[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10402-S10403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand now we are on the affirmative 
action matter. Before we go into that, I will make a few brief remarks 
with regard to the exchange between the majority leader, the minority 
leader, and others, with regard to the bill that just failed with the 
third cloture vote.
  I encourage the majority leader to recognize the fact that there are 
many, if not all Members on this side of the aisle, that are just as 
much concerned about regulatory reform as those on the other side of 
the aisle.
  I was, frankly, rather amused to hear the majority leader say it 
takes 60 votes to get anything done around here. Does anyone remember 
last year? Does anyone remember last year, when we had to have 60 votes 
to do anything, with the possible exception of adjournment?
  Now, the facts of the matter are, as one Senator who has been on many 
sides of many issues on this floor, I simply say that I was with the 
majority leader on a very close vote not too long ago with regard to 
how we are going to balance the Federal budget, and a constitutional 
amendment to do that.
  Once again, the Senate is so closely divided on this issue, 
regulatory reform, because it is a very key issue.
  I say to the majority leader that at least as one Senator, and I know 
from the meetings that I attended there are others, as so ably stated 
by the Democratic leader, that we think we are very close. We get down 
to these situations, though, and the old bulls lock horns. The old 
bulls like to say unless you do it my way, you are against regulatory 
reform.
  I think there is general consensus for regulatory reform. I was very 
pleased that the Senate voted on the Glenn amendment, 52 to 48. I 
thought we were very close under that kind of a proposal.
  Now, whether or not the Glenn amendment is exactly the same as that 
which was indicated earlier as not being necessarily true or not, I 
think that most reasonable people would agree that the Glenn amendment 
is extremely close,
 if not identical, which I would agree, to what was, I think, 
unanimously passed out of the committee at one time. I simply say that 
we are not nearly as far apart from resolving this important issue of 
regulatory reform as I think the majority leader has indicated.

  I do not wish to impugn the motives of the majority leader at all. 
But I noticed on several occasions he indicated 100 percent Republican 
support for the measure, which implied, with the three or four other 
Democrats that he also complimented for their help, that all was lost 
because of minority Democrats just would not yield.
  Sometime or other, the minority has to stand up when they think 
things are not going correctly. Why can we not take the Glenn 
amendment, that was defeated on a very close rollcall, 52 to 48, and 
use that as a means to come together in a bipartisan fashion? But, oh, 
no, we cannot do that. We have to use, as the basis of consideration, 
the proposition that the majority leader has indicated it is not 
possible, under the circumstances, to come together.
  I say to the majority leader and my colleagues on that side, whom I 
frequently vote with, I think we are that close. I do not believe there 
is any sincere effort for most of us on this side of the aisle to be 
obstructionist, as the majority leader seemed to indicate in his 
remarks. I therefore suggest that it is time that we not give up. It is 
a time that we start working together on this matter of regulatory 
reform, which I think is very, very important.
  But I want to compliment the Democratic leader for saying this 
probably is the most far-reaching bill that we will even consider or 
pass in this session of the Congress. It is a very important matter and 
there are some major concerns on this side of the aisle, some of which 
are not necessarily shared by this individual Senator. But I happen to 
feel it is critically important for us to recognize and realize, when 
we pass major pieces of legislation, we must take the time to consider 
as best we can. And I happen to feel it should be clear to all that, 
when we get ourselves into a situation where we are passing this type 
of legislation, major legislation under anyone's definition of that, 
that 60 votes should be in order. I think the 60 votes are there. I 
really believe we can get things done in this particular matter if we 
just keep on trying.
  Therefore, I say to the majority leader, come forth once again, Mr. 
Majority Leader, come forth and talk to the minority leader. I feel 
very confident that we are that close to coming up with something I 
think would be generally satisfactory--not totally satisfactory, 
because this is a piece of legislation that is obviously so complicated 
and so difficult that we are probably never going to get unanimous 
consent. However, I say to the majority leader, come, let us reason 
together. I have talked at great length about this with the minority 
leader, and I think the 

[[Page S10403]]
minority leader is in a position to speak for enough of us on this side 
that we could get cloture.

                          ____________________