THE DIE HAS BEEN CAST,” Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said in July after Republicans failed to halt a filibuster against regulatory reform, once a wildly popular item on Congress’s agenda. The issue was dead, the victim of extraordinarily intense lobbying by the White House and ideological opposition by Senate Democrats. President Clinton’s aides had expended more energy on regulatory reform than on any issue but the dreaded balanced-budget amendment. And though Republicans had gotten 58 votes (60 are required) for cloture, there weren’t enough wavering Democrats to warrant another effort to break the filibuster.
Now that’s changed. Thanks to a Democratic senator, Charles Robb of Virginia, regulatory reform is likely to pass this year. After the July vote, Robb urged Dole to keep trying, but Dole had other, more promising issues to pursue. Robb didn’t give up. He began searching for Democrats to switch with him and back regulatory reform. Robb has found one potential ally, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and may have others on the way. If he does, Dole will quickly bring the bill to the floor and force Democrats to vote against regulatory reform — or vote with Robb and Republicans and incur the wrath of the White House and Democratic leadership.
Robb’s challenge to his own party is dangerous. Opposition to regulatory reform by Senate liberals is passionate, as is conservative suppor. Conservatives are willing to accept a less-than-deal bill in the Senate, figuring it will be strengthened in a conference with the House. The result, says Republican Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia, will be to “put power in the hands of working people, not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.” Washington lobbist David Rivkin says regulatory reform would require government officials to consider costs and benefits seriously before issuing new regulations, and enable citizens to challenge onerous federal rules more easily.
For the White House, this presents a big political problem: If a regulatory reform billands on the president’s desk, Clinton is stuck. Signing it would enrage the Democratic party’s influential environmental wing, while a veto would undermine the administration’s boasts about deregulation and reinventing government. Thus, the obvious solution is to prevent the bill from getting out of the Senate.
With Robb’s defection, that s inceasingly difficult. To smooth his path, Robb has been granted small technical changes in the GOP bill. He rebuffed White Hou se efforts to satisfy him with an executive o rder on regulatory reform, telling Clinton hides in late September that he was pressing ahead With Republicans. Dole has acknowledged Robb’s pivotal role. In a September 21 speech to the National Association of Manufacturers, he said: ” A lot of people Were ready to give last rites to regulatory reform weeks and weeks ago. I’m not one of them. . . . Neither is Senator Chuck Robb.” Of course, Dole had all but given last rites earlier.
Why is Robb doing this? First, he supports the bill’s general principles. “I think we can find smarter and more efficient ways to regulate, with the same effect on safety,” he told me. Robb’s interest in the issue dates back to his days as governor, when he sponsored a review of state regulations, and underscores his conservative credentials (he’d surely have been a Republican if he hadn’t married President Johnson’s daughter Lynda). Second, Robb wants to re-establish his reputation as a leader of moderate Democrats. He lost this reputation in a first term marked by feuds with Governor Doug Wilder and sordid tales of relations with beauty queen Tai Collins. Bucking the White House and Democratic leaders would help to restore it.
Republicans never expected regulatory reform would be so difficult. The House version passed easily, and the Senate bill, drafted primarily by Dole counsel Kyle McSlarrow, was supposed to be a done deal after a compromise was hammered out in June with Democratic Senator J. Bennett Johnston Louisiana. Johnston pledged to bring 10 Democrats with him, but they never materialized. Stiff opposition from interest groups, invoking the specter of an E. coli epidemic, did. The president followed, saying on July 15 that if the Republican bill passed, there! would be “more tragedies like what happened to Eric Mueller,” the California boy who died after eating a tainted hamburger.
Needing 60 votes, Dole was forced in July to make further changes to satisfy Republican John Chafee. Dole had also been promised support by Robb and Pat Moynihan, which meant there were enough votes to close debate and bring the bill up for a vote. But shortly before the July 20 vote, Robb called Republican Orrin Hatch to say he had changed his mind (Moynihan followed soon thereafter). Why? Robb didn’t say, but Vice President Gore had contacted both and then showed up in the Capitol on the day of the vote to keep the troops in line. Also, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle had assured Robb and others that Dole would compromise if Democrats held out. Dole topped out at 58 votes, two short of the number he needed to close debate.
Despite the defeat, Dole refused to compromise further. The surprise is that Robb has come around. Dole campaigned last fall for Republican Ollie North in his Senate race against Robb. He also gave North a $ 5,000 contribution. But Dole refrained from negative comments about Robb and justified his support for North as a way for Republicans to gain control of the Senate.” I get along fine with Chuck Robb,” Dole says. Now more than ever.
by Matthew Rees
