[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9827-S9828]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             FRESHMAN FOCUS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the 25 minutes has been reserved for 
Members of the freshman focus group, as we continue our effort to seek 
to focus some of the issues as they appear to those of us who are new 
to the Senate this year, who recently completed an election, who, I 
think, in some instances have a unique view of what we are doing or 
seeking to do here in the U.S. Senate. So I would like to take a few 
minutes. I will be joined by other Members.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk just a little bit this morning 
about process. I admit to not knowing the rules of this place like some 
do. I seek to know them. I think I do understand that there is a 
difference between the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House and that they 
were designed to be different. This is a deliberative body. The rules 
are different, which provide for additional discussion and debate, and 
I understand that, and I think that is proper, certainly.
  But, you know, we did not come here to procrastinate. We did not come 
here to extend debate for the purpose of extending debate. We came here 
for the purpose of thoroughly examining the issues that are before us, 
looking at the alternatives, and seeking, then, I think, to find some 
solutions. And that is what voting is all about. If you do not have 
enough votes, you lose. If you have enough votes, you win. And you go 
on to something else.
  Mr. President, it seems to me it has become routine in this session 
of the Congress to extend, to amend, and to debate and, frankly, to 
stall. We have seen a great deal of that. Whether it is unfunded 
mandates, whether it is line-item veto, whether it is balanced budget 
amendment, whether it is telecommunications, whether it is product 
liability, we find this interminable number of amendments, many of 
which have already been done.
  Yesterday was a good example. We had extended debate over an issue 
that had already, I think in almost anyone's mind, been resolved. But 
we went on. We now will have had 4 days of debate. This is an important 
issue. But everyone rises in the beginning and says: I want regulatory 
reform, but--but--but we want to do it in the right way. The right way 
is a pretty subjective kind of thing. What is right to you is not 
necessarily right to me.
  So I guess I am expressing a certain amount of frustration, in that 
it seems to me we have accomplished a considerable amount in the 
Senate, but we have an awful lot before us. We have an opportunity in 
August to be home in our districts to talk to people about the 
direction this country ought to take, to talk to people about specific 
items. Frankly, that time in August is being constricted. I think it is 
almost certain we will not be available to go 

[[Page S 9828]]
home as early as we thought we would. We have a lot of things to do. We 
have not even gotten to the budget--which, by the way, I think we ought 
to do every 2 years instead of 1. But, nevertheless, that is another 
issue.
  So we have a great deal to do, a great many things. Welfare reform--
we have not even talked about that. The items that have been very high 
on the agenda of the American people we have not gotten to.
  So I guess I am expressing my frustration about the system. I urge my 
colleagues to take some self-analysis. Certainly, everyone is entitled 
to talk. Everyone is entitled to have an amendment. Everyone is 
entitled to have a view. But they are not entitled to stall the 
progress. They are not entitled to say we want more amendments, and 
when the time comes for amendments there are none to be talked about.
  The elections we had--every election, but more particularly the last 
election--was about change. It was about doing something; about making 
things different than they are. Almost everybody agrees to that. 
Everybody stands up and says we are for change, and then resists 
change. I understand there is a philosophical difference, and properly 
there can be. There are those who do not want to change. I understand 
that. There are those who support the status quo, and I understand 
that. I do not object to that. I do not object to disagreement. I do 
not object to argument. But I do object to the fact that we never come 
to a decision, and that is what it should be all about.
  I think there is a message: The status quo is not good enough. That 
is clear. No one says there should not be regulations. Of course, there 
should be regulations. Of course, it should not be changed to where we 
do not have clean air and clean water, and that is not the purpose of 
this. Of course, we ought not to do things that threaten health. 
Clearly this does not do that. This bill is a procedural bill that 
takes into account some processes in arriving at the implementation of 
regulations. That is what it is about. We have said specifically it is 
a supplement. It does not supersede the issues. But that does not seem 
to be good enough. We continue to rehash and go over that. I am 
expressing a little frustration, Mr. President.
  In any event, we do need meaningful change. There is no question but 
what we are overregulated. There is no question but what the process of 
giving a grazing lease in Wyoming--that now requires a NEPA 
environmental impact study as if it were a national environmental 
change. It is a renewal of a 50-year-old process that has been going 
on.
  Those are the kinds of things that we need to change. The law 
provides for multiple use of the land. But you cannot get on the land 
because the regulation, as it is implemented, is so costly that doing 
archaeological surveys and those kinds of things we are looking for is 
not a process that allows regulations to be implemented in a common-
sense kind of a way.
  Mr. President, I hope we can move forward. I hope we can move forward 
on this issue. Frankly, it affects everyone. We think it affects us in 
the West a little more where 50 percent of the land is owned by the 
Federal Government. So that anything you do in the Federal Government, 
if it has to do with recreation or has to do with hunting or has to do 
with grazing or has to do with mineral production, has to go through 
this extensive regulatory process. That needs to be changed. I do not 
think there is a soul who would say, ``Oh, no. It does not need to be 
changed.''
  Take a look at what we have done in 3 days. We say it needs to be 
changed. But there are 32 amendments or so sitting out there, many of 
which have already been dealt with which have nothing to do with 
creating a strong bill but have more to do with simply moving back the 
time when we make decisions.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we do move forward. I hope we can deal with 
issues as they are before us and come to some closure, come to some 
resolution. That is why we are here. That is why we came here. We are 
trustees. We are trustees for the voters, we are trustees for the 
citizens, and they are the beneficiaries. They should expect something 
from us. That is our opportunity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.

                          ____________________