[Pages S4604-S4641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 6
hours for general debate on the subject of S. 219.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Federal
regulations. We are going to be on Senate bill S. 219. I want to
compliment Senator Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee for
reporting this bill out. I also want to compliment the House of
Representatives for their move in trying to make some progress on
reining in the cost of excessive regulations. Federal regulations are
estimated to cost about $581 billion, by some sources. It is hard to
figure what that means, but per household, that is over $6,000--
actually $6,100 per household for the cost of Federal regulations. That
increases the cost of everything we buy. Whether you are talking about
your automobile or your home or your electric bill or the price that
you pay for gasoline, regulations are involved in all these and have
inflated the costs on every single thing that we buy.
Many of us feel these regulations have been excessive and they have
not been well thought out, or in some cases they are too expensive. I
might mention, I guess almost all are probably well intended, and I do
not fault anyone's intentions, whether it be the people who passed the
legislation authorizing the regulations or the regulators. They may be
well intended, but in many cases, the regulations have gone too far and
they are far too expensive.
So we have several measures that are working their way through this
body and through the Congress to try to limit excessive regulations.
The House passed a couple of measures. One was a measure called
regulation moratorium. A similar bill was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the bill we have on the floor
of the Senate today. I, along with my colleague and friend from Nevada,
Senator Reid, will be offering an amendment in the form of a substitute
to that bill. I will discuss that in a moment.
Also the Governmental Affairs Committee has reported out a
comprehensive bill dealing with regulation overhaul. I compliment them
for that effort. I think it is a giant step in the right direction.
Senator Dole, myself, and others have introduced a very comprehensive
bill. Likewise, I believe there is a markup scheduled in the Judiciary
Committee on that bill as well.
I compliment Senator Dole for his leadership because I think it makes
sense. We should have regulations where the benefits exceed the costs.
We should make sure we use real science. That is the purpose of both
Senator Roth's bill and Senator Dole's bill that we will be considering
on the floor my guess is sometime after the April recess.
But the bill we have before us many people support--the regulation
moratorium bill, S. 219. I am a sponsor of that bill. I believe we have
36 sponsors. This is a bill that people have labeled a ``moratorium.''
I even have heard some people mislabel it, including the President, who
said it was a ``moratorium on all regulations,'' good and bad
regulations. I take issue with that because we had a lot of exceptions
for good regulations and we had a lot of exceptions for regulations
which people felt were necessary to go forward with, those regulations
that dealt with imminent health and safety and regulations that dealt
with ordinary administrative practices. The committee added more
exceptions. The Committee on Governmental Affairs limited it to
significant regulations. So we reduced the scope substantially.
Why was that bill introduced? That bill was introduced because on
November 14, the administration announced or published in the Federal
Register that they were working on 4,300 different regulations that
were in progress and that would be finalized in the year 1995 and
beyond. Many of us were concerned. That looked like an explosion of
regulations. Many of those regulations had been held up during the
previous year. It happened to be an election year, and they were held
up and published in the Federal Register on November 14.
So we wanted to stop those or at least we wanted to have a chance to
[[Page S4605]] look at them. So this moratorium regulation was
introduced with a lot of sponsors. It eventually passed the House with
a lot of exceptions, came through the Senate, was marked up in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, which added more exceptions and limited
it to significant regulations. That was a moratorium.
The amendment that Senator Reid, myself, Senator Bond, and Senator
Hutchison are offering is a different approach. One, the moratorium
that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee is a temporary
moratorium. It expires when we pass comprehensive legislation, or it
expires at the end of the year. So it was only a temporary moratorium.
The legislation we are introducing today provides for 45-day
congressional review of regulations. During that time, Congress will be
authorized to review and potentially to reject regulations through a
resolution of disapproval before they become final.
This alternative provides an opportunity to move forward on the
critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I think
that is vitally important. This amendment will allow the authors of
legislation in Congress to review and to ensure that Federal agencies
are properly carrying out congressional intent. All too often agencies
issue regulations which go beyond their intended purpose.
For future significant rules, the alternative provides a 45-day
period following publication of the final rule before that rule can
become effective. Under the current law, most rules are already delayed
by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. This delay in the
effectiveness would only apply to significant regulations which the
amendment defines as final rules that meet one of four criteria set by
the administration under Executive Order 12866. For all other future
nonsignificant rules, the regulation of disapproval is in order, but
the final rule is not suspended during the 45-day period.
The alternative also provides an opportunity to review and reject
significant rules which became final on or after November 20, 1994, and
prior to the date of enactment. Such rules would not be suspended
during the review period. Final regulations addressing threats to
imminent health and safety or other emergencies, criminal law
enforcement or matters of national security, could be exempted by
Executive order from the postponement of the effective date provided
for in this bill. However, a joint resolution of disapproval will still
be eligible for fast-track consideration.
The expedited floor procedure has in it consideration of base closure
legislation as well as consideration of Federal Election Commission
regulations. Congress will have 45 calendar days to review final rules
and consider a resolution of disapproval.
All final rules that are published less than 60 days before Congress
adjourns sine die or that are published during sine die adjournment
shall be eligible for review and fast-track disapproval procedures for
45 days beginning on the 15th day after a new Congress convenes. A
joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of Congress, and the
fast-track process for moving the joint resolution of disapproval to
the calendar is enabled under two conditions; First, if the authorizing
committee reports out the resolution; or, second, if following the
resolution's introduction the committee does not act, the majority
leader of either House discharges the committee from further
consideration of the resolution and places the resolution of
disapproval directly on the calendar. The motion to proceed to
consideration of the resolution is privileged and is nondebatable.
I would like to note that last Thursday the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out the comprehensive reform bill which
includes this 45-day review proposal. However, it did not contain a
look back to past regulations. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to
the resolution of disapproval, the debate on the resolution is limited
to 10 hours equally divided with no motions other than a motion to
further limit debate or amendments being in order. If the resolution
passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the
floor of the other body.
The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be subject to a
Presidential veto and in turn a possible veto override. By providing
the mechanism to hold Federal agencies accountable before it is too
late, this alternative makes an important contribution to the critical
regulatory reform effort. I hope that my colleagues will join me in
this effort.
Mr. President, I would like to at this time mention and thank my
friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada for his support in
offering and working with me to offer this alternative or substitute to
the regulation moratorium. I have had the pleasure of working with
Senator Reid for many, many years now. We worked together on the
measures that we called the Economic and Employment Impact Statement, a
measure which is becoming law I guess as part of the unfunded mandate
bill. He has been a real leader in trying to reform and limit the cost
of excessive regulations. I compliment him for that successful effort
in the past, and I look forward to a successful effort on this bill as
well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my
friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation, S. 219. Whenever
it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this
time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I
chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules
on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody.
We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest
Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really
out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place
regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging
industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it
has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to
that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the
horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and
regulations was really an eye opener for me.
We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks
from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that
Saturday field hearing.
Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training
consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the
same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA
forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards.
So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of
regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing
the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the
redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces
safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries
that are located within those States.
Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA
needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a
philosophical idea on what the rules should be.
Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States.
Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that
Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in
the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with
employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather
than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is
wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it,
that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In
other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe
workplace.
Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT.
The list goes on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a
couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as
they were given to me.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:

My name is Arley Adams, doing business as Adams Wood
Products.
[[Page S4606]] I'm a second generation logger in the timber
and saw mill industry. My son, Alan is the third generation
in the business and works with me.
We have a logging and sawmill operation that can be
operated by two or ten men, but with OSHA standards and
Workmans Compensation rates, there is no way we can hire one
man. You wonder why there is so much unemployment? Its called
cause and effect.
The rules and regulations that OSHA has at this time are so
far out of line that they will break every small operator.
Sure, our business is dangerous but so are a lot of other
industries and sports.
We are professionals in our business and we have an
excellent Safety Team in the Logging Association. We are well
aware of the dangers we are up against--we work with them
daily.
OSHA thinks that we are so incompetent that they must hold
our hands and impede us with so much gear that they ``OSHA''
will be the cause of the accidents they are trying to
prevent.
When they break us all--they will have to feed us because
surely we can't be trusted with a dinner fork.
The entire situation OSHA is trying to impose upon us is a
``Major Disaster.'' If California got Disaster Relief from
the earthquake, we should be eligible too!
Arley A. Adams.
____

March 9, 1995.
Dear Senator Burns: As a working foreman for a logging
company in the state of Idaho, I work with safety problems on
a daily basis. We have about thirty-five (35) other workers
on the job.
We pride ourselves in being able to have OSHA, the State,
or anyone else come on our job and see that we make the
working conditions as safe as humanly possible.
We work closely with the people from the Idaho Logging
Safety Program and we know that most of the other contractors
in our area do also. We've put together safety programs,
weekly safety meetings, monthly safety meetings, and anything
else they've asked for.
Then all of a sudden here come these new OSHA rules telling
us that we can't use diesel to start fires anymore and that
we can't fuel any of our machines with the engines running.
Do you people realize that you are talking to adults not five
year old kids. How many injuries have there been in the State
of Idaho from people using diesel to start a fire or from
fueling a vehicle with the engine running?
These rules and some of the others I've read in the book 29
CFR 1910 and 1928 really have no place in a logging standard.
Why don't you live with the Idaho Code. It as least let's
us use some common sense.
Sincerely,
Terry Streeter,
Foreman, Babbitt Logging, Inc.
____

Senator Burns, members of the committee: My name is Paul
Tisher. I live in Libby, Montana, My partner's name is Paul
Brown and we own and operate TBC Timber, a small family-owned
business. We've been in business for 15 years and have nine
employees other than ourselves. We are (also) working members
of our crew.
One of the new rules which concerns us most is under D.
General Requirements #5 called Environmental Conditions. It
read: All work shall terminate and each employee shall move
to a place of safety when environmental conditions, such as
but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain
or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslide and
darkness may endanger an employee in the performance of their
job. Senator, the interpretation of these conditions can mean
many things to different people. I can tell you, there have
been many times when our crew has had to sit out a storm,
whether it be wind, rain, or snow. But, the weather will be
what it will be, and we as stewards of this land will be out
there in the elements to support our families and sustain our
communities.
Another proposed rule that ties in with these environmental
conditions is under Tree Harvesting #2 Manual Felling Section
#3. It reads: Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of
snow and ice. Accumulation of snow and ice that may create a
hazard for an employee shall be removed before felling is
commenced in the area or the areas shall be avoided. I hope
that OSHA didn't intend for us to remove the snow and ice by
ourselves, especially knowing that this would create an even
greater hazard. That leaves us with the two things that
usually remove snow and ice from trees, and that is wind or
rain. Senator, this really becomes confusing at this point.
We can't work if there's too much snow or ice in the trees.
So we finally get a good hard rain or some chinook winds that
remove all the snow and ice, but we can't work under these
conditions either. Then as conditions turn colder it starts
to snow and we get more build up in the trees. This can go on
for six or seven months in Montana and leaves us wondering
how we're going to be able to work under this type of rule.
Who from OSHA can determine if conditions are too dangerous
to work in? What degree of wind, rain, snow, cold or fog will
constitute a total shutdown or the ensuing penalties if
operations are still working when they arrive. What
experience do they have in logging procedure and working with
outdoor elements that tell them one or more of these
conditions is too dangerous? We feel that the decisions on
Environmental Conditions should be left to the people who
make their living doing this and not by the Federal
Government.
Being members of the Montana Logging Association, we as a
crew have all had training in First Aid, CPR, Blood Borne
Pathogens, Material Safety Data, and Safe Operating
Procedures. This training is done annually and is a key to
recognizing unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions. Holding
ourselves to these standards has become the norm in this
profession we call logging.
Having said that, I would like to comment on a procedure
used by OSHA compliance officers during a jobsite visit. That
is the use of a video camera when questioning employers and
employees about the training they have had in reference to
what I just talked about. This, ``Camera In Your Face''
session gives one the feeling that you've already done
something wrong or why would the want to get it on film in
the first place. I am sure that somewhere, in all of the many
hours of training we have had, someone will forget something,
but that doesn't mean all of a sudden we are in a hazardous
situation. With the camera rolling and knowing that the wrong
answer to a question can result in a training violation and
cost an employer up to $7000 per violation and also knowing
that you haven't done anything wrong and that you're not in a
hazardous situation nor have you created a hazardous
situation for a fellow worker, is frustrating and
intimidating to the point that the easiest of answers can be
forgotten.
Senator, logging always has been and always will be a
dangerous occupation. We do not take this lightly. It is very
clear to us that training for, and providing a safe work
place will not only send us all home safely every night but
it is also essential for a company to stay in business. If we
believe in and practice these things then why do we need the
Federal Government to enforce what is already being done.
Common sense has been around a lot longer than OSHA and it
will be on the job when OSHA isn't. Please Senator, lets not
put any more rules into place that would jeopardize the use
of good common sense.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the
new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being
made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA
representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You
can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was.
For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the
employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other
words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer
responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is
overstepping a little bit.
Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a
little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt
with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to
it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when
you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard
of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He
said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a
Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a
kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again.
In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only
be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get
mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it
hang up and lose it? I do not think so.
But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an
industry which were written by an organization with basically very
little common sense when it comes to logging.
I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a
suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress,
after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into
law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless
bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence
that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the
legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the
Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of
jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the
legislation.
I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens,
Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned.
I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws
passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be
debated a little more.
[[Page S4607]] But I think we in this body, if we have been remiss in
any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing
the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and
talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be
acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder
why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller
companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in
Montana are created by small business.
So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill.
It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the
rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially
if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do
with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a
living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also
ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to
do.
It was suggested after the elections last year that Government
reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8,
but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message
as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or
Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political
arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it
is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of
Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much
money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on
them that cost them more.
Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should
not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it
in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is
just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector
who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not
safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some
problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let
us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of
the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company,
plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not
his employees--he works with in the woods.
They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a
safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each
other, either. And they are all small.
But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal
Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he
can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what
we put into rules and regulations.
Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We
are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the
employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and
Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this
piece of legislation does it.
I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend
from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come
this weekend.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague
from Montana for his support for our amendment, and also thank him for
his statement.
I also wish to compliment the Senator from Montana, because he did
something that many of us have not been doing. He has held some
oversight hearings. He has had some of those people, many times we call
them faceless bureaucrats, but he has had them come into his State and
talk about some of the problems, whether it be in logging or forestry,
and let them talk and actually meet those that they regulate.
I believe the Senator said--correct me if I am wrong. The OSHA
official who was writing the regs had not actually been involved in the
logging industry but yet was writing rules and regulations dealing with
everything from trucks to boots, and he has not actually met some of
the people whom he was regulating.
Is that correct?
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from
Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to
the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but
he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when
we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and
they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that
is fine and dandy.
But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us
it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not
get ourselves into that kind of situation.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague having the hearing. My guess
is that meeting would not have transpired had it not been for the
Senator from Montana and his insisting on that meeting.
The fact is that those regulations or proposed regulations will
probably be changed and improved dramatically because of the insistence
of the Senator from Montana on having face-to-face meetings with people
who are making the regulations and making the rules to meet with people
that are directly impacted.
One of the real positive things which I hope will come out of this is
that Congress will become more active in oversight, just as the Senator
from Montana proved that it can make a difference, certainly in his
State.
Again, I compliment him for it, and I thank him again for his
statement.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow, pursuant to the order--the bill
not being before the Senate today--an amendment will be offered by the
senior Senator from Oklahoma and this Senator as a substitute to S.
219. I believe, Mr. President, that the substitute is a good solution
to the problem that we are all concerned about, and that is excessive
bureaucratic regulation.
For example, Mr. President, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
estimated the cost of complying with regulations in the United States
on a yearly basis at over $500 billion. That is almost 10 percent of
our gross domestic product. It has also been estimated that the time
spent on paperwork is almost 7 billion hours.
Mr. President, I repeat that. Over $500 billion to comply with
regulations and almost 7 billion man-hours to do that paperwork.
We all know, Mr. President, that regulations serve a valid purpose
and an important purpose. In fact, because of the regulatory framework
that has been put in place for the last 50 or 60 years, we have
workplaces that are safer. Hard-working Americans are less likely to be
seriously injured on the job. There has been a tremendous reduction in
the loss of limb or permanent disfigurement in the workplace as a
result of Government regulations that were promulgated after we passed
laws in this and the other body.
We have, Mr. President, an airline industry that has the greatest
safety record in the world; food that meets very safe requirements, but
they are very strict. We have a country where, just 20-odd years ago,
80 percent of all rivers were polluted. Now, that is down to
approximately 20 percent. The numbers have been reversed as a result of
the Clean Water Act.
The problem is that all too often Congress passes a law with good
intentions and very sound policy only to have the agencies, the
governmental agencies, turn these simple laws into very complex
regulations that go beyond the intent of Congress and many times make
no sense. Ultimately, we create an environment where small
businessowners must hire legal departments--and I do not say
``lawyers''; legal departments--To comply with labor and environmental
laws and other issues.
In some instances, the regulations are so complex that a small firm
has to hire a multitude of experts so they can
[[Page S4608]] comply with the labor laws, the environmental laws, the
tax laws. The reality has led Americans to become frustrated and
skeptical of their Government as a result of overregulation.
In a survey conducted by the Times Mirror, they found that, since
1987, the number of Americans who believe regulations affecting
businesses do more harm than good has jumped from 55 to over 63
percent. It was not very good in 1987. It has only gotten worse,
though.
Why are we concerned?
Well, Mr. President, if we look at the new regulations that have been
promulgated by Federal agencies--and this does not count State and
local agencies; we are not going to have any impact on that.
But I have in my possession, and I show the Presiding Officer,
regulations received since the 9th day of November 1994, that are
economically significant, and those that are not economically
significant.
Remember, for us, those are terms of art. For the American public,
they are not. We are talking about those that are economically
significant, to be over $100 million.
But look at them--page after page of these regulations. Those that
are economically significant, 3 pages; those not economically
significant, 12 pages of fine print.
Market promotion program regulations; Department of Defense selection
criteria for clothing and realigning military installations. It covers
everything. Protest disputes and appeals.
I would like to read that in more detail.
Wool and mohair payment programs for shorn wool, wool and unshorn
lambs, and mohair, even though, as you know, Mr. President, we repealed
the law, but we are still promulgating regulations in that regard.
Here is one that the Senator from California would, I am sure,
appreciate, the junior Senator, I believe. Use of the term ``fresh'' on
the labeling of raw poultry products.
As you may recall, there has been a dispute that has arisen, as to:
When you get a fresh turkey at Thanksgiving, is it really fresh? We
have regulations promulgated on that.
I am not going to go into more detail. We have 15 pages. And this is
not up to date. This is a couple of weeks old.
So I think the American public has something to be concerned about.
There really are too many regulations.
We have reason to believe that the American small business community
really is concerned, and with good reason, for thinking that
regulations do more harm than good.
I believe, Mr. President, that if you look at some, I should say,
unusual things that have gone on--we heard the Senator from Montana,
and during this debate that will take place this week, we will hear all
kinds of things that are going on--they really do not make a lot of
sense. Of course, there are a lot of things that make sense.
We need regulations, and the Senator from Nevada wants to make sure
people understand, I am not against all regulations. I just want some
commonsense direction for those regulations.
There is an article out of Business Week from a month or so ago that
talks about some of the good regulations, about when you go to the
airport and they have overbooked the airplane and you wanted to go
across the country; now there is a regulation that says they can give
you a free ticket if they bump you off the flight.
We have an example in the Clean Air Act where you can trade pollution
rights, which is certainly very important, because we have had
outlandish regulations.
A company, Amoco York County Refinery, was required to spend $31
million to reduce a small amount of benzene from its wastewater
treatment plant when it could have reduced five times as much benzene
elsewhere in the refinery at a cost of only $6 million. Those are some
of the things that literally drive small businesses crazy and drive
them out of business.
So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and this
legislation, Mr. President, is going to allow us to have more common
sense in the way regulations are promulgated.
I am convinced, and I have spoken with the Senator from Oklahoma at
some length in this regard, that one of the things that will flow from
this regulatory scheme that is in our substitute is that there will be
fewer regulations promulgated because they know there will be a legal
setup, a legal framework to review these regulations.
The Senator from Oklahoma and I have been long involved in trying to
do something about regulations. We have written op-ed pieces for
newspapers that have been published. We introduced legislation last
year that passed the Senate and was killed in conference that would
have put dollar limits on regulations.
Our approach this year with this substitute is an ongoing movement
which we have tried to initiate to put common sense in the way
regulations are promulgated. I repeat, I am convinced that our
substitute will stop the issuance of many regulations.
I believe the way to eliminate many of these problems is to establish
a safety mechanism that will enable Congress to look at these
regulations that are being promulgated and decide whether they achieve
the purpose they were supposed to achieve in a rational, economic, and
less burdensome way. This substitute, which I have already indicated I
have cosponsored with Senator Nickles, goes a long way toward
accomplishing this goal in a bipartisan fashion. I think this is
important because I believe Americans want Congress to work together to
make their Government work for them and not against them.
This bill, in my opinion--our substitute--should alleviate the talk
in this body about regulations. If this passes, I think we have a
framework established to take care of the problem. There will be some
who think we need to go a lot further, but I do not. I think if we can
get this in place, we will be in real good shape.
This bill has great potential, as I have indicated, for a bipartisan
solution to the problem of costly and unnecessary regulations. The
mechanics of this bill have been explained extremely well by the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I am going to touch on it briefly.
It provides a 45-day period for Congress to review new regulations.
If the rule has an economic impact over $100 million, it is deemed
significant and the regulation will not go into effect during the 45-
day review period. This 45-day review period will allow Congress to
hold Federal agencies accountable before they become law and start
impacting the regulated community.
Mr. President, if the rule does not meet the $100 million threshold,
the regulation will go into effect but will still be subject to fast-
track review. Even significant regulations may go into effect
immediately if the President, by Executive order, determines that the
regulation is necessary for health, safety, or national security, or is
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws. This is not subject to
judicial review.
So that is the general outline. We know the 45-day review process
will begin when the rule is sent to Congress.
We have spent a great deal of time, the Senator from Oklahoma and
myself and our staffs, making sure that this legislation is
constitutional. The Presiding Officer has had a long history of working
on legal matters, having been attorney general, and this regulation, I
am assured by all kinds of legal scholars, is constitutional.
In fact, the man that argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1983, the Chadha case, a man by the name of Mike Davidson, said:

The key to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
was that Congress had excluded the President altogether from
its repeal of the Kenyan's stay of deportation. By sending
any ``resolution of disapproval'' to the President for a
final decision, Congress sidesteps the separation-of-power
questions raised by the Chadha case.

So we are covered legally in this matter. If, during the course of
the debate, we need to get into more legal argument, I will be happy to
talk to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, or anyone
else concerned.
Mr. President, I believe that this is a significant step forward from
the underlying bill. I believe this substitute will allow an orderly
process whereby we can review regulations that the
[[Page S4609]] Federal branch of Government initiates. It will cause
them to be more careful since the Chadha decision, in my opinion.
Government agencies have been reckless, recognizing that there is not
anything we can do about it. When this substitute passes, we will be
able to do something about it, and I think it will rein in what I
believe are some of the runaway rules that are being promulgated.
Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee
for their hard work on this issue. I do not support the underlying
legislation. I believe that this substitute is a significant
improvement over what has come to us in the form of S. 219.
I also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the senior
Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. He has been a
stalwart ally over many years working on this issue. I believe that we
have now found a piece of legislation on which we can achieve a
bipartisan passage in this body and, hopefully, when the matter goes
before the conference, they will see the wisdom of adopting this very
workable procedure to rein in runaway Government bureaucracy.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague,
Senator Reid from Nevada, for his statement. I hope my colleagues had a
chance to listen to it because I think it is well reasoned and shows
there is bipartisan support for, I think, a commonsense idea, saying
Congress should have an opportunity to review regulations and, if you
are talking about really significant regulations, an expedited
procedure to reject those.
There are thousands of regulations. My guess is that we will reject a
very, very small percentage. But at least we will have the
congressional oversight and Congress will be hopefully more involved,
just as the Senator from Montana was in dealing with an OSHA regulation
in logging. Hopefully, more of our colleagues will become involved in
monitoring and reviewing and trying to limit excess regulations and
maybe in oversight find out the regulation is not acceptable. Maybe we
will find out that it is acceptable. The Senator from Nevada has helped
make that happen, and I am delighted to work with him in this effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a
piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it
is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support
this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in
scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time
on this legislation.

1. overview

We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in
serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly
regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our
businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal
agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs
and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory
reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium.
The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief
time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is,
however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all
significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for
as much as 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from
November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month
delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial
deadlines for agency action.
This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop
good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless,
stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my
remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price
that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death,
injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost
opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing.
Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with
Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli
infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat
inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't
think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs.
Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can
save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of
other parents like her, have suffered.
The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong.
Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very
clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that
its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to
replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional
veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand
what is going on here.
First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the
proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the
moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its
stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they
want to hide behind something new, something different, something that
will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate
passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the
House-passed moratorium would be negotiated.
Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for
bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a
blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are
now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be
subject to sunshine and amendment.

As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules.
Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills.
In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve,
just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the
Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an
essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform
bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate
owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of
Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very
tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill
that we should be discussing, not the moratorium.
Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is,
I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than
to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the
brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin.
Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly
proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version
being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of
the Levin proposal of 1979.
I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase
in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability
where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive
reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an
important role in providing review and accountability. At the same
time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which
is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform
proposals.
So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as
a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the
legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in,
and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills
now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it
would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a
substitute for S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a
moratorium proposal.
If we pass S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with
the House-passed moratorium bill. We
[[Page S4610]] should not allow this result. We must not allow support
for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the
underlying moratorium proposal.
To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the
entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that
might contain any moratorium.

2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium

Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in
considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The proposal originated in the House as H.R. 450. I ask unanimous
consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the
Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March
12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19,
1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5,
1995.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]

Forging an Alliance for Deregulation--Representative DeLay Makes
Companies Full Partners in the Movement

(By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)

The day before the Republicans formally took control of
Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear
conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the
first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman,
soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a
group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies
in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing
boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly
ringing telephones.
He could not wait to start on what he considered the
central mission of his political career: the demise of the
modern era of government regulation.
Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a
former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants
and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking
to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he
felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended
many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them
were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn
of the Republican
revolution, energized by a sense that their time was finally
at hand.
The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of
political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in
Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and
eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have
championed their legislative agenda as an answer to popular
dissatisfaction with Congress and the federal government. But
the agenda also represents a triumph for business interests,
who after years of playing a primarily defensive role in
Democratic-controlled Congresses now find themselves a full
partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional
priorities.
The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick
and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by
the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to
the sorts of government directives that Democrats has viewed
as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society but that many
businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive.
A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where
its chances of approval are not as certain.
Although several provisions of the ``Contract With
America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall
take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the
moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outline that day
in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy
lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as
the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first
draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on
rulemaking while the House pushed through the more
comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that
was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over
the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the
corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the
moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in
mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another
protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third
keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a
Labor Department requirement.
As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and
lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry
supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief,
sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than
a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar
communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition
provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate
moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping
out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to
Republican floor leaders.
Many of Project Relief's 350 industry members had spent the
past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic
governing circles and had made lavish contributions to
Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as
ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted
and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to
cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that
respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran
regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest
political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes
fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and
Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a
model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight
against Democratic alliances with labor unions and
environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than
theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they
have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is]
protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning
to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense,
according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in
the push for a moratorium is not without peril for
Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the
new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for
limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk
that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and
lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into
power in last November's elections.
William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent
strategy memos, help shape the conservative agenda, said the
way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict
could determine their prospects for consolidating
congressional power. ``If they legislate for special
interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the
Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business
is done in Washington.''

the exterminator

After graduating from the University of Houston with a
biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling
contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula
company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest
Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway
because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a
well-known brand of dog food.
By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the
Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest
homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased
in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal
worker safety rules, including one that required his termite
men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And
the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations,
he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a
chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first
considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By
the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it
was too late: Mirex makers had gone out of business.
The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in
the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out
government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I
better get involved in it.''
He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname
that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he
moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from
Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to
publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what
he considered the most frivolous regulations.
But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in
the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of
industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community
from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee
a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good,
Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and
environmental groups argued, had been well served by
government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been
prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles
were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by
federal mandates on sewerage.
DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of
commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of
regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion
a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they
thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing
liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace.
They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as
their point man.
The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident
last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the
best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for
other candidates. The large number of open congressional
seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered
him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of
business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly
prevailed on'' these allies, DeLay said.
[[Page S4611]] In the 1994 elections, he was the second-
leading fund-riser for House Republican candidates, behind
only Gingrich. In adding up contributions he had solicited
for others, DeLay said, he lost count at about $2 million.
His persuasive powers were evident in the case of the
National-American Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which
already had contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time
DeLay addressed the group last September. After listening to
his speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business
Congress, they contributed, another $80,000 to Republicans
and consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be
recruited later by DeLay to chair his antiregulatory Project
Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles
in DeLay's 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path
into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were
David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan
Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of
Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of
the National Restaurant Association.
At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a
political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his
race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the
lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers,
drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and
calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money.
Contributions came in from various business PACs, which
Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got
the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new
members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be
here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.'''
For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and
brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC
community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an
Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on
Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow
Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of
the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. He hired Webber as
staff director.
It was with the lopsided support of such Republican
freshmen as McIntosh that DeLay swamped two rivals and became
the majority whip of the 104th Congress. Before the vote, he
had received final commitments from 52 of the 73 newcomers.

the freeze

The idea for Project Relief first surfaced before the
November elections that brought Republicans to power in the
House for the first time in 40 years. Several weeks after the
election, it had grown into one of the most diverse business
groups ever formed for specific legislative action. Leaders
of the project, at their first post-election meeting,
discussed the
need for an immediate move to place a moratorium on federal
rules. More than 4,000 regulations were due to come out in
the coming months, before the Republican House could deal
with comprehensive antiregulatory legislation.
DeLay agreed with the business lobbyists that a regulatory
``timeout'' was needed. He wrote a letter to the Clinton
administration Dec. 12 asking for a 100-day freeze on federal
rule-making. The request was rejected two days later by a
mid-level official who described the moratorium concept as a
``blunderbuss.'' DeLay then turned to Gooch to write
legislation that would do what the administration would not.
At the Jan. 3 meeting in DeLay's office, Paul C. Smith,
lobbyist for some of the nation's largest motor fleets,
criticized Gooch's draft because it excluded court-imposed
regulations. He volunteered to do the next draft and came
back with a version that addressed the concerns of his
clients. Under court order, the EPA was about to impose an
air pollution plan in California that might require some of
Smith's clients--United Parcel Service and auto leasing
companies--to run vehicles on ultraclean fuels, requiring the
replacement of their fleets.
Smith removed the threat with a stroke of his pen,
extending the moratorium to cover court deadlines. He also
helped Webber add wording in a later amendment that extended
the moratorium from eight to 13 months.
Peter Molinaro, a mustachioed lobbyist for Union Carbide,
had a different concern: He wanted to make sure the
moratorium would not affect new federal rules if their
intention was to soften or streamline other federal rules.
The Labor Department, for example, was reviewing a proposal
to narrow a rule that employers keep records of off-duty
injuries to workers. Union Carbide, Molinaro noted in an
interview, had been fined $50,000 for violating that rule and
was eager for it to be changed.
For his part, Gooch wanted to make sure that the routing,
day-to-day workings of regulatory agencies would not be
interrupted by a moratorium. His petrochemical clients rely
on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make sure
natural gas and oil, used in their production processes, flow
consistently and at reasonable rates.
Gooch said he had ``no specific mission'' other than
helping DeLay. ``I'm not claiming to be a Boy Scout,'' he
added. ``No question I thought what I was doing was in the
best interests of my clients.''
the war room

On the first day of February, 50 Project Relief lobbyists
met in a House committee room to map out their vote-getting
strategy for the moratorium bill. Their keynote speaker was
DeLay, who laid out his basic objective: making it a veto-
proof bill by lining up a sufficient number of Democratic
cosponsors. They went to work on it then and there.
Kim McKernan of the National Federation of Independent
Business read down a list of 72 House Democrats who had just
voted for the GOP balanced budget amendment, rating the
likelihood of their joining the antiregulatory effort. The
Democrats were placed in Tier One for gettable and Tier Two
for questionable.
Every Democrat, according to participants, was assigned to
a Project Relief lobbyist, often one who had an angle to
play.
The nonprescrition drug industry chose legislators with
Johnson & Johnson plants in their districts, such as Ralph M.
Hall of Texas and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey. David
Thompson, a construction industry official whose firm is
based in Greenville, S.C., targeted South Carolina
congressman John M. Spratt Jr.
Federal Express, with its Memphis hub, took Tennessee's
John S. Tanner. Southwestern Bell Corp., a past campaign
contributor to Blanche Lambert Lincoln of Arkansas, agreed to
contact her. Retail farm suppliers picked rural lawmakers,
including Charles W. Stenholm of Texas.
As the moratorium bill reached the House floor, the
business coalition proved equally potent. Twenty major
corporate groups advised lawmakers on the eve of debate Feb.
23 that this was a key vote, one that would be considered in
future campaign contributions.
McIntosh, who served as DeLay's deputy for deregulation,
assembled a war room in a small office just off the House
floor to respond to challenges from Democratic opponents. His
rapid response team included Smith, the motor fleet lobbyist,
to answer environmental questions; James H. Burnley IV, an
airline lobbyist who had served as transportation secretary
in the Reagan administration, to advise on transportation
rules; and UPS lobbyist Dorothy Strunk, a former director of
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, to tackle
workplace issues. Project Relief chairman Gates and lobbyists
for small business and trucking companies also participated.
When Republicans leaders were caught off guard by a
Democratic amendment or alerted to a last-minute problem by
one of their allies, Smith would bang out response on his
laptop computer and hand the disk to a McIntosh aide who had
them printed and delivered to the House floor.
The final vote for the moratorium was 276 to 146, with 51
Democrats joining DeLay's side. Still 14 votes short of the
two-thirds needed to override a veto, the support exceeded
the original hopes of Project Relief leaders.
One week later, DeLay appeared before a gathering of a few
hundred lobbyists, lawmakers and reporters in the Caucus Room
of the Cannon House Office Building to celebrate the House's
success in voting to freeze government regulations and, in a
pair of companion bills, curtail them. He stood next to a
five-foot replica of the Statue of Liberty, wrapped from neck
to toe in bright red tape, pulled out a pair of scissors, and
jubilantly snipped away.
Standing next to him, brandishing scissors of his own, was
the chairman of Project Relief.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 19, 1995]

Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate--Facts Don't Burden Some Hill Tales of
Regulatory Abuse

(By Tom Kenworthy)

As Congress wages war on the federal regulatory system,
anecdotal evidence of nonsensical rules and innocent victims
has been a powerful weapon in the push to enact measures that
will temporarily halt rule-making, protect property owners
and ensure new regulations are worth the cost.
Many of these purported examples, however, have the ring of
truth, but not the substance.
Consider the ``regulatory overkill'' cited by Rep. Michael
Bilirakis (R-Fla.) during floor debate last month. ``The
Drinking Water Act currently limits arsenic levels in
drinking water to no more than two to three parts per
billion,'' said Bilirakis. ``However, a regular portion of
shrimp typically served in a restaurant contains around 30
parts per billion.''
Arsenic, a known human carcinogen, has been subject to
regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency since 1976.
The drinking water standard is now not two or three parts per
billion, but 50 parts per billion. And according to EPA
officials, the arsenic found in water and the arsenic found
in shrimp and other seafood are chemically quite different.
The type of arsenic found in seafood is organic; in water,
arsenic is predominantly inorganic, and far more toxic.
Bilirakis, a former judge, declined a request for an
interview, but his press spokesman explained that Bilirakis
relied on his colleague, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), whose
use of the shrimp example during a congressional hearing last
year was reported in The Washington Post.
While rhetorical exaggerations or sloppy staff work are not
new phenomena in congressional debates, the determination of
[[Page S4612]] House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and other
Republican leaders to push through their ``Contract With
America'' agenda in 100 days or less has meant that complex
and far-ranging legislation has been debated and passed in an
unusually short period. And nothing in the contract deals
with an area as complicated as regulatory reform or generates
as much apocryphal rhetoric on both sides.
Veteran Democrats, who in some cases helped write the
regulations now under attack, warned their colleagues during
the debate of the consequences of moving so quickly. Rep.
John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said of the regulatory moratorium:
``The unknown and unintended consequences caused by the
hurried consideration of this legislation will emerge for
members in embarrassing and unwanted ways in weeks and months
ahead.''
And Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), lamented the making of
``policy on the basis of false or misleading anecdotal
information.'' Proponents, said Markey, ``claim that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission had a regulation requiring
all buckets have a hole in the bottom of them so water can
flow through and avoid the danger of someone falling face
down into the bucket and drowning. . . . Now, that would be
ridiculous regulation, if it existed. But the truth is that
there has never been such a rule.''
Nothing slowed down the determination of House Republicans
to change the regulatory system, and the debate now moves to
the Senate, where the legislation is expected to emerge from
committees in more moderate form.
During the two weeks the bills were considered in the
House, the rhetoric on both sides was heated and the
examples, even the hypothetical ones, not always precise.
Suppose scientists develop a vaccine for the AIDS virus but
tests show it causes one case of cancer for every million
patients, Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.) told reporters as the
House took up the risk assessment bill. Because of that one
cancer case, a provision of federal law called the Delaney
Clause would require the Food and Drug Administration to keep
the life-saving vaccine off the market, he said in a
triumphant demonstration of the rigidity of federal
regulation.
It sounded like a compelling argument--except for one not
so small detail. The Delaney Clause has nothing to do with
drug approvals. It is, as Walker conceded later when asked
about it, a section of federal law that deals with
carcinogens that could show up in processed food, primarily
pesticide residues.
Even opponents of the House GOP's anti-regulatory agenda
such as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol
M. Browner concede that there are examples of government
heavy-handedness in enforcing laws on health and the
environment.
``Unfortunately,'' Browner added, ``much of the debate has
been conducted in sound bites. Changes of this magnitude
should be based on a vigorous debate with all of the facts on
the table. What we saw was instance after instance of stories
that don't even come close to resembling reality or the truth
of the matter.''
The property rights bill--which gives landowners the right
to claim compensation from the government if a portion of
their property loses 20 percent or more of its value because
of rules governing wetlands, endangered species and other
environmental restrictions--was also fertile ground for
embellished anecdotes.
During the House debate, Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (D-
La.), a leading advocate of the property rights legislation,
told a moving story of what he called government
``arrogance'' in enforcing wetlands regulations. The tale
involved the families of John Chaconas and Roger Gautreau in
Ascension Parish, La., whom he characterized as victims of
flawed wetlands laws and overzealous bureaucrats from the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The Gautreaus, said Tauzin, built a home after getting
approval from the Corps to dig a pond and use the fill as a
foundation. Then they built another home on part of their
property and sold it to the Chaconas family. According to
Tauzin, the Corps then swept in, told the Gautreaus the dirt
road that provides access to the two houses was on a wetland
and could not be used, and told the Chaconas family they
might have to forfeit their house.
John Chaconas, however, is refusing to play the part of
victim assigned to him by Tauzin. In testimony prepared last
week for delivery to a House task force on wetlands, Chaconas
said he strongly supports wetlands regulation. He said he was
victimized not by the government but by the Gautreaus, and
that now his family ``is being played as pawns by politicians
to justify their opposition to current wetlands law.''
In his prepared testimony, Chaconas tried to correct
Tauzin's rendition of the story. Gautreau, said Chaconas, had
failed to get a permit to dredge and fill wetlands despite
being advised to do so by the Soil Conservation Service, and
his actions had caused drainage problems for neighbors.
Chaconas is now suing Gautreau and others over the real
estate transaction.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 5, 1995]

Horror in the House

(By Jessica Mathews)

Every one of the most frequently cited horror stories used
to justify the regulatory ``reform'' passed by the House last
week is a fabrication. That tells a lot about the intent and
the wisdom of the legislation.
You've almost surely heard about how states thousands of
miles from Hawaii are forced to test their water for a
pesticide used only on pineapples. (Truth: The pesticide was
used on 40 crops before being banned as a probable
carcinogen. It's been found in 16 of the 25 states that have
tested for it, often at unsafe levels.)
Anchorage, so it is said, had to add fish wastes to its
water so it could then remove them, thereby cleaning its
sewage by the required 30 percent. (Truth: No one had to add
fish wastes to the water--that's how they've been routinely
disposed of. The 30 percent standard is the price of being
exempted from secondary sewage treatment. Anchorage's
complaint is about having to meet the most basic primary
treatment standard.)
There is also the OSHA leaky bucket story, the rodent
habitat that caused homes to burn in a wildfire and the baby
teeth as hazardous wastes story. All sound too nutty to be
true, and they are. The facts have been distributed--and
ignored--all over Capitol Hill, but by now the stories are
gospel.
As you might suspect from the quality of the rationale, the
new legislation is not an honest attempt at regulatory
reform. Like the balanced budget amendment, it is in part an
admission of failure. Out of frustration at its inability to
correct those laws and regulations that are flawed, Congress
has grabbed at a measure to indiscriminately weaken all
regulations, good and bad.
Far more perniciously, the bill is also a blackdoor attempt
to undo 35 years of environmental progress, a step for which
there is so little public support that it would never be
attempted frontally. Do not be misled. The measure
effectively repeals the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act
and every other statute that makes health, safety or
environmental protection the guiding standard. If it becomes
law, cost-effectiveness and ``flexibility'' (left undefined
for the courts to figure out) will replace those standards.
What cost-effectiveness and flexibility appear to mean, in
the opinion of former Republican senator Robert Stafford, is
that providing asthma drugs to children who go to school near
a paper mill could be the preferred choice over pollution
controls on the mill. Former interior secretary James Watt's
hat and suntan lotion solution to ozone depletion also leaps
to mind.
The bill tries to pin down the Gulliver of government
regulation in the worst possible way--with analyses,
paperwork and endless opportunities for delay in the courts.
It requires 22 separate analyses before a regulatory action.
It opens 60 new bases for judicial challenge. EPA things the
agency would need nearly 1,000 additional employees to
fulfill its requirements.
Cost-benefit analysis is made a rigid, one-size-fits-all
solution to every regulatory choice. While it is a modestly
useful aid to decision-making, cost-benefit analysis cannot
bear this burden. It does not reduce one whit the scientific
and economic uncertainties that bedevil regulatory disputes,
nor sidestep the need for value judgments. All its does is to
put the guesswork into a formal analytical framework.
At the end, however, an assumption is an assumption no
matter how sophisticated the mathematical trappings. The
answers cost-benefit analysis provides can never be better
than guesses about the future costs of new technology (nearly
always exaggerated) or imponderables like the worth of 20
lost IQ points or the dollar value of wilderness. Frequently,
the answers are far worse than what judgment can provide
because any factor to which a number cannot be attached must
be dropped from consideration, even it happens to be the most
important. Precisely because cost-benefit analysis seems to
provide an objective, definitive answer, yet is so highly
dependent on assumptions, it is ideally suited to ideological
manipulation.
This latest bit of the ``Contract With America'' is not
regulatory reform at all but a parody of reform. It takes the
worst aspects of the present system--paperwork, delay,
bureaucratic heavy-handedness--and makes them worse. It
lessens regulators' opportunities to use common sense and
makes them personable liable to huge fines for such crimes as
``misallocating resources.'' It turns normal conflict-of-
interest provisions inside out. Its intent is to throw sand
in the government's crankcase, not to improve the quality of
its actions.
Under normal circumstances the measure would stand little
chance of becoming law. Its assault on three decades of
bipartisan environmental achievement, in particular, is not
what Americans want. But genius and the trap of Gingrich's
100-day deadline is that not only is there no time for
legislators to understand what they're doing, neither the
media nor the public can keep up. Major bills fly out of
committee and onto the floor in a day or two and before
anyone has taken a close look at one, another has taken its
place. The House bill has a close match in the Senate
sponsored by Majority Leader Robert Dole. And while the
administration has made noises about a veto, so far the
silence from the bully pulpit has been deafening.
Plenty of laws and regulations need reform. There's only
one way to achieve it--the old-fashioned way, one law at a
time, individually, on the merits.

[[Page S4613]]

Mr. GLENN. These articles show how the moratorium sprung from the
minds of people intent not on a better or smarter Government, but a
dumber Government--slow, inefficient, less likely to act on behalf the
public interest.
A review of the progress of the House bill confirms my view of this
bill. House sponsors moved the starting date around several times so
that some rules could go forward and others would be caught. And
despite the broad sweep of the moratorium, special exemptions were soon
added.
The exemptions ranged from a promise in committee by the chief
sponsor to protect watermelon marketing orders--according to the
National Journal's Congress Daily, February 2, 1995, page 5--to floor
amendments exempting a variety of FCC matters, China sanctions, customs
modernization, airline safety, and other issues.
In the Senate, the record is quite similar to that of the House. On
February 7, 1995, the Governmental Affairs Committee held the first of
five regulatory reform hearings. On the seventh, we heard testimony
from the majority leader and a number of other Senators, including the
primary sponsor of the moratorium, Senator Nickles. As our committee's
majority report says:

Senator Nickles stated that the purpose of the temporary
moratorium is to give Congress enough time to pass
legislation to comprehensively change the regulatory process.

With due respect to my colleague from Oklahoma, since that hearing we
have devoted several weeks to the moratorium and now are on the floor
to debate it--this is all time that has taken away from regulatory
reform, I am sorry to say, not added to it.
On February 22, 1995, the committee devoted an entire hearing to the
moratorium. This hearing reinforced my conviction that the moratorium
is a bad idea. Mr. Rainer Mueller, a businessman from California,
described his personal tragedy of the death of his 13-year-old son to
E. coli infection and the impact of the moratorium on USDA regulations.
Witnesses from the Department of Transportation and the Food and Drug
Administration described specific health and safety rules that would be
stopped by the moratorium. Examples of such rules from other agencies
provided a clear picture of the potential destructive impact of the
moratorium on important government actions on behalf of public health
and safety.
While other witnesses told of regulations that certainly should be
reviewed, if not rescinded, the thought of stopping all rules,
including the meat inspection rules, in an effort to get at those bad
rules, was simply not convincing. And ironically, one witness pointed
out that the revised moratorium proposal before the committee would
only stop significant rules, the very rules that already undergo the
most rigorous regulatory analysis under Presidential Executive order.
Finally, Sally Katzen, Administrator of OMB's Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] told of the President's current order to
agencies to review existing rules and eliminate or revise outdated or
conflicting rules. This review will be completed in about ten weeks. it
seems to me that we should get this information before even thinking
about stopping regulations.
When asked about requirements for regulations, Ms. Katzen also
confirmed something that the former Republican EPA general counsel,
Donald Elliot, told the committee on February 15, 1995. As much as 80
percent of all rules are mandated by Congress. This is a very important
fact. It shows that if anything, we in Congress are the problem, not
the agencies. We pass strict laws that agencies must implement section
by section, letter by letter.
It is simply the worst kind of legislative schizophrenia for Congress
to pass laws and require agencies to implement them, and then turn
around and tell them to stop doing what we just asked them to do in the
first place--and with a few exceptions, without even regard to human
health and safety.
Again, I can only say that an effort targeted at bad rules makes
sense, but to shoot down all rules, good and bad alike, just makes no
sense at all.
On March 7 and 9, 1995, the committee met to mark up the moratorium
bill. Debate among the committee members about the scope of the bill
and its exemptions and exceptions highlighted one of the biggest
problems with the moratorium; that is, the way in which it would stop
important regulations, such as those that protect the American people
from serious health and safety risks.
While purporting to be a moratorium on all significant regulations,
the bill's sponsors recognized that this broad sweep is not a good idea
and accepted several amendments to exempt specific rules. But, they
also rejected others. To look at what was accepted and what was
rejected shows the arbitrary nature of the bill.
The committee accepted the following exemptions:
First, an exemption for rules to ``ensure the safety and soundness of
a Farm Credit System institution or to protect the Farm Credit
Insurance Fund.''
Second, an exemption for rules on ``commercial, recreational, or
subsistence * * * hunting, fishing, or camping.'' Among other things,
this would allow the annual revision of duck hunting regulations to go
forward. These rules are very important to the economic health of many
regions in our country. Just ask Senator Pryor from Arkansas, or
Senator Wellstone from Minnesota--their States would be significantly
hurt by even a delay in the hunting season.
Third, an exemption for rules on overflights on national parks.
Fourth, an exemption for any rule to enforce ``statutory rights that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age,
national origin, or handicapped or disability status.''
Fifth, an exemption for aircraft safety, including rules ``to improve
airworthiness of aircraft engines.''
Sixth, an exemption for ``safety and training standards for commuter
airlines.''
Seventh, an exemption for EPA rules to ``protect the public from
exposure to lead from house paint, soil or drinking water.''
Eighth, an exemption for rules on ``highway safety warning devices''
at railroad crossings.
Ninth, an exemption for negotiated rulemakings under the Indian Self-
Determination Act Amendments of 1994.
Tenth, an exemption for rules to ``provide compensation to Persian
Gulf War Veterans for disability from undiagnosed illnesses, as
provided by the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act.''
Even with that wide range of exemptions, the committee's majority
rejected the following exemptions:
First, an exemption for USDA rules to ``reduce pathogens in meat and
poultry.''
Second, an exemption for EPA rules to ``control of microbial and
disinfection byproduct risks in drinking water supplies.''
Third, an exemption for rules to ensure safe and proper disposal of
radioactive waste, as well as any action regarding decontamination and
decommissioning of NRC-licensed sites.
Fourth, an exemption for health and safety rules, where the agency
``has concluded to the extent permitted by law that the benefits
justify the costs.''
Fifth, an exemption for any rule that ``enforces constitutional
rights of individuals.''
Sixth, an exemption for rules required by statutory or judicial
deadlines.
Seventh, an exemption for rules that are the ``consensual product of
regulatory negotiation pursuant to the Regulatory Negotiation Act.''
These amendments were rejected, and they were rejected on a straight
party-line vote. To show how arbitrary these votes were, let me just
compare one or two of the amendments that were accepted with amendments
that were rejected.
The committee accepted an amendment to exempt from the moratorium EPA
rules to ``protect the public from exposure to lead from house paint,
soil or drinking water,'' but rejected an amendment to exempt EPA rules
to ``control of microbial and disinfection supplies.'' Why lead and not
water--don't my Republican friends recall that Cryptosporidium in
drinking water killed over 100 people in Milwaukee, WI, and made
400,000 people sick?
The committee accepted an amendment to exempt rules that would
clarify responsibilities among railroad
[[Page S4614]] companies, State and local governments ``regarding
highway safety warning devices'' at railroad crossings, but rejected an
amendment to permit the reform of USDA meat inspection rules that will
help reduce the 500 annual deaths and 20,000 annual instances of
disease, not to mention the millions of dollars in costs, caused by
food-borne illness.
Or perhaps, we should compare railroad crossing safety with
radioactive waste cleanup. Again, the majority of the committee
accepted the railroad crossing exemption--offered by a Republican
member of the committee--but rejected on a party-line vote my amendment
to exempt rules to ensure rules on safe disposal of radioactive waste.
I hope to come back to this issue later, but I cannot understand how my
colleagues could so easily dismiss standards for disposing of
plutonium-contaminated waste--radioactive waste that must be kept
safely from humans for at least 10,000 years.
The majority of the committee also rejected several important
amendments offered by Senator Levin that would actually have helped the
proposal make more sense. Retroactivity, an extra moratorium for
deadlines, onerous reporting requirements, ill-defined definitions--
these were provisions that just made no sense, as Senator Levin
correctly pointed out. But these were rejected, as well. As usual, my
good friend from Michigan saw through the rhetoric, could appreciate
the details, not to mention the broad policy issues, and accurately
pointed out the internal flaws of the moratorium process--but to no
avail. The marching orders were given, and the votes made.
I am simply at a loss to understand how my esteemed colleagues across
the aisle can explain these votes. What in the world will you tell the
American people? Here you are, saying that you want to reform the
regulatory process, that you want to stop bad regulations, that you
want rules to pass cost/benefit tests, and that you want agencies to be
governed by scientific risk assessments.
But when it comes time to vote, then the special interests come to
call, and you listen. And who pays the price? Rainer Mueller and Nancy
Donley can tell you the price they paid. Which of your constituents do
you want to share in Mr. Mueller's or Ms. Donley's pain? I am sorry,
but with all due respect, I do not want to have that pain, that injury,
that sickness, that suffering, that death on my conscience. The sorrow
for me, however, is that as a Member of this body, if we pass a
moratorium bill, we will all share in the blame. We will bring the
Senate down yet again in the eyes of our people. No wonder they have
lost respect for Washington.
As I asked at the markup, ``Are we saying that we'll protect the
rights of duck hunters, but not the right our children to eat safe
food?'' This makes no sense.
Do my Republican colleagues really understand what burden they are
taking on when they support the moratorium. I only hope they can admit
to having second thoughts, and think better of their too-hasty
endorsement of a bill that would make government more arbitrary, more
senseless, more unwielding, more blind, more insensitive, more of what
Americans do not want from their Government.
Finally, with regard to committee action on the moratorium, let me
point out that the majority in the committee voted to expand the
moratorium to cover: first, wetlands, determinations; and second, any
action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, subsistence, or
commercial use'' of public land.
I have a lot of sympathy with those who are fed up with the way the
wetlands program is run. I think it should be closely scrutinized and
reformed in a number of ways. I do not think, however, that a
regulatory moratorium is the way to accomplish that reform.
Regarding the second expansion, that is, the inclusion in the
moratorium of any action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational,
subsistence, or commercial use'' of public land, I am, again, at a
loss. Do the supporters of the moratorium really mean to stop virtually
all government action in our national parks, forest, refuges, and
monuments?
This provision would mean, as we wrote in our minority views on the
committee report:

That National Park Service employees would not be able to
carry out basic management responsibilities in our national
parks. The Park Service would not be able to prevent hot rods
from racing in national parks, restrict access to fragile
archaeological sites, or close dangerous passes on snow-
covered peaks. As the National Parks and Conservation
Association has said, ``This prohibition against rulemaking
effectively eliminates the abilities of the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Forest Service to manage federal lands for
resource protection.''

While the moratorium's supporters reject these questions and
criticisms with the statement that the bill permits the President to
exempt rules he thinks are really important, I take our legislative
responsibility seriously. I am confronted by a bill that makes no sense
on its own and makes no sense in the context of regulatory reform. So,
I cannot support it. It is as simple as that.
So that my colleagues can truly appreciate the damage that would be
done by this legislation, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
Record a summary of the amendments considered by the committee in its
markup on March 7 and 9; letters regarding the moratorium's impact on
the American people; a copy of our minority views to the committee
report on the moratorium bill; and a list of rules that would be
stopped by the moratorium.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Governmental Affairs Committee Markup of S. 219

Accepted:
(1) Roth Substitute for S. 219 (voice vote, 3/7): Limits
moratorium to ``significant regulatory action taken during
the moratorium period'' (no longer action ``made effective''
during the moratorium); extends moratorium period to ``time
beginning November 9, 1994, and ending on December 31, 1995,
unless an Act of Congress provides for an earlier termination
date for such a period.'' limits judicial review language to
``No determination under this Act shall be subject to
adjudicative review before an administrative tribunal of
court of law.''
(2) Cochran amendment to exempt ``any action taken to
ensure the safety and soundness of a Farm Credit System
institution or to protect the Farm Credit Insurance Fund.''
(voice vote, 3/7).
(3) Pryor amendment to exempt ``any agency action that
establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a
regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or
subsistence activity relating to hunting, fishing, or
camping, if a Federal law prohibits such activity in the
absence of agency action.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
(4) Akaka amendment to exempt ``the promulgation of any
rule or regulation relating to aircraft overflights on
national parks by the Secretary of Transportation or the
Secretary of Interior pursuant to the procedures specified in
the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking published on March
17, 1994, at 59 Fed. Reg. 12740 et seq.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
(5) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory
action which establishes or enforces any statutory rights
that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
sex, age, national origin or handicapped or disability
status.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
(6) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action to
improve safety, including such an action to improve
airworthiness of aircraft engines.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
(7) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action that
would upgrade safety and training standards for commuter
airlines to those of major airlines.'' (voice vote, (3/9).
(8) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action by
the Environmental Protection Agency that would protect the
public from exposure to lead from house paint, soil or
drinking water.'' (voice vote, 3/9).
(9) Thompson amendment to exempt ``any clarification of
existing responsibilities regarding highway safety warning
devices'' (intended to cover railroad crossings). (voice
vote, 3/9).
(10) McCain amendment to exempt actions ``limited to
matters relating to negotiated rulemaking carried out between
Indian tribal governments and that agency under the `Indian
Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-
413'.'' (voice vote, 3/9).
(11) Grassley amendment to include in the moratorium
actions to ``carry out the Interagency Memorandum of
Agreement Concerning Wetlands Determinations for Purposes of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Subtitle B of the Food
Security Act (59 Fed. Reg. 2920); or any method of
delineating wetlands based on the Memorandum of Agreement for
purposes of carrying out subtitle C of title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) or section 404
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).'' (voice vote, with opposition, 3/7).
(12) Stevens amendment to extend the moratorium to include
any action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational,
subsistence,
[[Page S4615]] or commercial use of any land under control of
a Federal agency, except'' with respect to ``military or
foreign affairs or international trade'' or ``principally
related to agency organization, management, or personnel.''
and to define ``public property'' as ``all property under the
control of a Federal agency, other than land'' (in order to
preclude any Presidential exemptions of public land rules
under the public property exemption in section 5(F).
(accepted 8-5, 3/7).
(13) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action to
provide compensation to Persian Gulf War Veterans for
disability from undiagnosed illnesses, as provided by the
Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act.'' (accepted 8-6, 3/
9).
Rejected:
(1) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action to
reduce pathogens in meat and poultry taken by the Food Safety
and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
including Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
regulations.'' (rejected 7-7, 3/7).
(2) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action by
the Environmental Protection Agency that relates to control
of
microbial and disinfection byproduct risks in drinking water
supplies.'' (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
(3) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory actions to
ensure safe and proper disposal of radioactive waste, as well
as any action regarding decontamination and decommissioning
of NRC-licensed sites. (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
(4) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory
action the principal purpose of which is to protect or
improve human health or safety and for which a cost-benefit
analysis has been completed and the head of the agency taking
such action has concluded to the extent permitted by law that
the benefits justify the costs.'' (rejected 7-7, 3/7).
(5) Levin amendment to: Eliminate retroactivity of the
moratorium, making the period ``from the date of enactment of
this Act until December 31, 1995'' (rather than starting on
November 9, 1994); require the President to ``publish in the
Federal Register a list of all rules covered by [the
moratorium]'' (a one-time reporting rather than a monthly
reporting requirement); and limit the moratorium to
significant, final rules (no longer extending the moratorium
to a ``substantive rule, interpretative rule, statement of
agency policy, guidance, guidelines, or notice of proposed
rulemaking''). (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
(6) Levin amendment to exempt any deadlines from the
moratorium that are statutorily or judicially mandated. (The
amendment deletes ``Section 4. Special Rule on Statutory,
Regulatory, and Judicial Deadlines''). (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
(7) Levin amendment to delete the five month extension of
the moratorium for deadlines. (the current bill states that
``any deadline for . . . any significant regulatory action .
. . is extended for 5 months after the end of the moratorium,
whichever is later.'') (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
(8) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory
action which is the consensual product of regulatory
negotiation pursuant to the Regulatory Negotiation Act.''
(rejected 7-8, 3/9).
Tabled:
(1) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory
action which enforces constitutional rights of individuals.''
(Table 8-7, 3/7).
S. 219 as amended was reported out of Committee on March 9,
1995 (vote 6-5).
____

General Board of Church and Society of the United
Methodist Church,
Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: I am writing you on behalf of the General
Board of Church and Society, the public policy advocacy
agency of The United Methodist Church, to express strong
opposition to S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act.
On March 4, 1995, our Board of Directors from throughout
the country stated the following: ``Public protections, such
as those dealing with food safety, safe drinking water,
worker health and safety, equal educational opportunity,
civil rights, motor vehicle safety, toxic pollution, the
well-being of children, and health care, are under attack
through Congressional initiatives [such as S. 219] to reduce
or eliminate federal laws and regulations. We believe the
federal government has an important role in protecting the
public interest and in improving quality of life. We believe
that undermining federal safeguards will cause serious harm
to people and the environment. These Congressional
initiatives also jeopardize services provided by public
charities and religious and governmental entities valued by
our society . . . Accordingly, we oppose any actions that
might be taken by the Congress to undermine sensible
safeguards.''
The health and safety of people and the planet has always
been an important concern for our Church. I urge you not to
let the popular cry of cutting red tape lead to the sacrifice
of the health and wholeness of our children and God's
Creation. Vote no on S. 219.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Thom White Wolf Fassett,
General Secretary.
____

The League of Women Voters,

March 16, 1995.
To: Members of the U.S. Senate.
From: Becky Cain, President.
Re: Anti-Regulatory Legislation.
The League of Women Voters is deeply distresed over current
anti-regulatory legislation designed to seriously undermine
the regulatory process as it applies to health, safety and
environmental protections. We urge you to oppose such
legislation.
We believe that extreme anti-regulatory measures would
subvert the federal government's authority and ability to
protect the health and well-being of the American people. For
many years, we have watched the progress as the lives of
citizens have been improved through the projections provided
by federal regulations. By requiring risk/benefit analysis
and additional layers of review, the proposed legislation
will not streamline regulatory procedures, but will
complicate and add years and costs to the regulatory process.
The League of Women Voters has long supported efforts to
assure that government provides opportunities for citizen
participation in government decision making, promotes the
conservation and wise management of natural resources in the
public interest and protects the well-being of our citizens--
particularly children. We believe that the underlying premise
that regulations should be based solely on the basis of their
cost to the private and public sectors is fundamentally
wrong. It is essential that the benefits to the American
people, such as health and safety, be an integral and
paramount part of the regulatory process.
The League is equally concerned about the ``takings''
provisions of anti-regulatory proposals. Again, legislation
is couched in pro-citizen terms, but would result in a more
burdensome regulatory process. The ``takings'' proposals
being considered by Congress would require the government to
compensate property owners when a government regulation may
reduce value by even a small amount. The affected regulations
include those that protect the environment, provide for food
safety, and protect individual citizens. ``Takings''
legislation could cost federal, state and local governments
billions of dollars, while costing citizens their health and
safety.
The League of Women Voters urges you to consider
thoughtfully and carefully the current anti-regulatory moves
on Capitol Hill. While there may be individual regulatory
processes that need some streamlining, extremist proposals
are not the solution. It is critical that we not lose sight
of the purpose of these regulations, which is to provide a
cleaner environment and a brighter future for our children.
We urge you to vote against extreme anti-regulatory
legislation brought before the Senate.
____

Center for Science

in the Public Interest,

March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: On behalf of our more than 800,000 members
nationwide, the Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI) urges you to oppose S. 219, the Regulatory Transition
Act. CSPI is a non-profit consumer advocacy organization that
focuses on matters relating to nutrition and health.
We urge you to oppose S. 219 because the bill will prevent
government agencies from issuing new regulations that will:
Modernize our nation's meat safety inspection system and
reduce thousands of deaths now caused by contaminated food;
set new nutritional standards for school lunches and improve
the dietary habits of our nation's children; establish safety
standards for the labeling and packaging of iron supplements,
which have caused fatal poisoning in children.
These are just a few of the many essential measures that
government agencies should be allowed to take in order to
safeguard our health and safety. Efforts to impose a
moratorium on new government regulations could cost thousands
of American lives. A moratorium means that government
agencies responsible for protecting consumer health will be
stopped in their tracks and prevented from doing their jobs.
Accordingly, we urge you to oppose S. 219.
Sincerely,
Bruce Silverglade,
Director of Legal Affairs.
____

Consumers Union,

March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: Consumers Union urges you to vote NO on S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, when it comes to
a vote on the Senate floor next week. S. 219 is a bad idea
for consumers and for the public health and safety.
S. 219, with few exceptions, would paralyze until the end
of this year most agency activities to develop health and
safety--as well as other important--regulations.
Among the pending rulemakings that the bill would halt is
one by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deal with deadly
bacteria in our meat and poultry supply. You are well aware
of the recent, tragic deaths and serious illnesses that have
resulted from e. coli bacteria in meat. The Department should
be congratulated and encouraged to, not delayed from, dealing
with this serious public health problem--and others like it.
Also pending is an Environmental Protection Agency
rulemaking to deal with cryptosporidium in public water
supplies. This is the bacterium that recently caused one-
hundred deaths and four-hundred thousand illnesses when it
contaminated Milwaukee's water supply. This proposed testing
standard, too, as well as other pending EPA public health
rules, would be frozen in mid-process by S. 219.
[[Page S4616]] Surely, consumers should be able to eat from
the commercial food supply and drink from public water
supplies without risking their lives or their health. But S.
219 will stand in the way of moving closer quickly to this
goal.
A ``NO'' vote on S. 219 will be a ``yes'' vote for public
health and safety. And for common sense. Please vote ``NO''.
Sincerely,
Mark Silbergeld,
Codirector.
____

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

coalition opposes regulatory moratorium (s. 219)

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more than
200 organizations representing working men and women and
those concerned about environmental, educational, civil
rights, disability, health, social services, low income, and
consumer issues, strongly opposes a regulatory moratorium
(enclosed is a Citizens for Sensible Safeguards Statement of
Principles and a listing of members). We strongly urge
members of the Senate to vote against S. 219, The Regulatory
Transition Act of 1995.
We are opposed to this bill because it would jeopardize the
health and safety of all Americans. Proponents of the bill
point out that there is an exemption for regulatory
activities that present an ``imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency'' or for enforcement of criminal
laws. However, the bill does not define an ``imminent threat
to health or safety''. Would a regulation that has been in
progress for a year be considered an ``imminent'' threat?
The proposed bill places a higher premium on protecting
rules for duck hunters than for our children. There is a
specific exemption from the moratorium for rules dealing with
duck hunting, but when Committee amendments were offered
dealing with protections for children, Republicans defeated
them. We think that is inappropriate.
The coalition also feels that the moratorium raises serious
Constitutional concerns. In one fell swoop, the bill suspends
the power of the executive branch to implement laws and of
the courts to enforce regulatory adjudication. This bill has
enormous repercussions for the separation of powers
established under the Constitution and will seriously limit
the ability of the President to faithfully execute the laws
of the land.
There are many unintended consequences of the bill. For
example, an amendment offered by Sen. Stevens (R-AK) adds to
the definition of ``significant'' any agency action that in
any way ``restricts recreational, subsistence, or commercial
use of any land under the control of a Federal agency.'' He
stated that he doesn't want commercial activity on public
lands to suffer because of the moratorium. However, this
would block virtually all pro-environmental agency actions on
public lands, including national parks, and would only serve
to hurt the environment, permitting as it does new agency
rules to accommodate ``forest health'' logging.
Overall, the coalition believes that a regulatory
moratorium is a flawed idea. No number of exemptions from the
moratorium will be enough to fix the bill.
Discussions are occurring at the present time concerning
the substitution of alternative bills such as legislation
allowing a Congressional veto of regulations. Under such a
plan, the Congress would have 45 days to review final
``major'' rules and then be able to pass a Joint Resolution
to disapprove of any such rules. The President could veto the
resolution and then the Congress would have authority to
override the veto. Such a bill would have a chilling impact
on the agency regulatory process and permit powerful special
interests to shape regulations by threatening Congressional
action. Accordingly, the Coalition opposes such a substitute
to S. 219.
Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Statement of Principles

Public protections, such as those dealing with food safety,
safe drinking water, worker health and safety, equal
educational opportunity, civil rights, motor vehicle safety,
toxic pollution, the well-being of children, and health care,
are under attack through Congressional initiatives to reduce
or eliminate federal laws and regulations. The following
organizations believe the federal government has an important
role in protecting the public interest and in improving
quality of life. We believe that undermining federal
safeguards will cause serious harm to citizens. These
Congressional initiatives also jeopardizes services provided
by public charities and religious and governmental entities
valued by our society.
Buried in the Contract with America's rhetoric about
shrinking government and rolling back red tape is a plan to
undo laws, and safeguards that citizens have struggled long
and hard to champion. We strongly support improving laws and
safeguards that protect citizens while recognizing the need
to reduce unnecessary and red tape. The zeal to minimize
regulatory burdens, however, must be balanced with the need
to ensure protections for all Americans. Accordingly, we
oppose actions taken by Congress to undermine sensible
safeguards.
We urge President Clinton and Congress not to let the
popular cry of cutting red tape--something we all believe
in--become a guise for dismantling federal safeguards that
should be preserved.

coalition structure

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards has three standing
committees: National Strategy Committee, chaired by American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
National Education Association, and OMB Watch; Grassroots
Strategy Committee, chaired by OMB Watch, Sierra Club Legal
Defense Fund, and United Cerebral Palsy Associations; and
Media/Message Committee, chaired by American Oceans Campaign
and Service Employees International Union.
A Steering Committee overseas coalition activities. The
Steering Committee is currently comprised of AFL-CIO,
American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, American Oceans Campaign,
the Arc, Families USA, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
National Education Association, Natural Resources Defense
Council, OMB Watch, Public Citizen, Service Employees
International Union, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, United
Auto Workers, United Cerebral Palsy Associations, United
Methodist Church, and US PIRG. OMB Watch chairs the
coalition.
Signers (as of 3/3/95):
20/20 Vision; Action of Smoking and Health; Advocated for
Youth; AFL-CIO.
Citizens for Public Action on Blood Pressure and
Cholesterol, Inc.; Citizens For Reliable And Safe Highways;
Clean Water Action; Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy
and Research; Coalition for New Priorities; Coalition on
Human Needs; Coast Alliance; Colorado Rivers Alliance; Common
Agenda Coalition; Communications Workers of America;
Community Nutrition Institute; Community Women's Education
Project; Consumer Federation of America; Cornucopia Network
of New Jersey; Council for Exceptional Children; Defenders of
the Wildlife; Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO;
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Earth Island
Institute; Earth Island Journal; Ecology Center of Ann Arbor;
Ecology Task Force; Environmental Action Foundation;
Environmental Defense Center; Environmental Defense Fund.
Environmental Research Foundation; Environmental Working
Group; Epilepsy Foundation of America; Families USA; Family
Service America; Food and Allied Service Trades Department,
AFL-CIO; Food Research and Action Center; Friends Committee
on National Legislation; Friends of the Earth; Frontlash;
Great Lakes United; Hamlet Response Coalition; Harmarville
Rehabilitation Center; Health and Development Policy Project;
Helen Keller National Center; Humane Society of the United
States; Interfaith Impact; Inter/National Association of
Business, Industry and Rehabilitation; International
Association of Fire Fighters; International Brotherhood of
Teamsters; International Chemical Worker's Union;
International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers; International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union;
International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's Union;
International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried,
Machine, and Furniture Workers; Izaak Walton League of
America; James C. Penney Foundation; Justice for All;
Kentucky Waterways Alliance.
Ozone Action; Pacific Rivers Council; People For the
American Way Action Fund; Philaposh; Physicians for Social
Responsibility; Protestant Health Alliance; Public Citizen;
Public Employee Department, AFL-CIO; Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility; Public Voice for Food and
Health Policy; Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety
and Health; River Network; Rivers Council of Washington;
Safefood Coalition; Scenic America; Service Employee's
International Union; Sierra Club; Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund; Society For Animal Protective Legislation; Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance; Special Vocational Education
Services in PA; Spina Bifida Association of America;
S.T.O.P.--Safe Tables Our Priority; Telecommunications for
the Deaf, Inc.; The Arc; The Loka Institute; The Newspaper
Guild; The Wilderness Society; Trout Unlimited.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Union of Concerned
Scientists; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian
Universalist Service Committee; United Auto Workers; United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO;
United Cerebral Palsy Associations; United Church of Christ,
Office for Church in Society; United Electrical, Radio, and
Machine Workers of America; United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union; United Methodist Church, General
Board of Church and Society; United Mineworkers Union; United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Prospect Workers of America;
United Steelworkers of America; US PIRG; Vocational
Evaluation and Work Adjustment Association; Western
Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health;
Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health;
Wider Opportunities for Women; Women Employed; Women of
Reform Judiasm, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods; Women's
Environment and Development Organization; Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom; Women's Legal
Defense Fund; Women's National Democratic Club.
____

National Wildlife Federation,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: Next week, the Senate will be considering the
Regulatory Moratorium bill, S. 219. This legislation will
impose a moratorium on all federal regulatory actions
[[Page S4617]] from November 9, 1994 until December 31, 1995.
Any regulatory action affecting the environment, public
health or safety, or impacting the economy by $100 million or
more in any calendar year would be halted.
I am writing to urge you to oppose S. 219, the Regulatory
Moratorium bill. This legislative bludgeon, adopted by the
House in February, would halt major federal environmental
programs, such as regulations implementing the Clean Air Act,
or establishing new guidelines for mineral development on
public lands.
The Regulatory Moratorium is a crude instrument being used
to address concerns about specific federal regulatory
programs, however, health and safety programs, food and drug
programs, the environment, housing and all other branches of
government will be affected.
The devastating impact of a regulatory moratorium on the
government is further compounded by an amendment introduced
by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), and adopted by the Senate
Government Affairs Committee last week. The Stevens Amendment
would stop the federal government from taking any action to
restrict ``recreational, subsistence or commercial use of the
public lands.'' The effect of the Stevens Amendment on
federal programs is staggering.
Land use planning efforts to balance resource uses and
values on the National Parks, Refuges, National Forests and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands would be stopped.
Most permitting activities of the federal land management
agencies would be held up.
The federal government's ability to respond to fire, flood
and other threats would be thwarted.

* * * * *

____

National Wildlife

Refuge Association,

March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: The National Wildlife Refuge Association
opposes the Stevens amendment to S. 219, the pending
regulatory moratorium legislation. This amendment, if
enacted, will ensure that incompatible uses on refuges
continue unchecked resulting in the needless loss and
harassment of wildlife and, in some cases, that refuge
visitor safety is compromised. Following are examples of
scenarios that can be expected System-wide if the Stevens
amendment is enacted:
Red Rock Lakes NWR (MT): For approximately two weeks in the
autumn migratory bird and big game hunting seasons overlap on
the Refuge. A popular site for big game hunting is a large
clearing that lies between a lake and an access road where
elk frequently browse without the benefit of cover. Under
current regulations hunters are permitted to shoot at big
game in the clearing once out of their vehicles and off the
road. Naturally, not all shots connect with their targets
and, in the case of more powerful rifles, can conceivably
reach the lake. But during the time of season overlap, duck
hunters can be found along the edge of the lake. Because of
the potential safety hazards, the refuge manager intends to
alter hunting patterns during the overlap. The Stevens
amendment will make it impossible for the refuge manager to
rectify this dangerous situation.
Chincoteague NWR (VA), E.B. Forsythe NWR (NJ): While beach-
oriented recreational activities are permitted approximately
nine months of the year on these two refuges, the areas must
be closed from May through August while piping plovers nest
along the beach. Under the Stevens amendment, seasonal
closures would be prohibited and recreational activities
would be permitted that could seriously impact plover nesting
activities.
Crystal River NWR (FL): In wintertime, Crystal River draws
nearly a quarter of the known manatee population because of a
warm spring that flows into the cooled waters. During this
time, the FWS closes the refuge to boating and jet-skiing in
an effort to help the manatees avoid being struck by boat and
jetski hulls, and cut by hazardous propellers. The Stevens
amendment would prohibit this seasonal closing, thereby
exposing the concentrated numbers of manatees to increased
hazards.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only public land
system dedicated primarily to the conservation of wildlife.
In addition it also provides significant opportunities for
recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing,
hiking and other wildlife-dependent activities. By enacting
legislation that permits incompatible commercial and
recreational activities to continue on our Nation's Wildlife
Refuges, the Congress is not only jeopardizing our valuable
wildlife resources but also the recreational opportunities
that depend on them. Please oppose the Stevens amendment to
S. 219.
Sincerely,
Ginger Merchant,
Executive Vice President.
____

National Education Association,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the
National Education Association, I strongly urge you to vote
against S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
S. 219 would place a moratorium on a broad range of
important federal regulations until December 31, 1995, and
retroactively freeze regulations in effect since November 9,
1994. If enacted, S. 219 will undermine and negate many
important safeguards and protections for Americans, and lead
to confusion and uncertainty among state and local
governments and employers attempting to comply with federal
laws.
Among the hundreds of regulatory actions that could be
negated this bill are:
Department of Labor final regulations to implement the
Family and Medical Leave Act, scheduled to take effect on
April 16.
Department of Education guidance to states and school
districts on implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act;
Regulations currently being developed by the Education
Department that are necessary to implement the provisions of
the reauthorized Elementary Secondary Education Act;
Education Department regulations and guidance on the new
college student Direct Loan program, which will save the
federal government billions of dollars;
Proposed OSHA standards to protect workers from harmful
indoor air pollutants;
Expected FCC regulations to implement the Children's
Television Act; and
Consumer Product Safety Commission protections against
choking hazards from toys.
This bill would drastically curtail the ability of the
federal government to ensure that workers have safe
workplaces; that Americans have safe food, drinking water,
and clean air; and that children are protected from a broad
range of hazards. NEA again urges that you vote against final
passage of S. 219.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasly,
Interim Director.
____

Physicians for

Social Responsibility,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: A proposed freeze on federal regulations (S.
219) and risk assessment legislation (S. 343) would
effectively paralyze our national ability to protect the
public health. So concludes one of America's leading
pediatric and environmental medicine experts, Philip J.
Landrigan, M.D., who testified on the severe public health
impact of comparable legislation in the House. This
legislation would sabotage America's ability to contain
deadly, emerging threats such as cryptosporidium in drinking
water and particulate air pollution. Public health impacts
are critical in evaluating the merits of freezing federal
regulations or requiring costly, cumbersome new risk
assessments, far in excess of those already used by
government agencies. Listed below are just a few reasons why
S. 219 and 343 would undermine public health in America and
should be rejected:
A freeze and endless studies would grind public health
agencies to a halt ``[E]normously cumbersome and
extraordinarily bureaucratic requirements imposed on the
regulatory process in the name of government simplification
will seriously hinder'' the prevention of disease. (House
Commerce Subcommittee testimony of Philip Landrigan, M.D., 2/
2/95, p. 1, para. 3) The goal is to save lives, not to engage
in unending study. (Landrigan testimony p. 7, para. 1)
A costly new layer of bureaucracy would harm public health
A ``dreadful and tragic misuse of legislative power [would]
enshrine the false science of quantitative risk assessment as
the law of the land,'' creating ``a grossly obese and
unnecessary bureaucracy'' that would ``set the stage for
disease, disability and untimely death'' in America. (p. 7,
para. 2)
Less gridlock saves kids; More gridlock hurts workers
Removing lead from gasoline is one of the most successful
federal efforts ever to protect children's health, saving
money and improving Americans' lives. But with a moratorium
and the detailed regulatory analysis Congress is considering,
we would still have lead in gasoline--and more childhood lead
poisoning--today. Meanwhile, additional risk assessment
required for an OSHA benzene standard wasted seven years and
may have caused nearly 500 workers to die needlessly from
leukemia. ``The human consequence of this insistence upon
quantitative tidiness has been grim.'' (p. 5, para. 6)
Public health regulations save workers' lives and American
jobs Contrary to massive job loss claims, public health
regulations not only protect workers, but can also help save
American jobs by stimulating efficient, less dangerous
production (Testimony Addendum p. 2).
Very truly yours,
Joseph M. Schwartz,
Associate Director for Policy.
____

National Parks

and Conservation Association,

Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: During debate on the regulatory moratorium
legislation, S. 219, the Committee on Governmental Affairs
adopted an amendment offered by Senator Stevens to prevent
any regulations or rules that ``withdraw or restrict
recreational, subsistence, or commercial use of any federal
land under the control of a Federal agency.'' This
prohibition against rulemaking effectively eliminates the
abilities of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest
Service to manage federal lands for resource protection. We
encourage you to support efforts to eliminate this provision
from the bill when it is considered on the Senate floor.
The National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) is
concerned about the bill's likely impacts on management of
the
[[Page S4618]] National Park System. The NPS is not perceived
as a regulatory agency; yet, the NPS depends upon regulations
to protect the resources of our national parks. The
moratorium would be retroactive to November 9, 1994. Since
that time the NPS has issued a number of significant rules,
which include: recreational fishing rules for the Everglades
National Park that are consistent with state fishing
regulations, closure of high visitation areas to hunting at
Pictured Rocks National Seashore, protection for
archeological resources in all cultural and historical parks,
authority to eliminate most solid waste sites within park
boundaries, altering approved off-road vehicle areas at Cape
Cod National Seashore in order to protect the endangered
piping plover, implementing a pre-registration period for
mountain climbing in Denali National Park.
NPCA does not believe any of these regulations are
overburdensome, nor are they stifling the productivity of the
country. These examples demonstrate why the Stevens amendment
to S. 219 overreaches.
In addition to the efforts listed above, the NPS is working
on regulations that will: require greater environmental
compliance at oil and gas development sites within the parks;
limit flights over parks where noise and safety have become a
concern; limit fishing activities in parks where stocks are
becoming depleted; and put in place more stringent limits on
solicitation within the boundaries of national park units.
These are efforts to improve visitor services, ensure safety,
and, most importantly, protect our national heritage.
____

Impacts of the Regulatory Moratorium Required by the Stevens Amendment
to S. 219

national park service

Below are the NPS actions, notices, regulations or rules
that would not be implemented because of the Stevens
Amendment. These are not the type of actions that are
stalling America's business engine.

Alaska

Denali National Park and Preserve--pre-registration
requirements for mountain climbing and information for
mountaineering activities in the park.
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve--new regulations to
adjust daily number of permitted entries of vessels into the
bay; also rules to prohibit commercial fishing within park
boundaries.
Katmai National Park--rules to determine safe distances for
human contact with bears in the park.
Alaska wide--establishing regulations for subsistence
hunting on federal lands.

Arizona

Grand Canyon National Park--issuance of general management
plan.
Lake Mead National Recreation Area--implementation of
general management plan for Willow Beach.

California

Joshua Tree National Park--notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement for a wilderness and
backcountry management plan.
Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail--issuance of
draft comprehensive management plan.

Florida

Big Cypress National Preserve--requirement for bonding and
environmental compliance for all oil and gas operations
within the park.
Dry Tortugas National Park--regulations to protect certain
locally threatened shell fish from harvest; adjustment of
boundary lines.
Everglades National Park--rules to achieve consistency with
state fishing guidelines.
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve--issuance of
management and land protection plans.

Hawaii

Kaloko Honokohau National Historic Park--implementation of
general management plan for the park.

Idaho

City of Rocks National Preserve--issuance of final
comprehensive management plan for the park.

Louisiana

Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve--temporary
closure to address excessive nutria population.
____

OMB Watch,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: We are writing in opposition to S. 219, the
Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
The Regulatory Transition Act imposes a moratorium on
developing or implementing all significant regulatory actions
from November 9, 1994 to December 31, 1995. The moratorium
also suspends court order deadlines to carry out significant
regulatory actions.
The regulatory moratorium is a blunt instrument that has
little to do with regulatory reforms and, in fact, the
moratorium is a threat to public protections and must be
opposed. Every poll, including those of exiting voters last
November, shows an electorate that wants stronger federal
protections for our environment and our health and safety.
The moratorium would directly undermine that objective.
The proposed bill will have unintended consequences and
proposals to exempt certain activities is not a solution to
making the bill workable. Thus, the concept of a moratorium
is fundamentally flawed.
The proposed bill also raises serious constitutional
concerns by prohibiting the executive branch from
implementing the laws of the land and prohibiting the courts
from enforcing regulatory adjudications. In selected cases,
Congress would let the executive branch implement laws but
not without going through a series of bureaucratic hoops.
This bill has enormous repercussions for the separation of
powers under the Constitution and will seriously limit the
ability of the President to faithfully execute the laws of
the land.
The moratorium is a means for gutting federal laws and
protections. By passing this bill, Congress could undo the
implementation of many laws. Conservative Republicans are
using the moratorium as a vehicle to stop federal protections
until such time as they can pass other laws to dismantle
these protections. They have listed laws that they want to
rewrite such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air and
Water Acts, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Truth in
Lending Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act.
The effect of this legislation would be to essentially shut
government down. This was not the intent of the voters in
November. The public wants to streamline government and to
make it work more efficiently. But the public also wants
improved protections and safeguards. It does not want to
throw the baby out with the bath water--which will be the
results of a regulatory moratorium.
The moratorium has enormous consequences yet there has been
virtually no debate on the proposed bill. The public has a
right to know about what Congress is planning and a right to
publicly debate these plans. Let's not resort to backhanded
approaches, such as the regulatory moratorium, to achieve
outcomes that may be inconsistent with popular sentiment.
We urge you to vote against S. 219, the Regulatory
Transition Act of 1995.
Sincerely,
Gary D. Bass,
Executive Director.
____

Religious Action Center

of Reform Judaism,

March 16, 1996.
Dear Senator: On behalf of The Commission on Social Action
of Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American
Rabbis, I urge you to oppose S. 219, The Regulatory
Moratorium. If passed, this bill will jeopardize the
protection of our food and drinking water, worker health and
safety, civil rights, motor vehicle safety, and the well
being of our children.
This bill and others like it are part of a systematic
attack against government regulation. Although stemming from
legitimate concerns about bureaucracy and regulatory
entanglements, they respond to these concerns with a cure
that is worse than the illness. These anti-regulatory
measures go far beyond an attempt to make government more
responsive and efficient--they threaten the ability of
government to fulfill its primary mission: protection of the
common good.
This moratorium is extremely far reaching, severely
constraining the regulatory abilities of the FDA, EPA, FAA,
USDA, DoE, FEC, INS, FCC, and the Transportation, Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development
Departments. In addition, rather than eliminating
bureaucracy, this bill will create a new form of delay. For
these reasons, a coalition of over 200 national public
interest groups has asked the Senate to rethink S. 219
carefully and preserve public health and safety protections.
The last election showed great public concern over the size
and efficacy of the government. However, this should not be
seen as a desire to weaken environmental health and safety
standards. The latest Times-Mirror poll says that 82% of the
public wants such standards to become stricter. Congress must
not jeopardize our health and safety in a hasty attempt to
address the problems of the federal government. S. 219 will
have just this effect.
The ``Regulatory Moratorium'' begins the process of
dismantling the federal government. The moratorium will
prevent federal agencies from taking actions necessary to
protect the public. S. 219 would suspend all final
regulations approved by any government agency since November
9, 1994 and prohibit any work on new regulations until
December 31, 1995.

* * * * *

____

National Safe Kids Campaign,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: I am writing to you, on behalf of the
National Safe Kids Campaign, to express our serious concerns
regarding S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. We
believe this bill jeopardizes regulations that will protect
our children from preventable injuries--the number one killer
of children ages 14 and under.
Each year, unintentional injuries kill nearly 7,200
children and leave 50,000 disabled. Not only is there a
staggering emotional toll to childhood injury, but there is a
monetary toll as well--unintentional injuries cost society
$13.8 billion annually.
Fortunately, prevention saves lives and money. One dollar
spent on a bike helmet saves society $30; one dollar spent on
a child
[[Page S4619]] safety seat saves society $32; one dollar
invested in a poison control center saves society almost $8;
one dollar spent on a smoke detector saves society between
$44 and $70. However, prevention fails when safety products
are defective.
A fundamental component of successful injury prevention is
the sensible regulation of certain consumer products which
pose a danger to children. However, S. 219 would undermine
the progress being made towards the safe and sensible
regulation of products which could harm children.
Specifically, the President is given too much discretion
under Section 5(2)(A) to determine whether a regulatory
action should be exempted because there is an ``imminent
threat to human health or safety.'' The intent of this
provision is vague and will result in an additional,
unnecessary bureaucratic layer. This provision flies in the
face of the intent of the bill--to streamline the regulatory
process. Indeed, Section 5(2)(A) could easily delay or stop
important regulatory activity that could save children's
lives.
S. 219 could result in needless injuries and deaths to
children. Responsible regulations such as the children's
safety regulations currently under consideration save lives
and dollars. These activities and others like them should
move forward. Prevention-related regulations which save lives
and dollars include:
Requirements for child-resistant packaging for certain
household products and medications.
There were 1.2 million reported poison exposures among
children ages 12 and under in 1992. The primary source of
poisonings were cosmetics, personal care items and cleaning
products. Final rules are currently being developed for
packaging standards for several household products and
prescription drugs.
Safety standards for bicycle helmets to ensure that all
helmets sold meet certain accepted effectiveness criteria.
Each year, approximately 300 children ages 14 and under are
killed in bicycle-related incidents--often as a result of
head trauma. Currently, helmets may be sold which do not
provide adequate protection against head trauma. At the
express direction of Congress, a standard for bicycle helmets
drawing from existing voluntary standards is currently being
developed.
Performance standards for baby walkers. In 1993 alone,
25,000 children required emergency room treatment due to the
use of baby walkers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) is currently working on a Notice of Proposed Rule
making to develop design or performance requirements for baby
walkers.
Toy labeling and choking reporting regulations. In 1992,
there were 142,700 toy-related injuries to children ages 14
and under. The Child Safety Protection Act of 1994 required
the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue rules banning
certain small toys, establishing standards for toy labels
identifying choking hazards, and requiring the reporting of
choking incidents related to toys. The CPSC approved the
final rules in February, 1995.
Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture. Each year,
approximately 1,000 children ages 14 and under die in
residential fires. More than 60 percent of these children are
ages 4 and under. Playing with matches and lighters is the
leading cause of fire deaths and injuries in young children.
A substantial proportion of fires are associated with the
flame ignition of upholstered furniture. A proposed
flammability standard currently is being developed by the
CPSC.
The National SAFE KIDS Campaign is the first and only
nationwide campaign solely dedicated to the prevention of
unintentional childhood injuries. The Campaign with its more
than 170 State and Local Coalitions, through community-based
programs that provide education, promote environmental and
product modifications, and support appropriate public policy.
On behalf of the Campaign, our Chair, Dr. C. Everett Koop,
M.D., and the children whose lives are saved daily through
sensible regulations, I ask that you oppose the regulatory
moratorium proposed in S. 219.
Sincerely,
Heather Paul, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
The Humane Society of

the United States,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of The Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS), the largest animal protection organization in
the country with over 2.3 million members and constituents, I
am writing to urge you to oppose S. 219, the Regulatory
Transition Act of 1995. This bill will irreparably harm
efforts to protect the public and the environment on which we
depend, including endangered species, our public lands, and
animal protection efforts generally. The public at large will
also be harmed, through paralysis of government oversight of
food safety, safe drinking water, worker health and safety,
civil rights, and other critical areas.
The HSUS is gravely concerned about the breadth and scope
of attacks against environmental and animal protection
regulations in general. Federal regulations have provided
effective protection for endangered wildlife and wild lands,
nourishing the American spirit while supporting a strong
economy and a healthy environment. Without these protections
American would not be able to enjoy the wonders of national
parks or the mysteries of wild animals such as bison and bald
eagles.
S. 219 would jeopardize some of the most critical wildlife
and animal protection laws. Regulations under the Wild Bird
Conservation Act and the newly reauthorized Marine Mammal
Protection Act would be stopped, leaving large numbers of
wild populations vulnerable to continued depletion. Decisions
on listing endangered species, already backlogged from years
of inaction, would be delayed, further limiting the options
for finding creative and economically viable paths toward
preventing extinctions.
The American people did not vote last November to eliminate
the environmental and animal protection legislation they have
worked so hard to put in place. Neither did they vote to
create an endless tangle of litigation and rule-making to be
funded at taxpayer expense. I urge you, then, to vote no on
S. 219.
Sincerely,

John W. Grady, Ph.D.,

Vice President,
Wildlife and Habitat Protection.
____

Women's Legal Defense Fund,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator, The Women's Legal Defense Fund urges you to
oppose S. 219 and S. 343. These so-called ``regulatory
reform'' bills would gut the enforcement of some of our most
important environmental, consumer, civil rights, and health
and safety protections.
S. 219, the regulatory moratorium, would retroactively
freeze all regulations issued since November 9, 1994. This
bill could stop or delay the enforcement of existing rules
affecting:
Mammogram quality--The moratorium would suspend regulations
designed to ensure minimum quality standards for breast
cancer screening. These regulations could mean the difference
between life and death for countless women; holding them up
in the name of reform plays games with women's lives.
The Family and Medical Leave Act--The Department of Labor's
final rule implementing the FMLA would be suspended under the
proposed moratorium. The final rules clarify many
uncertainties in the law's application: employers and
employees should not be deprived of this guidance just as
they are learning their rights and responsibilities under
this new law.
Child support--Rules to improve paternity establishment
would be suspended. At a time when Congress is working to
strengthen child support enforcement, delaying the
implementation of these rules would be counterproductive.
S. 343 threatens to dismantle the federal government's
ability to protect us, our children, and our environment by
bringing the rulemaking process to a grinding halt. Agencies
would be required to perform time-consuming risk assessment
and cost-benefit analyses, not only on proposed new
regulations, but also on any existing ``major'' regulation
that is challenged. And costs of implementation would be the
paramount concern, not the health and safety of American
workers and their children.
If enacted, S. 219 and S. 343 would have a truly
devastating effect on women and their families. Please vote
against these draconian measures.
Sincerely,
Judith L. Lichtman,
President.
____

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
Washington, DC, March 13, 1995.
Dear Senator: This week the Senate is expected to take up
the proposed regulatory moratorium bill (S. 219). The UAW
strongly opposes this proposal that threatens to weaken or
eliminate hundreds of safeguards that now protect families
and children in their homes, workplaces and communities. We
urge you to vote against S. 219 when it comes to the Senate
floor.
This legislation would have far-reaching consequences for
the way the federal government carries out its
responsibilities to safeguard public health, the environment
and workplace safety. The moratorium bill would stop the
issuance of most new federal regulations, retroactive to
November 9, 1994. This moratorium would remain in place
through the end of 1995, or until Congress approves a
comprehensive overhaul of federal safeguards. The bill would
effect regulations that are expected to have an annual impact
on the economy of $100 million or more. This is an arbitrary
threshold that makes no distinction between good or bad
regulations.
A number of key amendments that would have improved S. 219
were rejected by narrow margins in the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee. The UAW was disappointed that an attempt
to exempt worker safety and health protections from the
moratorium was defeated on a tie vote. In addition, other
amendments to exempt food safety programs, toxic waste
disposal and safe drinking water protections were defeated as
well. Although powerful timber and grazing industries and
other special interests were able to obtain exemptions from
the regulatory moratorium, few exemptions were provided for
regulations that deal with safeguards for ordinary citizens.
Thus, the net effect of S.219 would be to stop regulations
that deal with
[[Page S4620]] workplace health and safety, such as the
proposed ergonomics standard, worker protections like the
Family and Medical Leave Act, and public health measures such
as regulations dealing with food poisoning.
For these reasons, the UAW is strongly opposed to S. 219.
In our judgment, this measure would undermine the ability of
the federal government to play a positive role in
safeguarding the health and safety of our children, our
families, our workplaces, and our communities. We urge you to
vote against S. 219 when the Senate takes up the legislation.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
Public Citizen,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: Sometime in the next week, you will be asked
to vote against public health and safety. The Senate may vote
on S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act, a regulatory
moratorium which slams the door on government efforts to
protect American people. The Senate may also consider a bill
to give Congress a veto power over regulations, a provision
which will inappropriately bring enforcement of laws back
into the political arena.
On behalf of Public Citizen and its members, I urge you to
oppose these attacks on public health and safety.
The regulatory moratorium is a crude, poorly understood,
meat-axe approach to an extremely complicated issue. The
moratorium will disrupt thousands of pending programs,
including efforts to upgrade archaic meat inspection systems.
American children are already dying from E. Coli
contamination of their food--contamination which could be
prevented. American children will continue to die as a result
of further delay on these types of safeguards.
The regulatory moratorium would override statutory mandates
which Americans support, without the scrutiny of public
debate. Polls show that Americans want stronger federal
protection for public health and safety. If Congress wants to
repeal the Clean Air Act, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, they should debate
the substance of those statutes, rather than attack the
regulatory system on which these protections are built.
The regulatory moratorium would be costly to taxpayers and
to business. Taxpayer money would be wasted while federal
agencies charged with implementing laws passed by Congress
are stopped in their tracks. Delays in regulations effecting
planning cycles will add to business costs.
Special business interests have been able to win exemptions
for regulations that will help line their pocket books. But
the American public has not been able to get a special
exemption for government safeguards that will protect our
very lives.
Natural Resources Defense Council,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council, a national membership organization dedicated to the
protection of public health and the environment, I urge you
to vote No on the regulatory moratorium (S. 219) and
regulatory reform bills now pending before the Senate. These
bills would place polluters before the public and undermine
25 years of bipartisan environmental success.
Regulatory Moratorium. S. 219 would block new rules aimed
at protecting the public and streamlining government. For
example, the bill would bar the regulation of
cryptosporidium, the parasite that contaminated Milwaukee's
drinking water, sickening 400,000 and killing more than 100
people. A moratorium on new rules is the wrong tool to
identify and fix defects in existing rules.
Nor is the solution a proposal now being considered as an
alternative to a regulatory moratorium--a 45-day delay in
issuing rules pending Congressional review. Every rule will
have its special interests pounding the pavement on Capitol
Hill to stop it, diverting limited Congressional resources
from more pressing matters.
I also urge you to oppose efforts to expand any moratorium
to actions other than rulemakings. Amendments like that
offered by Senator Stevens in the Government Affairs
Committee preventing any action that ``restricts
recreational, subsistence, or commercial use of any land
under the control of a Federal agency'' will bring to a halt
efforts to preserve our public lands for future generations.
Restricting actions to enforce existing limitations on the
use of public lands will penalize law-abiding citizens who
have been good stewards of our federal lands.
American Oceans Campaign,

Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: American Oceans Campaign is a national, non-
partisan organization working to protect our world's oceans
and marine environment. We strongly urge you to Vote No on S.
219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
This bill will have devastating effects on our nation's
fisheries, coastal programs, and rules to ensure public
health and safety, such as protections in the Safe Drinking
Water Act and Clean Water Act. Even negotiated rules agreed
to by all parties to address disinfection by-products and
cryptosporidium in drinking water would be halted. Such
safeguards are critical to protecting the public from known
carcinogens and dangerous pathogens in drinking water
supplies across the country.
American Oceans Campaign strongly opposes S. 219. Uniform
federal protections and safeguards are necessary to ensure
public health and conserve our precious natural resources.
Government reform is essential, but public and environmental
protections should not be eviscerated in the process. S. 219
uses a sledgehammer where a surgeon's scalpel is needed. Any
revisions should be made on a case by case basis, not in an
ad hoc fashion. We are available to assist you in this
endeavor, as we support common sense initiatives like ending
subsidies to polluters and encouraging pollution prevention
programs.
In poll after poll, American voters overwhelmingly support
strengthening federal standards for environmental and public
health protection. As public servants, it is incumbent on
Congress to craft the most responsible policy for the nation.
S. 219 is not responsible legislation. We urge you to resist
any temptation to pass this or any bill which threatens
protections for the American people and the air we breathe,
water we drink, and land on which we live.
Sincerely,
Ted Danson,
President.
Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water

two good reasons to oppose s. 219

1. Urgently needed protections to control the deadly bug
cryptospordium and cancer-causing chlorine by-products would
be stopped.
The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA], last amended in 1986,
does not include regulations on cryptospordium, the protozoa
from animal wastes that caused 400,000 people to become ill
and over 100 to die in Milwaukee in 1993. Cryptospordium,
giardia and other bacteria contribute largely to the nearly
one million people that the Centers for Disease Control
estimate are made ill from their drinking water each year. A
recent report documented 116 water-borne disease outbreaks in
the U.S. 1986-1994. Due to chronic under-reporting, this is
just the tip of the iceberg.
Many people are at higher risk to serious illness or even
death from cryptospordium and giardia, including infants and
children, pregnant women, people with AIDS and the elderly.
The SDWA also fails to adequately control dangerous by-
products of chlorine and similar disinfectants. These
disinfection by-products (DBPs) are found in the drinking
water of over 100 million people. A recent study by doctors
from Harvard and Wisconsin found that DBPs may be responsible
for 10,700 or more rectal and bladder cancers per year.
Doctors from the Public Health Service found that certain
birth defects are significantly associated with DBPs. EPA has
found that DBPs can also cause liver and kidney damage.
2. S. 219 hijacks the political process
Responding to the new scientific and public health data
documenting these real and immediate public health threats,
the EPA convened a ``negotiating team'' to develop
reasonable, cost-effective solutions. Representative from all
sides of the debate on providing safe drinking water were
included in this negotiation process--public water systems,
state and local health agencies, consumer groups, state and
local governments and environmental organizations.
This team agreed to develop modest controls of DBPs and
microbial contaminants, to gather more information and
research and to continue negotiations after gathering this
information. The drafting of the rules controlling
cryptospordium and DBPs was a ground-breaking effort to
include all parties in the decision making process.
This carefully constructed agreement, balancing public
health risks and costs, would be thrown out the window by S.
219. In a rush to score political points, S. 219 would delay
these urgently needed standards, leaving the public exposed
to health threats which have already caused tremendous pain
and suffering.
American Public Health Association,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: The American Public Health Association
representing over 50,000 health professionals and community
health leaders along with its 52 state affiliated
organizations opposes S. 219, Regulatory Transition Act. The
bill would create a moratorium on the development or
implementation of any new federal regulation until the end of
1995.
APHA believes that this legislation and other cost benefit
and risk assessment proposals (as currently drafted) present
a threat to human health and safety. Important contributions
have been made over the past few decades to the nation's
public health and its environment by the enactment of
reasonable and scientifically based legislation. This bill
will halt substantial progress on a number of important
initiatives on tobacco, food safety and workplace hazards.
We urge you and your colleagues in the Senate to oppose
this legislation and other attempts to limit the ability of
federal agencies to safe lives and prevent injuries.
Sincerely,
Fernando M. Trevino, PhD, MPH,
Executive Director.
Center for Marine Conservation,

Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
Dear Senator: The Center for Marine Conservation and its
125,000 members urge you to oppose S. 219 when it reaches the
Senate
[[Page S4621]] floor. The bill imposes a moratorium on the
development and implementation of all federal regulations
from November 9, 1994 through December 31, 1995, even
regulations mandated by court order. The moratorium falls
particularly hard on the environment:
1. The commercial fishing industry would be severely
affected if you halt regulations allocating allowable
harvests and bycatch limits in the New England and Alaskan
groundfish fisheries, and limiting access to certain other
federal fisheries.
2. Regulations authorizing the nonlethal deterrence of
marine mammals would be blocked, exposing fishermen to
prosecution under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
3. Regulations establishing a plan to manage the Florida
Keys Marine Sanctuary designated by Congress in 1992 would be
blocked, delaying the protection of the Keys fragile marine
resources so essential to the local economy.
4. All listings and critical habitat designations under the
Endangered Species Act--regardless how imminent the
extinctions--would be halted and certain species with
listings pending, like Pacific salmon and steelhead trout,
could become extinct.
The moratorium would stop roughly 900 regulations, many of
them meritorious and important actions ordered by Congress.
Examples include pending regulations to foster competition in
the electric power industry, regulations to provide for
safety in nuclear facilities, and renewable energy
incentives. This blunderbuss approach to government policy-
making should not be condoned. Even regulations that protect
the public against ``imminent threat to human health or
safety or other emergency'' would be delayed while they
undergo prolonged review within the OMB.
To prevent unintended results, such as the cancelling of
the duck hunting season, the House adopted a series of
exceptions. Exceptions for good regulations turns government
on its head; it is the bad regulations that need to be
addressed. If certain regulations impose undue burdens, as
some do, they should be carefully judged on their individual
merits. Carving out exceptions to the moratorium on an ad hoc
basis can never replace a thoughtful legislative process,
with full opportunity for public debate and legislative
hearings.
We urge you to reject this dangerous and ill-conceived
proposal, and oppose S. 219 when it is considered on the
Senate floor.
Very truly yours,
Roger E. McManus,
President.
____

National Audubon Society,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: I am writing to express the opposition of the
National Audubon Society to S. 219, the ``Regulatory
Transition Act of 1995.'' The regulatory moratorium embodied
in S. 219 would have serious unintended consequences that
would harm public health and the environment by delaying
important rules and creating chaos and confusion in the
regulatory process.
Because of our long-standing interest in the protection of
public lands, the National Audubon Society opposes the
Stevens Amendment to S. 219. This proposal would prohibit the
federal government from taking almost any regulatory action
that restricts ``recreational, subsistence or commercial
uses'' on public lands. Such regulations would qualify as
``significant,'' according to this amendment, and thus would
be frozen under the moratorium. If this legislation passes,
federal agencies would be unable to manage an enormous
variety of mining activities, logging, off-rode vehicle use,
development of oil, gas and geothermal leases, and other uses
of public lands, all of which may cause serious harm to the
nation's natural resources.
Finally, Audubon also opposes any attempts to substitute an
``alternative'' moratorium for S. 219, including a potential
proposal to institute a 45-day period in which Congress may
disapprove new regulations. Such a bill would allow special
interests who oppose a regulation an opportunity to defeat
the rule while it is being reviewed.
On behalf of the 550,000 members of the National Audubon
Society, I urge you to oppose S. 219, the regulatory
moratorium bill, in the interest of protecting our public
lands, the environment and public health and safety.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Raisbeck,

Senior Vice President for
Regional and Government Affairs.
____

Association of State

and Territorial Health Officials,

Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), which represents the
public health departments in each state and U.S. territory, I
am writing to express our serious concerns with S.219, the
proposed regulatory moratorium to be considered by the Senate
within the next few days.
ASTHO applauds many senators' earnest efforts to streamline
the federal bureaucracy. State agencies are very familiar
with the burdens necessitated by collaboration with the
federal government. However, state health officers have
serious concerns with the substance of S. 219.
The bill makes absolutely no distinction between overly
burdensome regulations and those which are necessary to
improve the public's health. In fact, members of the
Government Affairs Committee acknowledged that certain
regulations deserved exemptions from the moratorium. Among
the public health-oriented regulations to be affected by the
moratorium are the following:
Food safety: federal safeguards against food poisoning
requiring increased sanitation in food processing.
Safe mammograms: uniform quality standards for mammograms
enforced by an inspection and certification program.
Child labor: strengthening provisions so that a job may not
interfere with a child's schooling, health or well-being.
Drunk driving prevention: Establishes criteria for grants
to support states that impose stricter drunk driving rules
for underage drinkers.
Safe drinking water: a final rule to require drinking water
supplies to be tested for cryptosporidium, a life-threatening
parasite which sickened 400,000 people in the Milwaukee area
recently.
Although the moratorium exempts regulations that would pose
an ``imminent health or safety danger'', this exception is
meaningless without a clear definition that includes ongoing
public health concerns, regardless of ``immanence.'' (Revised
language in section 5 might read: an exemption is granted to
a regulatory action if it is necessary because of ``the
reasonable expectation of endangerment of the public's
health'' or safety or other emergency . . .)
We urge you to contact your state health department before
voting on this bill. In their unique role as the entity
statutorily responsible for the health of the population,
they can give you an accurate perception of how the
moratorium will affect your state's public health efforts.
ASTHO's position is that this regulatory reform effort
requires more scrutiny before passage. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher Atchison,
Director, Iowa Department of Public Health and President,
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
____

Defenders of Wildlife,

Washington, DC, Mar. 16, 1995.
Dear Senator: On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife's over
100,000 members, I am writing to urge that you oppose S. 219,
the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
As you know, this legislation would impose a fourteen-month
moratorium on federal regulations and virtually all actions
taken to restrict commercial, recreational and subsistence
uses on public lands. S. 219 is a blunt instrument that would
stop implementation of a broad range of new rules needed to
protect public health, the environment and wildlife. The bill
would also open our national parks, forests and refuges to
commercial exploitation and recreational excesses that could
have long-lasting impacts for wildlife and their habitats.
The Stevens amendment, added to S. 219 during consideration
by the Governmental Affairs Committee, would have especially
serious consequences for wildlife. Under this provision,
federal agencies would be prohibited from taking virtually
any action to restrict ``recreational, subsistence, or
commercial'' activities on the public lands. This provision
would have broad national impacts including:
Hindering federal land managers from taking quick action to
protect the public from fires, floods and other disasters
through the imposition of road closures and other access
restrictions (before making each closure order, a
Presidential exemption would be required);
Precluding the National Park Service from regulating
activities that might impair visitor enjoyment or harm
wildlife such as altering approved off-road vehicle areas at
Massachusetts' Cape Cod National Seashore to protect the
endangered piping plover;
Precluding the Fish and Wildlife Service from regulating
recreational activities on national wildlife refuges (an
action which could force refuge managers not to allow an
activity at all) such as regulating boating and jet-skiing to
protect endangered manatees at Florida's Crystal River
National Wildlife Refuge;
Precluding the Forest Service from balancing resource
values and uses as mandated under the National Forest
Management Act such as in the agency's efforts to maintain
viable wildlife populations in Alaska's Tongass National
Forest, the nation's largest national forest, through the
establishment of habitat conservation areas.

* * * * *

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC,
Washington DC, March 15, 1995.
Dear Senator: The Senate may soon consider S. 219, The
Regulatory Moratorium Bill.
While the Committee approved several limited modifications
to the moratorium (i.e., any regulation dealing with ``an
imminent threat to human health and safety or other
emergency''), this legislation itself is an imminent threat
to the health, safety, and well-being of millions of
Americans who depend upon their Federal government to protect
the quality of the food they eat, the water they drink, the
medicines they take, and the health and safety of the places
where they work.
What possible purpose can such a moratorium accomplish? Is
there some special value to arbitrarily stopping Federal
agencies from issuing regulations for 9\1/2\ months? Or
[[Page S4622]] is this legislation the first step in
undermining the organic laws which protect Americans from
risks which they cannot control themselves?
It has become increasingly apparent in recent weeks with
the passage of legislation on so-called unfunded mandates,
paperwork reduction, regulatory reform, and private property
rights that the real agenda of many in Congress is not to
make government more efficient or effective, but inoperative.
It would simply stop government from regulating at all
wherever and whenever possible. The regulatory moratorium is
only the latest legislative vehicle for accomplishing this
political objective.

* * * * *

Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,

Washington, DC, March 9, 1995.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Service Employees
International Union's 1.1 million members, I urge you to
oppose S. 219--the Regulatory Moratorium. This legislative
proposal will not, as its proponents claim, ``reform
government,'' Instead, S. 219 will bring much of government
to a grinding halt and prevent important safeguards and
protections from being instituted.
SEIU is particularly concerned about the impact this
moratorium will have on our members' safety and health in
their workplaces. In the service and public sectors, where
our members work, the rates of injuries and illnesses are
continuing to increase with no adequate safeguards. For
instance, in our nation's nursing homes, the rate of worker
injuries now exceeds that for construction workers, having
doubled in the last ten years. Back injuries and other
crippling ergonomic injuries are the fastest growing type of
injury among American workers.
S. 219 is designed to stop immediately the progress OSHA
has made for worker health and safety by issuing long awaited
and needed standards. For example, OSHA recently issue
standards to protect healthcare workers from exposure to
blood diseases, including HIV and hepatitis B infections.
With the re-emergence of tuberculosis, healthcare workers and
patients are now at increased risk of infection. Many workers
and patients are contracting and dying from diseases that are
resistant to current antibiotics. Workers need OSHA to issue
standards to ensure that they are protected from these and
other workplace hazards and diseases. Legislating moratoria
on all regulations will stymie OSHA's work to address this as
well as other growing health epidemics.
SEIU believes the federal government must play a role in
protecting workers and their families. While we recognize the
need to reduce time delays and streamline lengthy processes,
priority. Accordingly, I urge you to oppose S. 219.
Very truly yours,
John J. Sweeney,
International President.
Minority Views

1. Overview: Regulatory Reform, Not a Freeze

The regulatory moratorium established by S. 219 would
suspend all significant proposed and final regulations,
policy statements, guidance and guidelines issued or to be
issued from November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995--and
all statutory and judicial deadlines for such actions from
November 9, 1994, through May 1996. While comprehensive
regulatory reforms is clearly needed for the Federal
government, this legislation is not an appropriate or
necessary way to achieving such reform as its proponents
claim.
S. 219 as reported by our Committee is dangerous; it does
not distinguish between good and bad regulations. It suspends
regulations designed to protect public health and safety but
exempts regulations solely because they may ease
administrative requirements. It is arbitrary and reckless.
Based seemingly on whim, it exempts some regulations but not
others even though the regulations may be comparable.
There are indeed overly burdensome rules and regulations.
As the majority points out, the cumulative costs of Federal
regulations have risen over the past twenty years. (The
majority states, however, that the cost of regulations is
``conservatively estimated'' at $560 billion for 1992. That
estimate is highly questionable and is certainly not
``conservative''. A GAO review of that estimate submitted to
the Committee on March 8, 1995, suggests serious problems in
the methods used in that particular study.) Congress must be
sensitive to this fact. We must ensure that the laws we pass
meet public needs effectively and efficiently. The mounting
costs of regulations require that we closely examine both the
regulatory process and the laws that result in regulations.
But, we must not ignore the significant improvements that
regulations can bring to the daily lives of Americans. For
example, since the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration came into being in 1970, the workplace
fatality rate has dropped by over 50 percent. The Food and
Drug Administration has made our food and medicines safer.
Thanks to the work of the Environmental Protection Agency,
our country now enjoys cleaner air and water.
Clearly the work of government is not finished. The
government still has a vital role to play in protecting
public health and safety, ensuring equal opportunities in
education, employment and housing, promoting a healthy
economy, and protecting the environment. With diminishing
resources, the question becomes how we can provide these
services in a cost-effective way. The Congress and the
Executive Branch must work together to continue to improve
the way the government does business, and in fact several
initiatives are already underway--from government
streamlining and reengineering to regulatory reform.
Much more is at stake, however, than merely improving
government processes. The regulatory moratorium legislation
implies that Federal agencies have simply run amok by issuing
too many regulations and that process controls will fix
everything. This is just not true. As stated in one of the
hearings before the Committee, perhaps 80 percent of all
agency rules are required by law. Agencies regulate because
the law requires them to do so. Thurs, while the majority
accurately describes the increase in regulations over the
last twenty years, it ignores the twenty years of legislation
(most signed by Republican Presidents) that led to this
increase in rules. While nameless ``regulations'' may be a
convenient whipping boy, it ignores the reality of the harder
task of tackling individual substantive law. This is a major
reason that, while the majority report suggests that there is
universal support for a moratorium,
the proposal is, to the contrary, actually quite
controversial. More than 200 groups have opposed the
moratorium, including the American Heart and Lung
Associations, the Child Welfare League of America, the
Consumer Federation of America, the Epilepsy Foundation of
America, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the
League of Women Voters in the U.S., and the National
Council of Senior Citizens.
Finally, whatever the interests of its proponents, the
moratorium legislation is truly unnecessary. The President
has required all Federal agencies to review their regulations
and to report back by June 1 on those which should be
eliminated or changed. This report will provide the
information we need to reform regulations and programs
smartly, avoiding arbitrary and potentially grave, unintended
consequences. In addition, there are various regulatory
reform initiatives underway in this and other committees to
strengthen our regulatory system--risk assessment, cost-
benefit analysis, review of existing rules, centralized
regulatory review, and more. A moratorium does nothing toward
real regulatory reform.

2. the flaws of s. 219

While proponents of the moratorium state that its purpose
is to improve efficiency and effectiveness and allow for
``Congress to rationalize the regulatory reform process,''
the moratorium is ironically an inefficient, ineffective, and
irrational approach. The moratorium will create delays in
good regulations, waste money, and create great uncertainty
for citizens, businesses, and others. The report speaks of
the regulatory process being ``ossified, unresponsive, and
inefficient.'' The moratorium will only add to that. For
example:
While the moratorium purports to be a neutral ``time-out''
for all significant regulatory actions, the targeted rules
and the variety and number of exceptions are evidence that
the legislation is really an example in political ``ticket
fixing.''
During the Committee mark-up numerous exceptions to the
moratorium were accepted. Members offered twenty-two
amendments to S. 219. Many were to exempt specific health and
safety rules from the moratorium; others were to exempt broad
categories of regulations; two were put forth that would
expand the scope of the moratorium. Thirteen amendments were
accepted, eight rejected, and one tabled. There appeared to
be very little logic in what was rejected or accepted.
Although meat and water safety amendments were defeated,
others, such as exemptions related to commuter air safety,
railroad crossing safety, duck hunting, and lead poisoning
prevention, were passed. We fully supported all amendments
that would limit the moratorium. The inconsistency, however,
of the majority only heightens our concerns about the
legislation.
The bill's exemption of rules that address any ``imminent
threat to health and safety'' is unclear and the majority
report's interpretation leaves unanswered many questions
about what would and would not be covered. The bill would
permit the President, upon written request by an agency head,
to exempt a significant regulatory action from the moratorium
upon a finding that the regulatory action ``is necessary
because of an imminent threat to human health or safety or
other emergency'' (sec. 5(a)(2)(A)). For certain amendments
in the mark-up, the majority argued that specific exemptions
were unnecessary because of the broad exemption authority
given to the President under section 5 of the legislation.
The majority could not, however, provide a consistent
interpretation of ``imminent'' or how it would be applied.
For example, an amendment to exempt regulatory actions to
reduce pathogens in meat poultry was rejected. This
amendment would address rules to update inspection
techniques for meat and poultry and would provide a
safeguard against E. Coli and other contamination. Mr.
Rainer Mueller, whose son died from E. Coli-contaminated
hamburger, testified before the Committee on February 22,
and poignantly described the personal tragedy and ultimate
price paid for
[[Page S4623]] unsafe food. In January, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture released a proposed Hazardous Analysis
Critical Control Point regulation to improve meat and poultry
inspection. This rule would mandate rigorous sanitation
requirements and scientific testing for bacteria in meat and
poultry processing. While the minority argued that E. Coli
was indeed a serious health threat, it would probably not be
considered ``imminent,'' and therefore it should be
specifically included as an exemption in the bill. Chairman
Roth stated, ``S. 219 depends on the use of common-sense
judgment by the President. `Imminent' is not intended to pose
on insurmountable obstacle. . . . We are actually empowering
the President to take appropriate action in such situations.
. . .''
Senator Glenn also proposed an amendment to exempt actions
by EPA to control microbial and disinfection byproduct risks,
such as cryptosporidium, in drinking water supplies.
Cryptosporidium killed over 100 people in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, and made 400,000 sick. Again, this amendment was
rejected, with the bill's proponents citing the Presidential
discretion to exempt rules that deal with imminent health and
safety problems.
At the very end of the markup, however, the Committee
reversed this thinking by accepting an amendment to exempt
rules relating to lead poisoning prevention. Senator Roth
stated, ``I do think it fails within the exemptions [of
``imminent threat''], but we are willing to accept the
amendment.'' This broad amendment would exclude from the
moratorium any action by the EPA that would protect the
public from exposure to lead from house paint, soil or
drinking water. Included in the regulations that would be
affected by the moratorium would be requirements that home
buyers and renters be informed if there are known lead
hazards prior to making purchases or rental decisions, and
that all lead abatement workers are certified to professional
standards of practice.
The majority report attempts to resolve the uncertainties
left from the mark-up by stating that USDA's meat inspection
rules should be exempted ``so long as there are no
accompanying extraneous requirements or arbitrary rules''. We
are at a loss to understand the meaning of that condition.
The report also states that ``this Committee does not intend
this exemption area to apply to OSHA's regulations
prescribing ergonomic protection standards,'' but that the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms rule on alcoholic
beverage container recall information ``could be excluded
from the moratorium under this provision.'' The minority is
simply at a loss to understand the majority's logic, or the
legislative record on which to base such findings.
The Committee's treatment of these regulations and the
``imminent threat'' exemption leaves a completely
inconsistent record. And despite the majority's suggestion,
``imminent'' will not cover most important health and safety
rules. The statutory language refers to ``imminent threat to
human health or safety or other emergency '' (emphasis
added). Moreover, the definition of ``imminent'' is ``likely
to occur at any moment, impending; threateningly or
menacingly near or at hand.'' Most health and safety rules,
while designed to addressed pressing problems, simply can not
be described as emergency rules in any common understanding
of the term.
What deserves to be exempted ``just in case'' and what does
not? There was much discussion on the intent of the
moratorium, and what some of the unintended consequences
might be. Clearly
the Committee decided that rules related to public health
(e.g., meat and poultry inspections, drinking water
safety) did not need to be specifically exempted ``just in
case'' they were not exempted under other provisions in
the bill. Others, including some that had potential to be
exempted through other language in the bill, were
nonetheless included as specific amendments. For example,
the Committee accepted an amendment to exempt any
regulatory action to provide compensation to Persian Gulf
War Veterans for disability from undiagnosed illnesses.
While some on the majority argued that the rule to allow
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide such
compensation would be already included under exemptions
for ``benefits'' or for ``military affairs,'' the
Committee decided to vote in favor of this amendment
``just in case.''
The Committee also accepted an amendment that would exempt
agency action that ``establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or
conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational,
or subsistence activity relating to hunting, fishing, or
camping.'' This amendment would ensure that duck-hunting
season would not be affected by the moratorium. Senator
Cochran stated, ``The point of the moratorium was never to
interfere with this kind of regulation. . . . [T]he word gets
all over the country that this legislation is going to have
this unintended consequence. So the point of the amendment is
to make certain that nobody can misunderstand this.''
In addition, the Committee decided to accept an amendment
that would exempt from the moratorium any clarification by
the Department of Transportation of existing responsibilities
regarding highway safety warning devices. The intent of this
amendment is to clarify state and local authority for
determining whether a railroad crossing device is necessary
and the installation of such a device. The Committee also
accepted amendments related aircraft safety, commuter plane
safety, and aircraft flights over national parks.
As stated earlier, other health and safety amendments were
rejected, even though it is not at all clear that they will
fall under the exemption for ``imminent'' health and safety
threats. For example, an amendment to exempt rules relating
to safe disposal of nuclear waste and to decontamination and
decomissioning standards for NRC-licensed facilities was not
accepted. The Chairman argued that this would qualify as an
``imminent threat'' and would therefore not be needed.
However, it is difficult to argue that some waste, which has
been sitting in temporary storage for decades, now presents
an ``imminent'' hazard, or that standards for decontaminating
or decommissioning NRC-licensed sites, which have been under
development for some time, now fall under an ``imminent''
exemption.
The Committee accepted as amendment to exempt any actions
to establish or enforce rights that prohibit discrimination
on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or
handicapped or disability status. Directly after accepting
this amendment, the Committee voted to table an amendment
that would have exempted any actions to enforce the
constitutional rights of individuals, on the grounds that
there was ``a certain amount of ambiguity.'' These amendments
are similar to ones included by the Committee in the unfunded
mandates legislation. As Senator Levin stated, ``This is a
lot less ambiguous than [other amendments adopted by the
Committee]. These are constitutional rights, and
constitutional rights have been clearly defined. . . . If we
are going to protect statutory rights to non-discrimination,
. . . surely we ought to give the same protection to
constitutional rights that are being implemented or enforced
by law. . . . We should not put constitutional rights on a
lower level than the statutory rights.''
The Committee accepted an amendment to exempt any rules
under the Indian Self-Determination Act which had been the
product of regulatory negotiation. Yet, when Senator Levin
proposed an amendment to exclude all consensual
rulemakings, the amendment was rejected.
In addition to the indiscriminate acceptance and rejection
of amendments in Committee on specific rules, the majority
report lists rules that are meant to be covered by the
moratorium. In not one instance did the Committee in any of
its deliberations make any finding on the merits of any of
these rules. There may well be good arguments for stopping
some or all of these rules, but that is not the point. The
majority is creating exemptions from specific agency
decisions with no legislative record.
The juxtaposition in the majority report of these so-called
``bad rules'' with what appear to be special interest ``good
rules'' shows how inequitable and unfair this process is.
There is no legislative record in the Committee to support
the findings, let alone discussion, of the ``good''
regulations referred to in the Committee report. Consider the
following striking examples of rules that the majority report
stated should not be included in the moratorium and for which
the Committee has absolutely no record:
``final regulations governing the alteration of producer
recall information on containers of distilled spirits, wine
and beer under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935
(27 U.S.C. 105e)'';
``final regulations governing trade practices under the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 (26 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.)'' relating to ``alcohol promotional practices'';
``the final rules issued by the United States Department of
Agriculture (and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 6,
1994) on meat derived from advanced separation machinery'';
and
Department of Transportation ``HM-181 standards . . . for
open-head fibre drums used for the transportation of
liquids.''
The retroactivity of the moratorium stops regulations that
have already been issued and creates unnecessary confusion.
The bill applies both prospectively and retroactively. It
would apply to all significant regulatory actions that
occurred as of November 9, 1994. Retroactively stopping rules
is extremely unfair to businesses and individuals who have
complied with the regulatory process, playing by the rules,
and counting on the finality of the regulations already in
effect. Many businesses have already spent money to comply
with regulations, or made investments based upon regulations
that have been issued. Retroactively suspending final rules
could give a competitive advantage to businesses that chose
to ignore regulations issued since November. Similarly, it is
unfair to companies that made investments to comply with
those regulations. Regulatory reform should be prospective
not retroactive; to do otherwise is wasteful and confusing.
Moreover, the stated purpose of the moratorium is to stop
regulatory actions that may benefit from future regulatory
reform legislation. However no regulatory reform bill that
the Senate is now considering would apply retroactively. So
rules that are final since November 9, 1994, would not be
covered by the regulatory analysis requirements proposed
under any pending reform legislation. Thus, subjecting such
rules to a moratorium accomplishes nothing, except to suspend
the effectiveness of the rule for the period of the
moratorium.
Reporting and decision requirements will completely bog
down
the President. The
[[Page S4624]] structure that the bill uses is cumbersome and
one that encourages extensive lobbying throughout the life of
the moratorium. In order to exempt a rule, the agency head
must make a determination in writing that a rule meets one of
the exceptions and then present that determination to the
President who must then review it and make a determination
whether or not to support the agency head's recommendation.
If the President agrees, he must file a notice in the Federal
Register, stating that a rule has been exempted from the
moratorium (or, it appears, whether a rule previously
exempted is no longer exempt). The requirement of monthly
reports means that the agency heads and the President will be
routinely lobbied by persons affected by covered rulemakings
as to whether or not a rulemaking should be in or exempt from
the moratorium. It is a nightmarish process except from the
perspective of a lobbyist.
The five-month extension for deadlines is arbitrary,
unnecessary, and merely draws out this problematic
legislation. The Committee bill includes in the moratorium
all deadlines that have been imposed either by a court or
statute with respect to a significant regulatory action.
Senator Levin offered an amendment to strike this section of
the bill so that statutory and judicial deadlines would not
be affected by the moratorium. Deadlines are dates that have
been set previously by statute--passed by both houses of
Congress and the President--to require that a regulatory
action be taken by a date certain. Congress did not set those
deadlines unwittingly; we set them because we were concerned
enough about the particular situation to place the timing for
action into law. The Consumer Product Safety Commission rule
on choking hazards of toys for small children is one such
example. Congress passed a law in 1994 requiring the CPSC to
act by July 1, 1994, on rules implementing toy labeling
provisions for choking hazards. Similarly, we have courts
which have set deadlines based on extensive legal records and
proceedings. As with the issue of retroactivity, inclusion of
deadlines in the moratorium is useless, because many of these
deadlines involve rules that are already final and have
already become effective. Regulatory reform legislation will
not likely affect these rules.
Moreover, the Committee bill establishes a new and longer
time period for the moratorium as it applies to deadlines.
The moratorium for significant regulatory actions is from
November 9, 1994, to December 31, 1995, but for statutory or
judicial deadlines, the moratorium extends for five months
beyond December 31st, to May 31, 1996. The majority states
that the purpose for the extended deadline is to avoid all
the deadlines coming into effect at the same time the
moratorium is lifted from the rulemakings. We do not see the
logic in this argument nor do we know of one request from an
agency that such an extended moratorium be provided for
deadlines.
Many of the terms and definitions are unclear and will
likely compound the problems of unintended consequences. For
example, the bill's definition of ``significant regulatory
action'' includes any ``statement of agency policy, guidance,
guidelines.'' There was no discussion by the majority of what
this would actually cover. Thus, when the Committee accepted
an amendment to include in the ``significant'' definition any
action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational,
subsistence, or commercial use'' of public land, the majority
was unable to explain what would or would not be included.
The Stevens amendment has wide-reaching, detrimental
effects for public lands. Meriting separate discussion is the
amendment by Senator Stevens that the Committee adopted
concerning Federal agency actions on Federal lands. The
Stevens amendment added to the definition of ``significant
regulatory action'' (and thus to coverage of the moratorium)
any agency action which ``withdraws or restricts
recreational, subsistence, or commercial use of any
land under the control of a Federal agency. . . .''
The Committee had an extensive discussion about the
amendment in an attempt to fully understand its scope. While
there was considerable uncertainty during the mark-up as to
the actual effect of the amendment, subsequent review has
demonstrated that the scope of the amendment is sweeping and
would stop not only regulatory actions but virtually all
enforcement of regulations on Federal lands. That means that
National Park Service employees would not be able to carry
out basic management responsibilities in our national parks.
The Park Service would not be able to prevent hot rods from
racing in national parks, restrict access to fragile
archaeological sites, or close dangerous passes on snow-
covered peaks. As the National Parks and Conservation
Association has said, ``This prohibition against rulemaking
effectively eliminates the abilities of the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Forest Service to manage federal lands for
resource protection.'' According to the Wilderness Society,
``This sweeping amendment would undermine fundamental
protections for our national parks, national wildlife
refuges, national forests, and all other public lands.'' The
same strong point has been made by other conservation and
environmental groups. The Committee's adoption of the Stevens
Amendment demonstrates the lack of understanding the
Committee had with respect to the full consequences of its
actions on this bill.
3. conclusion

The Committee hearing on February 22, 1995, and the mark-up
on March 7 and 9, 1995, highlighted many problems with the
moratorium proposal. The majority report only compounds these
issues. In the views above we have again discussed many of
these issues. Unfortunately, the outlined problems involve
only those examples that we know of now. We believe there
could well be many other important rules that would be
inadvertently or otherwise inappropriately be stopped. The
public will be the victims of such arbitrary congressional
action. The moratorium is a bad idea.
There are most probably many rules that should be examined
and even rescinded. We would support any reasonable effort to
target specific regulatory problem areas--again, that is what
the President is currently doing. We cannot, however, support
an arbitrary, across-the-board freeze. We should fix the
regulatory process, we should not freeze it and the benefits
that flow from it.
John Glenn.
Sam Nunn.
Carl Levin.
David Pryor.
Joseph I. Lieberman.
Daniel K. Akaka.
Examples of Regulations Stopped by the Regulatory Moratorium (S. 219)

public health and safety

(1) Improved Poultry Inspections (USDA)
(2) Seafood Safety (HHS)
(3) Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Passenger Car Brake
Systems (DOT)
(4) Standardization of Aviation Rules (DOT)
(5) Airport Rates and Charges (DOT)
(6) Head Impact Protection (DOT)
(7) Airline Crew Assignments (DOT)
(8) Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest
Requirements (DOT)
(9) Alcoholic Beverage Labeling (Treasury)
(10) Pesticide Regulation Flexibility (EPA)
(11) Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture
(12) Meat and Poultry Inspection Efforts (USDA) (exemption
rejected by GAC)
(13) Standards for Nuclear Waste Disposal (EPA) (exemption
rejected by GAC)
(14) Cleanup of Nuclear Facilities, Decontamination and
Decommissioning Standards (NRC) (exemption rejected by GAC)
(15) Drinking Water Standards (exemption rejected by GAC)

worker safety

(1) Logging Safety (DOL)
(2) Safe Practices for Diesel Equipment in Underground Coal
Mines (DOL)
(3) Worker Exposure to Cancer Causing Agents (DOL)
(4) Reducing Exposure to Tuberculosis in the Workplace
(DOL)
(5) Worker Exposure to Reproductive and Developmental Risks
(DOL)

economic growth and opportunity

(1) Cruise Ship Access to Glacier Bay, Alaska (DOI)
(2) Energy Efficient Appliances (DOE)
(3) Forestry Regulations (Streamlining timber payments to
tribes) (DOI)
(4) Landowner Relief Under Spotted Owl Regulation (DOI)
(5) Personal Communications Systems Auctions (FCC)
(6) Cable Rate Restructuring (FCC)
(7) Lower Electric Rates (FERC)
(8) Utility Rate Recovery (FERC)
(9) Shrimp Harvesting (DOC)

environment

(1) Alternative fuel Providers (DOE)
(2) Great Lakes Protection (DOT)
(3) Standardizing Regulations for Domestic Shipments of
Hazardous Waste (DOT)
(4) Prevention of Oil Spills (DOT)
(5) Agreement Establishing Water Quality Standards for San
Francisco Bay Delta (EPA)
(6) Reducing Toxic Air Emissions (EPA)
(7) Cleanup at Uranium Processing Sites (EPA)
(8) Wetlands Determinations and Delineations (amendment to
include in the moratorium, accepted by GAC)
(9) Withdrawals or Restrictions of Recreational,
Subsistence, or Commercial Use of Public Land (amendment to
include in the moratorium, accepted by GAC)

government reform

(1) Personal Use of Campaign Funds by a Federal Candidate
(FEC)
(2) Public Financing for Presidential Candidates (FEC)
(3) Political Campaign Disclaimers (FEC)
(4) Government Securities Large Position Reporting
Requirements (Treasury)

other

(1) Fisheries management (DOC)
(2) Noncitizen Housing Requirements (HUD)
(3) Preference for Elderly Families, Reservation for
Disabled Families in Section 8 Housing (HUD)
(4) Continuation of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
and Federal National Mortgage Association Housing Goals (HUD)
(5) Community Development Block Grants Economic Development
Guidelines (HUD)
(6) Avoiding Homeowner Foreclosure (HUD)
(7) Reducing FHA Fund Losses (HUD)
(8) Increasing Home Ownership Opportunities for First Time
Buyers (HUD)
(9) Family and Medical Leave Act (DOL)
(10) Procedure for Removal of Local Labor Organization
Officers (DOL)
(11) Emergency Broadcast System (FCC)
[[Page S4625]] (12) Video Dialtone (FCC)
(13) Caller ID (FCC)
(14) Recovery of License Fees (NRC)
(15) Enforcement of Constitutional Rights of Individuals
(exemption tabled by GAC)
Mr. GLENN. Let me say on the issue of what rules might be covered by
the moratorium: The reported Senate bill covers significant rules and
related statements or actions, as well as any wetlands determinations,
and any actions--not just rules--that affect the use of public land.
The list of rules that I am submitting for the Record only covers the
category of ``significant'' rules--those having an annual impact on the
economy of over $100 million, or are otherwise determined to be of
major importance. This is list has 58 entries.
I have no idea how many wetlands determinations there might be during
the moratorium. I also doubt that anyone could come up with a reliable
list of all the actions that might be taken by any Federal agency
relating to public lands--no trail closing, maybe no closing picnic
areas at night, or restricting the number of people who can climb up
the Statue of Liberty. I do not know.
But this is not all. In addition to the Senate bill, we must remember
that the House-passed bill covers all rules, significant or
insignificant. This could total over 4,000 a year, if you include every
little rule. I saw one list, just of important agency rules that might
be covered by the House bill, and it had over 147 entries.
The thought of simply stopping government decisions, to show that we
are serious about regulatory reform, if just about the dumbest thing
Congress could do. Let us reform the regulatory process, not freeze it.
Let us show the American people that we are doing our job, not that we
are out to lunch.

3. Real Regulatory Reform

In addition to understanding the moratorium, it is also very
important to understand the status of regulatory reform. Again,
according to the Governmental Affairs Committee's majority report, the
supporters of the moratorium have said that ``the purpose of the
temporary moratorium is to give Congress enough time to pass
legislation to comprehensively change the regulatory process.''
In addition to our committee's hearing on the moratorium, Chairman
Roth held regulatory reform hearings on February 8, 15, and March 8.
The result was the committee's markup last Thursday, March 23, 1995, in
which we considered, amended, and voted favorably on a bill--15 to 0.
Every member of the committee, Democrat and Republican, voted to report
out a real tough, regulatory reform bill.
We should be back working on the committee report right now, but here
we are--debating the moratorium--wasting time on damage control, when
we could be working on real reform.
We in the Governmental Affairs Committee are, of course, not alone in
the regulatory reform effort. The majority leader's bill--S. 343--will
probably be marked up this week by the Judiciary Committee. They, too,
have had several hearings.
The Energy Committee is also ready to mark up a bill that will, I
believe, provide Government-wide reform.
When one consider the ongoing agency review of current rules, with a
report due to the President by June 1, and these regulatory reform
bills that should all be ready to come to the floor within a matter of
a few weeks, there simply is no need for the moratorium--even if one
could ever explain how and why it was needed in the first place.
Let us get on with the business of governing and of real reform. Let
us leave the ill-conceived moratorium where it belongs--in the museum
of stupid ideas.
Mr. President, I do not know if anyone could disagree with the
Senator from Nevada when he talks about the intrusion of rules and
regulations on our society. I agree with him on that.
We have all had many people come up to us at public events back in
our States and talk about how they are being impacted by rules and
regulations, that they think are nonsensical and really defy any
rationality. I have agreed with them.
But that is not the issue here. We all favor regulatory reform. We
passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, by unanimous vote of
that committee--Democrat and Republican--last week, a regulatory reform
bill, which has within it a legislative veto provision. There are some
differences between that and this proposal today. But as I have already
said, my basic problem goes even more deeply than just the differences
between these two bills. The House-passed moratorium bill throws out
the baby with bath water. It throws out the good rules with the bad,
and needlessly.
The Senator from Nevada was talking of the alternative, about how
many of these rules should come back to us, instead. Do you know why we
have so many regulations that are nonsensical now? We had testimony
that 80 percent of the rules and regulations--80 percent of the rules
and regulations--are written because we specifically required them to
be written in legislation. We required them to write them. If there are
excesses, should they come back for review? Yes, and I do not quarrel
with that. I support a legislative veto. There is no problem with that.
But I do not think a moratorium that just throws out the good with the
bad makes any sense at all. And I can tell you again what things will
be affected by this.
We had testimony in committee by Rainer Mueller, and we had a press
conference this morning with Nancy Donley, both of whom had lost
children to E. coli bacteria. The USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
has new rules that have been proposed that make new inspections for
meat that would prevent that happening. Here are people who have
actually lost children, and we are talking about putting in a
moratorium that would stop a rule that might save other families from
having to go through that same kind of tragedy.
We are talking about final rules on airline safety. There is probably
not a person in this Chamber who has not flown on an airline. We have
new rules that are being promulgated to take care of things such as
airline crew assignments; standardization of aircraft rules; we have
air worthiness of aircraft engines. These are things that involve the
safety of the American public. We are talking about saying we can put a
moratorium on things like that just because we want to throw a broad
net, but we are going to catch all these things.
We have had some bad rules and regulations--I am the first one to say
that here--and we ought to correct those. But to say at the same time
that we are going to throw out these things that are safety and health
matters for the people of this country to get the few bad regulations,
I just do not think makes any sense.
Why do I bring it up when the Senator from Nevada is discussing a 45-
day hold over? Because I know the original sponsors of this legislation
want the same bill the House passed, which is far more draconian and
throws out most everything. That is what they passed over in the House.
We debated this bill in committee and had many amendments, some were
accepted, many were rejected. The bill was then reported out of
committee. Now we have see the fallback position, that rather than
bringing up that straight moratorium here on the floor, we will have a
45-day review, almost a 45-day moratorium. But this 45-day idea is what
would go to conference with the House on the far more draconian bill
that they already have passed over there.
What happens when you get to conference with the House? I do not
know. But I know the tendency will be, since the original intent of the
sponsors here in the Senate was to do what the House has already done,
probably to want to compromise in the direction of the House. That is
what concerns me very, very much.
The bill as proposed here is one that would affect all rules, as I
understand it. It is retroactive to November 9. As I also understand
it, any Member can call up a rule for review.
Now, the Governmental Affairs Committee has passed out a regulatory
reform bill, a comprehensive regulatory reform bill that covers this
idea of a legislative veto in that legislation. But what we do with
that legislative veto is we make it apply to major rules and make it
prospective so it does not go back and undo things that business,
industry, and communities already are planning for. In that legislation
we provided that it would take a petition
[[Page S4626]] by 30 Members to bring a rule back up for consideration.
Now, I thought that was probably a little high. I thought we did not
need 30. I am sure we could debate that on the Senate floor when that
legislation comes out. Whether we need 10 Members on a petition or some
other number, we do need a number of Senators that say, ``Yes, this is
bad, so we should reconsider that rule or that regulation, and bring
that back up here on the floor.''
We cannot have it where just one Member can call something up and
say, ``This affects my State and I disagree,'' although it might be
something that is agreeable for all the rest of the whole United
States. I do not think we want to waste our time on things like that.
Much has been made out of the fact that the President could exempt
imminent health and safety matters. In committee, I challenged this
time after time after time to please have the sponsors define
``imminent.'' They could not do that. ``Imminent" means something,
according to Webster's dictionary, that will happen right away--now. It
is impending, right now. That would not cover such things as aircraft
safety or airworthiness of airline engines. These are design things.
They are new criteria. Nothing is imminent--even though it improves
safety of the aircraft involved or the crew training involved. We do
not expect the airplane to go down within hours or not complete the
flight. But the overall safety of airlines is of major significance.
Why should things like that ever be held up for a moratorium? Why
should we have to debate about what is or is not ``imminent?"
This is just one problem with the moratorium. And now our attention
is turned to the 45-day legislative veto. But what we really should be
doing, instead of piecemealing this effort, is to deal with the whole
regulatory reform problem.
Again, that is the legislation that we voted out of the Governmental
Affairs Committee just last week. Final reports on that will be written
and then we would be able to bring that up on the floor and debate the
whole regulatory reform process, including a legislative veto.
The danger of this one being brought up separately is that it will go
over and be conferenced with the House, as I understand what is being
proposed here. That means we are up against the House with their
complete moratorium, going clear back to shortly after the election
last fall. That is far more draconian. And it lasts a year. It lasts
until the ends of this year.
If our conferees on the bill would give in to some of the House
provisions, it means we really are placing Americans, a far greater
number of Americans, at risk for this year. That is, if that is what
was agreed to.
I repeat, I do not disagree with the legislative veto. We are the
ones that caused much of the problem. Why should we not go back on
major rules and reconsider those where we believe people over in the
agencies really have gone too far, where they have not sufficiently
reflected the will of the Congress.
I do not see why we cannot bring up the Regulatory Reform Act of
which a legislative veto is a part, not just pick this out separately
so that it can now go to conference with the House. That is the danger
in this, as I see it.
Mr. President, so far there have been only about 127 examples that
have come out of the different agencies, 127 examples that we were able
to get on the short basis of items that would be held up, that I felt,
and many other Members on our committee and the administration felt,
were things that should not have a moratorium applied to them.
But is that a complete list? No. We do not even know at this point
what other E. coli situations or cryptosporidium situations may exist
out there across this country, because we have not yet had a complete
review of all the rules and regulations. That is ongoing right now.
President Clinton issued a directive to all the departments and
agencies and said, ``Scan all the rules and regulations, go through
them all, see which ones are overbearing and too intrusive, which ones
should be taken out, which ones should be modified, and give me a
complete list of all those, a complete review of all rules and
regulations across Government.'' Now that is in the process. It is in
the process now. It is not a 2- or 3-year study. It is not something
that goes on into the future. We get it by June 1.
June 1, it turns out, is only 30 working days from now. If you look
at the calendar and count out the Easter break and what we planned
there, June 1 is just 30 working days from right now. I counted it up
this morning on the calendar myself, just to see what time we would
have on this.
The administration has guaranteed us repeatedly, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sally Katzen, has guaranteed us we
are going to have that list by the 1st of June. Why go ahead and do a
partial job of looking into rules and regulations when we have a
complete list that is going to be available for us on the 1st of June?
Do you know how many significant rules, those that have a $100 million
impact or above, are made every year in this country? Between 800 and
900; that was the testimony we had in committee. So when we have come
up just with 127 rules that would be particularly affected by
moratorium legislation, we are just nibbling around the edges. They are
going through, not only those 800 to 900 over the last year or so, but
the 800 to 900 per year that passed back for a long time. There are
going to be several thousands of these rules that will be reviewed. We
will get recommendations. Then we can take action on these things.
We can take action on some we separate out, some we may not agree
with the administration about. I may disagree with them on a lot of
them and be willing to go back and repass those things, or if necessary
send them back to committee here to be reconsidered, if that is what is
necessary. I am that dedicated to getting to real, honest-to-goodness
regulatory reform. We need that. I support it. I worked on it the last
3 years in the Governmental Affairs Committee when I was still
chairman, and I am still working on it now.
Our new committee chairman, Senator Roth, has picked this up and he
is pushing regulatory reform, to his everlasting credit. I complimented
him the other day in public and will do so here on the floor again
today. He really has been a champion in pushing regulatory reform. And
what we voted out last week is an excellent bill. It is a tough
regulatory bill. It is not draconian; it is very realistic. That is
what we should be doing, considering regulatory reform on that basis,
and not just picking out a little moratorium portion of this or a
legislative veto portion of that for consideration separately. We have
at hand a bill through which we can really make major regulatory
reform, which is what we are all after.
As I started my comments, we have all heard over and over again the
unhappiness of our people back home, of business and industry and farms
and just individuals, impacted in their daily lives by rules and
regulations that should never be out there.
I heard somebody berating the Clinton administration on this a couple
of days ago. That is not the problem. The rules and regulations have
been building up for the last 10 years or more. You can see a huge
increase in regulations--really a bipartisan increase--thinking about
the laws that led to those rules. So I look forward to having
bipartisan solutions to this problem, also. I think we do it by taking
a broad approach to regulatory reform, of which legislative review is
one part of that legislation, and if the 45-day legislative veto would
apply prospectively, I would support that.
I know my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, who
has worked very hard on regulatory reform on the Governmental Affairs
Committee, probably is as expert in this area as anyone we have in the
Senate--I know he favors that, and I do, too. I see nothing wrong with
that.
I do not like it going back. I do not like it retroactive.
I hope, Mr. President, we could get together, perhaps, and work this
out so we get leadership to bring up the regulatory reform package, the
total bill of which something like this is a part, and bring it up at a
very early date. If we can do that, then we will have done a great
service for this country. We will have gone a long ways toward telling
people that, yes, we know the regulatory impact has been too heavy. We
are doing something about it.
[[Page S4627]] But at the same time, we should not be saying that we
are going to throw out important health and safety rules. And why would
even think of doing that? Not even because we disagree with all those
rules and regulations, but because we are just saying everything should
go out, even the good--this makes no sense.
That is what I disagree with on a moratorium, and what I disagree
with strongly on the approach the House took. If we want to see who is
at fault with regulations into the future, then, as I said earlier, we
look in the mirror. Let's stop this. Let's be a part of fixing the
process. Let's not make it worse.
Mr. President, I think we are on limited time--parliamentary inquiry;
are we on limited time this morning?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is limited.
Mr. GLENN. How is time divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three hours was accorded to each side for
today.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington
Post editorial dated March 26, 1995, entitled ``Good Move on
Regulation,'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 26, 1995]

Good Move on Regulation

The United States has become an overregulated society. It
is not just the volume or even the cost of regulation that is
the problem, but the haphazard pattern--a lack of proportion.
The government too often seems to be battling major and minor
risks, widespread and narrow, real and negligible, with equal
zeal. The underlying statutes are not a coherent body of law
but a kind of archeological pile, each layer a reflection of
the headlines and political impulses of its day. The
excessive regulations discredit the essential. Too little
attention is paid to the cost of the whole and the relation
of cost to benefit.
The election results last November at least in some degree
reflected resentment and impatience about this--and rightly
so. The Republican-led Congress so understood and set about
to fix this system, which unlike some things the government
tries to fix, clearly is ``broke.'' The trick is to make sure
the fix will itself be the right one, and one that will not
end up killing good regulation along with bad.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee last week
unanimously reported out a bipartisan regulatory reform bill
the likely effect of which would be to improve the process
rather than mangle it. It's a vast improvement over the
merely anti-regulatory legislation too hastily passed several
weeks ago by the House, as well as various rival bills in the
Senate, including a proposal by majority leader Bob Dole. ``A
restoration of common sense,'' Sen. William Cohen, a member
of the governmental affairs committee, called the bill, and
he is right.
The House voted both to impose a clumsy retroactive freeze
on federal regulatory activity and to standardize and weaken
in a single stroke the carefully worked out, separate
regulatory standards in a broad array of health and safety
and environmental legislation. The Senate committee bill
would do neither of those things. Rather, it would require
cost-benefit and other studies of all new major regulations
and the regulatory process generally. Some of these are
already done by executive order, others not.
With the studies as part of the basis for judgment, all
major new regulations would then be submitted to Congress.
The two houses together would have a set period in which to
disapprove them; a resolution of disapproval would have to be
signed and could be vetoed by the president. Some advocacy
groups complain that this would politicize and harm the
regulatory process. We think that, to the contrary, it would
serve to legitimize and strengthen regulations once issued by
putting them on a sounder political footing. Congress, under
the present dispensation, can have it both ways. It passes
broad regulatory statutes with laudable goals--clean air,
clean water, pure food and drugs--and then denounces as
heavy-handed and too costly the resulting regulations. Given
a legislative veto, it would have to take responsibility for
the fruits of its own handiwork. If some regulations were
then struck down before they could take effect, it would
finally be up to the voters to decide whether that was good
or bad.
The bill would also require agencies to do cost-benefit
analyses and risk assessments of existing major regulations
over a number of years; to do comparative risk analyses in
order to make sure that within their purviews they were
attacking the greatest risks first; and to take part in the
compilation of a ``regulatory accounting'' every two years,
setting forth the benefits and compliance costs of
regulations government-wide. The idea is to give Congress and
the executive branch alike a better basis than they have now
on which to make regulatory policy.
The measure wouldn't solve all regulatory excess. But it
would put the regulatory process on a steadier and more
rational footing, and expose regulatory decisions to the
political process early on and in a healthy way. It's a good
framework, and we hope Mr. Dole and the Senate stick to
something like it.
Privilege Of The Floor--S. 219

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that during
the consideration of S. 219, Jenny Craig of my staff be granted the
privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield me a few minutes?
Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator such time as he desires.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure there is no
misunderstanding about the substitute. We do not intend to throw the
baby out with the bath water, but I think what we have is a reasonable
framework to review all regulations promulgated by Federal agencies.
This is not a blanket. We can pick and choose those that we feel are
appropriately reviewable. It saves those regulations, which will be the
vast majority of them, and those which are bad we can take a look at.
I repeat, one of the reasons I like this approach so much is it will
have regulators be more cautious in the regulations that they
promulgate. We know, following the Chadha decision, that regulators
have said they do not care what we think of the regulations they
promulgate; there is nothing we can do about it. This substitute will
no longer allow bureaucrats to say that to Congress. If they are in
very tight with their President, and we review those regulations and
turn them down and the President wants to veto them, then it is up to
us as a legislative body to see if we can get a two-thirds vote to
override the veto. I would rather not have it that way, but that is
what we have to have in order to work within the confines of the Chadha
decision.
We have here a substitute that is on all fours--totally and
irrevocably constitutional. I was necessarily off the floor for a
minute, but I did understand that my friend from Ohio, the senior
Senator from Ohio, indicated that E. coli, the disease that swept this
country that was so difficult--if this were, in effect, the substitute,
they could not issue such a regulation to deal with that disease. That
is not true. We specifically have an exemption in our substitute that
would allow matters of public health and safety to go forward.
There is also an argument that has been propounded that this
legislation, the substitute, is a broad net that will kill a large
number of regulations just to get at a few bad ones.
I hope that is not the case. But I hope, in reverse order, if there
are a large number of bad regulations, that they will not be proposed.
Finally, Mr. President, this Senator does not like the underlying
legislation. That is why I am so much in support of the substitute. I
believe the substitute is good legislation. I believe it is something
that will make this body proud. I believe it is something that the
American public wants. The American public does not want us to stop all
regulations. There are some good regulations. I went over some of them.
We know the Food and Drug Administration does some good work, and they
have gotten better in recent years.
So I want the substitute passed. I want it passed by an overwhelming
majority so that when we go to conference with the House, we will have
a strong position within which to negotiate. Mr. President, I hope that
this legislation, this substitute, that has been offered by the Senator
from Oklahoma and myself, will be supported by a large bipartisan vote.
This legislation is among the best that I think I have ever worked on.
It answers a significant problem that big business faces, that small
business faces, and the American public generally feels; that is, too
much regulation.
Interestingly, as I have indicated, all business is not opposed to
regulation. We know there is a basis for regulation. And, in fact, I
served as the chairman of the toxic subcommittee for 4 years, and would
have this year but for the fact that the Republicans took control of
the Senate. We did, I think, some very good work there. We dealt with
all kinds of toxic substances. But
[[Page S4628]] one of the groups I worked with that was continually
before my subcommittee was the Chemical Manufacturers Association as we
dealt with things they deal with.
There is an interesting article in the Atlanta Journal of January 11
that talks about the Chemical Manufacturers Association. I was
surprised to read this. The Chemical Manufacturers Association, which
has more than 180 members, including large companies like Dow, Du Pont,
and Monsanto, said:

We are not necessarily in favor of revolutionizing how we
approach regulations because some of them, according to
Chemical Manufacturers, are good.

The article says:

The association supports regulatory reform but it also
sounds downright worried that some of the extremist, anti-
environmental rhetoric now coming out of Congress will lead
to deregulation schemes that will get out of control and go
too far.

That is a quote from an official of the Chemical Manufacturers
Association.
Says Fred Webber, president of the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, from the same article:

Reform, let me say this very clearly, is not the same as
repeal. The current system of . . . regulations has
accomplished a great deal over the past quarter of a century.
We do not want to undo that success, and we do not want to
tolerate any retreat from our commitment of protecting the
people and the environment.

I could not say it any better. That is also how I feel. What we are
charged to do in this body is to make what we have better. That is what
this substitute does. It does not repeal all regulations. It does not
say we are not going to have any more regulations. It is not a blanket
moratorium. What it says is that in the future, bureaucrat, be careful
what you do because we are watching, and we have a regulatory veto
scheme that meets the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle
will understand what is going on here. We want to pass a bipartisan
bill. The Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada are
sponsoring a substitute amendment that we believe should have unanimous
support, if not heavy support. It is a commonsense way to approach
regulatory reform. It is not regulatory repeal. I hope that my friends
on this side of the aisle will join in this venture to improve the way
regulations are handled in this country.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator
Reid from Nevada, for his comments, and I would like to respond briefly
to some of the statements that were made by my friend and colleague
from Ohio, Senator Glenn.
I think the thrust of what I heard in his comments was that he was
afraid, if we pass this and go to conference, that we might have that
terrible House bill. Let me just state it is my intention, if we are
successful in passing this bill--and I expect that we will be
successful in passing this bill--to do everything I can do to get the
House to concur with the Senate position. I think the Senate bill, I
tell my friend from Ohio--I was a sponsor of both--that this substitute
is preferable to the moratorium legislation reported by the
Governmental Affairs Committee. I think substitute is a better
approach. Let me tell my friend and colleague from Ohio that, one, the
substitute is permanent. The House bill and the Senate bill, the one
that was reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, are
temporary moratoriums. Those will expire as soon as we pass a
comprehensive regulatory reform bill. That may be a couple of months.
So the temporary moratorium bill has received a lot of attention and
a lot of partisan bickering, and there may be a very short period of
time that it would be in effect, even if it did pass and even if it
survived a Presidential veto, both of which are in doubt somewhat. The
President indicated he would veto it. The House did not have quite the
votes to override the veto. I do not think we would have the votes to
override the veto in the Senate. I do not mind sending the bill to the
President and letting him veto it. However, that is not my intention. I
would like to pass significant regulatory relief regulation this year
and have the President sign it.
I think the substitute that Senator Reid and I are proposing will do
that. I think the President will sign it. I see no reason why he will
not sign it. I am interested in passing the bill that Senator Reid and
I are offering, the 45-day congressional review substitute which will
be permanent law. So, whereas the temporary moratorium may succeed, if
it were successful, in delaying some regulations for a few months, that
time period would soon be gone and you would have nothing. This would
be permanent law. This would be a significant response. This would give
real energy, I think, for Members of Congress to review the regulators
and to hold them accountable.
So I tell my friend and colleague from Ohio that, if I should be
appointed a conferee, I would work very energetically to see that the
Senate's position would prevail. I am very familiar with both pieces of
legislation. I have heard my colleague from Ohio mention the underlying
bill, the one reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and
he also referred to the House bill as a terrible bill and one that
would throw out all regulations and cut out all of these rules and
regulations whether they are good or bad. I disagree with that
interpretation.
Looking at the bill as reported, S. 219, it has all kinds exemptions.
One of the reasons I am not as excited about S. 219 as reported is
because we have so many exemptions. I question how effective it would
be. There are many regulations that will be covered by these
exemptions. We have exemptions for imminent threat to human health and
safety and other emergencies. I have heard E. coli mentioned. I have
heard problems about drinking water. I have heard of air traffic
problems or flight safety.
I think that the President, under the bill reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee and also by the House, could exempt all
of the rules mentioned previously by my colleague from Ohio. However,
again, I am not here to debate S. 219 as reported. I am offering a
substitute to it. But I think it is important to show for the record
that a lot of the scare tactics used against the House-passed bill and
the Senate bill that passed the Governmental Affairs Committee are not
as egregious, not as outlandish, and not as heartless as some people
would indicate.
S. 219 as reported out of committee also has exemptions for a
regulation which has as its purpose the enforcement of criminal law or
a regulation that has as its principal effect fostering economic
growth, repealing, narrowing, streamlining the regulation and
administrative process or otherwise reducing regulatory burdens. I have
heard some people, including the President of the United States, say
the moratorium bill would throw out all regulations, good ones and bad
ones. As I have stated, there are clearly exceptions for good
regulations.
We also have an exception for routine administrative actions and
regulations related to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or
contracts. I mention that one because the President of the United
States said that if this moratorium bill is adopted, we will not be
able to bury people in Arlington National Cemetery or that we would not
be able to have duck hunting, both of which are routine administrative
actions.
I just mention that. I am not here to defend this bill. I look at all
these eight exemptions. The committee added a couple of others. My
point being there are lots of exemptions. The President would probably
exempt a great number of regulations under these. In addition, he would
probably veto the moratorium legislation. So my thought is why not do
something that we can pass? Why not do something that the President can
sign? Why not do something that would not be temporary? Why not do
something that would have, I believe, a long-lasting impact in reducing
the impact of expensive, unnecessary regulations?
There are thousands of potential regulations. How many would Congress
move on? On how many would Congress pass a resolution of disapproval?
Probably only a few. But at least it would make Congress responsible.
I wonder how many Members of Congress have said, well, we passed the
law--for example the Americans With
[[Page S4629]] Disabilities Act or the Clean Air Act or maybe it was
some other very well-intentioned bill--and then a Member of Congress is
flabbergasted to find out, that a city in your State is no longer in
compliance with the Clean Air Act, and therefore the city is not able
to accept a new plant or new factory because of clean air constraints.
The member would say I did not know. Where did this happen? The Member
would be told it happened as a result of the Clean Air Act. How did
that happen? It happened as a result of regulations that were just
issued and, therefore, the city in your State is in nonattainment.
Well, it came from regulations implementing the clean air bill. On and
on, people kind of washing their hands.
Well, the legislation was well-intended, it had good intentions, but
now the regulations have become so cumbersome, so expensive, so
Congress is kind of washing its hands. The regulators say, no, Congress
said so. And now they are implementing hundreds and maybe thousands of
pages of regulations. My point is that Congress should be more
accountable. Congress should hold the regulators accountable. So of all
the thousands of regulations that are in process, we are saying
Congress should have a 45-day expedited procedure where we can stop
them if we think they are egregious or if we disagree with their
intent.
I am pleased that the more comprehensive bill that Senator Glenn
alluded to that passed the Governmental Affairs Committee, that will
likely be taken up on the Senate floor sometime in May, did call for
congressional review. But I might mention, as I understand the
legislation approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, the 45-day
review provision applies only to significant regulations. Why should we
limit this Congress to only review significant regulations? If we want
to repeal a regulation--and under our bill it takes a majority of both
Houses to pass it--we should have that opportunity.
Again, of the thousands of regulations, my guess is we will only do a
few, but at least we will have the opportunity to hold bureaucrats
accountable whether it is a small regulation or large regulation.
I think the proposal that we have, the substitute that we have is a
commonsense approach. It is not outlandish. I will just again repeat to
my friend and colleague, my intentions would be to try to convince our
colleagues in the House that this approach achieves the same objective
they are trying to achieve in the House on limiting unwarranted
regulation and it is something we can pass and it is something we
should pass and hopefully get the House to recede to the Senate when we
go to conference.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
The Senator from Oklahoma brings up the key phrase that we debated
long and hard in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Let me read from
our minority report of that bill: The bill's exemption of rules that
addresses any ``imminent threat to health and safety'' is unclear and
the majority report's interpretation leaves unanswered many questions
about what would and would not be covered. The bill would permit the
President, upon written request by an agency head, to exempt a
significant regulatory action from the moratorium upon a finding that
the regulatory action ``is necessary because of an imminent threat to
human health or safety or other emergency.''
That is the same language that is in the proposal by my distinguished
colleague from Oklahoma that we are considering here.
For certain amendments in the markup, the majority argued that
specific exemptions were unnecessary because of the broad exemption
authority given to the President under section 5 of the legislation.
The majority could not, however, provide a consistent interpretation of
``imminent'' or how it would be applied.
Now, let me tell you what we did. In committee, I repeatedly asked
for a definition of ``imminent.'' I even got the definition out of
Webster's, which said ``impending, immediate,'' and so on. It would not
cover such things as airline safety, even though we know those rules
and regulations should not be held up; there are no reasons why they
should be held up.
But of more immediate importance this morning is this. I would ask my
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma to listen to what I proposed in
committee. I proposed in committee the E. coli prevention standards
that he referred to, that we make an exemption for them; E. coli is a
threat. We know that. We have had deaths from it. The amendment was
voted down.
I brought up an amendment on cryptosporidium. It killed 100 people up
in Wisconsin, and 400,000 fell ill. Once again, it was voted down as
not being something that should be exempted. They were against it. Now,
with that being the situation, I do not know what can be classified as
imminent health and safety threats. While people have died, I'm not
sure it would qualify as an ``imminent threat'' and therefore covered
under that exemption.
So that is the reason I do not understand quite what we are doing. I
appreciate the statement by my colleague from Oklahoma that he wants to
convince the House that their bill is bad and that this one would be
better. I certainly take him at his word on that.
Why not consider this then? Consider the proposal today out from
under the umbrella of what the House has done so that we will not have
the moratorium as a conferenceable item. Why not have the legislative
veto as a separate bill? Why not go to the underlying bill here, S.
219, and not have an amendment? Instead, we could strike the moratorium
and consider just the legislative veto amendment by itself, not as
something that will go to conference with the House.
I do not know whether my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma would
be willing to do that or not, but I have pointed out that the Nickles-
Reid substitute, I felt, was perhaps an attempt to avoid Senate debate
of the amendment on the underlying regulatory moratorium. If the
objective is to go to conference with the House, which has passed a
draconian--and I would repeat that word, which my distinguished
colleague repeated himself a moment ago quoting me--regulatory
moratorium bill, the result of the conference, when it comes back to
us, would be unamendable.
Now, maybe I am wrong about this as being their strategy. Perhaps I
am too suspicious. Maybe that is not the purpose of the substitute.
Maybe the sponsors really just intended to use S. 219 as a convenient
vehicle for the content of their amendment.
If that is the purpose, they need only to wait until a comprehensive
regulatory reform bill, such as S. 343 or S. 291, comes to the floor,
as they will, since both bills have been reported out by the
Governmental Affairs Committee and both contain provisions for
legislative veto of major regulations.
I do not know why we cannot wait until S. 343 or S. 291 comes to the
floor. Maybe they just want their amendment to be considered now for
other reasons. I think there would be an easy way to test whether the
purpose of this amendment is to get it to a moratorium on regulations
in a conference with the House or whether they just want their
amendment considered as a stand-alone proposal. The test is whether
there will be an objection to consider the substitute as a stand-alone
bill.
If I made a unanimous consent request to consider the amendment as a
stand-alone bill, I do not know what the response would be on the other
side. But that would take away any opportunity as to what the intent of
this legislation is.
I will not proceed with it at this point, but if I asked for
unanimous consent--I am not asking for it formally now--but if I ask
unanimous consent that the Nickles-Reid substitute amendment to S. 219
be sent to the desk as a stand-alone bill and that it be given
immediate consideration, and that S. 219 be put aside indefinitely or
until the Senate takes up and disposes of either S. 343 or S. 291, or
other similar bills on comprehensive regulatory reform, would the
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma object to that? If he would, I ask
why.
Mr. NICKLES. I apologize. I was in another conference.
But if the thrust of the Senator's question was would I object to
having a unanimous consent request that we
[[Page S4630]] have this as a freestanding bill instead of S. 219----
Mr. GLENN. The reason I asked is because the Senator says he wants to
go to conference with the House and does not plan, of course, to give
in to the moratorium in the House, even though he proposed the same
thing originally. Then, if the intent is just to get the legislative
veto, which we have already voted out of the Governmental Affairs
Committee in the regulatory reform bills, why not set S. 219 aside? We
would let this amendment proceed as a freestanding bill, if it is
intended just for the 45-day legislative veto, and not take this to
conference with the House.
Mr. NICKLES. As the Senator knows, it takes two Houses to pass
anything. The House already passed one bill. If we pass this free
standing, then they would have to consider another piece of legislation
entirely. They went through a lot of pain to get where they are today.
I think that would create a lot of hard feelings over there. I do not
want to do that.
I have told my friend and colleague--the Senator said I was against
the House bill--I did not say that. I would like to correct my
colleague. I would like to correct him on a little bit of the
interpretation of the House bill.
But my point is, I favor this approach. I think this is a better
approach. I think the moratorium, as the Senator has alluded to, made a
lot of sense when we were in January. Now, we are at the end of March.
I would like to have something passed. I believe if we pass this
tomorrow, hopefully we can convince the House to pass it--basically
recede to the Senate--and we may have a bill on the President's desk
very soon; this week, possibly. I would like to see that happen.
I am afraid if we did the freestanding approach that the Senator
alluded to, we may end up with nothing. And I think that would be a
mistake.
Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield, we are talking about not having
action in the House. The House would have to consider this, too, and so
they would have to go back and reconsider this substitute to the
moratorium.
Why not consider this as a freestanding bill, rather than as
something to be conferenced between the House moratorium bill that was
passed and this bill? Why not consider this separately, if this is a
good idea on its own?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. NICKLES. Let me finish replying, but I will be happy to yield.
The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
The House has already passed the legislation. If we pass entirely new
freestanding legislation, then it has not even made the first hurdle.
We are ready to go to conference very soon. If we pass this in the
Senate tomorrow, as I hope and expect that we will, the House could
recede. Both sides have to appoint conferees. If we could convince our
colleagues in the House that this is a better approach, given the fact
that the year has already moved along and so on--and I might tell my
friend and colleague, originally we were talking about a 100-day
moratorium back in November. So time has been moving. This is more
permanent, more significant.
If we can convince our House colleagues of that, we could possibly
have a bill on the President's desk in a short period of time.
Mr. GLENN. The House is going to have to take action one way or the
other. Why not take action on this?
You are saying you hope to convince the House to come to your
persuasion on the substitute to the moratorium. Why not pass the
legislative veto separately and send it over to the House? They would
take action on it, and it would get to the President's desk in the same
length of time. The way you are talking about it, there is going to
have to be a conference with the House on this bill, with the chance
that we may wind up with most of what is in the House bill now. We do
not know how strongly they may feel about this. I would feel much
better about this if we had this as a freestanding bill. And if the
intent of the sponsors is as they say it is, then I do not see why you
would object to this procedure.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Ohio allow the Senator from Nevada to
respond to the question?
Mr. GLENN. Yes.
Mr. REID. We have the underlying bill that is now before the Senate.
Tomorrow, it has been the decision of the Senator from Oklahoma and the
Senator from Nevada to offer a substitute. Of course, if the substitute
passes, the vehicle that will be before the Senate will be our
substitute.
I say to my friend from Ohio, it is pretty standard procedure around
here to say, ``Why don't you drop your amendment? You can bring it up
as a freestanding bill.''
Well, we know why we do not want to do that. Because momentum would
be lost for our legislation.
It seems to me quite clear if our substitute passes, there will be a
significant opportunity. If in fact--and I mentioned this in my earlier
statement--if, in fact, the Senate, in a strong bipartisan fashion,
passes this substitute, it will give the Senate conferees real
direction on how to deal with the House. I support the substitute. I do
not support the underlying legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GLENN. Let me just ask one question, then I will yield, because I
have held the floor long enough already and I know the Senator wants to
speak.
Mr. LEVIN. No, I just wanted you to yield for a question.
Mr. GLENN. Go ahead.
Mr. LEVIN. Is it not true, in fact, that we would pass this more
quickly if it were done as a freestanding bill, as was just adopted by
the House, because you could then avoid the conference?
Mr. GLENN. Absolutely. I think that would be exactly the case.
I come back to my previous point, and I did not get an answer to
that. I would like to, here on the Senate floor, finally and at last
hear a definition of imminent threat to health and safety or other
emergency.
Now, I know Webster's definition. But the definition of imminent
threat did not explicitly include in committee E. coli or
cryptosporidium.
I would like, here on the Senate floor, before I have to decide how I
am going to vote on this bill, to have a firm definition of imminent
threat to health and safety or other emergencies.
In committee, they said, ``Well, we leave this up to the President.''
That is not good enough; we are critical around here all the time of
what the President interprets or does not interpret out of legislation.
What is a clear-cut definition of imminent threat to health and
safety?
Mr. NICKLES. Would the Senator like a response?
Mr. GLENN. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. I would just tell my colleague, in looking at the bill
on page 9, its says ``the President finds in writing.'' The Presidents
makes that determination.
I might also tell my colleague that we did not have it subject to
judicial review. So if the President finds, if the President determines
that E. coli, or anything else, is an imminent threat to health and
safety or other emergency, it would be exempted. We give that kind of
discretion. I happen to think that is a very broad provision, where we
would give that to the President and not try to limit it, not try to
micromanage it.
As the Senator knows, he alluded to the fact, there are thousands of
regulations. To go through and try to enumerate which ones would
qualify and which ones would not, we would be looking at a bill that
would be very difficult. We were not trying to do that.
Just as when the original legislation was drafted, we did not say
duck hunting would be exempted because we did have a provision that
said routine administrative action would be taken. And, as an author of
this, we did not feel that it was necessary to go through and define
4,000 exemptions. That was not our intent.
But the approach that Senator Reid and I are now taking, I think is a
good one, because we do not have to get into that debate.
One of the reasons I think the bill that was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee is not worth very much is because almost
all regulations could be exempted. There are 4,300 regulations that are
in process. The Governmental Affairs Committee says this bill only
applies to significant regulations. That is about 900 out of the 4,500.
Then all of the exemptions, apply that to those 900; Many more of the
900 would be exempted under the exemptions outlined in the bill.
[[Page S4631]] So this bill only lasts for a few months and probably
only applies to a few hundred regulations. The House bill is somewhat
broader, but we end up with almost nothing, because I think the
President could determine it as a threat to public health and safety or
a routine regulation or a regulation fostering economic growth.
He could drive a very broad path through these exemptions.

So I am saying that the approach of Senator Reid and myself is to let
the President go forward on the routine regulatory framework and,
Congress, you can review those regulations, and, if we get a majority
vote in both Houses of Congress for disapproval, we can try to stop
them. If the President still disagrees with us, he has the veto, and we
will have to override the veto. That is not an easy challenge.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, giving the President broad authority is one
thing and giving him broad interpretive authority over what is imminent
and what is not is another matter entirely.
When the committees of Congress and when we on the floor refuse to
define ``imminent,'' and we say that is up to the President and his
people and we give him broad authority in that area, when the President
depends on his people to give him advice on what is imminent or what is
not, they go back to what was intended in the legislation in the
Congress.
What they have to go on right now is a vote in the Governmental
Affairs Committee that said that standards to protect the public from
E. coli or cryptosporidium should not be exempted. It is not clear to
me whether they would be exempted under the ``imminent threat''
exemption or not. I voted to exclude them from the moratorium just to
make sure. I do not think we have a good definition of ``imminent.''
I know my friend from Michigan wants to make some remarks, and I will
not belabor this any further. If we do not adequately define imminent
threat to health or safety or other emergency, we leave it up to the
President and then we will criticize him in specific cases if his
judgment is not what we agree with. We should have a better definition
of this term. We were unable to get it in committee. We were unable to
get it on the floor, too, as far as I see it. The legislative history
right now would show that standards to protect against E. coli and
cryptosporidium are not clearly and explicitly exempted from the
moratorium.
I reserve the remainder of time. I ask how much time we have left on
our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 2 hours 50 seconds--
just slightly over 2 hours.
Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator from Michigan will give me a couple
minutes, I am not here to debate the underlying bill. But on the
committee report, page 14, ``Section 5. Emergency exceptions;
exclusions'':

It is the committee's understanding that the President has
ample authority to except from the moratorium the
promulgation of rules and regulations that are necessary to
make food safe from E. coli bacteria, so long as there are no
accompanying extraneous requirements or arbitrary rules.
Several witnesses so testified at this committee's hearing.

I can read on, but I think the committee report will show the
committee does think the President has that authority and would be able
to make that determination.
Mr. President, the point I make now and, hopefully, my colleagues
will comprehend is that under the proposal of Senator Reid and myself,
regulatory agencies can make their regs, they can promulgate their
rules and regulations. Senator Reid and I are saying they have that
authority, they can do so, and except for the big ones, they all go
into effect as planned, except that we have the opportunity to have
expedited procedures to rescind them or to repeal them. On the large
ones, the ones that have significant impact, they would be postponed,
there would be a moratorium of their effective date for 45 days to give
Congress a chance to review those.
That, I think, is a proper check and balance on the regulators. So if
the administration came out with regulations dealing with E. coli, if
nobody pushed resolutions of disapproval, they would go into effect. If
the administration has regulations dealing with air traffic safety or
something, they would go into effect unless both Houses passed a
resolution of disapproval. So it puts the burden on Congress to select
which ones are wrong.
My colleague from Ohio makes a good point in saying under the
previous legislation, under the legislation that was reported out of
the Governmental Affairs Committee, all discretion was given to the
President; the President makes the determinations, the President
determines the exemptions.
I think he had ample opportunity under the legislation, as passed out
of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to exempt lots of regulations,
maybe all regulations. He could say there is a positive health impact
or threat to danger, or threat to health and safety or that they had a
positive economic impact.
So he could exempt anything, I think, under the bill that passed out
of the Governmental Affairs Committee. That was all given to the
President. The President had sole authority to make the determination
on the exceptions. That was the bill that was reported out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee.
We are saying, no, Congress has a responsibility, Congress should be
making some determinations. Congress can let these rules go into effect
if we desire. Under Senator Reid's approach and mine, Congress would
take the initiative, and if we did not like the rule or regulation, we
have an expedited procedure to review it and possibly repeal it. So it
puts some of the burden back on Congress instead of, under the bill as
reported out of committee, all that burden was on the executive branch.
I think it is a good approach, and I hope my colleagues will concur.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Ohio if he can yield
me 20 minutes.
Mr. GLENN. I yield whatever time is needed.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill that we will be taking up
tomorrow, S. 219, the regulatory moratorium bill, is really Government
at its worst. It is arbitrary, it is extreme, it is unfair, it is a
reckless piece of legislation.
As Senator Glenn has already described, S. 219 would stop or suspend
all regulatory action taken between November 9, 1994, and December 31,
1995. In other words, it is also retroactive. It not only stops
regulations from being issued this year through December 31, it goes
back, picks an arbitrary date and suspends all regulatory actions taken
from November 9 to the present, even those that are final and
effective; even those that people, industries, and businesses have
counted on, have changed their method of operation in order to
accommodate, even those which industry and businesses have pleaded with
us to put into effect. And there are such regulations, and I will get
into some of those in a moment.
The Governmental Affairs Committee amended S. 219 in reporting it to
the floor by applying it to significant regulatory actions, which are
about 800 to 900 in any one year. But the committee did not alter the
retroactive feature of this bill.
I want to go back and look at how this thing started in the House.
According to an article that appeared in the Washington Post on March
12, lobbyists gamed the system in the House as the bill was being
drafted in order to keep the rules out that they wanted to take effect
and keep the rules in that they wanted to stop.
First, they started with an effective date of November 9, arguing
that the day after the election had significance for pending
regulations, but then they changed the date from November 9 to November
20. This is in the House.
Why did they do that? Why was it November 20 instead of November 19
or November 18 or November 21? Because one Member of the House whose
support they wanted had a rule that he cared about, that he wanted to
go into effect. It was a marketing order for borrowing. He had been
waiting for that marketing order. He did not want
[[Page S4632]] that one caught up in the moratorium. That one took
effect November 19. So he said, ``Well, make it November 20 and now you
have my support.'' So they picked the first day after that particular
rule took effect. Forget the fact that the moratorium blocks all other
marketing orders, like cherries or sugar or flowers or anything else.
The principle involved in this decision was not that marketing orders
should be exempt because they are central to the promotion and sale of
key commodities; the principle that was operating in this case was the
principle of political expedience, picking the date based on the desire
to protect the rule for one particular Member.
Well, I have marketing orders that I am interested in, too. We have a
cherry marketing order that will affect cherry production. We are
number one in the entire market for cherries in the country. That one
probably will not take effect--if it does--until later this year. Well,
is my marketing order less important than that Representative's
marketing order? Is one more significant than the other? Are we going
to say, well, we will exempt this and that, and pluck this from the sky
and pull this one from the ground, and we will exempt particular rules
from this moratorium where a Member has a particular interest, out of
thousands that are pending? Is that the way we are going to legislate?
That is the way this bill was done in the House--cover barley, and then
we will get another vote for a moratorium. It is arbitrary in the way
it was done, both in the House and here.
There were a lot of other exemptions that were considered. Lobbyists
from many sides bid for exemption. But the House rejected every
exemption concerning rules to protect public health and safety and
accepted numerous amendments to protect specific business-related
items.
For instance, the House exempted from the moratorium a rule that was
published on December 2 relative to the conditional release of textile
imports; a rule that related to customs modernization; a rule that
related to the transfer of spectrum by the Federal Communications
Commission, and so forth. If you can catch the interest of a Member,
you can get your rule exempted from the moratorium. I do not have any
problem with exempting from the moratorium any of those rules. I am all
in favor of that, because I do not think the moratorium makes sense. It
is not as though I do not think we ought to exempt textiles or we
should not exempt spectrum. I think we should have a rational way of
legislating, which is to state a principle, not just willy-nilly pick
items out of the blue which may have particular appeal to a particular
Member.
One of the reasons this moratorium did not make sense is because it
would catch up rules such as those enumerated. But it is going to catch
up a lot of other rules which make sense, as well. It is not just a
textile rule that it catches up. Well, that was exempt. It catches up a
rule that finally gives us some sanity in the area of bottled water.
The water bottlers have been waiting for a decade for this rule; they
want the rule. They have been asking for a rule to label bottled water
so that the public knows what it is getting. It says ``spring water''
or ``artesian water'' or ``seltzer water,'' ``well water,'' or whatever
it is. The bottling industry wants rules so the public is not misled.
They want rules in order to restrict the amount of particular chemicals
that can be in bottled water. They have been waiting for this rule.
They wrote us in strong opposition to this moratorium, because it
catches up rules that they have been waiting for.
Now, the textile folks are exempted, and it is fine with me. But how
about the water bottlers; they are not exempted? What is the rationale
for this? What is the reason behind that? Where is the fairness behind
that?
Now, as the House bill came over to the Senate, this is the way it
looked. It applies to all regulatory actions, big and small. It does
not even permit agencies to receive comments from the public on pending
rulemaking. This is the House bill, I emphasize. This is the one we are
going to face in conference. All regulatory actions are stopped in the
House bill, not just final regs. Agencies are not able to receive
comment, issue guidance, nothing; stop it, everything. I do not know
what we expect the folks at the agencies to do this year. Nonetheless,
everything stops in its tracks. They cannot receive comments from the
public--a grinding halt. It applies retroactively. It indiscriminately
exempts some rules and not others. It does not exempt any rule
pertaining to public health and safety, except it has an imminent
threat stamp.
Well, as the Senator from Ohio says, the definition of ``imminent''
is not there. So we have to try to figure out now whether or not the
President is going to exempt a rule that the Product Safety Commission
is going to promulgate on bike helmets. Is that an imminent threat?
They are looking at a rule which will require that items which are sold
as bike helmets to protect the heads of bicyclists from injury, in
fact, be structurally strong enough so that they will be able to
perform that function. That is the Product Safety Commission that is
doing that.
The industry wants it; they want these regs. But is that an imminent
threat? Is the President just supposed to pick some kind of decision
out of the air? Does that depend upon what the prediction is as to how
many people will die within what period of time? Is that imminent? Is
it one person a year? If it averages one per month, is that imminent or
not? If it averages 10 per month, is that imminent or not imminent?
Choking toys. The Product Safety Commission, I think, has already
issued regulations on toys which are a threat to children under 4 years
old, which they can choke on. Now, is it imminent or is it not
imminent? We do not know. But none of these are exempted. The bike
helmets are not exempted. The E. coli bacteria is not exempted. The
choking toy is not exempted. But we have exemptions for all kinds of
other things that are more business-related exemptions, such as sale of
spectrum by the FCC, or the textile regulation; those are specifically
exempted in the House bill. But nothing relating to public health and
safety is exempted. Instead, there is an imminent threat requirement
that the President has to apply.
There is one other thing the House bill does. Again, I emphasize this
is what we are going to face in conference. The Senate bill makes some
changes--the underlying Senate bill. But the House bill extends
statutory and judicial deadlines. In other words, where there is a rule
which is required by law, be it judicial or statutory, to come into
effect as of a particular date, in that case, the bill says, well, we
want it to be longer by 5 months. The moratorium for December 31 is not
good enough if the deadline for a rule has been set by a statute or by
a court. There, for some reason--totally inexplicable to me--the
deadline is extended 5 months beyond December 31. Mind you, if Congress
set a statutory deadline for a rule to come into effect, and that one
is moratoriumed until December 31, that becomes May 31. I do not know
that logic. They tried to change that one in committee in the Senate
version without any success. We never got an explanation as to the
logic of that one. You would think if we set a deadline for a rule to
come into effect, we would treat ourselves as well, at least when there
is no such deadline for a regulation coming into effect. But we do not.
This moratorium, I believe, is a diversion from the real job of
drafting tough regulatory reform legislation.
We hope that we could just set this moratorium idea aside and get on
with the real work of regulatory reform, the real work that the
committees of this Congress are doing, which the Governmental Affairs
Committee did by unanimous vote in adopting the Roth regulatory reform
approach. Another committee of this Senate is doing work on regulatory
reform. That is the serious work. Timely item review, cost benefit
analysis,
looking at each regulation, to weigh whether or not its benefits
outweigh the costs.

In our bill, having a legislative veto provision--which I think is a
very important and significant approach, one that I have supported
since I got here. As a matter of fact, one which I supported before I
got here.
When the moratorium bill that the committee took up, S. 219, came
before the committee for markup, it was a
[[Page S4633]] doozy of a markup. There were 22 amendments at our
markup. I want to go through this markup briefly just to show how
arbitrary this bill before the Congress is.
Senator Cochran offered an amendment to exempt any action taken to
ensure the safety and soundness of a farm credit system institution, or
to protect the farm credit insurance fund. That amendment was accepted.
Senator Pryor offered an amendment to exempt any agency action that
establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program
for a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity relating to
hunting, fishing, or camping, if a Federal law prohibits such activity
in the absence of agency action. That amendment was designed to exempt
a regulation that permits duck hunting season to open. That was
accepted.
Senator Akaka offered an amendment to exempt the promulgation of any
rule or regulation relating to aircraft overflights on national parks
by the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of the Interior
pursuant to the procedures specified in the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, published on March 17, 1994. That amendment was accepted.
Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action
to improve air safety including such an action to improve airworthiness
of aircraft engines.'' That amendment was accepted. Senator Glenn
offered another amendment to exempt any regulatory action that would
upgrade safety and training standards for commuter airlines to those of
major airlines. That amendment was accepted.
Senator Thompson offered an amendment to exempt any clarification of
existing responsibilities regarding highway safety warning devises
which was intended to cover railroad crossings. That amendment was
accepted.
Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt any regulatory action to
bring compensation to Persian Gulf war veterans for disabilities for
undiagnosed illnesses as provided by the Persian Gulf Veterans Benefits
Act. That amendment was accepted.
Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt regulatory action by the
EPA to protect the public from exposure from lead in house paints,
soil, or drinking water. That amendment was accepted.
Now, each of those amounts was offered in an effort to exempt
particular rules from coverage of the moratorium. I support each one of
those amendments. They are fine. The problem is not that there is a
problem with the amendments that were adopted. The problem is
amendments which nobody offers to cover important regulation which have
as much claim to be exempted from this moratorium as the ones that we
exempted. Certain Senators, familiar with certain rules, offer an
exemption from the moratorium. It gets adopted. That is fine. What
about the ones where we are not familiar, acting on a matter of weeks
upon thousands and thousands of regulations that get caught up in the
net? They are caught up in a moratorium. How many rules are there that
are just as important as the ones that we exempt that are still going
to be subject to the moratorium, and with similar or even more serious
consequences than these rules? There are hundreds of these rules,
potentially, since we have been told there is perhaps 800 to 900
significant regulatory actions in any one year.
All these amendments identified about eight, eight that some Senators
are familiar with. How many others? We do not have the vaguest idea.
Some of them that we do know about we tried to offer amendments on.
These are some of the ones that failed. See if there is any coherence
to this.
Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt any regulatory action to
reduce pathogens in meat and poultry taken by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That one was
defeated. We accepted the exemption for lead paint. That one was
adopted. But when it came to a rule to protect against tainted meat,
that exemption from the moratorium was rejected.
Now, maybe somebody can come up with a logic here as to why we should
proceed without a moratorium to a rule on lead paint, but we should not
proceed without a moratorium to a rule which protects citizens from
tainted meat.
I think we ought to proceed with both unless on a one-by-one basis
Congress, pursuant to a legislative veto, feels that a regulation is
not consistent with the law that drives it or is not worth the cost.
That is the alternative approach to this moratorium. That is the
coherent approach. That is the approach where we will be forced to
rationally look at any regulation, one by one, not lumping them all
together in one bushel basket and stopping the whole bushel, except for
one or two or three, up to eight, which people have picked out of the
bushel, but where we deal rationally with regulations one on one.
Then Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt any regulatory
action by the EPA that relates to control of microbe risks in drinking
water supplies. That is the one that addresses the concern about
cryptosporidium in public drinking water. That was rejected.
Is the lead paint threat more imminent than the cryptosporidium
threat? That is the decision of this committee, and, therefore, one is
going to be subject to a moratorium and the other one is exempt. It
beats me what the logic is. I do not see it.
I offered an amendment to exempt any significant regulatory action
the principal purpose of which is to protect or improve human health or
safety and for which a cost-benefit analysis has been completed and the
head of the agency taking such action has concluded, to the extent
permitted by law, that the benefits justify the cost. That one was
rejected on a 7 to 7 vote.
There is so much inconsistency in this bill that it is really the
totally wrong way for Congress to legislate. One rule is exempted just
in case it might get caught by the moratorium, but a similar rule is
not exempted because, well, it appears that it would not be caught by
the moratorium. There is no rhyme or reason to why the committee
specifically exempts air safety regulations and lead paint regulations,
but refuses to specifically exempt meat safety and cryptosporidium
regulations. There is no rhyme nor reason to that.
Surely we want to protect ourselves from dangerous situations in the
air, from lead paint, from dangerous meat, and from cryptosporidium. We
want to protect ourselves from all. Where is the logic?
Now, I offered an amendment which the committee accepted. Here is the
way this amendment read: ``We will exempt from the moratorium,
regulations that establish or enforce statutory rights that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national
origin or handicap or disability status.'' That one was accepted. Those
are exempt from the moratorium.
But then I offered an amendment rejected by the committee--I cannot
figure the logic it--to exempt any significant regulatory action which
enforces constitutional rights of an individual. That one we did not
exempt. Statutory rights that prohibit discrimination are exempt, but
regulations to enforce constitutional rights are not exempt from the
moratorium.
The committee accepted an amendment by Senator McCain to exempt
actions that ``limit it to matters relating to negotiated rulemaking
carried out between Indian tribal governments and at agency under the
`Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994'.'' Fair enough; no
problem with that exemption.
But how about an amendment to exempt any regulation issued pursuant
to the consensual product of regulatory negotiation--not just the ones
relating to Indian tribal governments but any product of regulatory
negotiation; not just that product?
So it went, and so we have just a hodgepodge of exemptions that defy
consistency or rationality.
We also add items of coverage to the moratorium. Senator Grassley
offered an amendment that the committee adopted which added the
interagency memorandum of agreement concerning wetlands determinations
to the moratorium. Mind you, this is just a interagency memorandum.
This is not a regulation or rule, this is just a memorandum between
agencies. That one is added to the moratorium on regulations. So that
one is suspended during the moratorium period.
[[Page S4634]] Senator Stevens offered an amendment to extend the
moratorium to include any action that ``* * * restricts commercial use
of land under the control of a Federal agency''--any action, not just a
regulation or rule, any action restricting the ``commercial use of land
under the control of a Federal agency.''
We are still trying to figure out the ramifications of that
amendment. Already the results are pretty stunning.
Under the Stevens amendment, the Federal agencies in charge of
protecting Federal lands would presumably not be able to carry out
enforcement proceedings against individual actions that could despoil
the land or endanger human life. For instance, the National Park
Service could presumably not close a dangerous pass in a national park
because of drifting snow; it could not stop hikers using certain paths
in a park that may be dangerous because of bears or high water.
The Department of the Interior has reviewed this amendment. Here is
what it predicts if this amendment ever became law:

The Bureau of Land Management would not have authority to
enforce existing permits or plans of operations for mineral
leases; the Bureau of Reclamation would not be able to
regulate boating, swimming and fishing on Federal land near
dams and reservoirs; the Fish and Wildlife Service would not
be able to regulate a variety of recreational activities on
wildlife refuges; the National Park Service would not be able
to regulate activities that might impair visitor enjoyment or
protect the parks; the Department of Defense could not obtain
additional public lands for military purposes without
qualifying for Presidential exemption.

It goes on and on. Those are the impacts of the amendment just
adopted in committee, which is added to a moratorium on regulation.
I just cannot believe that the members of the Governmental Affairs
Committee ever intended that the Government be so limited in its
ability to protect its people and its natural resources, but that is
what we did in reporting this bill to the full Senate.
As I said, this bill also has a rather strange provision added in
committee concerning statutory and judicial deadlines. That provision
adds an additional 5 months to the length of a moratorium where
deadlines have been established by either statute or a court case with
respect to a regulation.
The first question is why would we want to include deadlines in the
moratorium bill in the first place--particularly statutory deadlines
where we, in Congress, have stated explicitly the date by which we want
a rule issued? But, second, why should regulations with statutory or
judicially imposed deadlines be singled out for an additional 5-months
moratorium?
When I asked the question the answer that I got was that it would be
too much for the agencies to handle all of the proposed and final
regulations coming into effect at the same time when the moratorium
ends, as well as the deadlines. But that does not make any sense. The
lifting of a moratorium on proposed and final regulations does not
force the agencies to take any scheduled action with respect to those
regulations, and to the extent that the agencies do take action they
will have the entire period of the moratorium to prepare for taking
those actions. Moreover, when I asked whether any agency had asked for
this kind of consideration, so to speak, the answer was ``no.''
But the report of the committee is just as telling. The report
contains a litany of various selected rules that are referenced for
purposes of determining whether or not they are covered by the
moratorium. The committee members did not consider these rules
individually. Most of them--maybe all of them--were not even mentioned
in the committee markup or in documents circulated to committee
members. Yet they appear in the report as though the committee acted
intentionally and knowingly on them.
Here is one--this is from the committee report.

The Department of Transportation is currently considering
whether alternative standards to the existing HM-181
standards are appropriate for open-head fibre drums used for
the transportation of liquids. If the Department of
Transportation determines that such alternative standards are
appropriate, that decision could result in eliminating an
unnecessary regulatory burden on the fibre-drum industry.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. That is great. I am all for
exempting them from the moratorium. I do not want any unnecessary
regulatory burden on the fibre-drum industry more than I want it on any
industry. But here is a typical exception from the moratorium. It
suddenly appears in the committee report. We never discussed this. It
is just helter-skelter, willy-nilly. Can you get a Senator to put a
little reference in there to exempting some regulation from a
moratorium?
Here is another one. Similarly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms is about to issue final regulations governing trade practices
under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act that could simplify
alcohol promotional practices. If so, these regulations could be
excluded from the moratorium under this provision. Terrific, I am all
for it.
What about the hundreds of others that should be excluded from the
moratorium that are not named in here? What is the origin of naming one
or two regulations, unless we want to go through these things in some
rational way and name hundreds of regulations that ought to be exempted
that will reduce burdens on industry?
How about that bottled water regulation that the bottled water
industry has been waiting for, for a decade, one decade? Let me read
the letter from the Water Bottlers Association.
``On behalf of the Bottled Water Association I am providing, at your
request, information. * * * Et cetera, et cetera.

In addition to this final rule, I will describe two
additional amendments to the bottled water standard of
quality which, according to FDA, will be published this
spring. IBWA strongly supports the finalization of these
public health standards as well.

* * * * *

The December 1, 1994 final rule, which was identified at
your committee hearing last Wednesday, significantly adds to
the number of standard of quality levels that must be met by
a bottled water product and as a result, will be a
significant benefit to American consumers. Briefly, it
establishes or modifies allowable levels in bottled water for
9 inorganic chemicals (IOCs) and 26 synthetic organic
chemicals (SOCs) including 11 synthetic volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs), 14 pesticides, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). The final rule presently becomes effective
on May 1, 1995. Once effective, this final rule provides even
greater assurance to American consumers that the bottled
water they drink is the safest in the world. IBWA strongly
supported FDA's efforts to finalize these quality levels and
has consistently worked with FDA to develop and implement
these rules. While IBWA members already voluntarily test for
these substances, as part of a voluntary annual inspection
program which is a condition of membership, making this final
rule effective will ensure that the entire bottled water
supply sold in the United States, from both domestic and
foreign firms, conform to these valuable public health and
safety standards.

This is their conclusion. I think it will resonate with every Member
of the Senate.

The three standard of quality rules described herein have a
material impact on the safety of all bottled water sold in
this country. The standard of identity rules ensure that
consumers are not mislead and legitimate bottled water
producers not injured due to false or misleading names given
to specific types of bottled water. IBWA and its members have
devoted enormous time, technical resources, and money for
over a decade to develop these federal standards. It would be
a major setback to the bottled water industry and consumers
to have these federal rules, so close to finalization,
arbitrarily frozen. IBWA strongly supports the efforts of you
and others to ensure that this highly damaging possibility
does not become a reality.

Presumably maybe we could have exempted bottled water standards. Or
maybe somebody can argue that there is an imminent health hazard that
these address. It is pretty hard to argue. These have been in the works
for a decade. What is so arbitrary about this bill, what is so unfair,
is that it singles out some, picks them out of the blue, some pending
regulations and says we will exempt these. We will exempt the textile
regulations from this moratorium but these other 800, well, who knows
about them? Let me emphasize. I am familiar with that textile
regulation. I want to exempt it from the moratorium, too. But what
about the other hundreds that have an equal claim to be exempt from the
moratorium?
What about mammograms? On this floor on a bipartisan basis we had a
law passed that required high-quality standards for mammograms and that

[[Page S4635]] they be uniform. We had speeches from Members all over
this floor saying how important it was that mammograms in this country
meet certain high-quality standards. We lose thousands of women
unnecessarily to breast cancer because we do not have high-quality
mammograms in this country. And we all sit around here and stood around
here and made speeches as to how critically necessary it was that we
get these standards in place. Where are they? Caught in a moratorium.
Or are they caught? Is it imminent? Is it is legally imminent? Is there
less of a claim for an exemption from a moratorium for a mammogram
regulation than it is for the duck hunting season? I have to share with
Senator Glenn the same strong feeling. We do not want to mess up the
duck hunting season. So we should exempt them. I have no problem with
doing that. But what about mammograms? Is there less of a claim? I do
not think so.
This bill has been turned into a vehicle for special interest
pleading. That is what is so fundamentally disturbing about this
moratorium. Who gets in and who gets out depends on whether you can get
a Member's ear or attention and time to get a particular request in. In
some cases it is a request to be excluded from the moratorium. In
others it is a request to be covered by the moratorium. What about
those who do not have the lobbyists or the representatives to
adequately argue their case? What about them?
This represents arbitrary Government at its worst. What is ironic is
that it is part of an effort to reduce the intrusion of arbitrary
Government, an effort that I share.
There is going to be a substitute offered, the principle of which is
an important principle and it is a principle that I very strongly
support. The principle is that we as a Congress should be forced to
look at the product of our laws and not just write general laws. We as
a Congress should be forced to look at regulations that come out of
these laws we write, not simply vote on the law and then move on to the
next problem and think we have solved the first one. Because the
regulations that are spawned by our laws can frequently create as many
problems as they can cure.
I came to this Senate believing in legislative veto. And I think the
first legislative veto in the 1980's was one that I cosponsored for
Senator Boren, a so-called Levin-Boren legislative veto on the Federal
Trade Commission. We passed it. We would have liked to have had a
generic one, by the way, but the Supreme Court intervened and created
some problems in the way it was done.
So I am all for legislative veto. I think it ought to be done the
right way. I have some suggested changes in the one that is going to be
offered as a substitute. But make no mistake about it. We are going to
face this moratorium again in conference even if we substitute a
legislative veto for this across-the-board regulatory moratorium. That
does not unhappily put an end to this arbitrary and reckless approach
to Government. We are going to face it again in conference.
It is important that this Senate go on record, not only as favoring
the alternative, which is a legislative veto that will be offered, a
totally different approach, one that looks at regulations one at a time
that forces us in the legislative body to do our work instead of
capturing all of the regulatory process in the executive branch in a
net, willy-nilly. It is a very different approach. I hope we adopt
something like the one that is going to be offered by Senator Nickles
and Senator Reid. But it is also important in adopting that substitute
that we put to rest, that we end, the threat of a moratorium which we
are still going to face in conference, which I believe is one of the
most arbitrary pieces of legislation that I have seen in my 16 years in
the Senate.
I want to commend Senator Glenn for the effort that he has led
against this moratorium. Hopefully tomorrow we will take step one in
putting this thing to rest. But he is very right in alerting us to the
fact that this is just step one. If we do in fact adopt this
alternative approach that we not proceed along with this broad across-
the-board regulatory moratorium but instead move to a legislative veto
approach, that it is just phase one in this effort. Phase two will be
in a conference where the folks who support the moratorium have already
indicated publicly that they are going to try to get that moratorium
enacted.
Mr. President, again with thanks to Senator Glenn for leading the
effort to defeat this moratorium and to get an alternative approach
utilizing the legislative veto or regulatory reform, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Texas.

Privilege of the Floor

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David
Davis, a Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the
consideration of S. 219.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to follow through on some of the
remarks of the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. Did we
reserve the remainder of our time on this side so we do not have it
charged against us?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I listened with care to comments of the
Senator from Michigan. I think he raised some legitimate points
regarding both the House bill and also the Senate bill, S. 219, which
came from the committee.
At the conclusion of his remarks, he got to the point that I would
like to speak to; that is, the Nickles-Reid substitute which he
indicated would most assuredly answer many of the questions that he had
raised, that it constituted the concept of legislative veto that would
enable the House and Senate to examine these regulations each one by
themselves to determine whether they could conform to the intent of the
legislative branch which pass the laws in the first place. I think that
is the bottom line here. That is the question.
We should be able to rely upon the majority of the House and Senate
to understand what we intended when we passed a law, and whether the
regulations being issued by the regulatory agencies conform to our
original intent. I suspect in most of those cases we will find that we
agree with the regulations being proposed. But in those cases where we
do not, we will have the opportunity to say so, and during the debate
indicate why we think they perhaps do not conform to our original
intent and, therefore, how the agencies can rewrite the regulations.
Most of the consequences of the House bill, or Senate bill, S. 219,
that the Senator spoke of are answered, it seems to me, by the Nickles-
Reid substitute. You have concerns expressed I think with either a
moratorium or a lookback except that during the lookback to November 9,
1994, the regulations remain in effect. And so there should be no real
concern because those regulations remain extant and they are only
stopped if the House and Senate decide that they need to be changed.
And the 45-day moratorium with the exceptions for emergencies and for
public health and safety reasons that require an immediate
implementation of a regulation is not really much of a delay
considering the fact that many regulations, most regulations are
delayed 30 days from implementation anyway. It seems to me the
opportunity to look at these regulations and determine whether they
conform to congressional intent is good and that we give up very little
because the regulations already in effect remain in effect until we
look at them and those regulations which are not emergencies are only
delayed for a period of 45 days.
The concern that many of us have is twofold: The cost of regulations
to our families, to our businesses and to society in general and also
the burden of regulations today cry out for solution.
There are two charts here which I would like to briefly use to
demonstrate that point. The pages of the Federal Register is some rough
measure of the burden of these regulations, and we are almost up now to
67,000 pages in the Federal Register. You can see from the year 1976
that regulations went all the way up to 73,000 pages during the 1978
and 1979 period, down to a low during 1986 of about 44,000 pages in the
Federal Register; last year, almost
[[Page S4636]] 65,000, and as I said now almost 67,000 pages in the
Federal Register as of this date.
And by the way, that is pretty fine print so we are not talking about
regulations just of one or two to a page. This demonstrates in at least
some gross way the size of the burden that we are imposing on people.
I defy anybody to understand what is in all of these regulations. We
spend billions of dollars trying to comply with the law. We all
remember as school kids we learned the phrase ``ignorance of the law is
no excuse,'' but in fact Americans, all of us, are ignorant of the law.
We cannot possibly know what is in all of these regulations and comply
with them, and we hire people to help us with that, spending billions
of dollars in the process.
That gets to the second chart, Mr. President. The cost of Government
per household 2 years ago, 1993, for the Federal regulatory burden was
$6,000 compared to the Federal tax burden of $12,000. As a matter of
fact, depending upon which study you look at, the cost by the end of
1993 of complying with Federal regulations overall, counting businesses
as well, was just about equal to the Federal tax burden.
So if you include businesses as well as families in this, what you
find is that we are paying as much to comply with regulations as we are
money to the Federal Treasury. In rough dollar terms, about $1 trillion
we pay into the Federal Treasury, about $1.3 trillion, as I recall. And
the cost of complying with regulations is somewhere in that rough area,
of roughly $1 trillion a year.
It is hard for any of us to comprehend what $1 trillion is, but for
the average household we can understand $6,000 a year to comply with
Federal regulations. We know that it is hard to know what is in them
all. We know that it is expensive and burdensome. We know that they are
not all necessary.
That is what our effort is all about, to have the Congress have at
least the opportunity to look at them before they go into effect, to
say, yes, that is needed, that is what we intended, let it go. Or, wait
a minute, this goes far beyond what the Congress intended when we
passed this law. This is not the kind of burden that we intended to
impose upon society, upon our families, upon small businesses, for
example. Or for some other reason to say, time out, hold this
regulation up; this is not an appropriate extension of the law.
Mr. President, I just want to conclude with this story. When I first
went to law school, I remembered thinking about the difference between
administrative law and statutory law. I had never had occasion to think
about that distinction before. The legislative branch passes laws, the
executive branch signs those laws and then implements them. That is
what I had learned in high school and in college.
However, I came to appreciate a distinction, that when you get to the
way it really works in the real world with the Federal Government, you
have the legislative branch passing laws that are usually not very many
pages. Now, we like to talk about all these big laws and most of them
are not that big. And then we tend to forget about it. This is what we
intend to happen or to prevent from happening. It is then the job of
the executive branch of Government to translate that into all of the
rules and regulations by which the law is implemented.
A funny thing happens. The regulators end up taking far more space in
the Federal Register writing many, many times the number of words to
explain precisely what it is that Congress meant. And Congress does not
go back and look at that until constituents come to us and say, ``Do
you realize what you did when you passed this law? Do you realize what
this regulator is making me do?'' Frequently we say, ``Well, now, that
is not what we intended.'' But we never get around to changing the
regulations. We literally have to go back and amend the law.
Well, this allows us a more efficient procedure, a shortcut, if you
will, an opportunity before the fact, before the regulations hurt
people to say, time out, Mr. Regulator friend of ours here in the
executive branch, you are going beyond what we intended when we passed
the law. So scale it back in this regard and then that will be what we
intended and that is what our constituents then can live with.
I believe that this is long overdue. I have constituents back home
who have pleaded with me to please try to do something to solve this
problem. And I think that in the Nickles-Reid amendment we have really
come to a good balance. We have found a way to look at old regulations
and to consider new regulations and a way to ensure that they conform
with congressional intent without preventing the executive branch
through proper administration to deal with emergencies, to deal with
public safety and the like. I think it is a good balance, and I think
it is important for us to adopt this kind of approach. I am looking
forward to the next day or two of debate hoping that we can get the
Nickles-Reid substitute passed, go to conference with the House version
of their bill, and quickly get a bill signed and sent to the President
for his signature.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Nickles-Reid
amendment. My friend and colleague from Arizona has done an excellent
job of pointing out some of the burdens of regulation. I will not
reiterate those, but I will make them a part of my full statement in
the Record.
He has talked about the annual costs and economic terms of
regulations. This is a study--I understand done in 1992--by Thomas D.
Hopkins on the regulatory policy in Canada and the United States. He is
talking about billions of dollars, in 1991 dollars, and shows back in
1977 they were running slightly under $550 billion, but at that time we
projected that the 1995 burden would be about $600 billion annually.
Now, as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I suppose the one
thing that I hear most from small businesses in my State and in the
other States I have visited is that you are killing us with all these
regulations. We are in business to make money, to hire people, to
provide a product or a service. How are we going to keep up with the
minute details, the tremendous volume of directions that you are giving
to us. How are we supposed to run our business and still read all this
stuff?
Now, before me, I have two stacks of regulations the Clinton
administration has put forward since the election. I would have stacked
them one on top of the other for more dramatic impact, but I am sure I
would have been in violation of some regulation of OSHA because they
could be very dangerous if you stacked up all of this material and put
it where it could fall over on somebody. Unfortunately, it is the
business person, the individual, the farmer, the retail store owner who
is supposed to know everything that is in here.
Oh, by the way, just received today, March 27, 1995. You think you
have problems getting to sleep tonight. This is what you need to read
today as the regulatory burden that the Government is proposing to put
on you today.
This is today's reading. The admonition that the problems of today
are sufficient, do not worry about tomorrow; well, the Bible did not
understand that the Federal Register could make the burdens of today as
significant as this.
But this is what the small business person is supposed to know and
supposed to follow.
The Clinton administration has proposed 4,300 regulatory actions and
has some 2,000 final rules planned. This is going to enable this
administration to surpass the dubious record of the Carter
administration in the issuance of new regulations.
Another way of looking at the volume of regulations is how many
bureaucrats does it take to write the regulations? In 1970, we had
28,000 people in the Federal bureaucracy telling us how to run our
lives and what kind of regulations we have to obey. By today, glory be,
that number has risen to 127,842 people trying to tell the small
business person in my hometown, your hometown, or anyplace in this
country how they live their lives and what they ought to do.
Now, let me make clear as we begin this debate, we are not saying all
regulations are bad. And I do not believe any of the proponents of this
legislation or this amendment are going to say that. People still rely,
as they
[[Page S4637]] must, as they should, on the Government to provide basic
functions to ensure that we have clean water to drink, ensure safe and
effective medicines to take, and safe food to eat. I want to be able to
rely on that. But the people I talk to, the people I am hearing, want
Government brought under control. They are tired of looking at
Government and seeing how it runs and thinking to themselves, ``You
could never run a business that way.''
The question I suggest, Mr. President, is how to get the best results
from the regulations we must have? How do we use our finite resources
best? If we waste time and effort and energy on complicated or unwise
or overly prescribed regulations, we cannot put those resources and
that time into being productive. It results in loss of jobs and a lower
standard of living.
We ought to take a look at these regulations and ask some important
questions. And that is what this 45-day period under the Nickles-Reid
amendment would permit us to do. It would enable us to say: Would this
regulation actually improve things or would it endanger lives? Could
the same amount of spending be applied better in another way? Is this
regulation the best way to allocate the resources in our globally
competitive economy?
Let me just take two examples that might be under the heading of risk
assessment.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, under the EPA's
hazardous waste disposal ban, $4.2 billion would have to be spent
before one single premature death is prevented. Again according to OMB,
under EPA's formaldehyde occupational exposure limit, $119 billion to
prevent one premature death. That is not to say that it is not a
laudable goal to prevent deaths that would result from exposure to
hazardous substances. The question we must ask is whether this is the
best way to allocate these billions of dollars in resources? If
resources were used a different way, could we not, in fact, save more
lives and prevent more illness?
The money spent complying with regulations might be better spent. If
society could take the resources spent to comply with the formaldehyde
occupational exposure limit, $119 billion, and spent it on developing
new lifesaving drug therapies, then 331 new drugs could be developed
and brought to market. If the $92 billion that it will take to avoid
one death under the atrazine/alachlor drinking water standard were used
for cancer research, we could quadruple the research budget at the
National Cancer Institute for the next 12 years. If we took the $168.2
million that it is estimated to cost to avoid just one death under the
benzene nesahp standard, we could put 3,064 more police officers on the
street.
Let me give you just a couple of examples, Mr. President, of some of
the things that we have heard about before. I think our colleagues have
heard about how dangerous it is to rescue a colleague, a fellow worker,
who is in danger of death in a collapsed trench. Senator Kempthorne has
talked about it.
My one of my favorite columnist Dave Barry, wrote in ``Wit's End''
about this story in Idaho. He said:
But before we do anything, let's salute the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) office in Idaho for
its prompt action regarding. . .
Improperly attired rescue personnel: Here's what happened,
according to an article in the Idaho Statesman.
On May 11, two employees of DeBest Inc., a plumbing
company, were working at a construction site in Garden City,
Idaho, when they heard a backhoe operator yell for help. They
ran over, and found that the wall of a trench--which was not
dug by DeBest--had collapsed on a worker, pinning him under
dirt and covering his head.
``We could hear muffled screams,'' said one of the DeBest
employees.
So the men jumped into the trench and dug the victim out,
quite possibly saving his life.
What do you think OSHA did about this? Do you think it gave
the rescuers a medal? If so, I can see why you are a mere
lowlife taxpayer, as opposed to an OSHA executive. What OSHA
did--I am not making this up--was fine DeBest Inc. $7,875.
Yes. OSHA said that the two men should not have gone into the
trench without (1) putting on approved hard hats, and (2)
taking steps to ensure that other trench walls did not
collapse, and water did not seep in. Of course this might
have resulted in some discomfort for the suffocating victim
(``Hang in there! We should have the OSHA trench-seepage-
prevention guidelines here within hours!''). But that is the
price you pay for occupational health and safety.
Unfortunately, after DeBest Inc. complained to Idaho Sen.
Dirk Kempthorne, OSHA backed off on the fines. Nevertheless
this incident should serve as a warning to would-be rescuers
out there to comply with all federal regulations, including
those that are not yet in existence, before attempting to
rescue people. Especially if these people are in, say, a
burning OSHA office.
But let me tell you what OSHA came up with. They did repeal the fine.
They pushed it through in the first place, and then they pulled it
back. And now OSHA has decided to provide for that.
So if you are thinking about a rescue situation, and here you are,
this is any worker, this is any small contractor on a hazardous site,
you have to know this before you try to rescue somebody.
This is from the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 27, 1994,
volume 58, page 66,613--that will tell you something. And I quote:
(f) No citation may be issued to an employer because of a
rescue activity undertaken by an employee of that employer
with respect to an individual in imminent danger unless:
(1)(i) Such employee is designated or assigned by the
employer to have responsibility to perform or assist in
rescue operations, and
(ii) the employer fails to provide protection of the safety
and health of such employee, including failing to provide
appropriate training and rescue equipment, or
(2)(i) such employee is directed by the employer to perform
rescue activities in the course of carrying out the
employee's job duties, and
(ii) the employer fails to provide protection of the safety
and health of such employee, including failing to provide
appropriate training and rescue equipment; or
(3)(i) such employee is employed in a workplace that
requires the employee to carry out duties that are directly
related to a workplace operation where the likelihood of
life-threatening accidents is foreseeable, such as a
workplace operation where employees are located in confined
spaces or trenches, handle hazardous waste, respond to
emergency situations, perform excavations, or perform
construction over water; and
(ii) such employee has not been designated or assigned to
perform or assist in rescue operations and voluntarily elects
to rescue such an individual; and
(iii) the employer has failed to instruct employees not
designated or assigned to perform or assist in rescue
operations of the arrangements for rescue, not to attempt
rescue, and of the hazards of attempting rescue without
adequate training or equipment.
(4) For purposes of this policy, the term ``imminent
danger'' means the existence of any condition or practice
that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious
physical harm before such condition or practice ban be
abated.
And I close the quote there.
Is that not refreshing to know what the good Samaritan must know
before he or she rescues somebody's life?
Mr. President, I think that is the kind of thing that, if it came up
here for a 45-day look, we could say, ``I don't think so.''
I do not think we really need to go into all that detail. I do not
think we really need to have everybody in America read this in case
they would become a good Samaritan and rescue somebody in serious,
serious condition.
These are the kind of things that are driving small businesses,
individuals in all walks of life nuts in this country today.
Another example: The head of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration testified before Congress the horror stories were not
true. He testified OSHA does not require material safety sheets for the
normal use of consumer products, and workers must be informed of risks
only when they are regularly exposed to high levels of substances that
actually pose health risks.
This is a copy of a citation issued last July to a specialty food
shop in Evanston, IL, for a serious violation and a proposed $2,500
fine. What is the violation? The company did not have a written hazard
communication program. The primary chemicals used are used in the
kitchen and bathroom areas. The chemicals used that were so dangerous
were not limited to but included automatic dishwashing detergent and
bleach. And for failure to have a hazardous notification--this is a
serious violation and ``the employer did not develop, implement and/or
maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication which
describes how the criteria will be met.''
As I said, the primary chemicals used were automatic dishwashing
detergent and bleach. My goodness, I used automatic dishwashing
detergent this
[[Page S4638]] morning. I did not have a hazard notification. Am I in
imminent danger? I do not think so.
But, Mr. President, businesses across the country, small companies,
are in imminent danger of being hit with a $2,500 fine if they do not
have that kind of written hazardous communication warning them about
dishwashers and bleaches and automatic detergent.
I think these problems are what the bill, as amended by the Nickles-
Reid amendment, intends to fix. Under this bill, Congress is held
accountable, as it should be, for delegating responsibility to
implement regulations. This measure would give Congress 45 days to
review significant regulations and to pass a joint resolution of
disapproval to block the implementation. The 45-day layover adds to the
checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive
branch by bringing back to Congress major regulations so that we can
see if they really do what we meant and, second, if we meant what we
said, and, third, are they unnecessarily restrictive or proscriptive?
Too long we in Congress have taken the credit for solving problems.
We have somebody come in and talk about regulations and we say, ``Oh,
well, I'll get after somebody and we won't have to have you comply with
that particular provision.'' But rather than try to come in after,
would it not make sense for us to take a good hard look up front? That
is what Congress needs to do.
Frankly, I think that a 45-day period before Congress will have a
very salutary effect because I just believe that many people in the
executive agencies are getting the message: We are going to start
taking a look at what you write, and if you do not want it to be
overturned, let us make it simple. Do not write it so complicated that
people cannot understand it.
I have a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development notice to
renters on lead-paint poisoning. These are all single-spaced sheets.
There are four sheets. You tell me somebody who may be getting
assistance in housing is going to be able to read all that and
understand it? I tell you, I have gone through it and I have gotten
lost and I have had some training, supposedly, in reading regulations.
I do not think that we are serving our people well when we put
burdens of tremendous regulations on them, kill a lot of trees to boot
and wind up with systems that often do not make any sense.
I believe one of the messages that the people of America gave us in
November 1994 was: Enough is enough, get off our back. Stop weighing us
down with these kinds of overly restrictive, proscriptive regulations.
Regulations to protect health and safety, simple ones that people can
understand, that is fine. We anticipate those when we pass legislation
calling for regulations. It is time that we in Congress got back into
the process and made sure that we stop some of this idiocy before it is
placed on the backs of an already overburdened economy, dragged down by
more than $600 billion worth of regulatory burden each year.
For small businesses, the burden is disproportionately high. No one
can say how many new small businesses were never started, or new
products that never get developed, or how many jobs are destroyed
because of the burden of regulations out of control.
One group that thrives on the confusion and fear of regulators is
regulatory consultants. All across this country consultants profit from
helping businesses, especially small businesses, navigate the
regulatory maze and figure out how to comply. A new and complex
regulation is a boon to these consultants. In the environmental sector,
the consulting market was estimated at $9 billion on 1993 by Farkas,
Berkowicz & Co., a Washington-based consulting firm. These firms also
conduct mock OSHA inspections and make inquiries to OSHA for their
clients. Businesses do not want to call OSHA themselves because they
are fearful it would trigger an inspection and fines. These are
businesses who want to comply and are trying hard to comply, but are
too afraid to call the agency themselves.
Congress has been unaccountable for the burdens it creates. Most of
the regulatory burden results from the ways laws are written here in
Congress. Let me quote from the special report on regulatory overkill
published by the Kansas City Business Journal:

The Congress passes laws in a very sloppy manner. They
don't spell things out in great detail the way they should,
because that requires hard work and technical expertise, and
those are two things that are in short supply in Congress.

Congress' reliance on agency bureaucrats to flesh out lawmakers'
intentions gives unelected officials vast discretionary powers, but
``oftentimes regulators are confused about what Congress wants and then
Congress loses control over what regulators do. The regulators
prescribe very unworkable solutions, and Congress says that's not what
we had in mind, but by then, we're all stuck with the regulations.''

Lost jobs, businesses that can't grow, products that can't
be developed, a loss of research and development. All of
these are fundamental dangers that affect not just business,
but ultimately every citizen in this country if the system is
allowed to continue unchecked.
That problem, Mr. President, is what this bill seeks to fix. Under
this bill, Congress is held accountable for the regulations that result
from the laws it passes. The Nickles-Reid substitute will give Congress
45 days to review significant regulations and a chance to pass a joint
resolution of disapproval to block implementation.
The Nickles substitute brings accountability to Congress and the
Federal agencies.
The 45-day layover adds to the checks and balances between the
legislative branch and the executive branch by returning major
regulations to Congress to see if they match congressional intent.
For too long Congress has taken the credit for solving the crisis of
the hour--but when the check comes due, Congress has ignored the costs
to States, cities, business, and individuals--no more.
This makes Congress accountable for its laws--many of our
environmental laws do not allow the agency to take costs into
consideration. Example: RCRA requires EPA to issue rules for land
disposal of hazardous wastes that establish treatment standards using
the best demonstrated available technology without regard for cost or
risk.
This makes Federal agencies accountable for their rules--too often
EPA ignores the discression it has. Example: The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 required major sources of hazardous air pollutants
to engage in enhanced monitoring. EPA has taken these two words into a
huge new regulatory program. EPA estimates the proposed rule would
cover 30,000 sources at 10,000 facilities at a cost of over $1 billion.
This is not for emissions reductions, it's just for monitoring.
This forces us to confront antiquated laws--sometimes the facts of
the situation changes, so today the law means something quite different
than when it was passed. Example: When the Delaney clause was adopted
in 1958, we were measuring contaminants in parts per million, today
we're measuring in parts per billion or parts per quadrillion. The
advance in technology has converted the Delaney clause from a
reasonable rule to a ridiculous one.
A vote for the Nickles amendment is a vote for accountability in
Congress and the agencies.
Who can disagree with that? If a majority in Congress believe a
regulation should not be put in place to implement a law passed by
Congress, then proper oversight action should be taken. Congress might
weigh the consequences of the laws it passes and must ensure that
regulatory agencies do not overstep the boundaries set by Congress.
Congress delegates a great deal of decisionmaking authority to the
regulators and if the regulators abuse that power, Congress should have
the power to act quickly and decisively.
Mr. President, I strongly support the Nickles-Reid amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator
Dorgan is not ready yet, so I am going to go forward.
First, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. I am

[[Page S4639]] privileged to serve with Senator Bond as cochair of the
regulatory reform task force that is trying to put some common sense
into the regulations of our country, trying to bring them under
control.
Senator Bond and I are having a good time, actually. He has given
some of the examples that we have found from ordinary citizens and
small business people who are fed up to here with the overregulation of
our country, and I applaud him for his efforts. I appreciate the fact
that he has just read all of the regulations that are stacked on his
desk. I am sure it was great bedtime reading.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles regulatory review
substitute bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Senator
Bond and I and Senator Nickles have been working for months, really,
trying to see what we could do to give the business people and the
individuals in our country some relief. In fact, Congress passes laws
and they delegate the implementation to the regulators. But if the
regulators do not do what is envisioned by the Congress, it is our
responsibility to step in and to say, ``No, this is not really what we
intended. In fact, Congress intended for you to go in this direction.''
This bill will inject some democracy into what has been an
increasingly arbitrary regulatory process. Americans have the right to
expect that their Government will work for them, not against them.
Instead, Americans have had to fight their Government to drive their
cars, graze cattle on their ranches, build a porch on their homes, or
operate their small businesses in a reasonable, commonsense manner.
This legislation would provide lawmakers with a tool for ensuring
that Federal agencies are, in fact, carrying out Congress' regulatory
intent properly and within the confines of what Congress intended and
no more.
Agencies have gotten into the habit of issuing regulations which go
so far beyond the intended purpose we hardly recognize them anymore.
This bill is simply an extension of the system of checks and balances
which has served our country so well for more than two centuries.
In November, the message came loud and clear from the voters of
America: ``We're tired of bigger Government; we are tired of business
as usual in Washington, DC, and we are tired of the arrogance that we
see in our Federal Government.''
Nothing demonstrates that arrogance more than the volumes of one-
size-fits-all regulations which pour out of this city and impact on the
daily lives of American people. The voters went to the polls because
they felt harassed by the Government that issues these regulations
without considering the impact on small business.
The egregious stories about the enforcement of some of these
regulations have become legendary, and the people are asking us to call
a timeout, and that is what we are doing today.
Common law has always relied on a reasonable-person approach. The
standard behind our laws should be what would a reasonable person do in
these circumstances?
But many of our Federal regulations have been designed to dictate the
way in which a person, reasonable or otherwise, must act in every
single situation, something that is impossible to do. In short, we must
make reasonable persons not an oxymoron in this country. We have
literally taken the common sense out of the equation and completely
failed to allow for the application of common sense. It is for that
reason that this debate is dominated by example of Government
regulators out of control.

When you have the city of Big Spring, TX, being forced to spend $6
million to redesign its reservoir project, to protect the Concho snake,
which they are told is endangered, only to find out that the Concho
snake is not really endangered after all, but after they have spent the
$6 million, you find the unreasonable man coming to the forefront.
When you have a plumbing company in Dayton, TX, cited for not posting
emergency phone numbers at a construction site, and the construction
site is three acres of empty field, and OSHA actually shut the site
down for 3 days until the company constructed a freestanding wall in
order to meet the OSHA requirement to post emergency phone numbers on
that wall. Or when the Beldon Roof Co. in San Antonio, TX, is cited for
not providing disposable drinking cups to their workers, despite the
fact that the company went to the additional expense of providing high-
energy drinks free to their employees in glass containers, which the
employees in turn used for drinking water. In this case, you have a
company going the extra mile and being cited because they did not meet
a lesser standard.
What about when the EPA bans the smell of fresh bread from the air
and forces bakeries, like Mrs. Baird's, to spend $5 million for a
catalytic converter to take that smell out of the air? Or the case of
Mrs. Clay Espy, a rancher from Fort Davis, TX. She allowed a student
from Texas A&M to do research on plants on her ranch. He discovered a
plant which he thought to be endangered and reported his findings. The
Department of the Interior subsequently told Mrs. Espy that she could
no longer graze her cattle on the ranch on which her family had grazed
cattle for over 100 years because her cattle might eat this particular
weed. It took a lawsuit and an expenditure of over $10,000 before the
Department reversed its ruling and declared that the weed was in fact
not endangered.
And then there is Rick's High-Tech Auto Motive Service in Katy, TX;
they have eight employees. Ten months ago, he spent $30,000 purchasing
a console analyzer and an additional $3,500 in training. But new EPA
regulations came out for inspection and maintenance which pulled the
rug out from under him, and he will now have to fire at least two
employees.
And Howard Goldberg in El Paso, TX, owns Supreme Cleaners. Two years
ago, he bought all new equipment. When the State implementation program
mandated that he install recovery dryers, it cost him an additional
$19,000 and rendered his new equipment totally useless and also
unsalable. He is a dry cleaner. He is a small business person.
These numerous horror stories which have come forward since we began
our efforts for regulatory reform provide evidence of a Government out
of control. It demonstrates the need to introduce common sense and
reasonableness into the system where these qualities are sorely
lacking.
That is why one of the messages sent by the American people in 1992,
and again in 1994, was: We have had enough. Fix this.
The question is: Have the people in Washington heard the message?
Will it take this time? I am not sure, because I am not sure some
people in Washington yet realize the frustration level of people in
America. With this bill, we are sending a message to America: Signal
received.
It is going to be difficult, but we are going to reverse this
disastrous trend. Our goal must be to put the Federal Government's
financial house in order, decrease the size of the Federal Government,
return Federal programs to the States, reauthorize the 10th amendment
of the Constitution of this country, which said that the Federal
Government will have limited powers and everything else will be left to
the States and to the people.
The Federal Government was supposed to be a strong, but small,
efficient Government, with very limited powers, and I think we have
gone in the other direction.
What are the stakes here? Mr. President, if we are going to be able
to compete in the new global economy, we must change the regulatory
environment and the litigation environment so our businesses can
compete.
To put this in perspective, for business, the cost of complying with
current Federal regulations is $430 billion a year. The overall cost to
the economy of regulatory compliance, if you put the mandates on State
and local governments, is $900 billion. Now, to put that in
perspective, our income tax brings in approximately $700 billion. So
when you are writing out your taxes in the next few weeks, look at the
stealth tax that is on top of the bill that you are paying, and that is
going to be double--double--what you are writing the check for, and
that is the real Federal encroachment on your life.
We need to let people manage their own lives and their own money
instead of having Washington do it, I think we
[[Page S4640]] are perfectly capable of giving it to the American
people.
We need to turn the regulatory engines around. The Nickles substitute
is an important first step on the road to regulatory reform in this
process.
I have been working on this legislation with Senator Nickles and
Senator Bond for years. I hope my colleagues will side with the
American people, who have called on us to get the bureaucracy under
control and vote in favor of a bill that will begin to tell the
American people that we got the message in November 1994, and we are
going to do something about it.
Mr. President, that is the mission. That is what we must do. We must
show the people of this country that things are changing in Washington,
DC, that they are getting the message inside the beltway and relief is
on the way. That is what this bill will do. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the previous
two speakers, and I have also listened today to Senator Glenn from Ohio
who has spoken on this subject, as well as the Senator from Michigan,
Senator Levin, and others.
This subject is regulations. I suspect it is safe to say that not
many people like regulations. It is also safe to say that the fewer
regulations probably the better, for most parts of our country.
However, there are certain specific areas I think most people would say
we want to make sure the regulations are there and work. For example,
there are important regulations relating to air safety. I have flown
some in my life. I have not flown nearly as much as the Senator from
Ohio who has his own plane and has orbited the Earth, as a matter of
fact. He understands when you take off with a bearing and leave the
ground there are certain regulations about at what height you can stay.
If a plane is flying east, it can fly at a certain altitude. If it is
flying west, it can fly at another altitude. It may or may not be
cumbersome, but it is comfortable when flying east to understand the
person flying west is not flying at your same altitude.
That is a regulation, and one that is perfectly reasonable, of
course. There are a lot of regulations in our country that have grown
of public need.
I was reading the other day about the early 1900's--1904, 1905,
1906--when there were scandals in this country about the quality of
meat, and some stories about some meatpacking plants. The plants were
infested with rats. In order to get rid of the rats in the meat factory
plant, they put out bread laced with poison. So the rats would eat the
bread laced with poison, and the poison would kill them. The dead rats
came out of the same shoots as the meat, and of course the public
scandal was that that injured the people of this country, and citizens
finally wanted to know what they were eating. Were they eating beef, or
pork, or chicken, or rat, or poison, or poisoned bread, for that
matter?
From that grew a series of increasingly tough standards with respect
to meatpacking in this country. Finally, when people began to purchase
meat from the grocery store shelves, they understood that this was
inspected. It was produced under certain conditions that required
safety and cleanliness. And people had some confidence in that product.
Those series of regulations now over nearly 80 or 90 years were born
not of someone's interest in interfering, but were born of the interest
in public health and safety. That is true of a lot of regulations.
It is also true, as previous speakers have alleged, that regulations
often become oppressive, and regulations that flow from well-intended
law become regulations that do not make any common sense when issued,
and are not able to easily be complied with by mom and pop businesses
on the Main Streets of our country.
In many cases, regulations have caused substantial anger and
substantial anxiety. I think that unreasonable and excessive regulation
has caused a lot of people to go very sour on the subject of Government
itself.
I do not disagree at all that if we miss the message in the last
election, we missed something important. The message in the last
election is that American people want some change. Among the important
changes that this Congress will offer shall be changes with respect to
Federal regulations.
There is a right way to do that and a wrong way to do that. Some
would say that we should just throw everything out. They contend that
all regulations are essentially bad and we must get rid of them.
That is not, in my judgment, a thoughtful way to do it. In my
judgment that is a very thoughtless way to approach it. A thoughtful
way to do this is to decide that we need to make sure when decisions
are made by the U.S. Congress on the subject of clean air or clean
water or poultry inspection or dozens of other things that the American
people feel are important to their lives, that the rules and
regulations that flow from that are rules and regulations that make
common sense and that stick with the intent of the legislation itself.
Now we have a couple of proposals floating around, some of which I
think make a great deal of sense, and some of which make no sense at
all.
I know Senator Glenn and Senator Levin have talked about the bill
that we dealt with in the Governmental Affairs Committee recently on
the subject of the regulatory moratorium. The proposal was, ``Gee, we
had this message in the last election. Regulations are essentially bad.
So let's have a moratorium and prevent any regulation from moving at
this point, until a date certain. Just throw a blanket over all of them
and decide we will shut this down completely.''
Well, I did not support that. I do not think it made any sense. When
the moratorium bill was marked up in the Governmental Affairs
Committee, we raised a number of examples and offered amendments. It
became clear to me that those who proposed the moratorium had no notion
at all about what the consequences would be. Some of the consequences
would be just as inflammatory and detrimental as the consequences of
saying there is no problem here at all, and let the current
circumstance stand.
For example, we raised questions about many rules that are now in the
pipeline that really need to be issued. A regulation that deals with
standards on mammography. Should that not be issued? Sure, it probably
should be issued.
A rule that deals with improving inspection techniques for meat and
poultry to prevent the loss of lives because of E. coli and other food
contaminates. We received testimony from a father who lost a son to E.
coli infected meat. He obviously believes very strongly we ought not
interrupt the process of making sure that regulations needed to improve
that area continue to move.
We should not have a moratorium on regulations that deal with that
sort of thing. The moratorium bill would prevent timely issuance of
rules needed to control the microbial and disinfection byproduct risks,
such as cryptosporidium in our drinking water. The cryptosporidium
issue came from recent outbreak in Milwaukee, WI, in which over 100
people died and hundreds of thousands of people became ill.
Those are the kind of things that get prevented when we establish a
moratorium. We would interrupt very laudatory regulatory goals that we
ought not interrupt such as those dealing with nuclear waste, with work
safety, with seafood inspection, and a whole series of other things.
Let me give another example. If we say we will have no regulations at
this point, at all, I raise the question where there are some good
regulations we want.
There is a regulation, for example, about to be issued allowing a
larger harvest of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico because the previous
regulated harvest can now be increased. There are more shrimp out
there. So by regulation, they will allow that to increase.
[[Page S4641]] I say to the proponents of the moratorium bill, would
you not want that to be able to proceed? Why should we have those folks
out there making their living on shrimp be prevented from harvesting a
greater number of shrimp that now is deemed appropriate? We should not
have a moratorium on a regulation like that. That is a helpful
regulation.
So, those are the kind of things when we propose a moratorium that I
think render the proposal of a moratorium pretty much a thoughtless
proposal. That does not make much sense. It is sort of like saying we
cannot differentiate, or we cannot distinguish, or we do not have the
time for judgment.
So, we will shut everything down. Shut down, then, the good with the
bad. And we shut down a whole range of things that, I think, can in a
detrimental way affect people's daily lives.
That is why the moratorium bill I think is not being brought to the
floor. We raised a lot of these questions about it. We offered
amendments, almost none of which were accepted. And, interestingly
enough, after it was passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee
over our objections the decision has been made, I think, that this
moratorium bill is probably not now a good idea.
Well, it is nice to see that that judgment was made. Now we can go on
to some other things. We have since written another bill in the
Governmental Affairs Committee which deals with comprehensive reform of
the regulatory process which I did support, which Senator Roth, the
chairman of that committee, and the ranking minority member, Senator
Glenn supported. It makes eminent good sense.
It says Congress and Federal agencies must change the way we do
business on regulations. When we pass a law, and we decide we want to
do something that represents something good for this country, such as
the Clean Air Act, we want to make sure that the regulations that come
from that are regulations that meet a common sense standard and are
regulations that can conform to cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment made prior to the issuance of the regulation.
We will also have proposals on the floor of the Senate that provide
for a legislative veto so that significant regulations that are
proposed by agencies would have to provide a time window by which the
Congress review those regulations and decide to veto those regulations
if the Congress said, ``This is not what we meant at all. This goes far
afield from what this Congress intended,'' and we can veto those
regulations.
Both of those approaches make good sense to me and are the right way
to deal with the regulatory reform issue. Regulatory reform is not
being debated as to whether we should have regulatory reform. The
debate is how. Those who bring the issue of the moratorium to the floor
or through the committees, I think, have understood their remedy for
how to reform the regulations is an inappropriate remedy. This is why
we see them stalling on that and deciding they will not bring it.
The ``how'' that is appropriate, I think, are the two approaches on
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, and the legislative veto
that are incorporated in the recently passed Governmental Affairs
Committee bill. I think this is a rare instance, and I would like to
see more instances, where Republicans and Democrats will join hands and
agree that this makes good public policy. This makes good sense.
That is that we have here on the issue of regulations. This is not a
case of who can bring the biggest stack of regulations to the Chamber.
I suppose as we debate these things we will have a wheelbarrow carting
out all the regulations. Sign me up for saying some of them are dumb.
Some of them make no sense. Sign me up for saying at least when I am
flying at 5,500 feet, I want to know the guy flying in my direction is
at 6,500 feet, because the regulation separates each plane by 1,000
feet.
There are a lot of good regulations that are necessary for health and
safety for good living in our country. I certainly want to support
those at the same time as we try and streamline this whole area.
I was thinking as I was waiting to speak today, we have learned a
lot. That also is what has caused Members to develop different
standards in our lives.
When I was a young boy, my father ran a gasoline station, and the
gasoline station, like all gasoline stations in our country, would
accept automobiles to do oil changes and lube jobs and so on. You would
bring a car in and put it up on a hoist and drain the crankcase of oil,
and we would put it in this big barrel. I lived in a town of 300
people, with dirt streets. When barrel got full at my dad's station,
our station and the other station in town, because there were two--that
is called competition in a small town--both stations did a public
service with their used oil. When it was time and the barrel was full,
my dad would have me go get the little co-op tractor, hook it up to
this tank and they had a pipe across the back with some holes in the
pipe that you could unleash and then I would drive up and down Main
Street and drip that used car oil on Main Street of our hometown. So
did the other gas station, for that matter. So both of us were
performing a public service and everybody thought it was great because
that was blacktop, at least in our small town at that point. You would
drop used oil on Main Street to keep the dust down on Main Street. Of
course now, if I were doing that, I suppose I would be sent to
Leavenworth or somewhere. It really is a very serious felony offense.
Why? Because what we learned over the years is you destroy or you
injure your drinking water. This seeps into groundwater and you cause
all kinds of human health problems.
So what we have done over the years is we have learned a lot about
water and air and safety. We have done a lot of very good things with
respect to regulations.
I was around one day in my father's station when a fellow named Pete,
who was kind of a handy guy, was working on a combine and Pete cut off
all his fingers. I just happened to be there. There were no chain
guards or anything on combines at that point. He was fixing a chain and
the chain around the sprocket--there were no safety features, no
guards--he was trying to monkey with the chain, the thing engaged and
cut off all his fingers. The nearest hospital was 50 miles away and my
father asked me to pick up all the fingers that were there. There was
not microsurgery then, I should say, but we took him and his fingers 50
miles to a hospital. They could not reattach his fingers because we did
not know about microsurgery back then.
The fact is today he probably would not have cut off his fingers in
that combine because now they have chain guards and safety devices. All
of that, yes, might be a nuisance for some people, but it is also
something that saves fingers and hands and accidents. So we have made a
lot of progress in a lot of these areas.
I again want to say I think the question about regulatory reform is
appropriately asked, not whether we have regulatory reform, because all
of us in this Chamber believe that we need to reform our regulatory
system; the question is how?
The answer for me is that a moratorium is a relatively thoughtless
approach and one in which we simply say, ``Let us not be thinking about
the specifics, let us sort of throw a blanket over all of it and not
worry about what the consequences of it might be. Let us decide we
cannot issue standards on mammographies, mammogram machines. Let us
decide we cannot issue standards on the regulation of computer
airlines. Let us decide we cannot do all of these things because we
have decided a moratorium is the right approach.''
A moratorium is not the right approach. The right approach is for us
to do what we have done already in a risk assessment bill and for us
also to decide that we can, even as we look at regulatory reform, do
some things that I think will get the agencies to understand that risk
assessment must relate to regulation, to the consequences of the
regulation for the American people.

____________________