[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9977-S9979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     substitute amendment to S. 343, the regulatory reform bill:
       Bob Dole, Bill Roth, Fred Thompson, Spencer Abraham, Kay 
     Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyl, Chuck Grassley, Craig Thomas, 
     Orrin Hatch, Larry E. Craig, Mitch McConnell, Conrad Burns, 
     Bob Smith, Jesse Helms, Jim Inhofe, Judd Gregg.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the distinguished majority leader 
indicated, he and I have had the opportunity to discuss this cloture 
motion.
  I will say again, I do not know that cloture motions are even 
necessary at this point. We have had a very rigorous debate. There have 
been very few quorum calls and there is not a filibuster going on here.
  We are proposing amendments. We will lay down the substitute this 
afternoon. We are ready to go to additional votes this afternoon. I 
hope that we could have a vote on the Hutchison amendment this 
afternoon. I am sure that is something the majority leader is prepared 
to do.
  I yield to the majority leader for comment on the pending amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. As we discussed earlier, obviously, if the amendments on 
either side are acceptable, that is certainly satisfactory to both the 
leaders, because some Members are necessarily absent, and there is no 
need to punish Members who are not here.
  On the other hand, if we cannot agree, we ought to have the votes, 
and everybody was notified there could be votes throughout the 
afternoon on Friday.
  As far as I know, the afternoon does not end at 1 o'clock. It ends 
much, much later. We will be here. As far as I am concerned, we will 
have votes. If we reach an impasse, or once I think the major 
amendments have been laid down on the so-called Glenn amendment--I 
think that will take considerable debate.
  Until that happens, I would hope we would continue to work out some 
of the amendments.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is my point. I want to emphasize, at least to 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, there is likely to be additional 
votes this afternoon, and that Members ought to be prepared to come to 
the floor to cast those votes.
  Let me say in the larger context, that is the reason why, in my view, 
we do not need a cloture motion, because, as I say, the work is getting 
done.
  This has been a good debate this week on a very, very complex issue. 
I would hope we could continue to work in good faith and find a way to 
accommodate Senators who have good amendments, who have reasons to 
offer these amendments, and do so in a time that accommodates the 
schedule but also accommodates the Senator.
  I appreciate the majority leader's decision, but I hope that at some 
point we could get beyond the cloture votes and try to finish this 
bill.
  Mr. DOLE. I hope, too. The reason for the cloture motion is to make 
certain we do finish the bill. If we cannot get cloture, we will not 
finish the bill on Tuesday. It is my hope we can finish the bill on 
Tuesday.
  Let me again indicate to all my colleagues who are at the majority 
leader. The August recess is not far away--at least the starting date 
is not far away. We have a certain number, I think a number of 
legitimate things we should do before that recess begins.
  It may not begin on the 4th of August. It may not begin until the 
12th or the 15th, or in that area. That is not a threat, just what may 
happen.
  I put in the Record yesterday a proposed schedule which I believe is 
reasonable, but it depends on finishing this bill and then moving to 
the next bill, and appropriation bills. We hope to do six appropriation 
bills before the August recess. We have three major authorization 
bills: DOD authorization bill, foreign operations, State Department 
authorization. That will take some time. There will be a lot of 
amendments. Six appropriation bills, plus welfare reform, plus Bosnia, 
plus lobbying and gift reform, plus the Ryan White bill.
  That is the reason the cloture was filed. Hopefully, if we cannot 
work it out, we will have a cloture vote on Tuesday, which I hope would 
be successful. Then we would at least have the end in sight.
  Obviously, if we are making progress, and we are going to finish the 
bill Tuesday in any event, I would be happy to withdraw the cloture 
motion.
  Mr. KERRY. If the distinguished majority leader will yield the floor, 
would it make sense to set a time certain for a vote on the Hutchison 
amendment? Should we not work it out?
  Obviously as the day goes on, both sides may lose more people and 
therefore it would punish more not to have a time set in the event we 
do not work it out.
  Mr. DOLE. I have no objection to that. Somebody suggested 30 minutes, 
if they do not work it out. I will not be that arbitrary, but I think 
after some reasonable time, 30 to 45 minutes, that would be 
satisfactory.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOLE. I know some of these things are very technical and I do not 
profess to understand some of these technical provisions. I am not on 
the committee and have not followed that closely. I know they are 
meeting as we speak. Hopefully, we can do that.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the amendment 
process. I came to make a statement on the bill. I want to proceed if 
there are no amendments. I am willing to abbreviate my statement when 
the managers are ready to move to the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are grinding away slowly in this process 
on regulatory reform. I think all Members had hoped we would be able to 
move much more quickly on this legislation.
  The majority leader has just outlined a schedule for the Senate 
between now and the August--I should say supposed August--recess. It 
seems to me that schedule will be impossible to meet, given the 
timeframe and the seriousness of the issues which we will be debating.
  Nevertheless, we cannot even begin to get to complete that agenda if 
we cannot move along on this particular piece of legislation. We are 
now completing a full week's debate, with amendments. We have had long 
days and long nights, and there is no end in sight.
  I hope that we can continue to make progress. I certainly am not 
going to be one to delay that process.
  Let me say, Mr. President, that during the course of this debate, 
media reports about activities on the Senate floor, debate on this 
floor, and general discussion about what is taking place here, have 
left a misimpression as to what this legislation is designed to 
achieve.
  There have been claims made, by a number of individuals, that if this 
bill stands as it is and is not drastically changed, the quality of our 
water and our air will be placed in jeopardy, our environmental 
treasures will be threatened, our Nation's wildlife will be endangered. 
There have even been accusations that the result of this legislation 
would be the increased incidence of contamination of the very food that 
we eat and the water that we drink.
  I think we need to set the record straight on some of these charges. 
These are disturbing charges because they threaten to undermine a 
process of reform that I believe is critical to the viability of our 
economic system. Our current regulatory process is, I believe is 
complicated beyond the ability of many of our small business people to 
understand or to comply with. It is punitive in many ways. It is 
duplicative 

[[Page S9978]]
in many ways. It simply does not provide the efficiency, and in many 
instances the intended effect of the regulations as they were 
originally drafted. It drains family income, it chokes small 
businesses, it denies jobs.
  The Small Business Administration has estimated that small business 
owners spend nearly 1 billion hours a year filling out and completing 
Government forms. This, at a cost of millions of dollars. Turning this 
tide, restoring some balance and efficiency to the regulatory process 
is really what this legislation is all about.
  I think it is important we understand what this legislation does and 
what it does not do. I intend to review that. Before I do, let me 
provide a couple of examples as to why I think this legislation is 
necessary.
  Perhaps the most important reasons it is necessary is the negative 
impact the current system has had on our society, on the American 
family, on those who are seeking to hold meaningful employment. 
According to a 1993 study conducted by Citizens Against Government 
Waste, Federal regulations cost the American household $4,000 a year; 
roughly $400 billion annually. A former OMB official placed the cost 
even higher, at $500 billion annually, or $5,000 for the average 
American family.
  A popular statistic thrown out in this town every year, particularly 
in the spring, is how long the average American has to work through the 
year to pay their Federal and State taxes. The date is now 
approximately May 5th. If you add on their share of the regulatory 
burden, you push that date even farther forward, into mid-July.
  Many advocates of the status quo, those who would keep the current 
system of regulations as they are, rejecting this reform process, argue 
that this legislation will jeopardize our public health. I do not think 
this is correct. The legislation we are currently debating, and have 
debated all week, does not override existing health, safety or 
environmental law. The cost-benefit requirements of this legislation 
supplement, not supersede existing law.
  This legislation does not seek to overturn the very real progress 
that has been achieved in many cases of public safety regulation. To 
the contrary, this legislation seeks to provide procedural reform that 
will ensure that the rules and regulations efficiently and effectively 
achieve the very goals they were designed to seek.
  So I ask my colleagues, why should we not proceed with an effort to 
provide some efficiency in implementing regulations that are designed 
and intended to promote vital health and safety concerns for Americans? 
That is a goal we ought to embrace, not a goal we should resist.
  There have been some charges concerning health emergencies, charges 
that this legislation would place public health in jeopardy in cases of 
emergency. The reality is that the cost-benefit analyses and risk 
assessments are not required if they are impractical due to an 
emergency or health or safety threat, if they are likely to result in 
significant harm to the public or to our natural resources. 
Furthermore, on Tuesday this Senate adopted the Dole amendment by 
unanimous vote. That clarified the intention, in case there was any 
doubt, of this legislation to cover food safety emergencies in addition 
to all public health matters.
  The legislation further provides the same protections where 
environmental management activities are concerned. Let me repeat, cost-
benefit procedures do not apply where they would result in an actual or 
immediate risk to human health and welfare.
  Where a petition for alternative compliance is sought, the petition 
may only be granted where an alternative achieves at least an 
equivalent level of protection of health, safety and the environment.
  So in this Senator's opinion, and I think in the opinion of many 
Senators, this legislation is not a radical overhaul of Federal 
regulations. It is a procedural reform that is designed to ensure more 
effective, more efficient rulemaking. I think that is a common sense 
approach. I doubt if there is a Member of this Chamber who has not been 
besieged by his constituents back home, or her constituents back home, 
or by groups that visit us here in the Senate who point out the 
duplicative, cost-ineffective, procedural nightmare that they have to 
go through in complying with Federal regulations. Time and time again 
it has been pointed out to this Senator how one regulation by one 
agency countermands a regulation by another agency, leaving the 
individual to throw up his or her hands, saying which regulation am I 
supposed to comply with? To comply with one violates the other. It is a 
nightmare of bureaucracy in terms of filling out forms and complying 
with injunctions handed down by the various regulatory agencies.
  A cost-benefit analysis is not an unreasonable request, to examine 
the benefit of a proposed regulation versus what will be the cost. It 
is information we ought to have when we assess the viability of rules 
and regulations and the procedure that produces those.
  There has been a lot of talk by advocates of the status quo about 
their compassion, about justifying this legislation to constituents 
back home. I challenge Members to go back home to a town meeting, or 
local diner, and to stand up and make the argument for why the Federal 
Government should not engage in reform of its regulatory process. Why 
it should not impose a cost-benefit analysis in determining the 
viability of a regulation, Why we should not determine whether what is 
the most efficient and effective way to spend their tax dollars. I 
suspect they will run into a little opposition if they try to defend 
the status quo.
  There are many agencies that have been highlighted during the debate 
this week. There are many that we hear complaints about. Perhaps the 
one I receive the most complaints about from individuals that I 
represent is OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
Regularly, constituents walk into my office with fistfuls of compliance 
requests and stories of the nightmare of administrative litigation 
proceedings, complaining, not only about the process but about the 
ineffectiveness, the inapplicability, and the duplicative efforts of 
many of the regulations they are asked to comply with.
  A roofing business owner in Indiana wrote to me. He said we have 
these forms, the material safety data sheets, MSDS's, required by OSHA. 
He said, and I quote from his letter:

       Materials have an MSDS's that were never intended to be 
     encompassed by the regulatory standards. It has gotten to the 
     point that almost every product in America comes with an 
     MSDS. Products like sand and compressed air, dishwashing 
     detergent, glass cleaner, baby oil, powder, shampoo, all have 
     MSDS's.

  To carry this product, to use this product, to manufacture this 
product, if you store this product, you have to fill out this sheet.
  He tells the story about an OSHA compliance officer who illegally 
searched his foreman's vehicle. He writes: He searched our foreman's 
vehicle and found a small plumber's propane torch in the vehicle.
  It was the employee's personal property. It had nothing to do with 
the company. This was his personal property. It is not even used in the 
roofing business. The label had fallen off that propane torch. The 
foreman tried to explain to the OSHA compliance officer that this was 
his personal property. He even produced an MSDS sheet. The company was 
fined $825 because the label had fallen off the propane torch, a 
product not even used in the business of the employer. Yet, the 
employer was fined.
  Another individual from Indiana talked to me about the fact that they 
had some chalk stored. I believe they used the chalk for certain 
purposes not necessarily related to the product that they were 
manufacturing. Yet, they had to fill out the MSDS forms. It was not 
acceptable to fill out one MSDS form labeling the chalk. But because 
the chalk came in red, blue, green, yellow and different colors, they 
had to have spearate forms for each color of chalk.
  I can go on and on with these stories. In the interest of time, I 
will not do that.
  But the point is that we have an overzealous, an overregulatory 
process at work in America today that is placing costs and burdens on 
business, and particularly small business, that is denying job 
opportunities and competitive advantage to these businesses.
  I think every Member understands how the regulatory process grows and 
mushrooms and continues to ignore the desire and need for efficiency in 
imposing what had been determined to be 
 
[[Page S9979]]

necessary health and safety regulations but imposing it in a way that 
thwarts the very purpose of the rule in the first place.
  Mr. President, I hope that we are not derailed in the process of 
responding to the very clear call of the American people that we clean 
up the act of the Federal Government here in Washington. We have been 
given a somewhat historic opportunity to do that. Items that Americans, 
our constituents, have been complaining about for decades now have an 
opportunity to be vented in this Congress and reformed in this 
Congress.
  People have lost faith in our ability to apply commonsense solutions 
to the problems that they face. They have seen an insensitive, 
uncaring, ineffective government impose law after law, and regulation 
after regulation on their livelihoods, on their businesses, on their 
families, and on society as a whole.
  They have lost faith in government which reaches into every corner of 
their lives, stealing from them the very hard-earned wages that they 
have worked so long to accumulate. They have lost faith in a government 
that is suffocating their access to opportunity and to the American 
dream, the hope of starting and running a successful business, the 
opportunity to benefit from the jobs of a strong economy, the 
opportunity to pass along to their children the hope of a better life 
than they have had.
  This legislation does not accomplish all that we must. But it is a 
critical start. If we cannot reform the regulatory process that is 
suffocating America, there is little that we can do to respond to the 
very genuine calls for a reformed Congress and a reformed way of doing 
business.
  Mr. President, I hope we can move forward. We spent a week now, long 
days and long nights with no end in sight, with amendment, after 
amendment, after amendment. But I hope we can expedite this process and 
move forward. This is an important piece of legislation. It has been 
discussed, deliberated, and talked about for years. Now is the time 
that we need to move forward and enact it.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to bring this debate to a 
reasonable close so that we can exercise our final vote on whether or 
not we believe that the regulatory process needs to be fixed, needs to 
be reformed, needs to be made more efficient and effective for this 
Nation.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________