used the $100 
million threshold for required cost-benefit analysis. This same 
threshold had strong precedent in the Senate. S. 1080, supported by a 
vote of 94 to 0 in 1982, 

[[Page S 9698]]
had a $100 million threshold. In addition, S. 291, the Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1995, which I introduced in January and which received 
the unanimous support of the Governmental Affairs Committee, had a $100 
million threshold. We also should keep in mind that the current value 
of this $100 million threshold, set in 1974, is actually far less than 
$50 million in 1974 dollars.
  A $100 million threshold makes sense because those costly rules 
account for about 85 percent of all regulatory costs. Yet, there are a 
limited number of such rules--about 130 rules per year for 
nonindependent agencies.
  This means that the vast bulk of the regulatory burden can be put 
under control with a roughly predictable, and more importantly, 
manageable analytical burden. There is no good reason to have a lower 
dollar threshold for major rules. A $50 million threshold would sweep 
in many more rules but make it all the more difficult for the agencies 
to handle the analytical burden. We just do not really know how many 
new rules a $50 million threshold would capture.
  Even more troubling to me have been recent attempts to further burden 
the agencies--which would already be pressed hard by the requirements 
of S. 343--with more analytical requirements beyond those of the $50 
million threshold. The recent Nunn-Coverdell amendment, for example, 
will dramatically increase the burdens imposed by S. 343. It would 
sweep into the definition of major rule all rules that have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as 
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This could add many hundreds 
of additional rules, including some very small rules, to the cost-
benefit and petition process of S. 343. I am deeply concerned about the 
burdens imposed on small business. But the Nunn-Coverdell amendment 
threatens to sink an already heavily loaded ship.
  Raising the major rule threshold to $100 million is not enough to 
cure the overload problem confronting S. 343, but it will help to 
lighten the load. It will help make this bill a more workable and more 
effective bill for the American public. It is good government. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah controls the time.
  Mr. HATCH. I am obviously happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
I spent the better part of yesterday arguing the unique problems that 
small businesses have in our country. The vast majority of businesses 
in America are small. Ninety-four percent of the 5 million-plus 
businesses in America have 50 employees or less.
  By elevating the threshold, I recognize that we still have the 
amendment that we adopted yesterday that would take rules that get 
swept under reg-flex, but nevertheless the broader application of the 
bill's threshold is being elevated by moving from $50 to $100 million 
and reducing the size of the sweep, and I think it is moving in the 
wrong direction.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Actually, rules that affect small businesses--how many 
did we say there were, how many million in this country?
  Mr. COVERDELL. About 5 million.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. About 5 million. When they affect small business, they 
are likely to be a major rule. But we have that provided for in the 
Coverdell amendment of yesterday with the reg-flex, and I believe that 
solves that problem. What we do not want to do is get agency overload 
here so that those rules which are burdensome to small businesses would 
not then be able to get--you would not have time to get your petition 
done because the agency would be so overloaded with other rules. I 
suggest to my friend that going to $100 million is not going to be 
difficult for small business because you have already protected them 
under the Coverdell amendment, and they are likely to be $100 million 
rules if they have broad application to small business, in any event.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In the time I have remaining, I would like to respond. 
I understand the point my good colleague from Louisiana is trying to 
make, and I do appreciate the work that the Senator has expended for 
many years, including this particular debate. It has been a major 
contribution to the country, and I commend the Senator for it.
  I only assert that it is a move in the wrong direction. I agree that 
the amendment we adopted yesterday is a step in the right direction 
because it will sweep those rules that are affected by reg-flex into 
our system. But there can be no argument that by moving from a $50 
million threshold to a $100 million threshold, we are removing 
protection from a class of businesses, and they will generally be 
smaller businesses that are affected by the full ramifications of the 
bill and not just reg-flex. And let me say, as I said yesterday, Mr. 
President, that if I am confronted with the issue of who suffers the 
overload or the burden, and the argument is between small businesses or 
medium-sized businesses or huge, mega agencies, Mr. President, I side 
on the equation of helping businesses that have been suffering and the 
ramifications that come from that suffering and not on the side of 
these huge agencies with millions and billions of dollars and 
attorneys, so many that you cannot even name them. We should be moving 
in the direction of protecting the people on Main Street America and 
not on being overly concerned about the burdens these big agencies 
face.
  Mr. President, I yield back whatever time is left.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah yield to the 
Senator from Texas?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just address a 
question to the Senator from Georgia on my time, and that is I wonder 
if we have even talked about the impact on other governments of Federal 
regulations, such as our small towns across America. Our small towns 
are reeling from regulations that require them to go into their water 
supply and test for items that do not even relate to their part of the 
country. I just wanted to ask the Senator from Georgia if he does not 
think that the lower threshold is also going to be a boon to the 
smaller towns that might not have the ability to have legal staffs that 
can come up and talk to Federal agencies?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator from Texas is exactly right. In fact, she 
admonishes me in a way, because yesterday in talking about the reg-
flex, or the small businesses, I did not talk enough about small cities 
and towns, small government jurisdictions and nonprofits. And as I said 
in my earlier remarks, this is just moving in the wrong direction. This 
is removing these smaller jurisdictions, smaller businesses from the 
sweep of the intent of this bill. I do not think it devastates the 
bill, but it is moving in the wrong direction.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, like my colleague from Georgia, 
appreciate what the Senator from Louisiana has done in this bill. He 
has worked to try to make it a good bill. But I am concerned if we 
raise the threshold that there might be people in that $50 to $100 
million category--cities, towns, maybe counties, maybe school districts 
or water districts, some of our smaller entities--that really might not 
have the protection of the good science, of the peer review, the 
ability to have cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis.
  I think what this bill does is so important to provide the basis upon 
which people will know out in the open what the effects of these 
regulations are, and it will have the effect, of course, of making the 
regulators think very carefully before they do these regulations.
  Passing this bill in itself is going to have an effect on regulators 
in making 

[[Page S 9699]]
sure that they know exactly what they are doing as they affect the 
small businesses of our country or, indeed, the local taxpayers of our 
country.
  So I join with my colleagues in saying that I think it is very 
important that we not leave that $50 to $100 million range. In fact, I 
have to say if it were my choice, I would not have a range at all that 
was a floor. I would have from zero because I think no matter what the 
regulation is, if it affects your business or your small town or your 
water district, this is going to make a difference in the way you are 
able to provide jobs or serve your taxpayers.
  So I do not think we should have any range that is excluded, but 
certainly I think the higher range is going to provide hardship for 
people who probably do not have the legal staffs to really have their 
viewpoints known as well as the people in the larger categories.
  So I respectfully argue against this amendment as well, and hope that 
our colleagues will not have that group in the $50 to $100 million 
category that might not be covered by sound science, science in the 
sunshine, cost-benefit analysis, or risk analysis. And if it is a 
burden on the large agencies, then perhaps we will have the effect of 
fewer, more important, good regulations rather than so many regulations 
that do cause a hardship on our smaller entities.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the contribution 
that the Senator from Texas has made to this effort, and I share with 
her completely her concern about small businesses and small towns and 
counties. I have been in towns in Louisiana which have been subjected 
to some of these incredible regulations that would fine them for doing 
things which just went contrary to common sense. I would sit there with 
the mayors of these various towns and wring my hands with them because 
it was so outrageous sometimes what these regulations provided. 
However, going from $50 to $100 million does not hurt the small towns 
or small businesses. It is not that by going down you exempt the 
smaller people.
 Rather, you make it possible or feasible for small counties, small 
towns, small businesses to have their regulations considered at all. In 
other words, the problem here is agency overload.
  I have met at some length with Sally Katzen, the head of OIRA. She 
said

       You know, one of our problems here is peers. We have peer 
     review, but how can we find enough peers to review hundreds 
     and hundreds of regulations and have cost-benefit ratios and 
     risk assessments, scientific determinations for these 
     hundreds of rules which are going to be simultaneously 
     reviewed?

  And to do so by the way, in light of a budget which is now being cut 
in the appropriations process as we speak. It is going to be a 
formidable process.
  So, I think that the best way to get this done is to go in the 
direction of where we started in the Ford administration that major 
rules defined in the Ford administration is $100 million. And, you 
know, that amounts to $300 million something--$252 million. So we have 
been coming down in that through the years.
  I hope my colleagues will recognize this problem of overload. Look, 
if we are not overloaded on this process in a year or two the Senator 
can propose and I think the Senate would enact a lower threshold. I 
suspect what we are going to find is that we may be considering an 
upping of the threshold rather than a lowering of it simply because of 
the question of legislative overload. Really, if we can get this $100 
million, I think it makes a better and more workable bill, one that 
will protect our small towns and counties and our small businesses. And 
I hope my colleagues will allow it to be done.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. HATCH. I will yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just like to respond briefly 
and say that I think it is a matter of where you err. And while the 
amendment of the Senator from Louisiana would err perhaps by saying 
that we could always lower the threshold if we found that we needed to 
because so many people were exempt, I would err the other way. I would 
say, let us set it at $50 million and make sure that every regulation 
that we can possibly make well thought out and well documented is, in 
fact, well thought out and well documented. And if we have to raise the 
threshold later I would rather have to do that than to have to come in 
and try to lower it because so many people are harassed with 
regulations that did not have the scientific basis and the risk 
analysis and the cost-benefit analysis.
  So I think it is a matter of do we err on the side of doing too much 
or do we err on the side of doing too little? I would rather protect 
the people, the small business people of this country, the small towns 
of this country, the small water districts of this country, and then if 
it becomes an onerous burden on the Federal agencies I am sure we will 
hear about that and we can always up the threshold. But I want to make 
sure that every regulation that we can possibly make be well thought 
out, well documented in science, have a cost-benefit analysis, and in 
fact does have those criteria.
  So, I do appreciate the position of the Senator from Louisiana. But I 
just think it is more important for us to err on the side of caution 
and protection of our small business people and our small towns than 
the opposite, so that people are in a threshold of $50 million than the 
$100 million and they do not have those well-thought-out regulations.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, just very briefly. The reg-flex 
amendment which we adopted yesterday which was designed to take care of 
small business includes in its definition of small entity, small 
governmental jurisdiction, which goes on to mean government, cities, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, special districts, with a 
population of less than 50,000, unless an agency establishes another 
amount. So we took care really in the reg-flex amendment of yesterday, 
I believe, of the concerns about small towns and cities. And frankly I 
had not realized that that definition was in reg-flex. But I believe 
that covers the Senator's concern for small towns and jurisdictions.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 9 minutes and 20 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. How much on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes and 32 seconds on the other side.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am not sure from the discussion of the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana that is so, because as I recall 
the Coverdell amendment just mentioned entities of small businesses. 
But we will check on it. Be that as it may, the House has listed a 
threshold of $25 million. The threshold in this bill is $50 million. I 
ask the Senator, am I not wrong on that?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. This bill is $50 million.
  Mr. HATCH. This particular bill's threshold is $50 million. And I 
have to say that all of small business throughout this country is 
watching this particular vote. It is going to be the vote on small 
business, as was the Nunn-Coverdell amendment. I understand the 
arguments on both sides. But frankly, with the House at $25 million, us 
at $50 million, there seems little or no real justification for the 
$100 million. So I support the $50 million threshold in Dole-Johnston-
Hatch.
  This is a small business measure. The whole purpose of fighting this 
out on the floor is to try and do it for small business people. The 
issue here is whether or not small businesses are going to be treated 
the same as larger businesses. The reg-flex act may not cover all rules 
that affect small businesses. As you know, the standards in that act 
were adopted by the Coverdell amendment. And that amendment may not 
cover all situations affecting small business, or at least I have been 
led to believe that is the case. And I still have some concerns whether 
small towns are covered by that amendment, individuals, small 
nonbusiness associations, charities. Those are all not covered by the 
Coverdell amendment. And should they not be protected by S. 343? And by 
this regulatory reform bill? I think that is what we come down to. 

[[Page S 9700]]

  I would prefer to keep the threshold at $50 million. I am not going 
to go and weep in the corner if this amendment goes down in defeat. But 
I have to say--I mean, if the amendment is adopted which the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana is advocating, and I understand 
his reasons for doing so. But I believe that small business and 
individuals, small towns and cities, nonprofit corporations, I might 
add, nonbusiness associations, do deserve the protection and the care 
that a $50 million threshold would give. With that, I am really 
prepared to yield back any time we have, or I yield the floor. And I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would be prepared to yield back the 
balance of my time. Can we have a vote at this time?
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator withhold? As long as we have got to 
wait for this, let me say that, Mr. President, this amendment is viewed 
very, very seriously by an awful lot of people on our side and by the 
administration based on this question of agency overload. I really 
believe, as someone who has been involved in this risk assessment now 
from the very start, that this is a very legitimate concern of the 
administration. The American Bar Association gives this question of the 
definition of ``major rule''--it is the very first and most important 
criticism they have of S. 343. It is the most important criticism, or 
one of the most important, of the administration, one of the most 
important concerns over here.
  Now, Mr. President, we very much need to pass this legislation. I 
hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will give us enough 
votes to let us pass it. This is one of those important amendments that 
does not in any way derogate from the importance and the central value 
of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis.
 But it may have a lot to do with making it workable. I mean, the 
American Bar Association is not out to do in small businesses or small 
communities in our country. They are simply aware, as they say, it will 
sweep too broadly and, therefore, dilute the ultimate impact of the 
bill.

  Quoting from the American Bar Association:

       This change is crucial for Association support.

  That is, American Bar Association support.
  We can pass a bill without the American Bar Association support, I 
understand that. But they are enthusiastic supporters of the concept, 
as I am the person who first proposed risk assessment here on the 
floor, but we have to make it workable. To go up to $100 million simply 
makes this more workable, Mr. President. Nothing could be worse than to 
have this vast plethora of regulations all of a sudden dumped on 
agencies unable to contend with them, unable to find the peer review, 
unable to have budgets that will cover the cost of cost-benefit, unable 
to hire the scientists to do the studies to do the risk assessment, and 
otherwise unable to meet deadlines. That is a formula for chaos. That 
is why the American Bar Association thinks we ought to go to $100 
million. That is why the administration thinks so, and that is why I 
think so.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment will help pass--not only help pass 
and get signed into law--this legislation; it will make it workable. 
Everybody wants this legislation to work when and if we pass it, and I 
believe we are going to be able to pass it, because I think the spirit 
of the floor, and of the proponents, certainly the majority leader, 
Senator Hatch and others, has been to accommodate reasonable criticisms 
in the present draft of S. 343. I really believe that is true. I think 
the acceptance of that last amendment showed that kind of spirit, and I 
hope we can get that kind of spirit on this $100 million amendment. 
This is really a crucial amendment, as the American Bar Association has 
said, as the administration has said.
  I have not gone along with all of the administration's criticisms of 
this bill. As a matter of fact, I have not gone along with most of the 
administration's criticisms of this bill. I think some of it may be 
previous versions that they are criticizing. I think some of it may be 
a fictitious bill that has never been offered and is not now on the 
floor that they are criticizing. But, Mr. President, this $100 million 
criticism--that is, the criticism of the $50 million being too low and 
the desire to go to $100 million--is right on target. It is what it 
takes to make this bill workable.
  I beseech and implore my colleagues to let us get this limit to $100 
million where the bill can be allowed to work.
  Mr. President, if none of my colleagues has further debate, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield such time as the distinguished Senator may need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah.
  I wanted to answer one point of the Senator from Louisiana on his 
amendment, and that is the point that the small entities would be 
covered under the reg-flex amendment that we adopted yesterday. In 
fact, the reg-flex amendment covers cost-benefit analysis, but there 
are many small entities that would not get the risk analysis that is 
covered by this bill, and these are the entities that would be lost 
between the $50 million and $100 million threshold.
  So it is very important to the small towns and the water districts 
and the small businesses that they have the availability of risk 
analysis for sound, good regulatory bases, just as the larger entities 
would, and perhaps they need it even more because they do not have the 
legal staffs that are available in the upper echelons.
  I did want to make that one point so that it was clear that we need 
risk analysis and the sound basis that risk analysis would provide for 
the $50 to $100 million category that would be left out if we adopt 
this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] and 
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--45

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine 

[[Page S 9701]]

     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bond
     McCain
       
  So the amendment (No. 1497) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to make an inquiry now if there are 
any amendments on either side that can be offered so we can have 
another vote or two this evening?
  As I understand, the Senator from Ohio indicates there are no 
amendments on that side.
  Mr. GLENN. No amendments.
  Mr. DOLE. We are looking at one from the distinguished minority 
leader. We have not had a chance to review that yet.
  Mr. GLENN. That is correct. We thought there would be one, but you 
are looking at it. We will have another one ready in the morning.
  Mr. DOLE. Does that mean you are about to run out?
  Mr. GLENN. I would not say that exactly at this point.
  Mr. DOLE. Are there any at this point?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I 
wonder if the majority leader would entertain an amendment at this 
point to make the bill not applicable to any notice of proposed 
rulemaking which would commence on July 1, 1995, or earlier? In other 
words, those on-going regulations which would still be subject to the 
petition process, so you would not have to go back and redo and replow 
all that same ground.
  Do you want time to think about that?
  Mr. HATCH. I think we need some time to think about that because we 
need to know what all the rules are that will be affected by it. But we 
will certainly look at that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. If there are no----
  Mr. GLENN. Will the majority leader yield? One point I would like to 
make, on June 28 we gave a list of 9 major concerns we had and 23 minor 
ones. We were told at that time that your side would get back to us as 
fast as possible.
  We have been working through one or two--or a few of these things 
here today, but we have not had any answer to this. We were told that 
would be addressed. This is our blueprint for what we thought would 
make the thing acceptable. Until we can get back an answer to some of 
these things, I think it is going to be difficult to move ahead too 
fast.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, may I respond to the distinguished Senator? 
We have looked at that and we understand there are people on his side 
that do not like some of those suggestions. There are certainly a lot 
of people on our side. So what we have been trying to do is work out 
individual items as we can. But the vast bulk of those, we have had 
objections on one side or the other or both.
  So, we will just keep working together with those who have submitted 
those to us, and see what we can do. We have made some headway almost 
each and every day that we have been debating this matter.
  So, all I can do is pledge to keep working at it and see what can be 
done. But there are an awful lot of those suggestions that are not 
going to be acceptable.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, one of the nine dealt with an amendment 
we just disposed of.
  Mr. GLENN. That is what I just said.
  Mr. DOLE. There is some progress being made there, but I think it is 
fair to say there will be no more votes tonight.
  Mr. GLENN. I would like to address this again. What we thought we 
were going to have is an answer to this whole package. That was the way 
it was originally presented. I know we dealt with a couple of these 
items here, but we would much prefer to see how many of these things we 
could get through as a package. If we could get an answer on some of 
these things, that will certainly help.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me yield to the Senator from Utah to respond.
  Mr. HATCH. I would have to say again, I thought the other side was 
aware of the matters that we felt we could work on and the matters we 
felt we could not, that there could be no agreement on. But we will 
endeavor to try to outline each and every item on that. But we are 
working with the other side. We are trying to accommodate. Today I 
think is good evidence of that.
  We will work on it and try to get back on each and every item.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, there will be no further 
amendments offered but there will be debate on the bill. I think there 
are a number of colleagues on either side who wish to make statements 
on the bill. Hopefully, we can find some amendment that can be offered, 
laid down early in the morning, so we can get an early start.
  Maybe in the meantime we can address some of the questions raised by 
the Senator from Ohio and get some response so we can move on. We would 
like to finish this bill tomorrow night if we could. Which we cannot.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the regulatory 
reform bill, S. 343, that has occupied the attention of the Senate 
throughout the day. I watched a good portion of the debate from my 
office, on television, and occasionally here on the floor. I have been 
interested in my senior colleague from Utah and his list of the top 10 
horror stories of regulatory excess. I have been unable to gather as 
many as 10. My resources are perhaps not as good as my colleague's, but 
I want to add another to the horror stories of regulatory excess from 
the State of Utah, and perhaps spend a little more time on this one 
than the list that my senior colleague went through earlier.
  I am talking about a business called Rocky Mountain Fabrication, 
which is located in Salt Lake City, UT. It has been operating at a site 
in industrial north Salt Lake since the early 1980's. It needs to 
expand its operations to meet the demands of an improving economy. 
Rocky Mountain employs about 150 people.
  Its business is steel fabrication which requires the use of an 
outdoor yard. They have to lay out large pieces of steel that are then 
moved by heavy equipment. Negotiations between Rocky Mountain and EPA 
have been going on since 1990, nearly 5 years. They have cost the 
company $100,000 in legal fees and other fees connected with this 
fight. At the moment, a conclusion is no closer than it was when it 
started. There is no resolution in sight.
  Here are the facts. Rocky Mountain Fabrication acquired its 5-acre 
site in 1981 and developed approximately 3 acres of the site. At the 
time, all the land was dry. If you have been to Utah, you know that is 
the normal pattern of land in Utah. It is part of the great American 
desert. In 1983, we had unusual flooding in Utah. There was a 
combination of a bigger than normal snow pack, a late spring. It stayed 
in the mountains in snow, and then suddenly a very rapid drop; a rise 
in temperature, and immediate thawing of all the snow, and we had 
runoff.
  You may recall, Mr. President, and some others may recall, that we 
had literally a river running down the principal street of downtown 
Salt Lake with sandbags on either side to keep damage out of the 
business stores. That happened in 1983.
  If you are following the EPA, you know what is going to happen next. 
All of a sudden, this dry land on which Rocky Mountain Fabrication had 
been carrying on their business became a wetland because of the unusual 
nature of this spring runoff. It kept happening. In 1985-86, EPA began 
investigating the site. In 1990, they got serious with their 
investigation.
  Approximately 1.3 acres of Rocky Mountain's property was filled. Oh, 
you cannot do that. You cannot take steps 

[[Page S 9702]]
to change the nature of your own property under Federal regulations. 
Rocky Mountain provided numerous proposals, technical studies, and 
other information to EPA to resolve this matter so that it can expand 
its business. These proposals included removing over half of the 1.3 
acres filled together with mitigation in the form of a monetary 
donation to significant off-site projects around the Great Salt Lake, 
or enhancement of 30 to 50 acres of wetlands along the Great Salt Lake.
  All of these proposals have been rejected by the EPA. Instead, the 
agency has demanded that Rocky Mountain remove 2.9 acres from its 5-
acre site, which would far exceed the amount filled in 1985-86, 
effectively rendering the property unusable and putting the company out 
of business at its present location.
  In response to Rocky Mountain's proposal to provide compensatory 
mitigation through a financial contribution to the $3.5 million offset 
wetland enhancement project contemplated by the Audubon Society around 
the Great Salt Lake, EPA officials verbally responded that any such 
proposal would require Rocky Mountain to contribute the entire $3.5 
million cost of the project. Only that would be acceptable.
  Well, $3.5 million for 1.3 acres in industrial north Salt Lake? Boy, 
I would love to be the landlord that got that kind of a price for 
selling that sort of land. It is unbelievable. But this is the best EPA 
can do after costs of over $100,000 to the citizen who did nothing 
beyond working on his own land for 5 years.
  Mr. President, this is an example--we have had many of them here on 
this floor--of this kind of regulatory overkill.
  I believe in this bill. I intend to vote for this bill, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  This bill will not get at the core of the problem. I hope it is a 
good first step towards the core of the problem, but it will not get at 
the core of the problem. The core of the problem, Mr. President, is 
this, as more and more regulators themselves are discovering: It has to 
do with the cultural attitude of a regulatory agency.
  I ran a business. I know how important culture is to a business. The 
most important culture you can establish in a business is this one: The 
customer comes first. We exist to serve the customer. Whatever the 
customer asks for, whatever the customer needs, we will do everything 
we can to provide it. If you can get that culture in the minds of your 
employees and maintain it by the way you run your business, you are 
almost certain to have a successful business. In a regulatory agency, 
the culture is: The customer is lying; or, The customer is cheating; 
or, The customer must have done something wrong or I would not be here 
in this agency.
  I have never dealt with a regulatory agency who came in with the 
notion: ``I am going to conduct an investigation, and I accept as one 
of the possibilities the possibility that you have not done anything 
wrong.'' No, that is not in the regulatory culture.
  If we could get that notion in the culture of regulatory agencies, 
that alone would take care of most of these horror stories, if the 
person doing the regulating were to say, ``OK, somebody is complaining. 
Someone has suggested there is something wrong here. But I am here to 
find out the facts. That is the culture of my regulatory agency, and I 
come in with the understanding that you may not have done anything 
wrong. I am here to find out the facts.''
  I do not know how we pass legislation to change culture in an agency. 
I do not know how we accomplish this goal. But I do know that we do not 
get the goal accomplished if we do not start talking about it.
  So that is why I have decided to add to this horror story that 
particular conversation. I intend, Mr. President, whenever a regulatory 
agency comes before any subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee on 
which I sit to raise this issue with them. What is the culture in your 
agency? Is it a culture of let us go find the facts, or is it a culture 
of if I am here, there must be something wrong?
  Indeed, some agencies are afraid to come back from an investigation 
and say, ``There was nothing wrong,'' for fear the culture in the 
management of the agency will say, ``Well, if you could not find 
anything wrong with that circumstance, there must be something wrong 
with you as an investigator. Now go back and find something that you 
can fine them for. Find something you can attack them for.''
  In that kind of a culture, of course, you get the sense of us versus 
them that seems to dominate the regulatory field in this country.
  So, Mr. President, as I say, I intend to vote for this bill. I urge 
all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. I raise horror stories like 
the one that I have recited, but I think the long-term solution with 
which all of us must be concerned must be geared at changing the 
corporate culture, if you will, in regulatory agencies and getting 
people who are working for the Government to begin to understand that 
taxpayers must be treated like customers. There must be a presumption 
that the taxpayer, that the individual citizen, that the person being 
investigated may just be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. That 
possibility must be clearly in the minds of regulators when they go 
out. They must not be punished if they find that that is, indeed, the 
case. If they come back and say, ``We have conducted this 
investigation, and this company, this individual, we discovered has 
done nothing wrong,'' there must be no cultural opprobrium attached to 
that result on the part of the management of the regulatory agency. 
That is the most ephemeral kind of change, the most subtle kind of 
change, the one most difficult to accomplish but ultimately the one 
that must take place.
  Mr. President, S. 343 will not accomplish that. We need a lot more 
conversation and a lot more change of attitudes throughout the entire 
Federal establishment to accomplish that. But S. 343 will at least send 
a message throughout the Federal establishment that we here in the 
Congress are aware of the need for those kinds of changes and we are 
willing to pass legislation that will move in that direction. It is for 
that reason I support the legislation and urge its passage.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                   Announcement of Position on Votes

  Mr. INHOFE. I have two announcements. First, I announce that, if I 
had been present and voting yesterday on rollcall vote No. 297 to this 
bill, I would have voted ``yea.'' Second, if present and voting on vote 
No. 298, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will so reflect.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what we have been talking about today is a 
very significant thing. It is something that we are concerned about to 
the extent that those of us who ran for reelection last time can tell 
you that this is on the minds of the American people, not just large 
and small businesses but individuals as well. This issue is probably 
the most critical issue to come before the Congress in the minds of the 
American public. It will redesign the regulatory process of the Federal 
Government.
  One of the distinctions, for those of us who have served in both 
bodies, that is most noticeable is that over here on this side you only 
run every 6 years. The drawback to that is you sometimes lose contact 
with what people are thinking. For those of us who went through an 
election, Mr. President, this last time, I can assure you there are two 
mandates that went with that election which have to be ranked No. 1 and 
No. 2, and I am not sure in which order they would be.
  One, of course, is doing something about the deficit, and the other 
is doing something about the abusive bureaucracy and the overregulation 
that we find in our lives. I have had this fortified since the election 
in that I have had 77 townhall meetings since January, and it always 
comes up.
  The Senator from Utah was talking about the horror stories. Let me 
assure you there are a lot of horror stories. We have heard a lot 
today, and we will have heard a lot more. But I have categorized about 
six things that have come out of these townhall meetings which were 
prominent in the minds of Americans during the last elections.
  They are: First, the American public wants a smaller Federal 
Government. Second, the public demands fewer Government regulations. 
Third, people 

[[Page S 9703]]
want regulations that are cost effective. Fourth, they want Federal 
bureaucracies to quit invading their lives. Fifth, small businesses 
need regulatory relief to survive and create jobs. Sixth, people want 
the Government to use common sense in developing new regulations.
  When debating and discussing this issue, most people focus on the 
direct cost of regulations on businesses and on the general public, 
which is enormous. Over $6,000 is the cost each year for each American 
family because of the cost of regulation. For each senseless and 
burdensome regulation, we have Government bureaucracies and agencies 
proposing, writing, enacting, and enforcing these needless regulations, 
and this actually drives up the national debt.
  This is something that has not been discussed, and I wish to give 
credit to a professor from Clemson University, Prof. Bruce Yandle, who 
made quite a discovery. He discovered that there is a direct 
relationship between the deficit each year and the number of 
regulations.
  Our Federal Register is the document in which we find the listing of 
the regulations. The discovery that Professor Yandle made is portrayed 
on this chart. This is kind of interesting because the red line 
designates the number of pages in the Federal Register. In other words, 
we are talking about the red line which goes up like this. And this out 
here is the peak of the Carter administration when we were trying to 
get as many regulations on the books before they changed guard after 
Ronald Reagan was the designee for President of the United States.
  Now, the yellow columns here designate in billions of dollars the 
Federal deficit for that given year. Now, look at this; it is really 
remarkable. You have this line that is trailing this line going across 
almost exactly at the same rate. In other words, in those years when we 
have a higher Federal deficit, we also have more pages of regulations.
  And so I would contend to you that the best way we can address the 
deficit problem is to do something about the overregulation, do 
something to cut down the number of regulations in our society.
  The bill under consideration today, the Comprehensive Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1995, will go a long way to meeting the concerns of the 
American public on needless and burdensome Federal regulations. And, as 
the Senator from Utah said, I would like to have this bill stronger. I 
think it should be stronger. But this is a compromise bill. This is one 
that many people on the other side of the aisle who really do not feel 
we are overburdened with regulation think is probably a good 
compromise. I would prefer to have it stronger, but it is a compromise, 
and it is the best we could hope for now.
  I would like to outline a few of the key components of the bill, 
because I think we have kind of lost track of what it actually does, 
and then give some examples of the types of regulations that we are 
exposed to. As the Senator from Utah, I spent 35 years of my life in 
the private sector so I have been on the receiving end of these 
regulations. I know the costs of these regulations.
  An economist the other day said, with all this talk about Japan, if 
you want to be competitive with Japan, export our regulations to Japan 
and we will be competitive.
  One section of the bill is cost-benefit analysis. The bill will 
require the use of cost-benefit analysis for major rules, those which 
have gross annual effects on the economy of $50 million or more, 
requiring that the benefits of the rule justify the costs of the rule.
  This is not the more stringent language we talked about at one time 
back in January of the benefits outweighing the costs, which I would 
prefer, but a much more neutral compromise. This is a commonsense 
approach to costs and benefits. If you are going to buy something for 
yourself at the store, you do not want to pay more than the benefits 
you receive from it. It is like buying a 32 cent stamp for 50 cents. 
You just do not do it. It is like throwing away your laptop computer at 
the end of each day. Smart shoppers want their money's worth, and I 
think the American public is entitled to get their money's worth by 
having some way to measure the value of these regulations.
  The second area that is addressed is risk assessment. The bill would 
require a standardized risk assessment process for all rules which 
protect human health, safety, or the environment. It will require 
``rational and informed risk management decisions and informed public 
input into the process of making agency decisions.'' I do not see how 
anyone can be against making informed decisions.
  This section will require the ``best reasonably available scientific 
data'' to be used and the risk involved to be characterized in a 
descriptive manner, and the final risk assessment will be reviewed by a 
panel of peers.
  These are not outrageous requirements but basic justifications which 
should be met by the Government before it imposes costly regulations on 
businesses costing them millions of dollars and on American families 
costing them thousands of dollars.
  The third area is that of the regulatory review and petition process. 
The bill will require each agency to review its regulations every 5 
years to determine if the rule is still necessary. You know, there are 
a lot of agencies that are not necessary.
  I can remember a very famous speech that was made one time by a man 
back in 1965 who later on became President of the United States. He 
observed in that speech, which I think should be in the textbooks of 
Americans today-- it was called A Rendezvous With Destiny--he said 
there is nothing closer to immortality on the face of the Earth than a 
government agency. That is the way it is with regulations. They impose 
the regulations. Maybe the problem goes away or someone takes away that 
problem, but the regulations stay in. So this would require that every 
5 years they look and review to see if they are still needed. If the 
agency decides not to rewrite a particular regulation, then members of 
the regulated community--those are the people that are paying taxes for 
all this fun we are having up here--can petition the agency to have the 
rule reconsidered.
  Now, this will allow the public to draw attention to the needless 
regulations that help put government back in the hands of the American 
people. Nothing unreasonable about that at all.
  Then the fourth area is that of judicial review. The bill will also 
allow for judicial review of these new regulatory requirements. This is 
important because the regulated community must have some redress for 
poorly designed or arbitrary regulations. It is no good to require 
regulatory agencies to change their process if there is no one watching 
over to make sure that they comply with this.
  I realize President Clinton and his regulatory agency heads are dead 
set against the provision. They did not mind that they look over 
everybody else's shoulders enforcing the regulatory nightmares on 
private citizens and the companies that are paying for all these taxes, 
but they do not want the judicial process to oversee them. So overall 
the bill will go a long way toward preventing needless and overly 
burdensome regulations from taking effect.
  Unfortunately, there are many examples of existing regulations which 
have not followed this new process to help stop stupid regulation from 
being enacted. I would like to just highlight a couple of these, one 
having to do with the wetlands regulations.
  The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have promulgated regulations 
which broadly define the definition of what constitutes a wetland. 
Under the 1989 definition, land could be dry for 350 days a year and 
still be classified as wetlands. And to add to some of the examples 
that have been made here on the floor today:
  Mr. Wayne Hage, a Nevada rancher, hired someone to clear scrub brush 
from irrigation ditches along his property and faces up to a 5-year 
sentence under the Clean Water Act because it redirected streams.
  Another example: Mr. John Pozsgai, a 60-year-old truck mechanic in 
Philadelphia, filled in an old dump on his property that contained 
abandoned tires, rusty cars, and had to serve nearly 2 years in jail 
because he did not get a wetlands permit.
  James and Mary Mills of Broad Channel, NY, were fined $30,000 for 
building a deck on their house which cast a shadow on a wetland. 

[[Page S 9704]]

  Endangered species. The Endangered Species Act has infringed upon the 
property rights of property owners all over the country. When 14-year-
old Eagle Scout Robert Graham was lost for 2 days in the New Mexico 
Santa Fe National Forest, the Forest Service denied a rescue helicopter 
to land and pick up the Scout where he was spotted from the air because 
it was a wilderness area.
  Mr. Michael Rowe of California wanted to use his land to build on, 
but it was located in a known habitat of the Kangaroo rat. In order to 
build, he was told--keep in mind this is his land that he owns--he was 
told to hire a biologist for $5,000 to survey the land. If no rats were 
found, he could then build only if he paid the Government $1,950 an 
acre in development mitigation fees. If even one rat was found, he 
could not build at all. This is his property, property he bought long 
before this thing was in effect.
  Here we have the Constitution with the 5th amendment and the 14th 
amendment that are supposed to protect property rights without due 
process.
  Here is Marj and Roger Krueger who spent $53,000 on a lot for their 
dream- house in the Texas hill country. But they could not build on the 
land because the golden-cheeked warbler had been found in the canyon 
adjacent to their lands.
  And OSHA regulations. I remember when OSHA regulations first came 
out. At that time I was in business. Of course, I was a part-time 
legislator in the State of Oklahoma. I was in the State Senate. I used 
to make speeches and take the manual that is about that thick, the OSHA 
Manual of Regulations to which all manufacturers had to comply, and I 
would speak to manufacturers' organizations. And I said, ``I can close 
anybody in the room down.'' I would be challenged. ``No. We run a good 
clean shop. You cannot close us.'' I would find regulations that if you 
were the type of inspector that would walk in, if you wanted to, you 
could close someone down.
  You know, Mr. President, this is one of the problems we have. Years 
ago I was mayor of the city of Tulsa. We had about 5,000 uniformed 
police officers. Most of them were great. Now, you have someone who 
cannot handle the authority that is vested in them by law. The same is 
true when you get out in the field. It can happen in any bureaucracy, 
whether it is the EPA, the OSHA regulators, inspectors, or FAA, anyone 
else, certainly IRS and FDA, and the rest of them.
  Anyway, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is supposed 
to protect safety and health for workers. But too often the regulators 
at OSHA have gone overboard, costing jobs and imposing fines.
  For example, OSHA regulations have put the tooth fairy out of 
business, requiring dentists to dispose of teeth in the same manner as 
human tissue in a closed container for disposal.
  In Florida, the owner of a three-person silk-screening company was 
fined by OSHA for not having a hazardous communications program for his 
two employees.
  Two employees of DeBest, Inc., a plumbing company in Idaho, jumped 
into the trench to save the life of a coworker who had been buried 
alive. The company was fined $7,875 because the two workers were not 
wearing the proper head gear when they jumped into the trench.
  Mr. President, I could just go on and on as they have today with 
example after example of abuses that have taken place. And they are 
abusing the very people who are paying the taxes.
  Last, let me reemphasize, this chart speaks for itself because there 
is a direct relationship between the deficits that we have experienced 
every year and the number of pages in the Federal Register which 
indicates the number of regulations that are in effect.
  I thank the President for his time.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 343, and 
appreciate the comments of my friend from Oklahoma who talked a lot 
about the details that are very important here, the reason for this 
bill. We have talked about it now for a good long time, as almost is 
always the case here. Nearly everything has been said, I suppose, in 
terms of the detail, in terms of the bill. But I would like to talk 
just a little bit about the fact that it is so important for us to deal 
with this question of regulation, overregulation.
  Clearly, at least in my constituency in Wyoming, the notion of 
regulation and the overregulation, and the cost of regulation and the 
interference of regulation, is the item most often mentioned by 
constituents that I talk to. There is no question, of course, that we 
need regulation. There will continue to be regulation. And, indeed, 
there should be regulation. Obviously that is one of the functions of 
government.
  The question is not whether we have regulation or not. And I wish to 
comment a little, one of our associates this afternoon rose and 
indicated that in his view the idea of having some kind of cost-benefit 
analysis meant that we would no longer have clean water, that we would 
no longer have clean air. I disagree with that thoroughly.
  I do not even think that is the issue. The issue of regulation, the 
issue of laws, the issue of having a clean environment, a safe 
workplace is not the issue. Too often we get off on that notion that 
somehow this bill will do away with regulation. Not so at all. We had 
an amendment today that said it would be a supplement to the laws and 
the statutes that exist and the regulations that exist.
  It is designed to work in process. It deals with the process of the 
things that are taken into account as the regulations are developed and 
as the regulations are applied. So the notion that somehow the good 
things that have come about as a result of regulation--and, indeed, 
there have been and our friend cited the idea that we have a cleaner 
environment in many areas, that we have better water than we have had 
in years. That is true. That is not the issue. We are not talking about 
doing away with those regulations.
  So I think, Mr. President, we really ought to examine what we are 
doing here, and the fact is we are looking for a way to apply 
regulations with more common sense. We are looking for a way to apply 
regulations with less cost. We are looking for a way to accomplish what 
regulations are designed to accomplish more efficiently. That is what 
it is all about.
  I understand that there are different views. I understand that there 
are those who do not choose to take issues like cost-benefit ratios 
into account. There are those, of course, as has been the case in 
almost all the issues we have undertaken this year, who prefer the 
status quo.
  But I suggest to you, if there was anything that was loudly spoken in 
November of 1994 it was that the Federal Government is too big, it 
costs too much, and there is too much regulation in our lives, 
intrusive in our lives, that it has to do with economy, it has to do 
with cost.
  We already mentioned cost. Some say it ranges from $400 billion a 
year, more than all of the personal income tax combined, and I believe 
that is the case.
  But we need to concentrate on what we are seeking to do, and we are 
seeking to make regulation a more efficient, a more useful tool.
  There is a notion from time to time that those who seek the status 
quo are more compassionate, are more caring than those who want change. 
I suggest that is not the slightest bit in keeping with the flavor of 
this bill; that, indeed, we are seeking to find a way to do it better.
  So, Mr. President, the 1994 elections were about change. The American 
people, I think, are demanding a change, demanding a regulatory system 
that works for us as citizens and not against us. I think there is a 
message that the status quo is not good enough.
  For the first time in many years, frankly, the first time in years I 
observed Congress, certainly in the 6 years I was in the House, we have 
not really taken a look at the programs that are there. If programs 
seemed not to be effective, if they were not accomplishing much, what 
did we do? We put more money into it or increased the bureaucracy. We 
did not really take a look at ways to improve the outcome, to improve 
the effect to see if, indeed, there is a better way to do it. So we 
need meaningful and enforceable regulatory reform.
  There has been a great deal of misinformation about this bill, some 
of it on 

[[Page S 9705]]
purpose, some of it just as a matter of not fully understanding. Most 
of it you see on TV and talk shows, that it does not have the 
regulatory protection. Not true, not true. Clean water, clean air, and 
safe food are not negotiable. That is not the issue. This bill 
specifically exempts potential emergency situations from cost-benefit, 
and it will strengthen sound regulations by allocating the resources 
more wisely.
  I cannot imagine anything that makes more sense, that makes more 
common sense than as a regulation is developed that you take a look at 
what you are seeking to do, how you do it, what it will cost, and what 
the benefits will be and seek the alternatives that are there. That is 
what it is all about.
  It also provides an opportunity for this body, for the Congress to 
take a look at regulations as they are prepared by the agencies. We did 
this in our Wyoming Legislature. It was a routine: The statutes were 
passed, the agencies developed regulations to carry them out, and there 
was an oversight function before those regulations were put into place 
to see if, indeed, they carried out the spirit of the statute, to see 
if, indeed, they were doing what they were designed to do. 
Unfortunately, there, too, we did not have a real analysis of the cost-
benefit ratio, and I think that is terribly important.
  So we talk about compassion, and sometimes those who want to leave 
things as they are accuse those who want change of not caring. It seems 
to me that when overregulation puts someone out of work, that is not 
very compassionate. When we put a lid on the growth of the economy, 
that is not very compassionate. When we take people's property without 
proper remuneration, that is not very compassionate.
  So we are designed here to do some of those things. It seems to me we 
have particular interest in the West where 50 percent of our State, for 
example, is managed and owned by the Federal Government. So we find 
ourselves in nearly everything we do, whether it be recreation, whether 
it be grazing, whether it be mining and oil, with a great deal of 
regulation that comes with Federal ownership.
  Much of it is not simply oriented in business. We talked a lot about 
business because I suppose, on balance, they are the largest recipients 
of overregulation. Let me tell you, the small towns are also very much 
affected. We had several instances recently in the town of Buffalo, WY, 
where they are seeking to develop a water system, in one instance, on 
forest lands. So they have to deal with the Forest Service to begin 
with, and then they have to deal with the EPA, and then they have to 
deal with the Corps of Engineers and finally are turned down entirely 
and have to start over--millions of dollars of costs to a small town.
  It has nothing to do with whether they are going to have a clean 
water supply. It has to do with whether or not there can be a cost-
benefit ratio of what is going on, whether there is a risk assessment, 
and that is what this is designed to do.
  So, Mr. President, our effort here, I think, is a laudable one. I am 
excited about it. I think we can finally do some things that have 
needed to be done for a very long time and, I think, do them in a 
sensible way and preserve the reason for regulation, preserve the 
environment, preserve the water quality, and do it in a way that is 
more effective, more cost-effective, more user friendly than in the 
past.
  I rise in strong support of this bill and, frankly, hope we can move 
to a speedy, successful conclusion.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, one of the primary functions of government 
is to protect the public's health and safety. The purpose of the 
Federal regulatory process is to improve and protect the high quality 
of life that we enjoy in our country. Every day, the people of our 
Nation enjoy the benefits of almost a century of progress in Federal 
laws and regulations that reduce the threat of illness, injury, and 
death from consumer products, workplace hazards, and environmental 
toxins.
  As the year 2000 approaches, Americans can look back with immense 
pride in the progress we have achieved in protections of our health and 
safety.
  The economic benefits derived from Federal safeguards such as the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], the Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Act, 
are incalculable.
  The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration and the 
Federal Highway Administration estimate that Federal safety rules have 
resulted in a net gain to the economy of $412 billion between 1966 and 
1990. According to the Department of Labor, workerplace safety 
regulations have saved at least 140,000 lives since 1970. The Consumer 
Product Safety Commission estimates that standards in four product 
categories alone save at least $2.5 billion a year in emergency room 
visits.
  While I recognize the tremendous benefits and value of our health and 
safety laws, I also recognize many instances where Federal agencies 
have ignored the costs of regulation on businesses, State and local 
governments, and individuals, who as a result feel that they are being 
put upon--and rightly so.
  This is why we need regulatory reform.


                       we need regulatory reform

  Mr. President, I firmly believe we need regulatory reform. I believe 
that all Senators on both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about 
the need for regulatory reform. Not one of us in the Senate wants the 
status quo. Regulatory reform is not a partisan issue. At issue this 
week will be what kind of reform we achieve. We need regulatory reform 
that will create a regulatory process that is less burdensome, more 
effective, and more flexible. We need regulatory reform that provides 
reasonable, logical, and appropriate changes in the regulatory process 
that will eliminate unnecessary burdens on businesses, State and local 
governments, and individuals. We need regulatory reform that
 maintains our Federal Government's ability to protect the health and 
safety of the American people.

  Mr. President, I am committed to the goal of purging regulations that 
have outlined their usefulness, that are unnecessarily burdensome, or 
that create needless redtape and bureaucracy.
  I believe that Federal agencies should issue only those rules that 
will protect or improve the well-being of the American people and I am 
committed to regulatory reform that will ensure this.
  For these reasons I am an original cosponsor of the Glenn-Chaffee 
bill S. 1001, the Regulatory Procedures Reform Act of 1995.


           EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF REGULATORY REFORM WE NEED

  Last year, I pushed a bill through the Senate to allow the city of 
San Diego to apply for a waiver from certain Clean Water Act 
regulations.
  Scientists at the National Academy of Sciences and the Scripps 
Institute of Oceanography informed us that the regulations mandating 
that the city treat its sewage to full secondary level were unnecessary 
to protect the city's coastal waters.
  Compliance with those regulations, put in place to protect inland 
lakes, rivers, and streams, would do little to protect the marine 
environment but would cost San Diego over $1 billion.
  My bill allowed the city to seek a waiver which is not available 
under current law, giving San Diego the flexibility it needs to protect 
the marine environment and to focus its resources on other 
environmental priorities.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, 
is currently working on the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, the Clean Water Act, other environmental statutes and we are very 
aware that we need to be mindful of situations like San Diego's--
situations where a regulation that makes sense in one place makes 
little or no sense in another.
  For example, under the current Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA may have 
to issue a rule on radon in drinking water. Radon is a known carcinogen 
and should be regulated. But in the case of a city like Fresno, CA, the 
costs of compliance with such a regulation could be staggering. Unlike 
many cities which have a single drinking water treatment plant, Fresno 
relies on water from over 200 wells, each of which would require its 
own Radon
 treatment facility.

  Meeting the EPA's proposed Radon rule could cost the city of Fresno 
several times what it would cost other 

[[Page S 9706]]
cities--over $300 million, an amount the city tells me is simply not 
available. We will therefore work to come up with a solution that 
protects public health, but doesn't drive cities like Fresno to 
bankruptcy.
  Mr. President, it is our job to fix these problems, to make changes 
to eliminate the unintended consequences of good laws. The best way to 
avoid unnecessary, costly and burdensome regulations is to ensure that 
the agency analysis of the proposed regulation is based on sound 
science and reasonable policy assumptions. An agency must consider the 
costs and the benefits of a regulation, and the possibility for 
alternative regulatory solutions or no regulation at all.
  With this in mind, President Clinton issued Executive order 12866 in 
September 1993. The Executive order emphasizes that while regulation 
plays an important role in protecting the health safety and environment 
of the American people, the Federal Government has a basic 
responsibility to govern wisely and carefully, regulating only when 
necessary and only in the most cost effective manner.
  Can risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis be useful tools to make 
our regulations more efficient and less burdensome? Yes, and under 
President Clinton's September 1993 Executive order on regulatory 
planning and review, the Federal Government is using these tools 
appropriately and responsibly. Unlike the Dole bill, the President's 
Executive order does not mistake a sometimes useful tool for the whole 
tool-box.
  As former Senator Robert Stafford--the chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee when Republicans controlled the Senate in 
the 1980's--put it:

       We did not abolish slavery after a cost-benefit analysis, 
     nor prohibit child labor after a risk assessment. We did 
     those things because money was only one way of expressing 
     value--and sometimes it is the least important.

  When money becomes the only measure of value--as it would under the 
Dole bill--we are in danger of losing the things in life that really 
matter. You can't put a price on saving lives, preventing birth 
defects, avoiding learning disabilities, preserving national parks or 
saving the ozone layer. Under the Dole-Johnston bill, the ability of 
our laws to protect public health and safety would depend upon a 
bureaucrat's estimate of the dollar value of a child's learning 
disability, the pain of cancer, or the loss of a life in an aircraft 
accident.
  Mr. President, ultimately our responsibility as legislators
   is to improve the lives of all the American people, not just the 
bottom line of the corporations.


       THE DOLE BILL IS NOT A RESPONSIBLE REGULATORY REFORM BILL

  Republicans know they can't risk the potential political consequences 
of an open attack on our environmental health and safety laws. One of 
their own pollsters, Luntz Research and Strategic Services, recently 
completed a poll on regulatory reform that asked: Which should be 
Congress' higher priority: cut regulations or do more to protect the 
environment? Twenty-nine percent said cut regulations. Sixty-two 
percent said protect the environment. The pollster goes on to comment:

       This question is here as a warning . . . The public may not 
     like or admire regulations, may not think more are necessary, 
     but puts environmental protection as a higher priority than 
     cutting regulations.

  They have come up with an ideal back-door solution: This week we will 
spend many hours debating the proposal forwarded to the Senate by the 
majority leader Senator Dole, that will, in the name of regulatory 
reform, seriously undermine existing health, safety and environmental 
laws and seriously weaken our ability to respond to current and future 
health, safety and environmental problems. Supporters of the Dole-
Johnston bill are clearly not listening to the American people.
  Unfortunately Mr. President, the Republican proposal before us today 
is unashamedly aimed at our public health and safety and environmental 
laws in the name of special interests.
  It is a direct attack by the Republican majority on the laws and 
regulations that protect America's natural resources including those we 
take most for granted--laws that protect our clean air and water and 
safe drinking water. It is a direct attack on the laws and regulations 
that protect the health and safety of the food and the medicines we buy 
every day, the toys we give to our children, the cars we drive, the 
places where we work.
  Supporters of Dole-Johnston will claim again and again over the 
course of this week, that it is only aimed at stopping regulatory 
excesses and at making the Federal Government justify the costs of the 
regulations it imposes. They will say that the Dole-Johnston bill is 
aimed at restoring common sense to the regulatory process. All this 
bill does, they will say, is make the Government responsible by making 
agencies consider the costs as well as the benefits of regulations. To 
be opposed to this bill they will say is to defend inefficient, 
irrational agency decisions.
  Mr. President, the Dole-Johnston bill is not regulatory
   reform in the name of efficiency and good government, it is 
regulatory gridlock in the name of special interests and corporate 
polluters.

  Republicans insist this bill is revolutionary regulatory reform. The 
title of the Dole/Johnston bill is the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. I 
think we should rename it for what it is--the Lets Put Special Interest 
Profits Before Health and Safety Act, or The Regulatory Gridlock Act, 
or The Polluters Protection Act, or The Special Interest Litigation 
Act.
  I support regulatory reform that will create a regulatory process 
that is less burdensome, more effective, and more flexible. I support 
regulatory reform that provides reasonable, logical and appropriate 
changes in the regulatory process that will eliminate unnecessary 
burdens on businesses, state and local governments and individuals. I 
support regulatory reform that maintains our federal government's 
ability to protect the health and safety of the American people.
  Unfortunately, the Dole/Johnston bill does not achieve these goals.
  The Dole/Johnston bill's definition of major rule to mean a rule--or 
a group of closely related rules--that is likely to have a gross annual 
effect on the economy of $50 million or more in reasonably 
qualitifiable direct or indirect costs will greatly increase the burden 
of our agencies. Just about any rule can be made out to have a $50 
million gross effect on the economy in reasonably qualitifiable--direct 
and indirect--increased costs. I seriously question whether the 
enormous number of regulations that could be swept in under this 
standard will benefit, and whether resources spent on the cost-benefit 
analysis will be well spent. Perhaps we should subject the provisions 
of the Dole bill to a cost benefit analysis.
  With its petition process and look back provisions, the Dole bill 
will allow any well financed bad actor to paralyze an agency by 
flooding it with petitions. This would prevent the agency from spending 
resources on developing new rules, and from reviewing old rules--
forcing a stay on enforcement and the eventual sunset of rules.
  Its provisions on so called supplemental decision criteria create a 
supermandate. Supporters of Dole/Johnston deny this claim. They insist 
that the intent is not to supersede but to supplement the decisional 
criteria in other statutes. However, the bill clearly overrides other 
statutes including our health, safety and environmental laws because 
the supplementary standards would still have to be met. The Dole bill 
goes well beyond sensible reform by establishing a goal that is 
absolutely at odds with our responsibility to improve the well-being of 
all the American people. It says that we should protect only those 
values that can be measured in dollars and cents--it is a corporate 
bean-counter's dream. Forget about saving lives, forget about getting 
poison out of our air and water, forget about preventing birth defects, 
infertility and cancer--if it you can't put a price tag on it, it 
doesn't count.
  Its provisions on the toxic release inventory will significantly 
undermine a community's right to know who is polluting and what kind of 
toxics are being released into the air. TRI is an effective cost-saving 
tool: Public scrutiny as a result of the information released under the 
1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know 

[[Page S 9707]]
Act has often prompted industry to lower pollution levels without the 
need for new Government regulations.
  All in all, Mr. President, the Dole/Johnston bill is a prescription 
for no Government protection. It does exactly the opposite of what's 
advertised.
  Another key aspect of the Dole/Johnston bill is how it will affect 
our ability to respond quickly to public health, safety and the 
environment.
  The Dole bill will further delay the rulemaking procedures of the 
agencies of the Department of Transportation, particularly their 
ability to respond promptly with new safety requirements.
  Many of the safety rules, particularly at FAA, already take too long. 
As the FAA clearly knows, I have been concerned about air cabin safety 
since a 1991 crash at Los Angeles airport when 21 passengers died in a 
fire while trying to exit the aircraft. We urged the FAA to require 
that the seat rows at the overwing exist be widened. The agency had 
known since a 1985 crash in England that this was a problem, but it was 
not until 1992, 7 years after the crash in England and nearly a year 
and a half following the Los Angeles tragedy did the agency issue a 
final rule.
  If these bills had been in law then, I would not be surprised to 
still be waiting for the completion of the risk assessment and cost 
benefit analysis for this rulemaking. And the families of 21 passengers 
who died in the Los Angeles crash would still be waiting to know if any 
good had come out of their tragedy.
  Mr. President, we currently have critically important regulations on 
e-coli, cryptosporidium and mammograms that will grant the American 
people much needed health and safety protection. The Dole/Johnston bill 
would delay and possibly prevent the issuance of these regulations.
  As the bill now stands, only those rules which represent an emergency 
or health or safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm 
to the public or natural resources would be exempt from the new 
requirements.
  There is no definition of the terms significant or likely in the 
bill, making it unclear whether existing environmental and health 
regulations qualify for an exemption.
  The Dole/Johnston bill has an exemption for health and safety 
regulations that protect the public from significant harm, but it does 
not define the term significant.
  If one child dies as a result of eating contaminated meat, does that 
pose a significant harm to the public? It's certainly significant to 
the child's parents and to others who ate at the same restaurant or 
bought meat at the same grocery store.
  If a person with a weakened immune system--for example a cancer 
patient, an organ transplant recipient, an individual born with genetic 
immune deficiencies, or a person infected with HIV becomes ill and dies 
from drinking water infected with cryptosporidium. Will the Dole bill 
let our agencies determine that cryptosporidium poses a significant 
harm, to the public? What if 104 die as they did in 1993 in Milwaukee?
  If a woman has her mammogram read by someone who is poorly trained in 
mammography, is it of significant harm to the public? It's certainly 
significant to the woman if that person fails to detect a cancerous 
lump and to other women who have mammograms at that facility.


                                 e-coli

  According to the Centers for Disease Control, E-coli in food makes 
20,000 people severely ill every year and causes 500 deaths; that's 
more than one death every day. Young children and the elderly are 
particularly vulnerable. There is clearly an urgent need for additional 
protection.
  In January 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed a new 
rule that will modernize our food safety inspection system for the 
first time since 1906 by requiring the use of scientific testing to 
directly target and reduce harmful bacteria.
  Currently, meat inspectors do just as they did in 1906 to check for 
bad meat--they poke and sniff. No scientific sampling is required. 
Handling meat safely once we purchase it is not enough.
  The proposed regulation would require keeping meat refrigerated at 
more steps during its processing, better procedures to prevent fecal 
contamination, and testing to be sure that pathogens like e-coli are 
controlled.
  What are the estimated benefits of this legislation? The preliminary 
impact analysis by the USDA concluded that health benefits to the 
public would total $1 billion to $3.7 billion. The estimated cost of 
implementation of the regulation would be $250 million per year for the 
first 3 years. I am aware of the concerns of small business about the 
potential impact of this regulation and I would urge the USDA to do 
everything possible to mitigate the potential impact as effectively as 
possible rather than delay the rule.
  The USDA held 11 public meetings, two 3-day conferences and received 
detailed comments from the National Advisory Group for Microbiological 
Criteria in Food.
  The Dole/Johnston bill would among other things require a new peer 
review process which would cause a 6 month delay. Add to this that fact 
that the Dole/Johnston peer review panel would not exclude individuals 
who have a conflict of interest.


                  cryptosporidium--safe drinking water

  We have to ensure that one of the most fundamental needs of any 
society--safe drinking water--is available to all Americans.
  Public health continues to be threatened by contaminated drinking 
water. Under the current law that is being criticized as overly costly 
and burdensome--a law approved by a Republican controlled EPW 
Committee, passed by a vote of 94-0 on the Senate floor and signed into 
law by President Ronald Reagan--people all across America have been 
getting sick and even dying from drinking tap water.
  In 1987, 13,000 people became ill in Carrollton, GA as a result of 
bacterial contamination in their drinking water. In 1990, 243 people 
became ill and 4 died as a result of E-coli bacteria in the drinking 
water in Cabool, MO. In 1992, 15,000 people were sickened by 
contaminated drinking water in Jackson County, OR. And a year ago, 
400,000 people in Milwaukee became ill and 104 died as a result of 
drinking the water from their taps which was infected with 
cryptosporidium.
  A recent study completed by the Natural Resources Defense Council 
``You Are What You Drink'' found that from a sampling of fewer than 100 
utilities that responded to their inquiries, over 45 million Americans 
drank water supplied by systems that found the unregulated contaminant 
Cryptosporidium in their raw or treated water.
  The solution? According to a Wall Street Journal article by Tim 
Ferguson on June 27th titled ``Drinking-Water Option Comes in a 
Bottle'', the solution is for the American people to drink bottled 
water. He says:

       Sellers (of bottled water) * * * have taken
        water quality to a new level in a far more efficient 
     manner than a Washington bureaucracy is likely to do. Let 
     us unscrew our bottle caps and drink to the refreshment of 
     choice.

  On June 15th, 1995, two federal agencies, the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
[CDC] warned that drinking tap water could be fatal to Americans with 
weakened immune systems and suggested that they take the precaution of 
boiling water before consuming it.
  Dennis Juranek, associate director of the division of parasitic 
diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said: ``We 
don't know if the level of (cryptosporidium) in the water poses a 
public health threat, but we cannot rule out that there will be low 
level transmission of the bacteria'' to people who consume the water 
directly from the tap.
  The CDC estimates that up to 6 million Americans could be affected 
because they have weakened immune systems: 3 to 5 million cancer 
patients, organ transplant recipients and individuals born with genetic 
immune deficiencies, and 1 million persons infected with HIV.
  EPA is working on new regulations called the Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule to better protect the public's drinking water against 
cryptosporidium.
  The Dole/Johnston bill would delay and possible prevent the issuance 
of the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule--it would restrict risk 
assessment to consideration of a best estimate of risk, defined as the 
average 

[[Page S 9708]]
impacts on the population. It would ignore the potential health effects 
of drinking water contaminants upon children, infants, pregnant women, 
the elderly, chronically ill people, and other persons who have 
particularly high susceptibility to drinking water contaminants.
  According to the EPA, the Dole bill could preclude the timely data-
gathering necessary to support the new proposed regulation. It could 
force EPA into a catch-22, in which data gathering cannot proceed 
without a cost-benefit analysis that in the Dole bill requires up-
front, the very data the EPA would need to collect. Even if the EPA was 
allowed to proceed with data collection, the Dole bill's elaborate, 
inflexible, time consuming risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis 
procedures would further hamper the EPA from taking effective and 
timely action with which the regulated community concurs, through 
negotiated rulemaking, to address the emergent threats of newly 
recognized waterborne diseases.


                        mammography regulations

  The Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA] is an example of a good 
and necessary regulation which would be seriously delayed and 
undermined by the Dole bill.
  MQSA establishes national quality standards for mammography 
facilities, including the quality of films produced, training for 
clinic personnel, record-keeping and equipment.
  The law was passed to address a wide range of problems at mammography 
facilities: poor quality equipment, poorly trained technicians and 
physicians, false representation of accreditation, and the lack of 
inspections or governmental oversight.
  One in nine women are at risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer 
in her lifetime. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in 
American women and the leading killer of women between the ages of 35 
and 52. In 1995, an estimated 182,000 new cases of breast cancer will 
be diagnosed, and 46,000 women will die of the disease. Breast self-
examination and mammography are the only tools women have to detect 
breast cancer early, when it can be treated with the least 
disfigurement and when chances for survival are highest.
  The quality of a mammogram can mean the difference between life or 
death. If the procedure is done incorrectly, and a bad picture is 
taken, then a radiologist reading the x-ray may miss seeing potentially 
cancerous lumps. Conversely, a bad picture can show lumps where none 
exist and a women will have to undergo the trauma of being told she may 
have cancer--a situation known as a false positive.
  To get a good quality mammogram you need the right film and the 
proper equipment. To protect women undergoing the procedure, you also 
need the correct radiation dose.
  In 1992, Congress passed the Mammography Quality Standards Act in 
order to establish national quality standards for mammography 
facilities. At the time, both the GAO and the American College of 
Radiology testified before Congress that the former patchwork of 
Federal, State, and private standards were inadequate to protect women.
  There were a number of problems at mammography facilities: poor 
quality equipment, poorly trained technicians and physicians, a lack of 
regular inspections, and facilities which told women they were 
accredited when in fact they were not.
  The Mammography Quality Standards Act was passed to address these 
serious problems. Women's health and lives are at stake with this 
procedure. Quality standards are needed to ensure that they are getting 
the best care possible. Final regulations for the Mammography Quality 
Standards Act are expected in October. If the Dole bill passes, such 
regulations could be delayed for years. Women would see their health 
care diminished. Ten years ago a survey by the Food and Drug 
Administration found that over one-third of the x-ray machines used for 
mammography produced substandard results. We cannot go back. It is time 
for national quality standards.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by saying again 
that supporters of the Dole/Johnston bill are clearly not listening to 
the American people. The Dole/Johnston bill is a back door attack on 
our existing health, safety and environmental laws and will seriously 
weaken our ability to respond to current and future health, safety and 
environmental problems.
  The American people want regulatory reform that will create a 
regulatory process that is less burdensome, more effective, and more 
flexible. The American people want regulatory reform that provides 
reasonable, logical, and appropriate changes in the regulatory process 
that will eliminate unnecessary burdens on businesses, State, and local 
governments and individuals. The American people want regulatory reform 
that maintains our Federal Government's ability to protect the health 
and safety of the American people.
  In summary Mr. President, the American people want the passage of the 
Glenn/Chafee regulatory reform bill.


                          ____________________