Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to address this assembly today. We live in a time of great progress; a time when technology is growing exponentially. Just a few years ago, it would take an ordinary citizen days to send a document from Utah to Washington; today, thanks to the fax machine and cyberspace, it takes a matter of seconds. Not that long ago, in order to speak with constituents face to face, we would have no choice but to travel back to our States; now, due to satellite technology, we can participate in electronic town meetings and interact with voters 2,500 miles away. Technology also necessitates changes in society in order to deep up and reach maximum efficiency. For example, often when using the telephone today, you might run across an automated directory. If you are using a digital phone, there is no problem; you can conduct your business easily. If, however, you are using an analog line, you [[Page S 14204]] might meet with some difficulty in concluding your affairs. So it is with Federal regulations. We find the need in today's world to guard society from potential abuses through the process of regulation. However, technology can make existing regulations obsolete, or at least uneconomical to enforce. As the world changes around us, we must be willing and able to adapt. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, or EFTA, to which I am proposing changes today, regulates the use of debit cards and other so-called access devices to initiate electronic transfers to or from a consumer's deposit or other asset account. The EFTA imposes significant burdens on financial institutions that hold such accounts. For example, financial institutions must provide extensive disclosures to consumers before initial electronic fund transfers involving the account are made; they must provide periodic statements to consumers each month which detail every transfer made to or from an account; and they must provide receipts at electronic terminals for electronic fund transfers made by consumers. The EFTA is an important act, but one that requires change due to technological advancements. Therefore, I propose that we amend the EFTA to reflect the progress of the industry. This bill, entitled ``Exemption for Stored Value Cards,'' modifies the definitions of ``accepted card or other means of access'' and ``account'' to clarify that the regulatory burdens imposed under the EFTA do not apply to so- called stored value cards. A stored value card is a card which can be used to pay for transactions by use of value which is stored on the card itself. Good examples of stored value cards include the Washington, DC metro fare-cards or cards which contain value that can be used at such devices as vending machines, parking meters, or bridge toll booths. When a stored value or prepaid card is used to pay for a transaction with value stored on the card itself, it does not access the consumer's account and typically does not utilize the systems which are used by financial institutions to generate receipt information, and other information needed to comply with the EFTA. As a result, it would be inappropriate to apply all of the EFTA regulatory requirements to such stored value cards. It is intended, however, that the EFTA would apply to such a card when the card is used to access the consumer's deposit, savings, or similar asset account to load value onto the card for use at such vending and other machines. In addition, application of the EFTA regulatory and procedural burdens to stored value cards would significantly impede the development of stored value programs, and in some instances may entirely preclude the development of such programs. Stored value card programs typically involve frequent, small dollar transactions with unsophisticated vending machines, parking meters, and similar equipment. Given the small dollar amount of these transactions, stored value card programs must be operated at a very low cost in order to be cost efficient for merchants, consumers, and card issuers alike. Applying the requirements of the EFTA to stored value card programs would significantly raise the cost of operating such programs and, in some instances, would make such programs economically unfeasible. This amendment also clarifies that the EFTA would not apply to value stored on other devices such as computers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will consider and complete action on several items on Friday. At 9:30, the Senate will begin consideration of the MilCon appropriations conference report under a short agreement. Senators can expect a rollcall vote on that conference report possibly before 10:30 tomorrow. The Senate will also complete action on the legislative appropriations conference report on Friday. The Senate will also consider the D.C. appropriations bill. Senators can therefore expect rollcall votes throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Pell.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 22, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of the military construction appropriations conference report as under the previous order.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 1882, S. 619.

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be adopted, the bill then be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers the conference report to accompany H.R. 1854, the legislative appropriations bill, that it be considered under the following time agreement: 30 minutes to be equally divided between Senators Mack and Murray; and 10 minutes under the control of Senator Simon. I further ask that, following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. on Friday the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1817, the military construction appropriations bill, and it be considered under the following time agreement: 20 minutes equally divided between Senators Burns and Reid, or their designee; 10 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman; and, 20 minutes under the control of Senator McCain. I further ask that, following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, immediately following the disposition of the military construction appropriations conference report on Friday, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 188, S. 1244, the District of Columbia appropriations bill.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, my remarks will be brief. I could rise to talk about the MPP program. But that is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about excluding an industry from participation in this program simply because of a group that doesn't like mink, more specifically, mink coats--95 percent of which are exported. The Senate voted yesterday to support the MPP program. The Senate has spoken. Why are we talking about fur? Why not grapes, cotton, raisins, wheat, or wine? The Kerry amendment does not reduce spending for the MPP; it just prohibits funding for mink production. This amendment saves no money. Mr. President, that is the bottom line. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I wish to bring to the attention of the chairman a matter that, while it may appear small, is of great importance to the Utah Navajo population. The Navajo area includes 6 hospitals and 18 outpatient facilities. Unfortunately, none of these facilities are currently located in Utah. In fact, the only IHS facility in the entire State of Utah is an outpatient facility at Fort Duchensne which is located over 350 miles away. The need for an IHS clinic located in Montezuma Creek is clearly justifiable. It is the population center for the eastern portion of the Utah Navajo. Approximately 6,000 Navajo live in southeastern Utah and unfortunately, their health care needs are greatly underserved. In an effort to begin the process of replacing the dilapidated facility, I request that $30,000 be made available to IHS for the preliminary study and design of a satellite clinic located in Montezuma Creek.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman and I would urge IHS to work closely with the State of Utah and the Navajo Nation to utilize these funds in the appropriate manner this fiscal year. This is a small amount, but it is certainly the right first step in resolving the longstanding problems of adequate health care delivery in southeastern Utah. Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill and his efforts to help resolve this issue. the United States holocaust memorial council

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I simply want to pay tribute to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, for the expert and patient way in which he has dealt with this issue. It is my belief the amendment that is going to be offered by the Senator from Vermont is a salutary one. It is one I support and intend to vote for. It is my understanding that it enjoys wide support in the body and will, in all probability, be agreed to. I want to repeat my own commitment to some kind of national presence with respect to the arts. Senator Hutchison and I have introduced a bill that would create a single endowment, combining the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, in an effort to get more efficiency out of the overhead money connected with these efforts. But I believe, for the same reasons the Senator from Wyoming has outlined, that cutting off all significant national presence in this area would be a mistake, and it would hit most heavily, ironically, in the more rural areas. In the State of Utah we have a long history of commitment to the arts and involvement with the arts. It goes all the way back to Brigham Young, the first Governor of the Territory of Utah, who, in their days of poverty, led the original settlers of Utah to build a theater and to recognize the importance of the arts that early in their lives. That is a tradition I am proud of and that I want to perpetuate here. I simply want to make the point that Federal arts funding is not sufficient to sustain any of the groups that depend upon it. They all require much more private funding than they get from the Federal Government. The thing the Federal funding does is give, if you will, a ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'' to the fundraising efforts of the locals, who are trying to support arts in the community. Particularly in rural areas, which abound in my State, there would be a devastating effect on the fundraising efforts of local people if the imprimatur that comes from the NEA were to disappear. For that reason I intend to vote for this amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I want to join in congratulating the chairman of the Banking Committee for the way in which he handled this issue. He was courteous enough to talk with me about it some days--even weeks--ago. We have been negotiating back and forth on this as to what we thought would be the best way to do this. The way he has ultimately decided to do this, I think, demonstrates his willingness to be open to suggestion--his willingness to accept changes that are suggested. I not only congratulate him on this amendment, I look forward to hearings on this issue before the Banking Committee, because we recognize that this particular amendment will run out after one fiscal year. And we probably need to have hearings to discuss the underlying issue. Is $1 billion the right number for the long term? Should it be 5, 10, 2, or 6? Is 6 months the right number of months? I think for the time limit, set in this amendment, the Senator has made the right choice. I encourage him to look for a long-term solution to this issue and to schedule hearings. I look forward to participating in those.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. In concept, I have no problem at all with the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. Having been in business, however, I have discovered that there are profits and there are profits. I remember in the Los Angeles Olympics, I was living in Los Angeles at the time. There were divergences of as much as $100 million as to the amount of profit made by that Olympic games, depending on who was doing the accounting. His amendment does not specify how that is going to work or where we are going to determine the profit or what is going to be charged or what is not. All of that is going to have to be worked out. Second, the same issue applies to the question of costs, the costs to the Department of Defense. Again, having been a businessman, I know there are differences between costs and costs. I am told by the Defense Department that they look forward to this opportunity because it gives them a training opportunity for troops that will train in a real-life situation. Where would the money be spent if it was not spent while they were at the Olympics? I was interested in an amendment that says incremental costs only that spells out the kind of problems. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona, in my opinion, is flawed.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I may be allowed a moment or two to speak personally, I would like to refer to events that took place in the Senate yesterday and tie them back to my campaign, which is fast fading into memory, but some portions of which are pretty firmly etched in my memory as I am sure is the case with everyone here. During the campaign, one of the issues that was raised continually by my constituents was the issue of term limits, because they said they had the feeling that the system was so unresponsive back here in Washington that something had to be done structurally to shake it up. Knowing a little bit about the Senate and the way it worked, I suggested to some of my constituents that while we debated the overall issue of term limits, which probably will require a constitutional amendment, there was something else that could be done quickly without a constitutional amendment that could change the character and perhaps free up the way things are done in the Senate. Specifically, I suggested to my constituents that it would be a good thing if we limited the terms of committee chairs in this body so that someone who assumed a committee chair would not assume the posture of divine right in that circumstance and then stay there forever and ever, dispensing whatever favors or power goes along with that assignment. My constituents liked that and indeed many of them said to me as they came to me in the closing days of the campaign, ``We are going to vote for you but we want your personal pledge when you get there you really will work for significant change in the way business is done.'' Of course, as you do in a political campaign, when somebody says that to you, you say, ``Why, of course you have my pledge that I really will work to see that that is done.'' When I arrived here in January of 1993 and suggested term limits for committee chairs, I found a very interesting circumstance. Among my fellow freshmen Senators, one of whom is on the floor here today, there was great sympathy, there was great agreement: Yes, we need to limit term limits, if you will, the time of committee chairs. Among the freshmen Republicans, we had unanimity on that issue. But there were only six of us. And we were told when you have been here a little longer, when you understand how the system works a little better, you will not be quite so zealous to call for the term limits of committee chairs. Well, when I went back home, I found myself hoping people did not ask me, ``What have you done to carry out your campaign pledge to see to it that there would be some structural reform in the way the Senate does its business?'' When I did get asked, I would say, ``I am trying.'' And then when they pressed for details, I would say, ``Well, I am in concert with all my fellow freshmen''--the Republican six, as we became finally, with the addition of Kay Bailey Hutchison--``We are working hard.'' And my constituents would begin to get that look on their face that says, ``Yeah, we heard that before. You're going to try to do something but, in fact, nothing is really going to change, and the longer you are back there, the more you are going to become part of the system and everything is going to stay the way it's always been.'' There was another election that took place. The distinguished occupant of the chair was part of that, and instead of 6 Republican freshmen, all of a sudden we had 11 Republican freshmen. And added to the 6, that gave us 17, which constituted a sufficient block of the Republican conference that all of a sudden we were being listened to in ways we had not been when there were just 6 of us. Mr. President, as you well know, yesterday the Republicans had a marathon session talking about the way things should be structured in the Republican conference. And out of that session came an action which I applaud wholly; that is, the Republicans have agreed to term limit the chairmanship of a Senate standing committee. I wish we could amend the rules of the Senate itself so that it was written into the Senate rules and had the protection of the two-thirds requirement so that it could not be altered, except by a subsequent vote of 67 Senators. I do not think we can do that. I do not think the votes are on the floor to do that. But I can now, with a clear conscience and a smile on my face, say to my constituents: ``I may not have been able to work successfully to change the rules of the Senate, but I have joined with my colleagues in an effort, successfully, to term limit chairmen, at least those who are Republicans.'' If I may be allowed a slightly partisan note, Mr. President, I hope that will be the case for many years to come; that is, that all of the chairs of all of the committees will be Republicans for at least as long as I serve in the body. In that case, our failure to change the Senate rules will not make any difference. I think the Republican conference needs to be congratulated for taking this step. It demonstrates a willingness to allow those of us who are newcomers more of an opportunity to hold positions of responsibility perhaps sooner than would otherwise be the case. It allows for fresh ideas and fresh approaches to come into the system more openly than would have been the case if we had stayed with the old rule. There is still much that I would like to do in the name of congressional reform. If I could sit down and write the rules all by myself, I would change a lot of the rules around here, and I have introduced a bill to do that. At the moment, it has only attracted a single cosponsor. That is one of my fellow freshmen. Maybe I could work to get another 10 names or so on it, but I recognize the reality of this place. It is going to take a little more time and maybe, Mr. President, another election or two before we start some of the fundamental restructuring of the Senate rules that I would like to see happen. But I am delighted that we have not waited for those elections to take place and for that time to come. In the Republican conference, we have moved with dispatch and, I may say, a large majority. I do not want to leave the impression that the decision to term limit committee chairs was a close one and that those of us who are freshmen or sophomores had a difficult time winning a very narrow victory. As we made our case, our more senior brethren, and on occasion sister or two, decided we were right and the vote was not close. The vote was 38 to 15 saying we will, in fact, recognize the call that is out there among the American people to bring the procedures in this body up to date with modern approaches and opening it up so that those who do not want to make a full-time career out of service in the Senate but simply come here for a term or two, will, in fact, still have the opportunity to receive leadership assignments and represent their constituents in that circumstance. When people talk to me about the overall issue of term limits, I tell them in my case, you do not have to worry about it. At my age, term limits are built in. Some say to me, ``Well, look at the senior Senator from South Carolina. Maybe you will be here 20 or 30 years.'' If that is the case, I will be in my nineties, and I think I would rather do something else than serve in the Senate at that age. So, Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Senate in allowing me to make this comment, allowing me, if you will, to crow a little to my constituents back home over the fact that we have taken this first step that I did pledge to work toward while I was in the election, and express my satisfaction and gratitude to my fellow members of the Republican conference for this decision. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. First, let me commend my friend from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. I was unaware that the Senate did not yet issue a statement of the denunciation of these kinds of atrocities. I agree with him absolutely that it is time we did so. And I appreciate what he has done here today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are in an interesting time. I say that reminded me of the old Chinese curse, ``May you live in interesting times.'' I have been through this kind of time in my private life, and I would like to share with you some observations there, as I then addressed the question of what to do about the Office of Technology Assessment. I remember visiting with a CEO of a fairly large corporation, and he told me of a very difficult experience that he had just been through in his company. He said, ``I have just gone through the whole company, looked at everything, and ended up cutting back here, cutting back there, leaving a lot of blood on the floor, if you will, as I have had to clean up the company. And then I said to all of the employees who survived this exercise, this is it, this is as deep as we are going to cut, and you can all relax now because you have passed the test, and we have seen to it that everything that is excess, everything that is wasteful has been taken care of.'' Then, he said to me, ``I quietly in my own office went to my calendar, flipped the pages forward about 3 years, and wrote down, `Do it again,' because I realized no matter how zealous we were in trying to keep from getting duplication and creating redundant services and getting too fat, no matter how hard we worked at it, in about 3 years time in our company we would suddenly wake up and discover we had too many people doing the same thing, and I would have this same kind of circumstance again.'' We do not do that in the Federal Government. That is, we do not go 3 years ahead and write down, ``Do it again.'' Instead, once something gets started, it continues, regardless of whether or not it has outlived its usefulness.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. It is true I was in the middle of a statement when the regular order intervened and we had the vote. I do not have much more to say, but I was in the middle of making the point that every organization inevitably ends up growing more than it really needs to. There is an inertia--it is almost organic--in organizations that says we start this, which is a good thing, and it grows a little, and then we start another, which is a good thing, and it grows a little. And just like a plant, organizations need to be pruned back every once in a while. I have done it in my business. I know there are others here who have business experiences who have had to do this. As we address this OTA circumstance, it is my feeling that this is what we have here. OTA in my belief has been a good agency. It has done good work. I hear the Senators talk about its work, and I agree. If you look at just the OTA, you would come to the conclusion that it deserves to remain. At the same time, Mr. President, that OTA was doing its work, the Library of Congress was building a capacity to deal with technology issues. At the same time, the GAO was looking into many issues that were the same kinds of issues as OTA. And as we looked at this within the committee, I came to the conclusion that we have simply proliferated capacity in this area throughout the Government, that it is time to prune the bush. Now, I am sorry personally for those who are connected with OTA that they are the ones who have felt the pruning shears and that the function will be transferred, if we continue with the actions recommended by the subcommittee, to other agencies. This is always a wrench for the individuals involved, and they say, with some degree of fairness, ``Why me? I have done a good job. I have done what the Congress has asked me to do. I have produced a report that is of sound value. Why are you cutting back on me?'' Those of us who are in this position must look at the entire Government, not just one agency at a time. When we do that, we have to say to those who are feeling the effect of the pruning shears, if it were not you, it would have to be someone else because there is redundancy here. We have the responsibility in the overall budget circumstance to do as the CEO I was referring to in my beginning remarks, go through and clean out the duplication and sharpen up the organization. I realize this is not an exact analogy, but nonetheless it illustrates the point. I read a column recently where the columnist was talking about a television station that went off the air because of financial difficulties. They did not want to lose their license, so they said we in fact will keep broadcasting a signal while we work out our financial difficulties. They put on the air the picture of fish, tropical fish, and broadcast that 24 hours a day to keep their place. When they solved their problems financially, and they could go back to regular programming, they took the fish off the air and put on the regular programming. And what happened, Mr. President? They were deluged with phone calls complaining about the fact that they had canceled the fish. It seems that once something gets started, it develops a constituency regardless of whether or not there are other options. Now, I am not, as I say, suggesting in any way that the OTA is simply broadcasting of the fish, but they have developed a constituency that is appropriately calling for their preservation in an atmosphere when there are other facilities capable of doing this. So painful as it is, Mr. President, difficult as it is to explain to the individuals who are doing a good job, I have come to the conclusion that as a total Government we have the capacity elsewhere to do what we have been doing in the OTA. It has become redundant because of what we have funded in the Library of Congress and in the General Accounting Office, and I support the subcommittee's report that says this is the place we shall prune. I thank the Chair. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I want to take this occasion to commend the Senator from Louisiana for his leadership on this issue, and assure him that this is one Senator who agrees. I do not want it held as an issue. I want it as an accomplishment. I think we would all be better off if we went home and campaigned on our accomplishments than on our rhetoric and on our demagoguery on these issues. I know the Senator from Louisiana has labored long and hard on this issue. He has shown his usual patience. I served as a member of a committee which he chaired and discovered that patience in a variety of circumstances. I am grateful to him for his statement here today, and want to align myself with his plea, for whatever we will do on my side of the aisle, to say let us not hold this as an issue, let us do the very best we can to bring it to a head, get cloture and get this done. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the regulatory reform bill, S. 343, that has occupied the attention of the Senate throughout the day. I watched a good portion of the debate from my office, on television, and occasionally here on the floor. I have been interested in my senior colleague from Utah and his list of the top 10 horror stories of regulatory excess. I have been unable to gather as many as 10. My resources are perhaps not as good as my colleague's, but I want to add another to the horror stories of regulatory excess from the State of Utah, and perhaps spend a little more time on this one than the list that my senior colleague went through earlier. I am talking about a business called Rocky Mountain Fabrication, which is located in Salt Lake City, UT. It has been operating at a site in industrial north Salt Lake since the early 1980's. It needs to expand its operations to meet the demands of an improving economy. Rocky Mountain employs about 150 people. Its business is steel fabrication which requires the use of an outdoor yard. They have to lay out large pieces of steel that are then moved by heavy equipment. Negotiations between Rocky Mountain and EPA have been going on since 1990, nearly 5 years. They have cost the company $100,000 in legal fees and other fees connected with this fight. At the moment, a conclusion is no closer than it was when it started. There is no resolution in sight. Here are the facts. Rocky Mountain Fabrication acquired its 5-acre site in 1981 and developed approximately 3 acres of the site. At the time, all the land was dry. If you have been to Utah, you know that is the normal pattern of land in Utah. It is part of the great American desert. In 1983, we had unusual flooding in Utah. There was a combination of a bigger than normal snow pack, a late spring. It stayed in the mountains in snow, and then suddenly a very rapid drop; a rise in temperature, and immediate thawing of all the snow, and we had runoff. You may recall, Mr. President, and some others may recall, that we had literally a river running down the principal street of downtown Salt Lake with sandbags on either side to keep damage out of the business stores. That happened in 1983. If you are following the EPA, you know what is going to happen next. All of a sudden, this dry land on which Rocky Mountain Fabrication had been carrying on their business became a wetland because of the unusual nature of this spring runoff. It kept happening. In 1985-86, EPA began investigating the site. In 1990, they got serious with their investigation. Approximately 1.3 acres of Rocky Mountain's property was filled. Oh, you cannot do that. You cannot take steps [[Page S 9702]] to change the nature of your own property under Federal regulations. Rocky Mountain provided numerous proposals, technical studies, and other information to EPA to resolve this matter so that it can expand its business. These proposals included removing over half of the 1.3 acres filled together with mitigation in the form of a monetary donation to significant off-site projects around the Great Salt Lake, or enhancement of 30 to 50 acres of wetlands along the Great Salt Lake. All of these proposals have been rejected by the EPA. Instead, the agency has demanded that Rocky Mountain remove 2.9 acres from its 5- acre site, which would far exceed the amount filled in 1985-86, effectively rendering the property unusable and putting the company out of business at its present location. In response to Rocky Mountain's proposal to provide compensatory mitigation through a financial contribution to the $3.5 million offset wetland enhancement project contemplated by the Audubon Society around the Great Salt Lake, EPA officials verbally responded that any such proposal would require Rocky Mountain to contribute the entire $3.5 million cost of the project. Only that would be acceptable. Well, $3.5 million for 1.3 acres in industrial north Salt Lake? Boy, I would love to be the landlord that got that kind of a price for selling that sort of land. It is unbelievable. But this is the best EPA can do after costs of over $100,000 to the citizen who did nothing beyond working on his own land for 5 years. Mr. President, this is an example--we have had many of them here on this floor--of this kind of regulatory overkill. I believe in this bill. I intend to vote for this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. This bill will not get at the core of the problem. I hope it is a good first step towards the core of the problem, but it will not get at the core of the problem. The core of the problem, Mr. President, is this, as more and more regulators themselves are discovering: It has to do with the cultural attitude of a regulatory agency. I ran a business. I know how important culture is to a business. The most important culture you can establish in a business is this one: The customer comes first. We exist to serve the customer. Whatever the customer asks for, whatever the customer needs, we will do everything we can to provide it. If you can get that culture in the minds of your employees and maintain it by the way you run your business, you are almost certain to have a successful business. In a regulatory agency, the culture is: The customer is lying; or, The customer is cheating; or, The customer must have done something wrong or I would not be here in this agency. I have never dealt with a regulatory agency who came in with the notion: ``I am going to conduct an investigation, and I accept as one of the possibilities the possibility that you have not done anything wrong.'' No, that is not in the regulatory culture. If we could get that notion in the culture of regulatory agencies, that alone would take care of most of these horror stories, if the person doing the regulating were to say, ``OK, somebody is complaining. Someone has suggested there is something wrong here. But I am here to find out the facts. That is the culture of my regulatory agency, and I come in with the understanding that you may not have done anything wrong. I am here to find out the facts.'' I do not know how we pass legislation to change culture in an agency. I do not know how we accomplish this goal. But I do know that we do not get the goal accomplished if we do not start talking about it. So that is why I have decided to add to this horror story that particular conversation. I intend, Mr. President, whenever a regulatory agency comes before any subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee on which I sit to raise this issue with them. What is the culture in your agency? Is it a culture of let us go find the facts, or is it a culture of if I am here, there must be something wrong? Indeed, some agencies are afraid to come back from an investigation and say, ``There was nothing wrong,'' for fear the culture in the management of the agency will say, ``Well, if you could not find anything wrong with that circumstance, there must be something wrong with you as an investigator. Now go back and find something that you can fine them for. Find something you can attack them for.'' In that kind of a culture, of course, you get the sense of us versus them that seems to dominate the regulatory field in this country. So, Mr. President, as I say, I intend to vote for this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. I raise horror stories like the one that I have recited, but I think the long-term solution with which all of us must be concerned must be geared at changing the corporate culture, if you will, in regulatory agencies and getting people who are working for the Government to begin to understand that taxpayers must be treated like customers. There must be a presumption that the taxpayer, that the individual citizen, that the person being investigated may just be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. That possibility must be clearly in the minds of regulators when they go out. They must not be punished if they find that that is, indeed, the case. If they come back and say, ``We have conducted this investigation, and this company, this individual, we discovered has done nothing wrong,'' there must be no cultural opprobrium attached to that result on the part of the management of the regulatory agency. That is the most ephemeral kind of change, the most subtle kind of change, the one most difficult to accomplish but ultimately the one that must take place. Mr. President, S. 343 will not accomplish that. We need a lot more conversation and a lot more change of attitudes throughout the entire Federal establishment to accomplish that. But S. 343 will at least send a message throughout the Federal establishment that we here in the Congress are aware of the need for those kinds of changes and we are willing to pass legislation that will move in that direction. It is for that reason I support the legislation and urge its passage. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Utahn, Mr. Sherman J. Lindhardt, who retires today, culminating a distinguished career in public education. For the past 34 years, Sherm Lindhardt has served our youth as a high school history teacher and administrator. For all but 2 of those years, he taught and administered in the Utah public school system. While this day marks the end of his chosen profession, it should be noted that his influence will continue to be felt far beyond the close of a successful teaching career. Many students, now numbered among the upstanding adult members of our communities, looked to Sherm Lindhardt as a role model of successful living. The father of seven children, Mr. Lindhardt participated as a member of the Smithfield city planning and zoning commission, and continues to serve his local congregation as an ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In addition to his education career, Sherm Lindhardt served in our Nation's Armed Forces, attaining the rank of captain in the U.S. Army. Again, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Sherman J. Lindhardt for his dedication in teaching our youth. The success of his efforts are clearly evident as we enjoy the benefits of a new generation of community leaders and upstanding citizens. While this day marks the setting of the Sun on a fine career, I am sure that it also marks the beginning of many continued years of service and honorable pursuits by Sherm Lindhardt. In those pursuits I wish him the very best.