[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.
____________________