[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10135-S10136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 1487 to S. 343, the regulatory reform 
bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] and 
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 309 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bennett
     Heflin
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     McCain
     Pressler
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of those duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                         explanation of absence

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, 
Senator Pressler, was necessarily absent during the cloture vote on the 
Dole-Johnston substitute amendment to S. 343, the regulatory reform 
bill.
  Senator Pressler was on his way back to Washington from Sioux Falls, 
SD, but has experienced a number of flight delays due to mechanical 
difficulties and weather surveillance. Had Senator Pressler been here 
for the vote, he would have voted to invoke cloture.
  (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statements were ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                         explanation of absence

 Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent during 
rollcall vote No. 309 on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dole-
Johnston substitute amendment to S. 343, the comprehensive regulatory 
reform bill. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in the 
affirmative.
  I was unable to be here for the vote due to a number of travel 
problems that occurred on my flights from Sioux Falls to Washington, 
DC. Specifically, the aircraft that was to have taken me from Sioux 
Falls to Minneapolis was kept on the ground due to mechanical problems. 
The delay, in fact, forced me to take a later flight on another plane. 
I was further delayed at Minneapolis due to weather surveillance. I 
regret this series of flight delays prevented me from being present 
during the cloture vote earlier this evening.
 Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my 
absence from the floor during Senate vote No. 309 to invoke cloture on 
S. 343. I was necessarily detained on my return flight to Washington, 
DC, due to severe weather conditions causing flight delays. Had I been 
present for vote No. 309, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of Majority 
Leader Dole's regulatory reform package, I am delighted to have this 
opportunity to discuss the many benefits to be gained from its 
enactment. For perhaps the first time, we are confronting the 
astoundingly sensible idea that the regulations we impose at the 
Federal level should reflect risk-assessment and cost-benefit analyses. 
These important tools will ensure that limited dollars are spent on 
solving our most serious problems and in turn will return the greatest 
results.
  Throughout this debate, we have been treated to a barrage of rhetoric 
from naysayers, the opponents of common-sense regulating. Those in 
favor of realistic balance have been portrayed as coldhearted 
calculators determined to destroy the environment, eradicate the safe 
workplace, and jeopardize the health of every American.
  Mr. President, that simply is not true.
  Regulations imposed by the Federal Government should bear a direct 
relationship to the potential risk to public health, safety, and the 
environment. They should also reflect a significant benefit for the 
costs incurred.
  Those dual considerations form the centerpiece of the Dole-Johnson 
substitute.
  The measure directs Federal agencies to conduct a cost-benefit 
analysis for major regulations, defined as having a gross annual 
economic impact of $50 million in reasonably quantifiable direct and 
indirect costs. Where appropriate, standardized risk assessments 
reflecting the best available science also would be conducted, with 
public participation and peer review. Since many speakers have preceded 
me, I will not belabor the specific provisions of this package.
  Earlier this year, the Environment and Public Works Committee, on 
which I have served for 9 years, held a hearing on the impact of 
regulatory reform 

[[Page S 10136]]
proposals on environmental and other statutes. That hearing confirmed a 
glaring certainty: Federal agencies are not using the discretion at 
their disposal to adequately consider or appropriately weigh costs and 
benefits. Burdensome Government regulations are imposing significant 
costs on our national economy, our productivity, and our ability to 
compete in the global marketplace. To reverse that trend, we must 
include cost-containment features and regulatory impact analyses 
whenever any new Federal regulation is considered. Agencies should be 
required to include sound science before they promulgate rules and 
regulations anew; the public should be allowed to petition for the 
review of risk assessments made by agencies.
  Mr. President, less regulation will not result in less protection for 
the public if our dollars are used efficiently. On the contrary, the 
net effect of using sound science and real risk assessment to 
prioritize regulations would be more real protection. Best of all, that 
enhanced protection of health and safety would be cost-effective.
  We are all aware that life will always involve some risk--we cannot 
and should not attempt to protect everyone from every possible degree 
of risk. Instead, we must prioritize on the basis of definitive risk 
factors. Each rule must be carefully scrutinized; choices must be based 
on relative risks and associated costs.
  My interest in regulatory reform has been honed further by my 
membership on another committee--Agriculture.
  I am deeply concerned with the economic health of the agriculture 
community, especially that of the family farmer. One of the most 
debated issues concerning agriculture and agricultural chemicals today 
is the so-called Delaney clause. Under its restrictions, pesticide 
residues found in processed foods are considered food additives. The 
Delaney clause prohibits the inclusion of any chemicals or additives in 
processed foods, including pesticides and inert ingredients, which have 
been found to be carcinogenic in humans or animals.
  Ironically, the very good intention of the Delaney clause--to protect 
consumers from unsafe exposure to chemicals which might induce cancer--
is being subverted. Technological advances which make it possible to 
detect trace compounds in parts per trillion and greater have made the 
zero risk standard of the Delaney clause unreasonable. The very 
scientific advancements which should be enhancing consumer safety are 
instead hindering. It would be far more reasonable to institute a 
negligible risk standard. For carcinogens, such a standard would 
represent an upper-bound risk of 1 in 1 million over a lifetime, 
calculated using conservative risk assessment methods. Again, we are 
talking about a matter of sensible risk assessment.
  Mr. President, listening to this debate, I have had to ask myself why 
anyone would not want to see beneficial rules and regulations, which 
protect from real risk while outweighing their costs. At a time when 
budgetary constraints are a serious priority, we should--we must--spend 
those scarce dollars wisely. Regulations associated with high levels of 
risk undoubtedly may be expensive to comply with, but if they are 
deemed necessary to protect the national health, safety, and the 
environment, the compliance costs will be money well spent.
  However, excessive rules and regulations associated with minimal 
public risk amounts to hunting fleas with an elephant gun. It is 
neither fair nor reasonable to ask the taxpayers to bear such expense.
                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I hope we can now agree on a time to vote on 
the substitute. We have had a lot of debate on the substitute. I hope 
we can reach an agreement before we depart, with the managers, on when 
we can vote on the Glenn substitute--hopefully tomorrow morning or by 
noon tomorrow.
  There will be no more votes tonight. I think the first thing we want 
to do is have a vote on the substitute and perhaps we can reach some 
agreement on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that I may have a few moments to 
speak as in morning business to introduce a bill and make a few 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 1043 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________