[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9794-S9800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise now with a sense of real 
disappointment because I thought we were moving along very well. We 
were doing this in good faith, moving as fast as we can. There has not 
been delay on our side. We have not submitted a lot of amendments. The 
amendments have taken some time to discuss, but that discussion has 
been as much on the Republican side as it has on the Democratic side. I 
think any fair analysis of the record over the last 2 days would show 
that. In fact, on the bill we are considering, S. 343, it is the Dole-
Johnston bill, and I think one of the coauthors of that bill has been 
responsible for as much time on the floor--more time on the floor being 
spent than have those of us who have opposed some of that.
  I do not know why it is necessary to try to make this point with 
cloture, which means there seems to be a feeling that we have been 
delaying things on our side so we have to be cut off with cloture. I do 
not think that is fair. I really do not.
  I think anybody who has watched these proceedings or been involved on 
the floor here knows we have been going ahead in good faith. We have 
been trying to move things. We have not delayed things. The only delay 
I can think of, out of the last 2 days, where any time was taken on our 
side that might be looked at as unnecessary on the other side, was the 
time this afternoon when we were trying to work out this agreement for 
whether the Johnson amendment and the Daschle amendment were going to 
be taken up in what order. There was a period of maybe an hour this 
afternoon where we wasted time on that, that is true. But that is the 
only time.
  Outside of that, we have been operating in good faith that we were 
moving ahead on these things. I think this puts a whole different cast 
on this thing.
  I do not know whether this fits the same pattern as some of the 
patterns a little earlier a month or so ago when we were laying down a 
bill and putting down the cloture the same day before we even got 
started. But this is just an unfair castigation, as I see it, of the 
way we have proceeded on this bill.
  So I must say I am disappointed. Obviously, I cannot do anything 
about it. But I am disappointed that the other side views this with 
such lack of faith in our good efforts to move forward on this that 
they think it is necessary to file cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond to the comments of the 
distinguished Senator, first of all, there has been no castigation in 
the way this legislation has been handled. As far as laying down 
cloture the same time bills are offered, I recall that was done an 
awful lot in the previous 2 years. This cloture was not laid down the 
same time the bill was brought up for consideration. We have been on 
this bill now for parts of 4 or 5 days.
  Perhaps the Senator from Ohio did not hear my comments when I sent 
this cloture motion to the desk. If I could have the Senator's 
attention, I direct his attention to the fact that I said when I sent 
it to the desk that it was hoped that it will not be necessary to have 
a vote on the cloture motion. But we did not make a whole lot of 
progress today in terms of numbers of amendments considered. It may not 
be necessary to go through with the vote 

[[Page S 9795]]
on the cloture motion. But if one is not filed tonight, there would be 
no way for one to be brought to fruition before next Monday.
  It is the clear hope of the leader, and I think the leaders, that 
this legislation be completed early next week because we do have a long 
list of very important legislation pending which we hope to be able to 
consider in a timely fashion and with fair and full debate before we go 
out for the August recess. I know the Members are looking forward to 
that opportunity to be with their families, their children, their new 
brides. And in order to be able to achieve that, we are going to have 
to make some progress on a long list of legislation that is necessary 
before we go out. We need to start taking up appropriations bills. We 
need to get two or three appropriations bills done next week. We need 
to get several--seven or eight--of the appropriations bills completed 
before we go out for the August work period.
  So all I am saying to the distinguished Senator from Ohio is that I 
know he is working hard. I know he is working in good faith. We hope 
that will continue to be the case. We hope tomorrow that we will be 
able to take up and dispose of a lot of serious, relevant amendments. 
Then I think the leader would have the option of talking with the 
distinguished floor managers of the bill, Senator Hatch and Senator 
Glenn, and see where we are, make a decision as to how much progress is 
being made, seeing if there is any possibility at that point to get 
some finite list of amendments and get some idea of when we might be 
able to bring this legislation to a conclusion.
  So I just want to respond, first of all, that there has been no 
castigation of his efforts or intentions. I think there has been good 
faith on both sides of the aisle. There has been a bipartisan effort 
underway. It is not intended to cut off debate, but it is intended by 
the leader as a signal to let us keep working, let us keep moving, and 
let us not let it get bogged down between now and Friday afternoon.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, talking about castigation, I think the very 
fact of filing cloture indicates a castigation of how we have been 
operating on this side. It indicates that something has to be cut off 
to move us forward and that we have not been doing an adequate job 
here. I do not think that is the case at all. That is what I referred 
to by castigation.
  As far as the schedule, I do not believe there will be a more 
important piece of business before this Senate this year than this 
legislation. It may be dry, it may be arcane, it may be hard to 
understand, and it may be complicated. But this stuff affects every 
person here in this room. It affects every person in this city, and 
across this land, and in major, major ways.
  I just do not see that we are going to be able to rush through 
something like this and do the job that should be done for the people 
of this country.
  Since Monday, I am told by staff there have been 16 amendments; 11 of 
those were put in by Republicans; 6 of those were withdrawn; there were 
5 of the Democratic proposals, I believe, that have been voted on. So 
that is an indication of what we have done since Monday. This is 
Wednesday evening. I do not think that is taking too long on what is 
one of the most important pieces of business that this body will take 
up this year.
  The appropriations bills may be more important. But I do not think 
any other legislation is going to affect as many people directly in 
this whole Nation as what we do on this. To now have to go under a 30-
hour time limit and say, ``If cloture is invoked, that is it. No matter 
how important it is for the people of the country, no matter how 
complex, how complicated, yes, we are going to rush through because we 
have some other stuff we have to get on to.''
  We all have to get out for that August break, for sure. I agree. I 
want to go out on the August break. But to rush through this thing and 
indicate that we have to meet some schedule, I think, is unwarranted 
because this is a very important piece of legislation.
  I say once again that since Monday, 16 amendments, 11 of them 
Republicans, 6 of those withdrawn, 5 Democrats, and we have had votes.
 I think we have moved along pretty well since Monday, and so I must 
say it disappoints me greatly, obviously, when we felt we had to file 
cloture, or the leader felt he had to file cloture on us when we have 
been operating in good faith, moving along, spending long hours on 
this. So I am disappointed, that is all.

  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just associate myself with the remarks of the 
distinguished manager of the bill on our side, Senator Glenn. I was 
hoping we could avoid this. I had the opportunity throughout the last 
couple of days to talk to the distinguished majority leader about our 
desire to continue to work in good faith. I think we have done that.
  Obviously, today was a good example of what has happened. I laid down 
an amendment this morning, and by far the bulk of the debate has been 
on an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, 
Senator Johnston, and modified on several occasions throughout the day 
by Senator Johnston.
  It was only at the end of the day, after a great deal of prodding and 
pleading on our part, that we could finally agree to a time limit and 
an up-or-down vote on his amendment and then on mine.
  So I think the distinguished Senator from Ohio said it very well--16 
amendments, 11 Republican, 5 Democrat. We are here tonight. I would 
note that in the Chamber there is one Republican and four or five 
Democrats ready to continue to work. So I am disappointed that the 
cloture motion was filed. I think it is fair to say that we will not be 
precluded from offering amendments, from ensuring that this debate 
receives the full airing it deserves. This is one of the most important 
pieces of legislation to come before the Senate in this session of 
Congress, regardless of what else may be brought up before the end of 
the year.
  So we will not be precluded from that. We will offer amendments. I 
think we will anticipate the unity that we have experienced on several 
occasions already this year when it has come to cloture in protecting 
Members' rights to offer amendments and have the full debate.
  So while we may have a cloture vote, I have the feeling that we will 
be on this bill for a little while yet because we need to raise a 
number of issues that have yet to be addressed. We will have the 
alternative perhaps as early as tomorrow. Subject to however that may 
turn out, we may or may not want to protect our rights to deal with 
other issues. So it is unfortunate, and we will continue to work in 
good faith. Hopefully we can resolve these outstanding issues in 
whatever time it may take.
  It is not our desire, as the Senator from Ohio has indicated, to 
prolong debate unnecessarily, to do anything other than work in good 
faith to resolve the outstanding differences and get on with final 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond briefly to the 
distinguished Democratic leader's comments, first of all, just 20 
minutes ago I am sure we probably had 90 or 100 Senators in the Chamber 
prepared to work. If there had not been agreement that we end the work 
for today, on both sides of the aisle, we would still all be here, and 
so I do not believe the Record reflecting there are only one or two 
Republicans here willing to work and four or five Democrats--it was 
already announced that business was over for the day, and basically we 
were in the process of shutting down.
  I do want to say, secondly, to my distinguished friend from South 
Dakota that I think there has been a good-faith effort. I think he does 
want to try to bring this to a reasonable conclusion as far as time and 
the results, and we continue to hope that will be the case. Maybe we 
will make good progress tomorrow. Maybe we will make good progress 
Friday.
  Maybe, with him working with the distinguished majority leader, we 
will find it is not necessary to have a cloture vote, or it may be 
necessary. I do not think that it is not allowing enough time when you 
spend 5, 6, 7, 8 days on one piece of legislation. It is very 
important, I agree on that, and we ought to have it fully discussed, 
which 

[[Page S 9796]]
I think it certainly is being and has been for quite some time.
  I note also, though, that we have just had a meeting, bipartisan 
leadership meeting with the President, in which the President was 
saying please get together, move forward expeditiously. He was 
wondering about the rescissions bill. No conclusion has been reached on 
the rescissions bill. The President was saying he was in hopes that we 
could move through a long list of important items to him and the 
country--welfare reform. We would like to work on that. Appropriations 
bills and reconciliation. So the President is also asking that we move 
things right along, and I think that we have an obligation to try to do 
that.
  For instance, I was under the impression that there was going to be 
an alternative maybe available earlier--I thought Monday. We have not 
seen it. But maybe, as it was just indicated, there will be an 
alternative, or substitute that will be offered tomorrow and we can 
have full debate on that, and that will kind of settle the dust. And 
then we will be able to move on to an expeditious conclusion.
  That is all that is done here, for the leader to preserve his options 
and to, quite frankly, keep pressure on all of us, both sides of the 
aisle, without being critical of the leaders because they are doing a 
very difficult and very important job, but to keep pressures on us, to 
serve notice that we need to keep moving forward, making progress. And 
if we are not, then he has this option. If we did not file it tonight, 
we would not have the option until next Monday or Tuesday, depending on 
when it was filed, for it to ripen for a cloture vote, if necessary. We 
hope it will not be necessary, but we are going to keep that option 
available.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I respect the ability of the Senator from 
Mississippi to be able to put a shiny note on almost anything. But I 
must say that the question still remains whether or not it is 
appropriate to file it today, Wednesday, or whether or not you could 
not preserve the option to file it on Friday, and it would ripen by 
Monday, or file it Monday and ripen by next Wednesday.
  The question is, what signal is being sent. If you look back at the 
Record, this bill was laid down in the Chamber--excuse me, it was 
printed in the Record on a Wednesday night. Thursday it appeared prior 
to our departure for the July 4 recess.
  It was then agreed upon that there would only be debate and no 
amendments offered. That was a suggestion, I might add, of the majority 
leader. So we departed on a Friday with everybody agreeing there was 
only debate.
  We came back only this Monday, the mid part of the day. We had an 
agreement to have some votes in the afternoon. We then went into a 
recess the next morning for conferences. We recessed in the evening 
without any additional votes. Now we are back here on Wednesday.
  So here we have one of the single most important pieces of 
legislation that will come before us--I think everybody agrees with 
that--and here we are with a cloture motion at the desk on Wednesday 
evening with only five Democratic amendments voted on.
  Now, the Senator from Mississippi has suggested, well, this happened 
a great deal previously. I would say to the Senator, respectfully, that 
by June of the first session in the prior terms this never happened.
  This happened in the second session. And it did begin to happen with 
some frequency because certain people here adopted a conscious policy 
of filibustering everything. And everybody knows that our efforts in 
the final months of the last session of the last term were literally 
governed by the policy of gridlock that was a calculated strategy to 
let nothing pass. Thereupon, Senator Mitchell, who was truly the 
monument to patience and goodwill, came to the floor again and again 
and again without pressing the notion of late nights and cloture and 
order in our lives. So I think that really it does not send a good 
signal in the context of where we traveled in last few days.
  Second, we entered into some negotiations in those days when the 
floor was open for debate. I thought we were making some progress. At 
the last meeting Senator Nickles, who headed up the task force on the 
other side of the aisle, stood up and said, ``Well, we have gone just 
about as far as we can go today. I'll let you know when we can have the 
next meeting.'' Well, it is now Wednesday, 9:30 at night. We still have 
not been notified about another meeting. There has been no serious 
effort to reengage in negotiations. So this filing has to be placed 
also in the context of that fact, that if this was serious, we might 
indeed have met.
  Now, I want to have what I call a press alert here tonight because 
the reason this cloture motion has been filed is basically to empower a 
certain political strategy to take place, which is to try to put those 
who want to legislate a good piece of legislation on the defensive with 
the notion that they are somehow delaying the Holy Grail of regulatory 
reform. And so we now have hanging over our heads the specter of 
disappearing for a weekend with a cloture vote where we have to assert 
our right to legislate under the cloud of being accused of standing in 
the way of regulatory reform. That is the game here. And my hope is 
that as more and more of these amendments come to the floor and 
Americans are given a chance to measure what is happening here with an 
attempt to take away the right to know and supplant it with the right 
to hide and the right to pollute, or to take away the ability of 
regulators to issue reasonable rules, or even to approach a standard of 
reasonableness here, I think people are going to understand.
  Now, I would say for myself, I am running this year. It does not 
matter to me if we have to vote cloture five, six, seven, eight times 
to preserve the right to protect those things that 25 years have made a 
difference in people's lives. And you know, I think that we ought to 
get about the business of trying to figure out how we are going to lift 
stupid rules and legitimately irrelevant, excessive agency regulations, 
but at the same time not take something like the Delaney clause that 
keeps carcinogens out of the food that our kids eat and our fellow 
citizens eat, and somehow just throw it out, which is what this bill 
does.
  So I do not think most Americans have yet come to realize the full 
measure of what is at stake in this legislation. But this Senator 
certainly is happy to debate it for some period of time to help them do 
so.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, if the Senator would yield, I 
would like to respond to that. First of all, there is some degree of 
trepidation, I would say. Maybe there is going to be another meeting in 
the morning at 9:30. Maybe he had not--the Senator from Massachusetts 
and others--had not received that information. But I understand there 
is an attempt to meet and to discuss and negotiate further. And I say 
with some degree of trepidation because, you know, this is regulatory 
reform. I do think that the American people want that. I do think that 
the American people and the economy and the people that have lost their 
jobs because of the overbearing burden of the bureaucrats and the 
mandates and the regulations spewing out of this city, hundreds of 
thousands of pages annually going out and being dumped on the private 
citizens and small businesses and people who are trying to make a 
living in this country, want regulatory reform. They want regulatory 
relief.
  Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator like me to----
  Mr. LOTT. I have to say, I frankly have been shocked at all of the 
discussion and the concerns and ``we must get rid of this, and we must 
get rid of this portion of the bill.'' What are we going to wind up 
doing here, striking out all after the enacting clause and sending it 
to conference? We did a lot of work that has been done on this, a lot 
of negotiations.
  A lot of compromises, but at some point we have to make up our minds 
if we want real regulatory reform or not. And I am not questioning 
there are probably other amendments that are deserving to be considered 
and we can take up and vote on. We have got time to do that, and we 
will be doing that tomorrow. But, you know, a lot of negotiations have 
already gone on. A lot of good portions of the original bill have 
already been jettisoned, in my opinion. A lot of critical portions 
have 

[[Page S 9797]]

already been weakened that I think are--we are going to regret later 
on, without getting into specifics at this late hour.
  But, you know, I really am concerned that the appearance is beginning 
to go out that we are going to nitpick a very important piece of 
legislation. I agree with that, to the degree we will not wind up with 
very much. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend, you see, it seems to me that the 
Senator from Mississippi is now doing exactly the kind of 
characterization that I just issued a press alert on, suggesting that 
we are tearing apart a bill that is, in fact, the nirvana of regulatory 
reform. But what the Senator neglects to tell the American people is 
that by a vote of 15-0, the committee that has spent years working on 
this issue sent a bill to the floor. It is the Roth-Glenn bill. It is 
the heart of what we will vote on as an alternative. And I say again to 
my friend, 15-0. If that bill were on the floor today, without the 
Dole-Johnston substitute in the mix, as the only ingredient of 
legislation, I submit to my friend we would pass it 100-0. Maybe 98-2. 
But now that we have got the new mix, a contentiousness has entered the 
entire equation.
  I might add, there are two other committees that have jurisdiction 
here. The Environment Committee, of which the Senator from Rhode Island 
is the chairman, was bypassed altogether. Now, that may be because he 
is noted for his reasonableness on these issues. And then the Judiciary 
Committee, which also has jurisdiction, was not allowed to legislate 
one amendment. Not one amendment. So what happened is that the three 
committees with jurisdiction were taken completely out, and this bill 
was essentially written by the majority leader, by a cabal of people 
involving a lot of interests that have been specially served here. Take 
out the Delaney clause. Take out the toxic release. Have a special fix 
here and a special fix there.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could ask the Senator to allow me to reclaim my time.
  Mr. KERRY. That is your right.
  Mr. LOTT. I think there are 4 committees that have jurisdiction in 
this area. They had some jurisdiction. Judiciary has jurisdiction. I 
believe Energy and Natural Resources had a bill that Senator Murkowski 
and Senator Johnston and others had worked on for a long time, as well 
as the bill out of the committee chaired by Senator Roth. Senator Roth, 
as a matter of fact, the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, 
sent out a letter today saying this is in his opinion a better bill 
than what was reported out of his committee.
  As a matter of fact, what happened with this bill is exactly what I 
think the Senator from Massachusetts is calling for. This is an 
amalgamation that has some of the better parts of the Judiciary 
Committee bill in it, some of the better parts of Government Affairs. 
It is not some mongrel hybrid; it is an amalgamation of good bills.
  So that was point No. 1, that everybody had a jurisdiction here. And 
to say, Oh, well, only Government Affairs can have the lead call, I do 
not think that is very fair. Other very important committees had a very 
important part. But beyond that there were a lot of discussions and 
negotiations that went on between the distinguished majority leader and 
Members on your side of the aisle--a lot of discussions, a lot of give 
and take, a lot of changes, a lot of compromises, many of which this 
Senator did not agree with. But in an effort to try to come up with a 
bipartisan bill, those changes were made.
  We are going to have to do more of that around here.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I simply, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, want to 
comment on the point raised by the Senator from Massachusetts. The bill 
was considered over a period of months in the Judiciary Committee. I 
must say, in the 5 years I have been in the Senate and the 10 years I 
spent in the House of Representatives, and the 4 years I spent in the 
Colorado State Senate, it is the first and the only bill I have seen 
filibustered in committee, and that is exactly what happened.
  The reason amendments were not offered by committee Democrats is 
that, when the floor was open to them to offer amendments, members 
choose instead to filibuster. I offered an amendment, which was added 
to the bill, so, clearly amendments were added in our process in the 
Judiciary Committee. My amendment was not included in the Roth bill 
that came out of that committee. My amendment simply points out there 
are times when Federal Government agencies will develop conflicting 
regulations. My amendment provides a safe harbor for working people who 
find themselves subjected to conflicting regulations and are put at 
risk by when Government agencies' regulations require opposite actions.
  So the statement that no amendments were considered in the Judiciary 
Committee is not accurate. Amendments were considered and amendments 
were added. The fact that Democratic amendments were not acted on in 
the last few days came from the fact that members choose to filibuster 
the bill rather than respond to it.
  Finally, I do not want to delay your deliberations in winding up the 
session, but let me simply add, one of the problems with this bill and 
one of the problems with this area is that so few Members of the House 
and the Senate have had a chance to work with their hands and work in 
business and be subjected to regulation. We passed last year and this 
Government sent out over 60,000 pages of new regulations.
  Let me repeat that, because I do not think Members focused on it. 
Over 60,000 pages of new regulations, not counting the hundreds of 
thousands of regulations that exist already. The Federal Government 
promulgated so many regulations that people who work in this country do 
not even have time to read the regulations that affect their lives. I 
suggest to any Senator who is concerned, work in an industry that is 
subjected to Federal regulations. You cannot even read what you are 
subjected to. You cannot even get people who work for a living to even 
read what they are liable for, what they are at risk for that this 
Government pumps out.
  Before we pursue this effort, you ought to place yourself in the 
position of the people who have to work for a living, who have to live 
with these regulations and find themselves subjected to fines and 
penalties for insane regulations they do not have a chance to read.
  If you sat down today and read solidly for a year, 8 hours a day, no 
coffee breaks, no time off, no holidays, read 52 weeks a year without 
any vacations and you read at 300 words per minute, you would still not 
read the regulations, the new ones that came out this year. You would 
probably read a little over half of the pages of the new regulations 
that came out.
  Now we have a problem. We are strangling this economy with redtape 
and regulations, and I just would say to my good friends that have 
raised objection about this, honestly talk to some of the people who 
have to live under these regulations. See what they are subjected to.
  This is a burden that is crushing. It is crushing to our 
competitiveness and the people who operate under this burden. I have 
talked to contractors who make their living trying to build houses. 
They find themselves in the position of having somebody who has never 
built a house in their life come out and tell them how to build a 
house. They never built a house in their life, do not know anything 
about it, but if you do not do it the way they tell you, you can be 
fined and lose your entire business.
  What we have done is set up a system to micromanage this economy. The 
bill that is before us is a joke. Some improvement it is, but to say 
the only regulations you are going to subject this test to are ones 
that have the threshold that is included in this bill is absurd. That 
is the problem.
  I do not think what has been voiced on this floor has reflected the 
impact these regulations have on the working people in this country. We 
are strangling this economy and working people of this country with 
needless regulations. What we need is a lick of common sense. So we can 
fight over this bill, but the fact is the threshold is already so high 
that you have denied relief to most of the American people that 
desperately need it.
  If we are going to be competitive in the world economy, if we intend 
to give 

[[Page S 9798]]
people good livelihoods, if we are concerned about the wage of working 
men and women, we better figure out a way to have more of the people 
pull the wagon and less regulating where it goes. If you are talking 
about a business, you have to get more people out of the office and 
onto the assembly line where they do the work.
  That is what this bill is all about, to find a way we can make 
America more competitive and more productive and more creative and 
spend less time on regulations. We need to do a lot more in this bill. 
I hope Members will take some time to look at what we have done to this 
economy, because it is devastating.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could continue----
  Mr. KERRY. I will not take long.
  Mr. LOTT. I still want to respond a little more to your earlier 
question.
  (Mr. BROWN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend from Colorado that when he got 
into that recitation about the coffee breaks and the amount of time and 
pages, I all of a sudden feared he might have been one of those people 
who had written some of these regulations. But knowing that he did not 
and would not, I just want to say, we agree with everything he just 
said, and the bill that Senator Glenn and Senator Roth brought out of 
committee 15-0 would have, indeed, addressed almost everything that the 
Senator just said.
  The problem is, if you take, for instance, the threshold argument the 
Senator just made, the threshold was set in 1975 by President Ford. One 
hundred million dollars is worth $35 million today, and if you lowered 
it to $50 million, you are talking about reality of a $17 million 
threshold.
  As my friend knows, there is not a lawyer in America who cannot 
conjure up a threshold impact of $17 million in real value, $50 
million, or otherwise. We lifted that to $100 million for a major rule, 
but we still have a $10 million threshold in here for Superfund. And 
under the Nunn amendment that was adopted, we brought in this 
extraordinary panoply of small business at a whole new threshold. So 
you have literally a 100- to 400-percent increase in EPA and other 
agency requirements here just to review the new rules you brought under 
it. I know the Senator is not going to add to the budget to provide 
personnel to do that. So you have an enormous gridlock problem.
  I will just say to my friend from Mississippi, by having filed this 
cloture motion, I believe, if I am correct in the parliamentary 
procedure, amendments now have to be filed by 1 p.m. tomorrow; is that 
correct?
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. So if amendments have to be filed by 1 p.m. tomorrow, 
those of us who have to work tonight in preparation for a meeting have 
to disperse our staff in order to ensure all Democratic amendments can 
be brought together by 1 p.m. tomorrow. That is an example, I say 
respectfully, of how this breaches the process. There is, in effect, a 
chilling effect on our capacity to pull ourselves together for a 
meeting and negotiate. And second, there is a terribly unfair burden 
put on all of our colleagues who will arrive tomorrow morning to learn 
that they have about 2 or 3 hours to put in an amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, I realize this is the Senate, 
unlike most legislative bodies, but I would be somewhat shocked if most 
Senators do not already know what amendments they want to offer and 
have already gotten them drafted.
  This is not something that just drifted onto the floor of the Senate. 
This has been coming for weeks and months. Surely, most Senators have 
their amendments ready to go. Now, I realize maybe some of them would 
be affected by other amendments that may be offered during the next 
couple of days. I do not view it as a real burden. We are on this bill, 
and everybody knows what is in it supposedly and should have their 
amendments ready to go.
  I want to go back to a point made earlier about how one committee 
reported out a bill unanimously. That committee was the only committee 
that considered the so-called original Roth bill. The Dole bill went to 
four committees--not only Judiciary, Energy, and Governmental Affairs, 
but Small Business.
  Then there were negotiations to try to make it a genuinely bipartisan 
bill that went on between Senator Dole and Senator Johnston of 
Louisiana, who has worked so diligently in trying to find a compromise 
that could go through in a bipartisan way.
  Then I remember there were subsequent negotiations. I went into a 
meeting in the distinguished Democratic leader's office one day, and 
there must have been 15 Senators in there. I was floored. I left pretty 
quickly because I said nothing good will come out of this because there 
were too many people involved.
  There were more changes made. I know changes were made because there 
were changes made on sections I worked on, some that I certainly did 
not agree with. There has been a long, protracted effort to develop a 
compromise bill. There comes a point when you have to stop changing it 
and vote. We are hoping that point will come early next week.
  One final point.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. LOTT. One final point, and then I will be glad to yield to you.
  There is something that the Senator from Colorado in his fine remarks 
just reminded me to comment on. We were all home during the Fourth of 
July recess. I was in my State. I met with some small business 
representatives, among other things. I remember a small businessman 
from Fulton, Mississippi. I met with the group and they told me that 
under a new rule promulgated, that they, for small technical violations 
in their company, could be fined up to $10,000 per day until the 
bureaucrat concluded that they had complied with this violation they 
had. I think probably this bill will help address that kind of problem. 
And they gave me the new regulations. This is one small business group 
in my State, although it is a nationwide group. The new regulation that 
could lead to a $10,000 fine per day, which would put most of them out 
of business in about 2 days, was that thick. We need to deal with that.
  I know we are trying to do that. I hope we will, but I am beginning 
to really have my doubts about whether or not we can continue to water 
this bill down and have one that is worth going forward with.
  With that, I will yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding. I will 
be very brief. I just want to add one chapter to the historical record 
here. Immediately prior to the recess, there was a suggestion that 
those of us that favored the so-called Glenn bill, or the Glenn-Chafee 
bill, that we put suggested changes----
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will withhold, I was going to say something 
to the Senator from Massachusetts, but he may be gone. I will say it 
now if the Senators from Ohio and Michigan are concerned about the 
filing deadline of 1 o'clock. I am sure the leader--in fact, I 
understand he will be willing to get a unanimous-consent to delay that 
until 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. In furtherance of that, would that 
be helpful?
  We will do that in the morning, then, after we have checked with 
others. I wanted to make that offer so they know we are perfectly 
willing to be helpful and cooperative if there is a time problem in 
getting those amendments drafted.
  I yield once again.
  Mr. LEVIN. As I was saying, there is one element which has not been 
spoken to, which is the fact that immediately prior to the recess, it 
was suggested to those of us that support the Glenn-Chafee bill that we 
put into specific language form suggested changes in the Dole-Johnston 
bill. And we did that. The staff, I think, probably stayed up all night 
to do that. Three pages of very specific proposed changes were 
delivered prior to the recess about two weeks ago. Nothing happened. 
There was no response to the suggested changes until today. And it is 
still a bit fragmentary, but at least now we think we understand what 
the response is on the part of the supporters of the pending Dole-
Johnston legislation.
  If we are talking about expediting the process here, it seems to me 
that those of us who support the Glenn-Chafee proposal have, for almost 
now two weeks, been waiting for a response to some very specific 
language suggestions. Instead, we raised this issue on 

[[Page S 9799]]
Monday, and then I think yesterday the Senator from Utah suggested, 
well, let us just go at it amendment by amendment. The tree was filled 
up a couple times, by the way, so that it was all controlled. 
Amendments could not frequently be offered without a gatekeeper okaying 
it. And then they were second-degreed. That is all part of the rules. 
There is nothing new about that.
  But to suggest that there has been an effort on the part of the 
supporters of the Glenn proposal to, in any way, delay instead of to 
debate and hopefully approve the pending amendment, I think, is a 
misplaced suggestion. And that suggestion is implied when a cloture 
motion is filed. That is the implication of the filing of a cloture 
motion.
  Somehow or other, people who are the supporters of the Glenn approach 
are in some way delaying the legislation that is pending before us, and 
there is not only no evidence of that, it is quite the contrary. There 
was an effort made in the last two weeks to get some very specific 
responses to some very specific proposals. Again, the first glimpse we 
had of a response was just today.
  So I suggest to my good friend from Mississippi that the filing of 
cloture tonight is inappropriate. It is also, I believe, 
counterproductive because, just tonight, without any knowledge that a 
cloture motion might be filed, there was an understanding reached that 
there would be a meeting tomorrow morning, and I believe the time was 
set at 9:30. And then, having agreed to do that, suddenly there is a 
cloture motion filed. That is not the kind of signal which I think is a 
productive signal in terms of moving legislation.
  As far as the legislation is concerned, I have to tell you that I 
think all of us in this body, hopefully, have seen a great deal of 
evidence of excessive regulation, of abuse, and of waste in this 
process.
  I came to this town determined to get some kind of accountability in 
this process. I have been a strong supporter of legislative veto and 
executive oversight. I believe we ought to have cost-benefit analysis 
required by law. I believe in the various parts of both proposals.
  So the speeches about regulatory overkill, I think, are very 
appropriate. There has been some. There has also been some very 
essential regulation that has made it possible for us to breathe 
cleaner air and to have cleaner water and to have safer vehicles, and 
other things. The question is the balance. We want both, a cleaner 
environment, a safer workplace, but not overkill in the regulatory 
process. We can have both. But the signal that was sent here tonight, 
when after there was an understanding about meeting tomorrow morning to 
try to make some more progress, and then to file a cloture motion, it 
seems to me, is a counterproductive act, and it tends to undermine the 
possibility of progress here rather than to promote it.
  So that is why I think it was a mistake for that cloture motion to be 
filed. It prevents relevant amendments from being considered if cloture 
is invoked because they have to be technically germane, but they can be 
relevant and be prevented from being debated. I do not think it is in 
anybody's interest, as long as good progress is being made. And surely 
there has been some progress, and there is no effort to delay the 
consideration of this bill by anybody I know. I think cloture is not 
the appropriate signal which should have been sent tonight. I regret 
that it was.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the only thing we have pending would be to 
close. Does Senator Glenn wish to make a comment?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes, I do. Mr. President, I will not go on long because we 
have been on the floor a long time today.
  I do not want to let the wrong impression go out to those who may be 
watching. The impression was left perhaps by the distinguished chair in 
his remarks a moment ago here, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, 
as though we were delaying and we are not interested--it could give 
that impression; it could be interpreted that way, at least--and that 
somehow those for the Dole bill are in favor of regulatory reform, and 
those of us who have some other views about how that can be 
accomplished are somehow not as much in favor of regulatory reform. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  We have worked hard in committee, and the Senator from Michigan, 
Senator Levin, is maybe too modest. I have heard him say in committee 
that one of the major things he wanted to get into when he came here--
having been president of the city council in Detroit, he knew the 
impact of regulations and what they did to the business people and the 
community and the city government of Detroit, and what they did to the 
surrounding communities of Detroit, and he was determined to do 
something about it.
  I have heard on a number of occasions, both in committee and in 
private conversation with him, about his dedication to this, which is 
to his everlasting credit. I think we have worked on this specific 
legislation in committee for close to 3 years now.
  So this is not something that we come at lightly. We are as dedicated 
on the Democratic side to regulatory reform as anybody on the 
Republican side. We have some different views about how to get to it, 
that is all, and what is workable and what is not. That is our 
difference on this. It is not any difference in dedication. When I 
spoke on the floor and we opened up on this bill, my earlier remarks 
were exactly along that line. We are a united Senate on one thing, and 
that is the need for regulatory reform.
 But we also, at the same time, know that we must hit a balance. We 
cannot just do away with all regulations.

  I agree with the examples, and I can give a dozen more from Ohio that 
match those of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, on 
overregulation. That is what we have to correct.
  However, at the time we are doing this, do not throw out the good 
that the regulations have done in the country along with throwing out 
the excesses.
  We do have better health in this country because of regulations. Some 
have gone too far--yes. Do we have a better business climate in this 
country because of regulations? Yes, but there have been excesses in 
that area, too.
  So we certainly do have to correct these things. We agree with that. 
We are as united with the Republicans as anybody can be in our 
dedication to seeing that regulatory reform is carried out. We get the 
same comments from our business people and our organization people, our 
school people, our local government people, that the Republicans get 
when we get back home. We are as dedicated to this as anybody can be.
  Now I might say in committee, as was already referred to, we voted 
that out of our committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, under 
Chairman Roth, 15-0. Unanimous.
  Now, there is a different approach that Senator Dole has taken. I 
think our approach hits a better balance. That is all we are trying to 
do here, is make sure that balance is hit.
  What we are trying to do now in filing cloture is force a restricted 
time on this legislation--one of the most important pieces of 
legislation we will have before the Senate--we are trying to take a 
complicated bill, and instead of saying how good we will make it, we 
are saying we will spend minimum time on it, force your hand. We will 
spend minimum time off the floor, will not give time for amendments, 
for balance, for fairness, for consideration of those things. We will 
have minimum time on it.
  This will be a big concession on the Republican side apparently--big 
deal, we will have an extension from 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock to get 
everything that we want in this.
  Everything has not been considered in this bill. All amendments have 
not been considered. These are very complicated pieces of legislation--
both of the proposals.
  I just want to address one other thing. I just cannot agree with my 
distinguished colleague from Mississippi when he says we have gotten 
down to nit-picking on this. That is the phrase that he used. Some 500 
people a year die from E. coli. Cryptosporidium killed 104 people, and 
made 400,000 seriously ill in Milwaukee a couple years ago.
  Senator Abraham and Senator Nunn addressed small business interests, 
Senator Dole addressed E. coli with his amendment, Senators Johnston 
and 

[[Page S 9800]]
Levin put in the super mandates, so existing laws could not be 
superseded by something an agency does over here.
  Now, I do not think of those as nit-picking. I think these are health 
and safety matters for the people of this country. Anybody that was 
fair in looking at what has happened on this floor can certainly not 
come to the conclusion that these things have been nit-picking concerns 
on the Democratic side.
  Quite the opposite. These are life and death concerns, and it is the 
reason they were brought up, the reason we wanted to amend this. It is 
the reason I supported some of the amendments on this.
  Now, there have been negotiations that have gone on on this 
legislation in the past, as Senator Levin says. We cannot help but 
wonder whether this was good faith negotiation when we now have cloture 
filed against Members at this hour of the evening, after we thought we 
were closing down the Senate, and all at once, staff came running out 
and said, ``Did you know they filed cloture?'' They filed cloture. I 
thought that could not be. I thought there was a mistake. It happens 
that it is true.
  We want to work through this. Obviously we want to have a chance to 
do as good as we might otherwise have done. I want to disabuse anybody 
of the idea that we are not concerned about regulatory reform on this 
side of the aisle. We are as concerned and as dedicated to it as 
anybody, regardless of whatever political labels each may take. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I repeat, as the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio pointed out, this is not a new issue. It has been pending for 
years. It has been considered for the last 3 or 4 years and in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. It has been considered for at least a 
couple years that I know of, Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 
There have been hours, days, spent bringing Members to this point.
  This is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. The Dole-Johnston 
bill has been laboriously crafted and developed and changed--in some 
ways people would think improved. In my opinion it has been weakened.
  I repeat, I believe we have an especially good bill now, one that is 
a balance, that is bipartisan. I just have to say, at some point, we 
have to just agree to disagree. How long can you negotiate? Forever?
  This is the most, I think, probably the most negotiated bill that we 
have had this year. How many changes are we going to make? It reaches a 
point, I think, that we weaken it so much that then there will be some 
that have to start asking ourselves, is this still a strong regulatory 
reform bill.
  There is still talk about taking major portions out of it. Talking 
about taking the Superfund part out of it. Boy, if that has not been a 
regulatory nightmare, a lawyer's dream. But there are those that say we 
should not have Superfund as part of regulatory reform. My goodness, I 
do not know any area where we probably need regulatory reform more than 
in Superfund.
  We could go back and forth, on and on. This is a good bill. We need 
strong regulatory reform. We are talking about not only 60,000 pages of 
regulations just last year being promulgated, we are talking about 
estimates from as much as $300 to $600 billion a year cost to the 
economy for many regulations that are necessary.
  I know many of the Senators here tonight, Senator Levin would like to 
have regulatory reform, but at some point, we just have to stop 
changing it and vote. Let the votes fall where they do and bring it to 
a conclusion.
  I think we probably talked enough about this tonight. We will see 
what kind of progress we make tomorrow and the next day, and maybe we 
can reach agreement and conclude this legislation and go on to other 
very important pieces of legislation.


                          ____________________