Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio. I wish to give my colleagues, after several inquiries, the schedule for the balance of the day and the balance of the week. We still have the rescissions package which is in the process of passing the House. I have indicated that if we could get a unanimous- consent agreement to take care of that by a voice vote and also have two amendments pending for votes on Monday, July 10, we would not have any additional votes tonight or any votes tomorrow. I am not certain we can get consent on the rescissions package. There may have to be votes, and those votes would occur tonight and, if necessary, tomorrow, because I think it is important. It has money in there for Oklahoma City; it has money for California earthquakes. There are a lot of different areas that have been waiting for a long time because the President vetoed the bill. I hope we can work out any disagreements, and I will get back to my colleagues as soon as I have additional information. But if we can get a consent on the rescissions package, even if we have to have a couple of votes tonight, or pass them on a voice vote, and then we have two amendments that would be debated on Monday, July 10, to the pending bill on regulatory reform, those votes would occur after 5 o'clock on Monday, July 10. If we cannot reach an agreement, then we will be here tonight and tomorrow.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the negotiations are still in the process of negotiation on H.R. 1944, the rescissions bill. We are not quite in a position yet to say whether or not there will be a vote when it comes to the Senate, if it passes the House or if it is taken up by the House. And we are advised we will not know that for another additional 2 hours. So it seems to me, after discussion with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, that our best hope is to come back in the morning. I regret I cannot absolutely guarantee Members there will be no votes tomorrow. But it is our hope that, if the House acts and if the rescissions bill comes to the Senate, we can do it quickly. It may require a vote on final passage. It may require additional votes. But I hope we can do it by noon or 1 o'clock tomorrow. Is that satisfactory with the Democratic leader?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I inform my colleagues, there will be votes on Monday, July 10. They will begin at 5 o'clock. They are substantive votes. It is my hope that after the votes, we can have additional amendments offered that evening.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for 37 years, Senators, staffers, and members of the public who have dealt with the Senate Services Department have come into contact with Claire Crim. It is Claire who has welcomed staff and visitors, routed phone calls, filed work orders, and entered computer data. She has fulfilled all these duties and more with a great degree of skill and professionalism. Claire is retiring from her position as customer service/records specialist at the end of the month, and I join with all my colleagues in thanking her for her nearly four decades of services, and in wishing her a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have been conferring throughout the day with the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I think we have an arrangement that will satisfy most of our colleagues on both the budget and regulatory reform and the program for the remainder of the week. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 118, S. 343, the regulatory reform bill, and we have 1 hour of debate on S. 343 commencing as soon as we obtain the consent.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Democratic leader. There has been some progress. There have been a number of meetings. I am not certain whether either one of us can stand here and predict that everything is going to be worked out. I would guess the odds are that probably not everything is worked out. But we had a bipartisan press conference today. We think there is an opportunity here for a bipartisan improvement. We may reach a point where we have to say, OK, we will offer amendments and have the debate, up or down, and then proceed with the bill in that fashion.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct. I ask unanimous consent that between now and 5 p.m. we debate S. 343, and that the time be equally divided and then we go back to the budget resolution, and all time consumed this evening be subtracted from the statutory time limitation on the budget resolution.

Mr. DOLE. So, for the information of all Senators, there will be no further votes today. When the Senate completes its business this evening it will stand in recess until 9 a.m. on Thursday June 29, 1995; following the prayer, the leaders' time will be reserved, and there will be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30 a.m. As I understand, there will be a Democratic caucus in the morning at 9:30. So, I think there are requests for morning business. Then perhaps following that caucus the two leaders would have further conversation. Hopefully, we could proceed again for a period of time on S. 343, regulatory reform. Then also, depending on the House action on the budget conference report, we could eat up more time than the 10 hours. We now have 6 hours remaining on the budget, as I understand it. So there will be no more votes tonight. We will try to accommodate many of our colleagues who must travel long distances and who would like to depart tomorrow evening. It is our hope that we could work that out. There may be a rescissions package. I understand it is still in negotiation with the White House, with Senator Hatfield and Senator Byrd on this side and their House counterparts. If that can be done, I hope we can get an agreement on the Senate side that we do it by consent. Otherwise, it would be open to amendment and we would be here for days. But I believe that if the White House, the President, and bipartisan leaders on appropriations can agree on a package, perhaps we could obtain consent to do that. If we had to do that Friday morning, perhaps we could do it without a vote.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I hope we may be able to use some more time later in the day.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon-- this has been cleared by the Democratic leader--the Senate begin 4 hours debate to be equally divided in the usual form on the budget conference report, and that when the Senate receives the conference report to cover the budget, House Concurrent Resolution 67, there be 6 hours remaining for consideration.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I again thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of regulatory reform, one of the most important and fundamental reforms that this Congress will address. No doubt about it, the American people are fed up with a regulatory state that is out of control. That was one of the messages the American people delivered last November. The regulatory state has become so pervasive that it lies on our economy like a blanket, stifling innovation, and killing infant industries and small businesses before they get off the ground. Although the Federal Government has a department for just about everything else, it does not have a department of lost opportunities. And that is what this is all about--getting the Government off the backs of the American people; and letting them have an honest opportunity to succeed, for example, when they open a small business. I want to note at the outset that the reforms before us are the product of over a decade of bipartisan work. The first major attempt at regulatory reform took place here in the Senate in 1982, when we passed S. 1080 unanimously. S. 1080 itself grew out of a bill I introduced in 1981, again with bipartisan support. S. 1080 contained sweeping revisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. Most of those revisions are included in the bill before us. S. 1080 imposed a requirement that major rules be subjected to cots- benefit analyses. The structure of the cost-benefit analyses in the bill we consider today closely follow those in S. 1080. S. 1080 required judicial review of cost-benefit analyses in order to provide meaningful enforcement. The bill before us does the same. I have provided this brief history for two reasons. First, there are many Senators still in this body on both sides of the aisle who supported S. 1080 in 1982. And, second, there has been a concerted attempt by those who defend the status quo to ignore that history and act as if the bill under consideration today was a radically new approach with little thought for the consequences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every President since President Nixon, including President Clinton, has issued an Executive order that imposed such requirements on agencies, though Executive orders are necessarily limited in scope and cannot provide for court enforcement, the bill we consider today draws on two decades of agency experience with those Executive orders. This bill is also the product of four major committees. I want to especially commend the chairmen of those committees, Senators Hatch, Roth, Murkowski, and Bond, and their members for their hard work. This bill is the product of negotiations with the Clinton administration, and Democrat colleagues. From the beginning, it has had bipartisan support. I especially want to commend Senator Heflin for his leadership in working on the bill in the Judiciary Committee. And, finally, the text of the bill we consider today is the product of weeks of work with Senator Johnston who has long championed reforms in risk assessment in this body. Given this history and broad bipartisan support, it might be surprising that regulatory reform has been met with often strident opposition. But this bill is about fundamental change--needed change--and those who defend the status quo will fight it tooth and nail. Apparently, they will do so without even pretending to read the legislation. Let me be clear: These reforms will not place at risk human health or safety or protection of the environment. I understand that Ralph Nader and Joan Claybrooke are out running ads in part of the country that Senator Dole, the majority leader, is for dirty meat, for unhealthy meat. So we have a lot of these incredible statements being made, but they have nothing to do with this bill. And the bill before us makes this explicit in any number of provisions. Those who argue otherwise should stop trying to scare people and take the time to actually read the bill. What opponents of regulatory reform really mean, but are embarrassed to admit, is that they believe that strong laws must always mean the most costly laws. Now, they will not say that of course. No, they will pay lip service to common sense. But as soon as you actually propose a way to consider costs and benefits, they switch subjects and accuse reformers of endangering human health and safety. I doubt anyone outside Washington, DC, who has to deal with regulations in their daily lives really believes that line anymore. Mr. President, I have enough faith in our ingenuity to believe that we can find better, smarter ways to achieve otherwise worthwhile goals. Nor--as opponents of reform would phrase it--is this a debate about placing a value on human life. The bill makes clear that there are often nonquantifiable benefits, and that an agency decisionmaker may well have to make judgments that are not subject to quantification. What the bill demands is accountability, by insisting that the decisionmaker articulate the basis for these judgments on the record. The principles of judging risks and weighing costs and benefits are rational and widely used in our daily lives. What is unacceptable is to allow Government agencies to avoid these types of judgments when enacting regulations that impose huge costs on our economy. These reforms are about limited government. For too long, decisionmakers in Washington, DC, have acted as though bigger government--taking more of our taxes and savings, and suppressing individual initiative--could exist without more coercion and more rules. But that is wrong. For 40 years, the number and scope of regulations have skyrocketed out of control. The costs and annoyances of regulations have grown unbearable. And what is worse: We have not even attempted to use common sense in order to determine whether the costs are worth it. These reforms are about accountability. Open government. Forcing the Government to tell the rest of us why it chooses to regulate a certain way, and making it defend its choice. This aspect of regulatory reform is not often discussed, but I would argue that it may be the most important of all. It has often been remarked by historians that the decline of great civilizations--such as ancient Rome--is typically marked by an overabundance of bureaucracy that relied on secret, often contradictory, rules. Eventually, the entire regulatory structure brings progress to a standstill and it collapses of its own weight. It is no accident that we described complex, inscrutable procedures as byzantine. Mr. President, we are a long way from reaching that point certainly. But we should understand that this is a battle that we will fight again and again. I, for one, intend to win this battle. The reforms we take up today are a giant step forward for common sense and our great country. So I am pleased that we are on the bill. I thank my colleagues on the other side for not objecting to moving to the bill. We will have a brief debate today. We will have a longer debate tomorrow and probably some debate on Friday of this week. Hopefully, when we return from the July 4 recess, we will be able to finish this bill in the week following the recess, because I think it is probably the most important legislation we will have considered so far this year. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished Senator from Utah to be in charge of the time on this side. I guess Senator Johnston will be in charge of the time on that side. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate took a dramatic step toward transforming our telecommunications laws for the 21st century. congress sets telecom policy There were many important issues addressed in that debate. But today, I would want to hit on one of the bill's main themes. It is simple, but important--Congress will not play second fiddle to the courts, or any other branch of Government, when it comes to establishing telecommunications policy. Despite heavy opposition by the White House, I believe the final vote of 81 to 18 clearly demonstrated that Congress is now in charge. This is not just a simple turf battle. Although, I seem to recall, that legislating is a function of Congress, sometimes the courts have forgotten this constitutional separation of powers. No other branch has greater accountability than ours. Voters have the power to elect us, and they have the power to send us home. We serve at their pleasure. So in effect, when Congress sets policy, it is set by the people. Neither the courts nor the executive branch can make that claim. That is why I found it so troubling when the courts usurped Congress' authority to set telecommunications policy in the early 1980's. Instead of the voices of 535 Members of Congress, any judge in the country could unilaterally set telecommunications policy. And they have done so often, sending conflicting signals. expanding doj's role The reason I raise this point is some Members of this body wanted to give the Department of Justice the same decisionmaking role as the courts. Under existing antitrust statutes, the Department of Justice prepares an analysis that it must defend and prove in court. In effect, it is the prosecutor. What DOJ wanted in the telecommunications bill, however, was to be both prosecutor and judge. Sort of one-stop shopping. Mr. President, I did not support this expansion of power. To me, this was not an issue of whether you were pro-Bell or pro-long distance. Instead, I thought it set bad precedent. If we expanded DOJ's authority over Bell companies, someone could legitimately ask: ``Why shouldn't this so-called one-stop shopping be extended to the entire telecommunications industry? And why stop there. Maybe we should give DOJ such authority over all sectors of our economy.'' I do not believe that was the intent of my colleagues who supported giving the Department of Justice a decisionmaking role, but what I did hear, however, was that many colleagues believed that current antitrust standards were not sufficient. an overzealous doj Mr. President, antitrust standards are not only sufficient, but it seems to me that the current Department of Justice is overzealous in its use of these statutes. Just take a look at an article entitled, ``Microsoft Corporation Broadly Attacks Antitrust Unit'' that appeared in the June 27 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It outlines Microsoft's latest problem with the Department of Justice's antitrust division. More importantly, it sheds some light on how the Department of Justice intends to use its antitrust authority to regulate the information age. And to me it is frightening. The article chronicles Microsoft's latest run-in with the Department of Justice and reports that DOJ is considering blocking Microsoft's efforts to give customers package deals on certain Microsoft products. The specific products involved are Microsoft's updated windows software package and its new on-line service. Let us understand what is going on here. A company develops a new product. A product that consumers want. But now the Government steps in and is in effect attempting to dictate the terms on which that product can be marketed and sold. Pinch me, but I thought we were still in America. If somebody makes something and somebody wants it, you sell it. You do not have to go to the Department of Justice to get their approval. Unfortunately, DOJ does not stop there. According to the article, and I quote, ``One of the [DOJ] document requests asks the company to produce `all strategic plans prepared by or for Microsoft by any party and any documents provided by or to the board or top executives of Microsoft concerning predictions as to the future of computers and computer technology.''' If this report is accurate, DOJ is out of control. Let us not forget, however, Justice has gone after Microsoft more than once this year. First, there was the accord reached between Microsoft and DOJ that Judge Sporkin opposed until the case was taken away from him. Then there was Microsoft's efforts to purchase Intuit, a maker of personal banking software. This fell through after DOJ sued to block the deal. According to the Wall Street Journal, before DOJ took Microsoft to court, the company had complied with two DOJ subpoenas which involved producing 772 boxes of paper and a ``foot-high stack of answers'' to DOJ questions. That is right, 772 boxes of paper. Bureaucrats gone wild. Imagine all the time and money, not to mention a forest or two, wasted on complying with Justice's requests. doj: an equal opportunity meddler And it is not just Microsoft that DOJ has been eyeing lately. For instance, earlier this year this same Antitrust Division declared that a new cellular company by the name of Air Touch was a regional Bell operating company. As a result, it would carry all the restrictions of a Baby Bell company. True enough, Air Touch was a spin-off from the Baby Bell company called Pactel. But let us not forget the facts. Fact No. 1. Air Touch is not a subsidiary of Pactel, it is a separate company. Fact No. 2. Air Touch was purchased with money not connected with Pactel. Fact No. 3. Cellular or wireless services were not restricted under Judge Greene's break-up of Ma Bell. As Air Touch is a wireless company, how can it have restrictions placed upon it that are not even applicable to a real Bell company? It just does not make any sense. Now DOJ may believe that Air Touch is a Bell company because it is composed of former Bell property. I guess that makes Bell companies the modern day equivalent of King Midas--anything they touch turns into a Bell company. Unfortunately, that line of logic creates a new problem. Bell companies have been off-loading all sorts of property to different companies in the last decade. Does that make all of these buyer companies a Bell company, too? The bottom line is that DOJ cannot and has not justified its actions. big government: doj's expertise Ironically, this is the same Department of Justice that wanted us to give them a key role to play in telecommunications policy, because, get this, they have greater expertise than the FCC. I read articles like the Wall Street Journal's and I am left wondering: ``Greater expertise in what?'' Maybe it's in big government micromanaging business. Or maybe it's that they have greater expertise in scuttling new services and products. Whatever it is, America does not need that type of expertise. conclusion Mr. President, if DOJ is able to be this meddlesome under current law, just imagine if we had increased its authority under the telecommunication bill. Unlike Congress, they have little or no accountability. That is why Congress--not the executive or judiciary branches--should set telecommunications policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article which appeared in the June 27 Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with the August retirement of Florence Nolan, customer service and records specialist in the U.S. Senate Service Department, the Senate will be losing the services of an employee who truly has mastered the nuts and bolts operations of this Chamber. Florence began her Senate service in the Senate restaurant in 1959. In 1970, she accepted a position with the Sergeant-at-Arms in the service department, where she has worked in a variety of positions ever since. She is an extremely competent and loyal employee who has made a difference wherever she has served. I join with all my colleagues in thanking Florence Nolan for her many years of service, and in sending our best wishes for her retirement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on Tuesday evening Erik Weihenmayer and his climbing partners reached the summit of Mount McKinley, 20,320 feet into the Alaskan sky and the highest point in North America. Mount McKinley is called ``Denali''--the Great One--by Native Alaskans. Under the best of circumstances, Mount McKinley is one of the toughest climbs in the world. Average daytime temperatures are a bonechilling 20 degrees below zero, dipping to 40 below at the summit. The National Park Service reports that the success rate for reaching the top is just 47 percent. Since 1913, 79 climbers have died on the mountain. Six died earlier this year. Mount McKinley is the ultimate challenge for any serious climber. But it is a unique challenge for Erik Weihenmayer, who is blind. Erik was born with limited vision, and lost all his sight by age 13. Most of the time, Erik is a 26-year old fifth-grade teacher and wrestling coach in Phoenix, AZ. About 10 years ago he took up mountain climbing. He uses two ski poles to locate the footprints of the hiker ahead of him, and then steps in the same tracks. To maintain balance and direction, Erik hangs on to a taut rope tied to his partner. Other than that, he carries the same gear and equipment as other team members. As Erik has said, ``I may do things a little different, but I achieve the same process * * * . There's very little my team has to do to accommodate me.'' Over the past 10 years, Erik had trekked the Inca Trail in the Andes of South America, the Rockies in Colorado, and other demanding spots around the world. On June 9, under the sponsorship of the American Foundation for the Blind, Erik and four others set out to conquer the summit of Mount McKinley. The other members of the AFB HIGHSIGHTS '95 team are Sam Epstein, of Tempe, AZ; Ryan Ludwig of Laramie, WY; and Jeff Evans and Jamie Bloomquist of Boulder, CO. The AFB HIGHSIGHTS '95 team prepared for this climb for 8 months, with rigorous training. Since January, the team also climbed Humphrey's Peak near Flagstaff, AZ; Long's Peak in Colorado; and Mount Rainier in Washington State, all in blizzard-like conditions. Mr. President, the American Foundation for the Blind deserves great credit for making this climb possible. Founded in 1921, AFB is one of the Nation's leading advocates for the blind. AFB's motto is ``We help those who cannot see live like those who do.'' Erik exemplifies this spirit. Early on, he decided that ``Blindness would often be a nuisance, would always make my life more challenging, but would never be a barrier in my path.'' Mr. President, the message of AFB HIGHSIGHTS '95 is universal, extending well beyond blindness. It inspires all of us to realize our potential rather than focusing on our limitations. Coincidentally, Tuesday also marked the 115th anniversary of the birth of Helen Keller. For 40 years, Helen Keller was AFB's Ambassador of Goodwill. At the age of 74, on an around the world flight, she said, ``It is wonderful to climb the liquid mountains of the sky. Behind me and before me is God and I have no fears.'' I imagine that Erik and the AFB HIGHSIGHTS '95 team have been similarly inspired. Mr. President, let us wish Erik Weihenmayer and his climbing partners Godspeed and a safe return.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at the end of this month, the Senate will be losing one of our most distinguished employees when Edward Banks retires. Currently the assistant supervisor of the material facility warehouse section of the U.S. Senate Service Department, Edward has served the Senate with loyalty and dedication for over 36 years. When Edward served as a messenger in the 1970's and 1980's, he was fondly known throughout the Senate as the ``wagon master''--hailing back to the days of the 1800's when documents, materials, and equipment were delivered by horse and wagon on the Capitol grounds. Edward carried this affectionate title with pride and great distinction. I know I speak for all the Senate when I thank Edward Banks for his 3\1/2\ decades of distinguished service, and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. It is better because you are further away. It was very interesting. The Senator from Pennsylvania was speaking and the Senator from Utah was answering. It was fairly quiet up here. It was fairly quiet at home, too, at 10 o'clock at night. In any event, I thank the Democratic leader for his cooperation, too, and members of the staff on each side and others who participated in this bill.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill. I think they did demonstrate we can have an orderly debate and not waste any time. I do not remember there being very many quorum calls. It took a while, but it is a very important piece of legislation, and I want to comment both the managers and also my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator D'Amato. I think this is probably his first major bill as chairman. I think he has done an outstanding job and I appreciate it very much. Everybody has had a chance to debate. Nobody was shut off. There were not any cloture motions filed. There was not any time wasted. In fact, I was home last night watching on C-SPAN when you were all up here-- watching you on C-SPAN, watching you debating until 9, 9:30, 10 o'clock. I commend the managers.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, between now and 12 noon.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have had our colleagues, a number on each side--five, six, seven on each side--meeting in Senator Daschle's office on reg reform. They have made some progress. I am not certain what will be the final result. We hope this afternoon, at least at 4 o'clock, to either go to reg reform or to try to proceed to reg reform--I think it depends on what happens during talks in the afternoon--to demonstrate, first of all, we are gaining a lot of support for the bill and, second, that it would be on the table, on the floor when we come back after the recess. We are not quite there yet, but I think they are working in good faith on each side.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Five seconds?

Mr. DOLE. We will yield that back. [Laughter]