John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is true that there is a broad consensus that people understand what we have attempted to do with our welfare system has been a failure. If you want to see what our current Washington-based, one-size-fits-all welfare program has done, to see how the perverse incentives of the welfare system have failed, I guess you could go just a couple blocks from here. There you can see a generation raised by welfare and fed through food stamps, but literally starved of nurture and hope. You will meet young teens in their third pregnancy. You will meet children who not only do not have a father, but they do not know any other child with a father. These are tragedies of the current system, and these are the realities against which reform must properly be judged. There has been a great deal of reporting recently on divisions in our discussion on welfare. I would like to make something as clear as I possibly can. While it may have taken us some time to reconcile our differences in terms of the strategy that we have, we have never forgotten the horror of our current system, we have never disagreed on our fundamental values, and we have never wavered from our central commitment, and that is to end the system of welfare we have now, to strengthen States and communities, to restore hope and opportunity to the millions of Americans for whom such words now are tragically words without definition or words without meaning. I might add that it is important for us to understand that as well meaning as we might be in Washington in seeking to find a single solution to all of the problems that relate to the needs of people that would move them from dependence to independence, it would be inappropriate for us to try and find a solution because there are lots of solutions that are going to be necessary, and no one garment will fit all children and no one vehicle will carry all loads and no single system imposed from Washington on this great Nation will be productive in moving people from the web of dependency to the opportunity of independence. We really need for the creative capacity of the States, the innovation and the energy of people who are working to develop their own systems and the commitment that that investment in their own systems brings, to be allowed in a new system which would give States the opportunity through block grants to develop the strategies which will elicit the response among the citizens of the communities that those States represent. So as we work together, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with so many people in this respect, through vigorous discussions and the discussions I have had have been no more vigorous with anyone than those discussions which I have had with the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania who inhabits the chair at this moment. But it is that kind of discussion, it is that kind of exchange, it is that kind of a collusion of ideas that provides the opportunity for the truth to emerge and for the real progress to be made. In the weeks ahead as we debate welfare, it is my hope that this debate will serve as a trial. It should be a trial that will indict the abuses, the horrors, the lies of our current Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all perverse, incentive-laden system of welfare. It is my intention in the weeks ahead to try and ensure that an understanding of the current system happens so that we can avoid making the mistakes of the past over again. Someone much wiser than I has said appropriately that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Let us not be destined to repeat the horror of our welfare system. Today, I just want to begin by talking about an incident that probably all of us remember, because we cannot forget. In February of 1994 in the process of a routine drug raid in Chicago, police stumbled upon 19 young children, some handicapped, living on dirty mattresses in an unspeakably filthy six-bedroom apartment infested with roaches and soiled with animal dirt. The Chicago Tribune reported it this way: The children of [six] mothers from [six] fractured families * * * [were found] vacantly watching TV * * * [and] fighting over the remains of a chicken bone that the family dog had eaten. President Clinton said that the despair and wasted human potential within that one Chicago apartment was not merely a social problem from far off places like Calcutta, India, but the heart of a very domestic problem occurring in urban centers all around America. Among the adults that lived in that apartment, more than $65,000-- more than $65,000--per year was received annually in public assistance, aid that took the form of cash payments, food stamps, medical care. Somehow, some way that money was not having its intended effect. A system designed with the best intentions, unfortunately is leading to the destination of the road paved with best intentions; a system designed with the best intentions is eliciting and encouraging the worst behavior; a system which built change of dependency rather than breaking shackles. In that house, there were no fathers to be found, no hope to be found for anyone. This is a tragedy that happens all across America, and it is a tragedy of our current system. So as I conclude, let me just say that as we consider welfare reform, let the true measure of our reform never be the dollars that we might save, or the bureaucracy that is cut, or the programs that are reduced. But let our measure of reform be found in the ability to move people from hopeless governmental dependence to hopeful economic and personal independence, from the grasp of a perverse system of Government programs to the embrace of the loving and caring communities and the limitless opportunities of America. Mr. President, I thank you. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is the same rule. But if it is a different benefit, then it is a different cost-benefit ratio and the cheapest for the different benefit is the superior one for which the Senator has argued.

Mr. ASHCROFT. You are doing something else; you are doing something different.

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct. And it seems to me that means this bill should be driving that--that if the number is different, it is a different benefit, and we should get to that number the cheapest way possible. In getting to any other number, the cheapest way possible should be our objective. If we decide to save 120,000 lives, there is a cheapest way to get there. And if we want to save 100,000 lives, there is a cheapest way to get there. And it seems to me, since those are different benefits, the Dole-Johnston proposal would allow us to get to those benefits by the cheapest strategy.

Mr. ASHCROFT. My sense is that if it is a different benefit----

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would agree that for a nickel more you can go first class is the old way of saying that, and if first class means that you get more lives saved per value committed, I think we would want to be able to do that.

Mr. ASHCROFT. My view is and my question was----

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is right. But since it is a different benefit, it is a different calculation. It seems to me that if the benefit is different, that if the extra lives mean it is a different benefit----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Both quantified. And the cheapest 200,000 lives would be a separate calculation. It seems to me, if those are different benefits, the agency would not be required then to employ the so-called cheapest but could employ, it could employ the benefit for the greater savings because it is a different benefit and the calculation would be the cheapest for that different benefit.

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is a different benefit.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator say that the benefit is the same benefit if 100,000 lives are saved or if 200,000 lives are saved?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, throughout the current debate on S. 343, regulatory reform, little has been said about the devastating effects of regulations on America's urban core inner-city centers. Yet it is precisely our Nation's most distressed urban areas which are really threatened as a result of the onerous implications of some of the regulations on the city center. I believe it is time for us to look at those regulations as they relate to the cities and the potential for job growth and development in those cities. And it is time for us to have a look at whether or not we can mitigate the impacts of regulation against some of the areas where job development and growth are most challenging. So I have submitted an amendment which is called the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995, an amendment to Senate bill 343, which is designed to try to provide that kind of relief. I believe it is in the best interests of our urban centers to be able to develop waivers so when we really find the regulations are hurting the health, the safety, the well-being, the security of our citizens, that, in fact, those regulatory provisions can be waived in cooperation with the Federal Government to provide an opportunity for jobs. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, one of the main challenges, which we face as a society, that relates to the regulatory climate in America is the condition of our urban centers. Today, many of our cities have become hopeless arenas of decay and despair. They are places where industry used to flourish, places where productivity used to take place. But the fact is that the number of enterprises in cities is plummeting. Just in the last 20 years, you can note that the number of businesses which inhabit our urban centers has gone down dramatically. St. Louis, MO, has had a 32-percent decline in the number of businesses, from 3,497 businesses in 1972 to 2,386 businesses in 1992. Detroit, MI, for example, went from 6,945 businesses in 1972 to 3,448 businesses in 1992--a 50-percent decrease. So we see that one of our problems is that not only have cities become a difficult place for individuals, they have become a difficult place for businesses and industry. As a matter of fact, it is important for us to understand, Mr. President, that this is a problem which is related to the notion that people who do not have jobs are at peril. The entirety of our regulatory framework is designed to deal with the well-being of individuals, to promote their health, their safety, and, hopefully, to extend their longevity, so that people live longer, so that they have an opportunity for a quality existence. But the truth of the matter is at the very core of our urban societies. We have the biggest challenges that relate to health. We have the biggest challenges that relate to longevity, and the biggest challenges that relate to personal security. America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, an aggravated assault every 30 seconds. In a survey of the parents of first- and second-graders in Washington, DC, 31 percent of those said that they worried a lot about their children being involved in violence; almost 40 percent of the low-income urban parents worried about their children being shot. That is a quality of life issue. Thirty-one percent of the first and second graders in Washington, DC, reported witnessing shootings. One out of every three children had witnessed a shooting, and 39 percent said they had seen dead bodies. These are first and second graders. We have a major challenge that relates to the security, the safety, and the health and well-being of our citizens in our urban centers. One out of every 24 black males in America will have his life ended by homicide. Our urban centers are so hopeless and filled with despair, and opportunity is so absent, that we find that the challenge is the challenge to stay alive. There is a death sentence for 1 out of every 24 black males. The New England Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is less likely to live to the age of 40 than a young man living in Bangladesh, which is perhaps the poorest of all of the nations on the face of the Earth. These things are startling. These things bother us. The pathologies of urban America are very challenging. What is really stunning is the fact that the absence of work opportunity at the very heart of America's cities has been a big part of this condition. Youngsters in our urban settings are known to drop out at much higher rates than in other settings. Why? Some say it is because those youngsters in our schools do not see work opportunities, they do not see the promise or hope of doing something worthwhile with their lives upon graduation. Why persist in school if there will be nothing for you to do when you graduate? It is in that setting that we need to take a careful look at the way in which regulation has had an impact on what happens in our urban settings. I became sensitized to this, Mr. President, when I was spending a lot of time with the people last year. I would work in a variety of settings in my campaign for the U.S. Senate. Across the State of Missouri, both in Kansas City and St. Louis, I encountered businesses that wanted to expand but could not. They wanted to grow and they wanted to offer more employment and they wanted to build the arena of opportunities. But they could not do it because of regulations-- regulations that throttled them. Just yesterday, I spoke about Anpaul Windows, a company whose employees--over half of them--were minorities. They were doing very well and the company needed to expand, but they had to leave the oppressive regulatory environment of the urban center for the green fields of suburbia because there were no contaminants in the green fields of suburbia. You could build a new factory there, and everything was in accordance with the way the factories were supposed to be, and you did not have to worry about the historic old buildings, or the prohibition about whether or not you could make a 8-foot door or a 10- foot door because of the historic designation of the factory. What happened was the Anpaul Window Co. left the city of St. Louis, which left the city that much emptier. They are doing well. It is in Washington, MO, not Washington, DC. But it is 50 or 60 miles away from the people who need the jobs the most. They went to a new green field, but they did so because the regulatory framework really militates against jobs, industry, and development in the heart of our cities. All of those old factories and all of those old plants do not comply with all the new regulations. Lots of times, there is just a little narrowness in the door, or maybe a taint of some substance in the flooring. And the EPA comes in and says, well, grind over the floor and see if you can get the taint out, and if it does not come off, there may not be something that can be done to change it. So what we have effectively done with our regulatory framework has been to impose the tremendous cost upon the citizens of our cities. It is a cost that not only they have to pay--higher costs for goods because our things are manufactured in plants that comply with regulations--it is an opportunity cost, because the city centers do not have the opportunities for employment. They do not have the opportunities for industrial development. Those individuals do not share in the opportunities of our culture. They are not worried so much about the lead poisoning from paint, they are worried about the lead poisoning from a .38. These are real challenges that we ought to face. Let me tell you about the printing concern in Kansas City. The president has a publishing business which has grown over the past few years; it now employs 85 people. While business is doing well, the president wants to expand the business, but there is a problem. He could expand into more parts of the building in the downtown area, [[Page S 10228]] in the urban center. He wanted to move into different parts of the building, but regulations prevent such expansion. The printing company has no environmental problems. But the landlord of the building where the business is located has had a problem with trace elements of PCB's in the floor material in parts of the building. Tests have shown there are no elements of PCB's in the air. They are somehow in the material of the floor of the building. Now, the president would probably like to expand to these other floors of the building if he could be assured that there would be no liability. As it now stands, the EPA may condemn the whole building altogether. It would cost the company about $500,000 to move and to take all these jobs out of the city. And it looks like that is what they are going to have to do. The landlord has spent over $250,000 so far in legal fees, and another $100,000 trying to grind down the floors to see if he could get through all the PCB's. I suppose he probably released more PCB's into the atmosphere than could have ever happened otherwise. The EPA, in other parts of the country, has allowed for a covering of the floor to take care of situations like this. But the EPA cannot seem to make a decision in this Kansas City concern. Here we stand to lose 85 downtown urban center jobs--the price of regulation--saying we cannot allow you to expand in this building for technical reasons that are not uniformly applied across the country. I repeat, there have been situations where these kinds of things have been taken care of. But as it now stands, EPA's inaction has again stalled the economic progress and job growth where it was most sorely needed. If this situation is not resolved, ultimately the printing company will have to move out of the city altogether. I just want to say that these are real people. These are real situations. We have children dying in drive-by shootings, we have individuals who cannot get jobs, we have despair, bad health, we have the lack of security, the lack of safety that comes with a hollow core of the inner cities of America, in part because we have had a regulatory red line around the inner cities, which have basically said you cannot develop in here because this stuff is old. These buildings were used in previous settings where we did not have the environmental requirements that we have now, and because they were used in those previous settings, they are full of liabilities for business. They are full of liabilities for industry. They are full of liabilities for producers. As a result, if you want to be an industry, you want to be in business, you want to be a producer, you cannot be here, but have to go to suburbia, in the green fields, and we find ourselves hollowing out our cities. We find young people in despair turning to all kinds of things. Under the guise of regulations that would abate noise, for instance, we get the noise of crack cocaine. We hear the slam of the slammer door. We hear the shot of the pistol. We hear the wail of the family in the wake of the ambulance that carries away the individual who has been wounded or killed. It is time to recognize that this economics redlining of the inner city that results from hyperregulation is costing us our ability to deliver jobs. Make no mistake about it, make no mistake about it, we all want to have a healthier environment. But you cannot tell somebody who has a 1 in 25 chance of being shot as an unemployed person on the street in one of the urban cores, you cannot tell someone that you are keeping the jobs out of there because there is a 1 in 1 million chance they might have some respiratory problem as a result of some kind of atmospheric nonattainment. We have to weigh the real impacts of what we are seeing happen here. The real impact of regulations in many urban centers is a redlining against developments, a redlining against industry. It is a redlining against opportunity. When we take development opportunities and industry out of the communities, we have joblessness, lawlessness, hopelessness. Those are conditions that are far greater threats to the safety, security and general well-being of the population than many of the things we have sought to regulate. What is the answer? How can we address this problem? What is it that we ought to do? I am suggesting in the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act that we should allow mayors of urban areas to convene economic development commissions that could make application for the waiver of specific Federal regulations when those regulations preclude jobs and development, when they preclude opportunities, when they result in the hopelessness, despair, and danger in the inner city, when they really result in a lower standard of longevity, a lower standard of health, a lower standard of safety, a lower standard of security. When the impact of regulation has an inverse consequence--instead of promoting health, security and safety, it results in the absence of jobs and opportunities in the core of our inner cities and destroys the potential for health, security and safety--the economic development commissions of these areas ought simply to be able to make application to the Federal agencies and say to those Federal agencies, we ask for a waiver, because the imposition of the requirement in our community has the anomalous effect, has the opposite effect, of what it should have. It is causing our children to be shot. It is causing our children to drop out of school when they see no opportunity. We need to waive some of these regulations when the waiver would, in fact, elevate the health, the safety, and the employment opportunities, when the waiver would help people live longer and more productive lives than the imposition. So the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act which I have proposed would simply be a way of saying it is time to make good on what our intention is. If our intention in regulation is to improve the health, safety, security, and general well-being of individuals in our urban centers where the impact of regulation has frequently been the opposite, we need to say ``Let's give those urban centers the chance, through economic development commissions, to make application to have those regulatory provisions waived.'' I think we all understand that we do not want to have the potential for the waiver of regulatory protections just willy-nilly. If regulations are decent or good or important, we do not want to waive them lightly. I think it is important to note if you had those kind of economic development commissions that the law provides for, and you have the kind of public notice that the law provides for, that the people who represent the affected population would only submit such applications for waiver when they were convinced that as a result of the waiver there would be an elevation of the life expectancy, an elevation of the health and safety, an elevation of the security, the quality of life of the individuals. Finally, this application, which under the proposed enactment would go to the Office of Management and Budget and then be referred to the various agencies, would be finally acted on by the agency. If the agency concluded, in spite of the application, that there was a substantial danger to the health and safety of the occupants, it could persist in denying relief. It could say no to the waiver. It would give authority for the EPA or other areas of regulation to say, ``The impact of our regulation in that community is hurting people, not helping. The impact of our regulation is shortening people's lives. It is decreasing their health, not expanding their health. It is causing hopelessness and despair. It is causing young people to drop out of school because they see no opportunity.'' Yes, we ought to, in this circumstance, waive these technical requirements and, as a result, bring real benefit to the citizens of that particular area. I believe this is a real opportunity. We have discriminated dramatically against urban residents with regulation. Regulations, invariably, are designed to make things that were done in the past illegal, to make things that happened in a previous way of doing business inappropriate. We regulate to say you cannot do things that way anymore. There are some good reasons for that. But the institutions that worked on these things in the past are in the midst of our great cities. We have basically said you cannot work there anymore. We are reaping the harvest. We are reaping the [[Page S 10229]] harvest because 40 percent of all adult men in our distressed inner cities did not work in a year that was studied recently, while a significant number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all the residents of the distressed neighborhoods in our big cities live below the federally defined poverty threshold. In 1993, that was $14,763 for a family of four. The reason for that is, in part, we have said to businesses, we have a regulatory framework that really provides incentives for you to get out of here, for you to go to that green field in suburbia, go to a new place, leave the city alone. We provided incentives. We have not done it purposely. We have not done it knowingly. But we have provided real incentives for people to leave the urban centers of America. And, when we leave them empty we leave the people there empty. We leave them in peril. We leave them in distress. We leave them in despair. And ultimately we leave some of them in a situation from which they can never escape. There are those who say, ``Well, you don't want to have a standard for safety or an environment that is lower in the city than it is in some other area. There has to be environmental justice.'' I believe in environmental justice. I believe everyone should have an equal chance at the good life that we want to enjoy. But I believe that when our requirements are shortening the lives of individuals instead of extending them, when our requirements are pulling the rug out from under the health of our population, we ought to think carefully about whether or not they are having the right effect. I do not have the studies in my hand right now, but I think virtually all of us in this Chamber understand that when we have looked at health statistics people who are employed tend to be healthier than people who are unemployed, and people who are employed tend to be safer than people who are unemployed. There is very little that is more dangerous in an employment setting in this country than there is to be standing unemployed on the street corners of some of our urban centers. I believe we ought to look hard at the way in which regulation has drawn a red line around the core of America's cities, the way regulation has basically said, ``Do not invest here. Do not produce here. Do not do business here. You cannot get a job here.'' I think we ought to say to ourselves, let us allow these cities to make an evaluation. When they come to a conclusion that the general well-being of the people--when they come to the conclusion that the health and safety of the inner-city residents--would be benefited by a waiver, let us let them apply. And let us give the agency the authority to grant that waiver application, so we can bring jobs and opportunity and hope back to the center of our cities. I believe one of the next items which we will be moving toward in the debate here in the U.S. Senate will be an item which is referred to as welfare reform. We desperately need welfare reform. But, frankly, as much as we need welfare reform we need opportunity for individuals, because we are going to ask people to go to work and we are going to expect them to go to work. But how can we ask people in our inner cities to go to work, how can we expect them to go to work, if we continue to develop a regulatory framework which redlines the inner city and says there cannot be jobs here, there cannot be opportunity here? Mr. President, I believe it is time for us to grant relief to the urban centers, to give them a level playing field, to give them a chance to attract business and industry that is consistent with the health and safety, the longevity, and the security of the residents of that area. Our regulatory framework has not served them well. They have paid the higher prices that we have all talked about in the last few weeks, talking about regulation here in this Chamber. But they have also paid a tremendously higher price than just the increased cost of goods that come from regulation. They have paid the price of joblessness and they have paid the price of hopelessness. They have paid the price of looking into the eyes of their young people who have no ambition because they cannot see an opportunity in their neighborhood. That is a substantially greater price than the $600 billion a year that it is estimated that regulation costs us in America. Oh, yes, they have paid their share of the $600 billion. But the opportunity costs--in the very heart of American urban centers has been a tremendous opportunity cost, and it is one which we can ill- afford to ignore. So I rise this evening in the midst of the debate on regulatory reform to say we must recognize the unique circumstances of American cities. We must give these neighborhoods at the core of America, the mature cities of America, the opportunity to have relief when, as a matter of fact, the imposition of regulations now achieves a purpose absolutely contrary to the purpose for which the law was enacted which provided for regulations. It shortens lives, impairs safety, ruins health, and destroys opportunity. It is time for the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act, and I hope we have an opportunity to include that in our dealings with regulatory relief during our deliberations this week. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for as long as I need to speak on the proposal for urban regulatory relief zones in morning business.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. It is a pleasure to rise today to discuss with you an opportunity to provide relief from many of the threats to the safety, security, and well-being of those individuals who populate our urban centers. Our cities today, especially our inner cities, have become areas of hopelessness and decay and despair. Consider these facts: America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, an aggravated assault every 30 seconds. In a survey of first and second graders in Washington, DC, the Nation's capital, 31 percent reported having witnessed a shooting; 39 percent said they had seen dead bodies; 40 percent of low-income parents worry a lot about their children being shot, compared to 10 percent of all parents who worry about their children being shot; 1 out of every 24 black males in this Nation, 1 out of every 24 black males in America, will have his life ended by a homicide. A report in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is less likely to live until the age of 40 than a young man in Bangladesh, perhaps the poorest country on Earth. The roots of these pathologies are various. They are at least partly cultural, partly economic, and partly social. These challenges, these problems, are about values. They are about knowing right from wrong. But they also have something to do with hope and meaning. For too many of our inner city residents today, hope and meaning and opportunity, are unknown words of uncertain origins. Many people are born, live, and die without ever knowing what it is like to have a job, to feed a family, and to fulfill their dreams. In a number of the high schools in central cities, for example, the dropout rate rises as high as 80 percent. In 1990, 81 percent of young high school dropouts living in distressed urban areas were unemployed. In that same year, more than 40 percent of all adult men in the distressed inner cities of America did not work, while a significant number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all residents of distressed neighborhoods live below the federally defined poverty threshold. In 1993, that was $14,763 for a family of four. Why do we have these problems in our inner cities? Well, as I have indicated, there are a variety of reasons. But I submit that one of the significant reasons for all of these facts is what I would call a regulatory redlining of our urban centers, a series of pervasive regulations promulgated by a variety of agencies that have literally driven jobs from the center of America's urban environments. As a matter of fact, the older the site is, the longer there has been industry, the longer there has been manufacturing, and the longer there has been industrial activity, the less likely the site is to qualify with and escape from the kind of onerous regulations which drive away jobs in those settings. As well meaning as many regulations may have been, the reality is that they have been incredibly destructive of opportunity in our inner cities. Now, there is a great debate about regulation and the regulatory burden in America. But the people who live in our inner cities bear not only their portion of the $600 billion in regulatory costs that are built into our products, they also experience and sustain a cost of regulation which is substantially higher in many circumstances. It is a cost of lost opportunity. It is a cost of poor health. It is a cost of the lack of personal security and safety. It is truly a major challenge. This last year, I had the opportunity to spend days during the year working in different settings around the country. I was delighted to work in one manufacturing concern in the city of St. Louis. It was called the Anpaul Window Co. They make windows for home construction, for remodeling as well as new construction. It is a thriving business, about 40 employees, one of those small business Horatio Alger stories that inspire us all. I noted when I went to spend my day there making windows with its work force, that well over half the employees are minorities. It was a good work force, very productive. The business was thriving. As a matter of fact, it was growing. And it became clear that the success of the business was going to be a part of its downfall, because they needed to expand. And they could not expand on their site in St. Louis because of regulations. There were four EPA test wells around the facility, and the owner said he would not take that facility on a bet. He simply could not expand on that site. So in order to expand--and I should also mention that the building had been designated as historic and the doorways were not wide enough-- the owner of the business had to move from the city, in the urban center of St. Louis, where the challenges are strong and the pathologies are very pervasive, where we have all the problems that attend the urban core of America's cities. And in order to grow and in order to be what they wanted the business to be, they had to move the business to a suburban setting 50 miles from St. Louis. I thought to myself, here is the Federal Government, which should be finding a way for the people in the very heart of our cities, who have families in need of the income and support, who have young minds that need the example of working parents, who have the potential but do not have the productivity, actually working against economic stability. And I thought the reason we do not have the productivity is too frequently the onerous rules and regulations that have finally accumulated at the core of our urban centers. Regulations that were designed to promote health and safety and well-being, have redlined development out of our urban centers and have sent development and jobs packing to the green fields of suburbia. They have left an empty, hollow core in the urban centers of America and have defined a circumstance where 1 in 24 black males will probably be shot at some time during his life, according to the statistics we read. I thought to myself, these are well-intentioned regulations, the regulations about cleanup and the fact that you should be able to eat the dirt in order to avoid being poisoned by contamination. But the truth of the matter is that the regulations in these older parts of Missouri's cities and of America's cities drive development out of the place where we need development most. They do so with very interesting and laudable concerns about the environment and about health and safety. But, frankly, the statistics tell us that the individuals who are poor and inhabitants of our urban centers have a lot more to worry about in lead poisoning from a .38 than they do from other contaminating sources. And the truth of the matter is we have to find a way to bring jobs back into our cities. The risks associated with unemployment are very substantial, they are much greater than the risks associated with a door that may be 36 instead of 38 inches wide, or do not comply with a particular statute. The risk of being shot in a drive-by shooting is much more pressing and demanding and challenging than the risk of being contaminated by dirt beneath the parking lot, especially dirt which was contaminated in some previous industrial experiment. Under the guise of noise abatement, we have merely exchanged the sounds of productivity for the sounds of silent factories. The crack of cocaine has been the sound of productivity in our cities' centers. The wail of a family in the wake of a siren, the echoing clang [[Page S 10129]] of a cell door--those are the sounds that have abated the noise of factories, and I think we need to look carefully at what the comparative risks are in these cases. We literally have a substantial group of people in this country at the core of our urban centers and in our cities, whose opportunities have been diminished, whose safety has been impaired, whose health has been undermined, whose security has been threatened, and whose longevity has been shortened because of well-meaning but misapplied regulations. Our challenge is to find a way to make our urban centers places where people can thrive again. But inappropriate, or excessive regulation, without understanding the real risks that exist in the center of our cities, make that a very serious challenge. That is why I am going to be proposing an amendment to this Regulatory Reform Act which I will entitle ``The Urban Regulatory Relief Zone'' amendment. This amendment will provide an opportunity for the mayor of a city, any city over 200,000, to appoint an Economic Development Commission. This commission would have the chance to assess regulations which impair the health, safety, and well-being of the citizens by keeping jobs out of the zone; and to weigh whether or not abatement and waiver of those regulations could give rise to an influx of opportunity which would provide an improvement in the health, an improvement in the security, an improvement in the education, and an improvement in the longevity of the individuals in that zone. I very seriously hope that these commissions of economic development would have a view toward mobilizing the resources, not just as it relates to the Federal Government and Federal regulations, but as they would relate to State and local regulations as well. It is time for us to understand that regulations, sometimes misapplied, have effectively redlined development out of our inner cities and subjected our inner-city population to a set of risks that are far greater than the risks which the regulations sought to abate. It is time to empower cities to apply for such waivers. It is time to say to the cities, ``We will let you help make a decision here about what the real well-being of your citizenry is.'' Then the commission would send that waiver application to the Federal Government and ask that the approval from an appropriate agency be made in order to protect the city from further harm. In my judgment, this is a chance for us to change the way in which regulation has literally created a crisis, or participated in the creation of a crisis, at the center of American cities. We can no longer afford regulations which redline American cities away from development. We have to give cities a chance to say to individuals: ``You can come in here, you don't have to be responsible for all the past sins of prior incarnations of industry here; you don't have to make sure the dirt under your parking lot could be eaten by an individual for his or her entire 70 years of existence. We want to have you here because we know that an employed person is safer than an unemployed person; an employed person, the statistics tell us, is healthier than an unemployed person; that employed people are far less likely to be killed in drive-by shootings than unemployed individuals; that where there is economic vitality and industry, there is a far greater chance that the young people will persist in their education, avoiding the dropout situation; and that we will upgrade what happens in our very inner cities.'' I believe that it is time for us to look at those regulatory concerns as it relates to the well-being of the individuals in the areas in which those regulations are imposed. Where there are impositions of regulations which actually undermine the safety, undermine the security, undermine the employability of individuals, where the imposition of a regulation does not enhance safety or security or health or well-being or longevity, it should be an option that the Economic Development Commission of that particular urban center could submit an application to the Federal Government and say, ``Why don't we abate this particular requirement, because in so doing, it will elevate the opportunity of our citizens to be productive, to be healthy, to be secure and safe, to be examples in their community for the kind of industry and productivity which will inspire young people to stay in school and inspire individuals to have hope and to understand the meaning which can change the destiny of the inner cities of America.'' Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to submitting the urban regulatory relief zone amendment to this legislation in the hours ahead, and I hope that we will have the good judgment to share with the people of the United States the opportunity to make sound decisions about improving the standing of those who are at peril in our inner cities, the core of our largest urban centers. And I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity and for longevity. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I am pleased to honor a woman who has distinguished herself in her lifetime. Frances Wilhelmine Godejohn will celebrate her 100th birthday on July 26. Born and raised in St. Louis, MO, she comes from a colorful heritage and represents a wonderful example of someone who worked long and hard to support herself, living a life of honesty and probity. She is a devout Christian. Frances Wilhelmine Godejohn was born in St. Louis, MO, on July 26, 1895. Her father, William Mathias Godejohn, was born in Washington, MO, in 1859. Prior to settling in St. Louis, he worked on a railroad construction project in New Mexico where he was shot by Indians, visited Yellowstone before it became a national park, and homesteaded in Montana. Her mother, Mary Elise Dallmeyer, was born in Gasconade County, MO. Both William and Mary's fathers were born in Germany. Frances Godejohn completed the eighth grade in 1909, then went to Rubicam Business School, where she graduated in 1911. She began a career as a legal secretary that lasted until her retirement in 1972. Primarily, she worked for William H. Allen, first when he was an attorney, then when he served as a judge on the St. Louis Court of Appeals from 1915 to 1927, then again when he was a lawyer until his death in 1952. Frances Godejohn worked in the corporate headquarters for Pevely Dairy from 1952 to 1960, when she formally retired. Not content in retirement, she resumed work as a legal secretary, first for David Campbell, until he died, and then for Edmund Albrecht. She finally retired in 1972, after breaking her leg while getting off the bus on her way to work. Still spry and alert, Frances Godejohn regularly attends the Presbyterian Church, reads, follows the St. Louis Cardinals, corresponds with her many relatives and is a source of inspiration to all who know her.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I am proud to honor a man who has distinguished himself in business, as a civic leader, a caring neighbor, and a friend to those in need. Mr. Paul H. Henson will soon be awarded the International Humanitarian Award by the CARE Foundation at its 50th Anniversary International Humanitarian Award dinner. Mr. Henson was nominated for the award for his sustained support of humanitarian causes, for his community foresight, and for his business ingenuity. It is with much pleasure that I add my voice to the scores of others praising Mr. Henson for his efforts to aid the world's poor and help them achieve social and economic well-being. Mr. Henson began his successful career in the telecommunications industry as a groundman for the Lincoln Telephone Co., in his native State of Nebraska. After attaining the position of chief engineer, Mr. Henson moved to United Telecom--now Sprint--in Kansas City. In 1964, at the age of 38, he became president of United and began to implement an aggressive leadership and expansion strategy to transform the predominantly rural telephone company into an international communications force. Henson presided over the construction of the first--and still the only--nationwide 100 percent digital, fiber-optic network and made it the centerpiece of the company's long-distance strategy. After his leadership of Sprint for 25 years, the company now claims over 6 million local telephone customers, 97 percent of which are digitally switched. Mr. Henson currently serves as chairman of the board and chairman of the executive committee of Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. He has also formed Kansas City Equity Partners, L.C., a venture capital fund dedicated to providing seed capital and management assistance for entrepreneurial activities. Paul H. Henson's distinguished business career and his reinvestment in the community through support of the humanitarian initiatives championed by the CARE Foundation have rightly earned him the distinction of being awarded the Foundation's International Humanitarian Award.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak in the following order for the allotted times: Senator Wellstone, 10 minutes; Senator Moseley- Braun for 10 minutes; Senator Ashcroft for 10 minutes; Senator Byrd for 10 minutes. I further ask that following the conclusion of Senator Byrd's statement, the majority leader be recognized to speak and then proceed to various wrap-up items that have been cleared by the two leaders. Following those items, the Senate would stand in adjournment under the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 20.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.