[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10221-S10224]
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 the amendment numbered 1487 to S. 343, the regulatory 
reform bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I rise to express serious reservations about S. 343, the 
regulatory reform bill. After listening to over a week's debate, I 
remain doubtful that a vote in favor of S. 343 would serve the best 
interests of the American people. While I support carefully crafted 
regulatory reform efforts like the Glenn-Chafee substitute, S. 343 does 
not meet my standards nor the standards of the people of New Jersey.
  I doubt whether my constituents want new red tape requirements which 
would delay long-awaited regulations for food safety, drinking water 
quality, worker protections and pollution control. Even with the 
changes adopted during the last week, S. 343 is still a prescription 
for delay, duplication, and judicial gridlock.
  S. 343 is not true reform. It is full of exemptions and special 
interest provisions unrelated to the basic bill or which give 
assistance to particular industries. Its provisions will swamp agencies 
with requirements for hundreds of new, costly, and time-consuming 
analyses and it will undermine needed health, safety and environmental 
regulations already on the books.
  S. 343 is filled with new opportunities for endless rounds of 
judicial review. Yesterday, our colleague Senator John Kerry stated 
that the bill still contained 88 new places for court intervention in 
the regulatory process, despite the efforts of many Senators to improve 
this aspect of S. 343.
  S. 343 could result in the sunset of many regulations if agencies 
failed to review them accordingly to required time schedules. Even 
worse, the schedules themselves might be manipulated by special 
interests who could overload agency review agendas and tie them up 
until regulations expired.
  Finally, S. 343 still includes language which favors the least cost 
and not the most cost-effective regulations--an affront to common sense 
which could result in missed opportunities for sensible regulatory 
revisions.
  Mr. President, this country needs regulatory reform. Regulated 
businesses and individuals deserve the most flexible, cost-effective 
regulations agencies can craft while still providing the protections 
Congress has provided and all of us need. But it is also time for us to 
admit the real cause of many regulatory complaints--overly prescriptive 
and sloppily drafted legislation.
  While this bill needs further work, I hope we can resume negotiations 
and produce a regulatory reform bill we all can support.
                           Amendment No. 1487

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for 
the substitute regulatory reform amendment currently pending before the 
Senate. I commend Senator Dole for putting together a measure that is 
balanced, fair and commands bipartisan support. Certainly, we need 
Federal regulations to protect the public health and safety. But the 
rules must be reasonable. They must make sense. That is exactly what 
the Dole substitute amendment attempts to ensure.
  Mr. President, when I talk with South Dakotans, few topics raise 
their blood pressure faster than when they describe their frustrating 
dealings with the Federal bureaucracy. Government is supposed to work 
for us, not against us. Yet time after time, I hear horror stories of 
Washington bureaucrats running amok, imposing complicated, costly and 
silly rules.
  Our current regulatory system is too large, too complicated, too 
burdensome, and too expensive. Worst of all, it is rapidly growing out 
of control. In the first two years of the Clinton administration, 
almost 140,000 pages of new Federal regulations were published. This is 
excessive. There is no way small businesses, local governments, or 
farmers and ranchers in South Dakota can possibly keep up with the 
changes.
  Our current system costs all of us dearly. According to Thomas 
Hopkins, an economics professor at the Rochester Institute of 
Technology and the former Deputy Administrator of the Office of 
Management and Budget, OMB, every American household spends about $4000 
of their hard-earned income annually to comply with Federal 
regulations. As a nation, we spend between $500 and $800 billion each 
year.
  The overwhelming majority of Americans agree the Federal bureaucracy 
needs an overhaul. Last November's election was a clear indication for 
smaller, smarter government with less redtape. This legislation takes a 
big step in that direction. Its main provision simply would require 
that before major new regulations are enacted, Federal regulators must 
show that the benefits justify the costs. This is simple common sense. 
It would force Federal regulations to be reasonable. If a Federal 
regulator cannot show that the costs of a proposed rule are justified 
by the benefits, why should we allow it be implemented? Common sense 
says we should not. This is a sensible hurdle that newly proposed rules 
should be required to clear.
  Mr. President, let me give two recent examples of ridiculous Federal 
regulations that demonstrate the need for this legislation. The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is charged with enforcing our 
Nation's safe drinking water laws. In an effort to enforce the law, the 
EPA zealously over interprets congressional intent. In effect, they 
rewrite the law ``raising the bar'' for municipalities by requiring 
excessively burdensome water standards without comparing the costs of 
their rules to the benefits they hope to achieve.
  Each year it seems, state and local officials are told last year's 
water standards are no longer good enough. They are forced by the EPA 
to perform costly new tests for presences in their water supply. 
Unfortunately, the EPA 

[[Page S 10222]]
frequently relies on questionable evidence to show why the changes are 
necessary. For many rural communities in South Dakota, excessive 
drinking water standards threaten to break their small budgets.
  Recently, the EPA has proposed yet another standard--one that would 
require communities to regulate sulfate levels in drinking water 
supplies. This proposed standard has been made despite the fact there 
is no valid scientific showing of harm resulting from higher levels of 
sulfate. Congress instructed the EPA to study this issue. However, 
instead of evaluating the health risk of sulfate in drinking water, the 
EPA proposed a sweeping rule to allow no more than 500 milligrams of 
sulfate per liter of drinking water. When promulgating the proposed 
rule, the EPA did not consider the costs of compliance. They have not 
explained or justified the supposed benefits the rule attempts to 
attain. They also have not given any reliable scientific basis for this 
rule.
  The costs of enacting the proposed sulfate regulation would be 
enormous. It would affect roughly one-quarter of all the water systems 
in South Dakota--108 of the 483 water systems in the State. The South 
Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, DENR, which 
opposes the EPA's proposed sulfate rule, has estimated the costs of 
compliance for those water systems would be $40 to $60 million. That is 
just the initial cost of compliance--not including operation and 
maintenance costs. Small, rural communities in South Dakota should not 
be forced to pay such a high price to enforce a regulation that has no 
valid scientific justification.
  Let me put these figures in real terms we can all understand. The 
largest of the 108 affected communities is Madison, SD, with a 
population of 6,395 people. Currently, the average water bill for each 
household in Madison is $13.75 per month. According to the South Dakota 
DENR, if the proposed rule is enacted, the additional cost to each 
household would be about $10 per month. That would mean an average 
monthly water bill of $23.75, or a 73 percent increase over current 
bills. Remember, this figure is for the largest of the affected 
communities, which presumably would be the most able to absorb the 
costs of compliance.
  Let us take Big Stone City, SD, as another example. With a population 
of 670 people, Big Stone City has the median population of the 108 
communities in South Dakota affected by the proposed rule. Currently, 
the average monthly water bill per household in Big Stone City is 
$9.80. If the EPA has its way, each household in that community would 
see its water bill rise $27.50 for a total monthly bill of $37.30. That 
would be an astonishing 281 percent increase. Again, Big Stone City is 
the median size of the affected communities. Just imagine the impact 
the EPA's rule would have on communities smaller than Big Stone City.
  Mr. President, what would these communities get in return for these 
shocking rate increases? Nothing. That is right. For years, South 
Dakotans have been drinking water containing sulfate with no apparent 
adverse health effects. The EPA has not been able to show 
scientifically that higher levels of sulfate in drinking water pose a 
real health threat to humans. The proposed rule would ensure drinking 
water has less sulfate, but that does not mean it is safer water. 
However, an EPA bureaucrat thinks the Federal Government should 
regulate sulfate. These plans are being made regardless of the enormous 
costs involved on small communities. This situation does not make 
sense.
  Mr. President, as I stated earlier, clearly we need to take 
precautions to ensure the quality of our drinking water. However, 
common sense says, before spending billions nationwide to comply with a 
new regulation, we should ensure the benefits are worth the costs. The 
EPA should be required to demonstrate why it now believes sulfate is 
dangerous to human health. They should have to show how the benefits of 
their new rule justify the enormous costs it would impose on small 
communities like Madison and Big Stone City. That is what the Dole 
substitute would require of the EPA. Is that too much to ask?
  Mr. President, let me give another example of a ridiculous Federal 
regulation that, several months ago, threatened farmers and ranchers in 
my State. The proposed regulation concerned the Endangered Species Act. 
Earlier this spring, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered 
listing prairie dogs under the Endangered Species Act, entitling them 
to numerous protections under Federal law, despite the fact there are 
71 times more prairie dogs than people in South Dakota. Let me repeat 
that: in South Dakota, there are 71 prairie dogs for every man, woman 
and child--yet, earlier this year, Federal bureaucrats actually 
considered listing them as an endangered or threatened species.
  Once a species has been listed under the act, certain uses of the 
land inhabited by the species can be prohibited until the condition of 
the species has improved to the point it can be taken off the list. 
Virtually, the entire western half of South Dakota potentially could 
have been affected. Fortunately, there are no longer plans to list the 
prairie dog as endangered or threatened. However, it still may be 
listed as a ``candidate species'' entitled to some level of Federal 
protection.
  There are millions of prairie dogs in South Dakota digging even more 
millions of holes. Their holes are a real menace to cattle and horses. 
Ranchers are forced to destroy livestock which step in the holes and 
break their legs. Prairie dogs also eat grass and other vegetation, a 
sparse commodity in the western half of my State.
  How can anyone believe prairie dogs are a threatened species facing 
possible extinction? Farmers and ranchers in my home State do not 
understand this. I do not either. If this absurd rule had been enacted, 
killing prairie dogs would have been a Federal offense. Their 
population quickly would have grown far beyond their current numbers--
causing more harm and destruction to South Dakota farmers and 
ranchers--all with the Federal Government's blessing. If the situation 
several months ago were not so serious, it would have been laughable.
  These examples show why people in my home State are fed up with the 
Federal regulatory process. I am too. Is it any wonder why we believe 
the Federal bureaucracy is out of control and must be reined in? South 
Dakotans certainly want safe drinking water, safe food and a clean 
environment. But they also want Federal rules that are reasonable, 
understandable and flexible to allow as much compliance as possible.
  That is why I support the Dole substitute amendment. If it were 
enacted the EPA could not implement its proposed sulfate rule until it 
can show that the benefits of the rule justify the enormous costs 
involved. Again, is that too much to ask?
  In addition to benefiting consumers, this legislation also would have 
a positive impact on small businesses in my State. The current level of 
regulation from Washington puts an incredible burden on small 
businesses. Over-regulation chokes businesses in paperwork, stifles 
innovative ideas and undermines the ability of American businesses to 
compete in international markets. I have talked to many small 
businessmen and women who believe due to the sheer number of 
regulations, the complexity of the rules, and the different standards 
of enforcement between areas of the country and even between different 
inspectors, it is impossible for them not to be in violation of some 
regulation at any given time. This situation is not acceptable.
  We greatly need to move the Federal bureaucracy away from the 
``gotcha'' mentality many have toward American business. Regulators 
should not see themselves exclusively as ``super-cops,'' as many do, 
waiting to pounce on any business that violates some regulation in the 
most technical way. Regulators need to develop a cooperative 
relationship with businesses. Both should work together to find 
innovative and cost-effective ways to comply with the spirit of the law 
as intended by Congress, rather than with hyper-technical regulations.
  American business is not the enemy. The vast majority of small 
businesses are run by fine, ethical businessmen and women who want to 
obey the law, not skirt it. They want to be good corporate citizens. 
They do not seek ways to bend or break the law. They work hard to treat 
their employees fairly. 

[[Page S 10223]]
They spend considerable amounts of money to provide a safe workplace 
for them. They do this not because the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, OSHA, or the Department of Labor require such action. 
They do it because it makes good, sound business sense. After all, 
satisfied employees are productive employees.
  Judging from the enormous amounts of new Federal regulations 
continually being issued, however, you might think each American 
business spends all its time devising ways to bend or break the law. 
Every aspect of business life increasingly is being regulated. That has 
to stop.
  Mr. President, to conclude, let me again state my support for the 
Dole substitute. The country needs less regulation from Washington. No 
one in my home State thinks there are too few Government regulations. 
No small business has asked me for more Government paperwork to fill 
out. No farmer or rancher has requested yet more restrictions on how 
they can use their own land.
  The country needs less regulation. South Dakotans know Washington 
cannot regulate away our problems. Too many rules are on the books and 
not enough common sense is in the system. In short: Federal rulemaking 
needs an overhaul. The Dole substitute amendment would help reduce the 
number of rules generated by Washington. It would establish a sensible 
hurdle for new regulations: the costs must be justified by the 
benefits. That is simple common sense. The regulatory system cannot 
continue as it has been promulgating rule after rule with little 
concern for their practical effect. Is that asking too much? I urge my 
colleagues to support and vote for this legislation.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act 
of 1995 is a response to the belief that our executive branch agencies 
have become unreasonable in their regulation of the behavior of 
businesses and individuals. This is a powerful idea whose influence 
has, until recently, been underestimated. No longer. This is the third 
time this year that the Senate has considered legislation to restrain 
such Government action.
  On January 27, 1995, the Senate passed S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, which requires Congress to acknowledge, by recorded vote, 
the costs imposed by Federal laws on State and local governments, as 
well as on the private sector. President Clinton signed the unfunded 
mandates on March 22, 1995.
  Just 2 months later, the Senate passed S. 219, the Regulatory 
Transition Act, which established a 45-day review period for 
congressional review of regulations. Conferees are now attempting to 
reconcile that bill with the House-passed legislation, which places a 
temporary moratorium on Federal rulemaking.
  The same concerns have prompted the Senate to take up the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 now before us. A central 
element of this bill is the requirement that agencies justify their 
actions through risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. This is not 
a new idea, although it is given unprecedented emphasis in this bill. I 
first introduced legislation to require risk assessment of 
environmental regulations in 1991, and I have introduced similar 
legislation in each succeeding Congress.
  All of these bills have been based on the simple proposition that 
decisionmaking by Federal agencies ought to be informed by the best 
available science. Of course, science cannot be the sole basis of 
agency decisions, for there are limits to scientific knowledge, and 
what we do know is imprecise. Yet science must be taken into account. 
We must have the humility to acknowledge what we don't know, but also 
the good sense to make use of what we do. That was the approach taken 
by the legislation I introduced in previous years, and it was the 
approach of the Johnston-Baucus-Moynihan amendment that 
passed the Senate as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization bill in May 1994. That amendment would
 have required EPA to conduct risk assessments and cost-benefit 
analyses for all major regulations. EPA would have been required to 
certify that the benefits of a rule justify the costs and that no 
regulatory alternative would be more cost-effective in achieving an 
equivalent reduction of risk. Unlike the measure before us, last year's 
legislation would not have superseded existing law, and EPA's analyses 
would not have been subject to judicial review.

  Our amendment was modest enough, but predictably it had opponents, 
including some members of the Clinton administration and certain 
representatives of the environmental community. They seemed to view the 
issue only in absolute terms, being of the view that requiring cost-
benefit analysis and risk assessment would bring about the dismantling 
of environmental regulation by requiring EPA to consider risks and 
costs over environmental health and safety. Over the last 4 years, it 
has been our repeated experience--mine--to hear such complaints from 
environmental groups. Indeed, it is well known that opposition to risk 
assessment was significant enough last year to help kill the EPA 
Cabinet bill and the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. Note 
well. Had the Environmental Protection Agency in 1994 accepted risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis as part of its mandate, it would 
be a cabinet department today.
  Let me give one example of the sort of analysis some have chosen to 
apply to risk assessment proposals. On May 21, 1991, Joseph Thornton, a 
policy analyst with Greenpeace, testified before a hearing of the 
Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology on the ``Risk Assessment: Strengths and Limitations of 
Utilization for Policy Decisions.'' This is what he said:

       Greenpeace and communities who have experienced risk 
     assessment first hand are united that risk assessment 
     endangers the environment, public health, and the democratic 
     process as it is now practiced. The major real world use of 
     risk assessment has been to approve pollution. . . . Even 
     when [it has] been used for the purpose of setting 
     priorities, quantitative risk assessment is a flawed, 
     uncertain, and subjective process that is subject to 
     political pressures from those who have the most resources, 
     and the most influence. (Emphasis supplied.)

  This was not untypical of attitudes we encountered. The terms of the 
debate even began to take on a curious
 doctrinal cast: It became fashionable at one point to refer to risk 
assessment as one element of an Unholy Trinity. According to Mr. John 
D. Echeverria, a National Audubon Society attorney quoted in the New 
York Times on February 7, 1994, the Unholy Trinity is comprised of 
proposals on risk assessment, unfunded mandates, and Government takings 
of private property. And so I suppose I should not be surprised that, 
despite the fact that my League of Conservation Voters record has 
frequently risen above 90 percent, and despite having once been 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I 
have never, in 19 years on the committee, received a letter of 
commendation from the environmental community, a community not the 
least averse to plastering congressional walls with plaques. As an 
advocate of risk assessment, I am viewed with suspicion.
  Not surprisingly--it is an old story--the legislation now before the 
Senate is far more prescriptive than anything advocated in the past by 
this Senator. The controversy that accompanied any discussion of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis as recently as a year ago has all 
but disappeared. Today, even opponents of the Dole-Johnston bill are 
quick to state they favor the use of sound cost-benefit analysis and 
risk assessment in environmental decisionmaking. A year has passed, an 
election has intervened, and now we are faced with the Comprehensive 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. One wonders whether the opponents of the 
early efforts by the Senators from Louisiana, Montana, and New York may 
be a bit wistful about the opportunity they passed up last year. 
Clearly, the terms of the debate have changed. The Senate has changed. 
We never seem to learn that the failure to recognize the need for 
sensible, incremental change invites radical change.
  Although the Dole-Johnston compromise significantly improved the 
earlier drafts of this legislation, it does in my view overreact. I 
share many of the concerns of my colleagues and hope further amendments 
will be accepted to improve the bill. At this point, I would like to 
set forth the principles that have guided my votes on this important 
legislation.

[[Page S 10224]]

  As I have said, I do support the appropriate use of cost-benefit 
analyses and risk assessments in major
 rulemaking. However, I recognize that risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis are imperfect tools. Even in the best analyses, significant 
uncertainties exist. More important, any legislation that would impose 
a cost-benefit test must recognize that other factors including values, 
equity concerns, and policy judgments are equally important or even 
dispositive factors in the decisionmaking process.

  These points were well illustrated during our debate on the acid rain 
provisions of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990. Cost-benefit 
considerations were important elements of the debate. However, in the 
end Congress made policy judgments based in large measure on the 
unquantified and unquantifiable value we place on our natural 
environment. We decided, for instance, that some regions of the 
country, such as upstate New York, should not be forced to bear a 
disproportionate impact of acid rain pollution. We now know that the 
actual costs of the acid rain program are less than one-third of most 
estimates at the time, and that we still do not understand the ultimate 
impact of acid deposition on the environment. That experience 
illustrated the limitations of cost-benefit analysis as a rigid 
decisionmaking tool, and it ought to be a lesson to us.
  Returning to the Dole-Johnston bill, we reached a consensus last week 
on two major issues. First, we recognized the tremendous resource 
burden that risk assessment and cost benefit analyses impose on 
agencies, and we changed the definition of major rule to $100 million 
rather than $50 million. This is a move in the right direction. 
However, the adoption of another amendment, which extends the 
definition to include rules that have a major effect on small business, 
may recreate the problem we were trying to correct. Second, we 
clarified our intention that the legislation should not impose a 
supermandate. That is, it should not override existing law. This does 
not mean we are entirely satisfied with existing laws, but it 
recognizes that we will not suddenly attain to vastly more intelligent 
and effective regulations by this single piece of legislation.
  I disagree with those who view regulatory reform legislation as a 
simple answer to the problems accompanying our current health, safety, 
and
 environmental statutes. Problems do exist--with Superfund, with the 
current interpretation of the Delaney clause, and elsewhere. To achieve 
true comprehensive regulatory reform, we should move forward with 
current efforts to reauthorize and improve important statutes such as 
Superfund, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

  I also have continuing concerns with the judicial review and lookback 
provisions of the Dole-Johnston bill. Regulatory reform should not 
provide expansive opportunities for technical and procedural 
challenges, as much as K Street might wish. We should not turn the 
courts into arbiters of the adequacy of highly technical cost-benefit 
analyses and risk assessments. For example, section 634 of the Dole-
Johnston bill would allow interested parties to petition agencies to 
review existing risk assessments and would subject agency decisions on 
petitions to court challenge.
  Do we really expect courts to decide whether the agency or industry 
interpretation of the data should prevail? Do we really think we can 
legislate, and litigate, good science? Let us clearly and unambiguously 
limit judicial review only to final agency rulemaking actions.
  Further, while I agree that the periodic review of existing rules is 
an important element of regulatory reform, the lookback process should 
be constrained to focus on the most significant opportunities for 
improvement. We need a process that is controlled by the agencies, 
using clearly defined criteria, with adequate opportunity for public 
comment--not one controlled by special interests or the courts.
  I am pleased that the comparative risk principles which I have 
proposed on earlier occasions have been incorporated in both the Dole-
Johnston bill and the Glenn-Chafee alternative. However, as I have said 
before, the use of comparative risk to help set agency priorities must 
recognize the limitations of current methods and provide for continuous 
development of the discipline. I therefore strongly support the 
recommendation in the bill that a nationally recognized scientific body 
be asked to evaluate the state of the science and identify 
opportunities for improvement of this important science policy tool.
  Finally, it ought to be said that many of the
   problems with our current system cannot be solved by the application 
of cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, or any other device. 
Recently, we received a major study conducted by the National Academy 
of Public Administration, ``Setting Priorities, Getting Results.'' The 
report makes a number of recommendations for improving environmental 
decisionmaking. As we debate the appropriate role of risk assessment 
and cost-benefit analysis, we should heed this admonition:

       Risk analysis is not a cure-all. The members of Congress 
     and other decision-makers who have displayed a strong desire 
     for more objective and precise quantitative estimates of 
     environmental risks and of the costs and benefits of 
     environmental protection will be disappointed. The 
     unfortunate reality, that EPA and Congress must confront, is 
     that neither risk assessment nor economic analysis can answer 
     most of their crucial questions about environmental problems. 
     The tools can only approximate answers with varying degrees 
     of certainty, and the answers often cannot be reduced 
     objectively to a few numbers. The objective findings of 
     science are essential components of EPA's decisions, but 
     wholly insufficient as a base for environmental policy-
     making.

  The report goes on to state, ``Despite these problems, summaries of 
costs or benefits are useful if they encourage analysts or decision-
makers to think rigorously about what impacts and values should be 
included.''
  This is the core of what we need to accomplish in regulatory reform 
legislation: greater scientific rigor in agency thinking and 
decisionmaking. Let us acknowledge that with this legislation the task 
of creating a more effective national effort to improve the Nation's 
health, safety, and environmental quality has just begun.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have 53 votes. We need 60. I understand 
tomorrow we will have an additional four votes on this side of the 
aisle to make 57, 3 short of the 60.
  I am trying to determine whether or not we want to go with this bill, 
whether we want to set it aside for a period of time, or set it aside 
forever.
  I have been talking with the distinguished Democratic leader. It is 
my suggestion that if nobody objects, we stand in recess until 4:15 to 
give the principals involved a chance to go off somewhere to see 
whether or not they believe any more of these major issues can be 
resolved, which might move the bill along.
  I think, rather than just sit in a quorum call for the next hour, we 
will stand in recess, unless the Democratic leader has some objection 
to that.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think that is a very good idea. 
Obviously, we are at a point where we have to work through what remains 
as significant differences between the two sides. I think an 
opportunity over the next hour to discuss those differences and 
determine whether or not they are reconcilable is a very good 
opportunity for both sides. I will encourage it and think that this is 
probably the best plan.

                          ____________________