[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 820, NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 
                                  1993

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 820) to amend the Stevenson-
Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to enhance manufacturing 
technology development and transfer, to authorize appropriations for 
the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce, including 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                motion to instruct offered by mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walker moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 820 be instructed to 
     agree to repeal the prohibition on judicial review contained 
     in section 611 of title 5, United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct directing the House 
conferees on H.R. 820 and the Senate amendment to agree to title IX of 
the Senate amendment. This section is similar to H.R. 830, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, a bill which has over 250 cosponsors. This 
section provides us with a real opportunity to enhance the 
competitiveness of U.S. industry.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act was passed in 1980 to force Federal 
regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their rules and 
regulations on small businesses and to craft those rules in ways which 
will be least harmful to small businesses. This law has been 
successful, but it does contain weaknesses which keeps it from 
fulfilling all of its intended purposes. Chief among these is the 
inability of small businesses to challenge in court agency compliance 
with the RFA. Title IX of S. 4 would repeal the current ban on judicial 
review of agency compliance with the RFA and force Federal agencies to 
seriously consider the impact of new rules and regulations on small 
businesses. Lifting the ban on judicial review would put some much-
needed teeth into the RFA.
  The Senate amendment to H.R. 820 would also require agencies to 
consider the indirect effects, as well as the direct effects, of their 
rules on small businesses. The original act unfortunately does not 
require regulatory agencies to examine the indirect impact of their 
regulations on small businesses. Often, Federal regulations fail to 
examine the secondary effects of their actions. It is my hope that this 
provision can be maintained in conference, as well.
  There are those who may argue that this provision should not be 
retained by the conference because it does not belong in H.R. 820, the 
National Competitiveness Act of 1994. My response is that the type of 
relief provided by the Senate language is just what is needed by small 
businesses in this country to boost their overall competitiveness. If 
we fail to keep this language in H.R. 820, a multibillion dollar 
authorization for advanced technology programs, we will in effect be 
giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Such action will 
stand as yet another instance where the Federal Government in all its 
wisdom determines what is good for its citizens, despite their wishes 
to the contrary.
  I remind my colleagues that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Federation of Independent Business have both announced that 
this vote will be a key vote in their assessment of 1994 House actions. 
I want to thank the Republican chairman of the Small Business 
Committee, Mrs. Meyers, and the original sponsor of the legislation, 
Mr. Ewing, for their support and assistance with this motion, and I 
urge an ``aye'' vote.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.


                             general leave

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks in connection with the legislation now under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], and I would note that a number of other Members of the House, 
including committee chairman, are opposed to this for reasons that are 
both substantive and procedural.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Members are aware, the Senate is not constrained 
by the same rules of germaneness that control the consideration of 
amendments in the House. When the Senate considered H.R. 820, the 
National Competitiveness Act, in its wisdom it doubled the size of the 
bill passed by the House by adopting over 100 pages of amendments, 
virtually none of which had anything to do with the underlying bill 
passed by the House.
  Among other things, the Senate added provisions relating to the 
private carriage of urgent letters; an entire title devoted to amending 
laws relating to counterintelligence; a title permitting local entities 
to waive certain Federal requirements relating to Federal assistance 
programs; a provision requiring legislative reports and agency actions 
to contain detailed economic impact analyses; and this provision 
amending the regulatory flexibility act.
  None of these provisions are germane to the House-passed version of 
H.R. 820.
  Mr. Speaker, these extensive nongermane Senate amendments have 
already complicated the task of the conference committee by requiring 
the appointment of members of 10 other House committee on the 
conference.
  Now we are further being asked to direct the House conferees to agree 
to a nongermane Senate amendment that has not been considered by the 
House committee with jurisdiction nor debated on the floor of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, the intent of this motion to instruct is to endrun the 
normal committee process. The Senate amendment is comparable to H.R. 
830, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1993, which was 
introduced by Representative Ewing last year. The Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations has held 
hearings, but has not marked up the bill. Supporters of the bill have 
filed a discharge petition.
  We should not cut short the regular procedure for consideration of 
these bill. The Science Committee has no expertise on the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. If Members want the Judiciary Committee to report the 
bill, members know how to make their wishes known to the distinguished 
chairman of that committee, Mr. Brooks. If Mr. Brooks does not seem 
amenable, then a majority of Members have the right to bring the bill 
to the floor under a discharge petition where we can at least have an 
intelligent debate on the merits of the bill.
  This debate does not belong on this bill. This debate does not belong 
on a motion to instruct. The effort today to instruct the conferees is 
yet another effort to bypass orderly committee consideration and to 
force a floor vote on a provision with an inadequate opportunity for 
consideration and debate. If this provision was brought to the floor 
under regular procedures, I would vote for it. Under these 
circumstances, however, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to instruct conferees to the House-Senate conference on H.R. 
820, the National Competitiveness Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Member who spoke immediately 
before me that I certainly think this bill does have a great deal to do 
with competitiveness, and it has been considered by a number of groups, 
including, I believe, the appropriate subcommittee, and by the group 
working with Vice President Gore on reinventing Government, because 
this was the very top issue listed by Vice President Gore under his 
reinventing Government under the small business section.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act, which became law in 1980, was the 
result of the efforts of many small businesses throughout this country. 
The issues of regulatory relief and regulatory flexibility were a 
dominant theme at the 1980 White House Conference on Small Business, 
and the participants at that conference pushed for legislative action. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act was enacted to require agencies to 
reduce the regulatory burden on small business by writing better rules.
  The rationale behind the Regulatory Flexibility Act is really quite 
simple: First, Federal agencies often do not recognize the impact that 
their rules will have on small businesses; and second, small businesses 
are particularly burdened with excessive regulations because they do 
not have the cadres of lawyers, accountants, and clerks to deal with 
all of the paperwork. All of this overwhelms the small business man or 
woman, who has to do this alone, often working late at night after his 
store or business has closed.
  We want to strengthen small businesses and make sure their success is 
determined in the marketplace and not at the whim of someone drafting 
regulations in a distant Federal office.
  While the Regulatory Flexibility Act and its implementation have met 
with some success, I strongly believe that the act needs to be 
strengthened. A major weakness in the law as it presently exists is 
that there is no enforcement mechanism. Because the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act is not subject to judicial review, agency compliance 
has been poor. In fact, many agencies view compliance as strictly 
voluntary.
  In an effort to strengthen the act, over 250 Members of the House 
have joined in cosponsoring H.R. 830, the Regulatory Flexibility 
Amendments Act of 1993.

                              {time}  1410

  The primary purpose of H.R. 830 is to repeal the current ban on 
judicial review of agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, and force Federal agencies to seriously consider the impact of new 
rules on small business.
  During Senate consideration of S. 4, an amendment similar to H.R. 830 
was unanimously adopted, and under the Senate amendment the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act would be amended to allow judicial review of agency 
compliance with the act.
  On behalf of this Nation's small businesses, I urge my colleagues to 
keep the Senate amendment concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 
this National Competitiveness Act. I strongly urge a yes vote on the 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Walker motion to instruct 
conferees on the regulatory flexibility provision of the national 
competitiveness bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision would provide judicial review that is 
currently not available under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It is not 
germane to the national competitiveness bill to which we are appointing 
conferees.
  When the House passed H.R. 820, the national competitiveness bill, it 
was a clean bill that dealt with research, development, and 
commercialization of generic technologies.
  But the other body loaded this bill with nongermane items, including 
judicial review for regulatory flexibility. The provision was added as 
an amendment to the Senate version of the bill. We in this House have 
never acted on it.
  Providing judicial review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act would 
create a whole new layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary. It would 
delay the timely implementation of important regulations. It would 
encourage frivolous litigation to block agencies from promulgating 
regulations, many of which are designed to protect human health and 
safety, civil liberties, and the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, our current regulatory flexibility process is a good one 
and helps protect the interests of small businesses and governmental 
units. The President last year signed an executive order mandating 
Federal agencies to take into account the burden on them when issuing 
regulations. And as always, these entities are entitled to the legal 
protection of the Administrative Procedure Act if a regulation is 
unfair to them.
  It is doubtful that providing judicial review under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act would offer any meaningful additional protection to 
preventing agency abuse. What the provision would do is to greatly 
benefit the lawyers. It would open the floodgate to frivolous lawsuits 
without merit, used mainly to delay regulation.
  While no one but the lawyers would benefit, our health, our civil 
liberties, workers' safety, and the environment could all be victims.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the House conferees to agree on an 
amendment which was unanimously adopted by the Senate. The amendment 
would strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act by giving the RFA 
judicial review. It is based on legislation I introduced, H.R. 830, 
which has been cosponsored by 252 bipartisan House Members, and is 
strongly supported by business organizations.
  This motion will be considered a key vote in the annual ratings by 
both the Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent 
Businesses. In addition, we have received letters of support from the 
National Association of Towns and Townships and the National 
Association for the Self Employed, and organizations which have led the 
charge for improving the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This bill is called the National Competitiveness Act. I cannot think 
of anything more important that this Congress can do to increase our 
competitiveness than to reduce the cost of regulation on small 
business. We have a chance to do something about overregulation by 
passing this amendment.
  American businesses, I believe, have expressed to many of us, and in 
many cases with some bitterness, their frustration about the costs and 
intrusive nature of unprecedented Government regulation.
  The RFA was passed by Congress and signed by President Carter in 
1980. It requires regulators to look at the impact new regulations have 
on small businesses and find ways to minimize these effects. This is 
common sense. Regulations must be flexible and take into account the 
ability of small business to comply.
  The RFA has not fulfilled its purpose because it contained no real 
means of enforcement, such as judicial review of agency compliance, 
which in fact was specifically prohibited. Regulators cannot be taken 
to court if they ignore the act. As a result, agency compliance has 
been terrible.
  I say it is time to tell the regulators to start looking at what 
their regulations do to small business. It is time they were required 
to comply with the RFA. Allowing judicial review will give the act the 
teeth it needs to enforce compliance with the true intent of the law.
  Vice President Gore's National Performance Review studied this issue 
and they, too, concluded that the only way we can force bureaucrats to 
start complying with the RFA is to give the act judicial review. In 
fact, the No. 1 recommendation of the Small Business Administration was 
to provide judicial review. My colleagues, we can help the Vice 
President pass another NPR recommendation by supporting the Walker 
motion to instruct conferees.
  For my colleagues who are concerned about unfunded mandates on local 
government, this proposal addresses that problem too. The RFA also 
requires that regulators look at the impact their regulations have on 
small government entities. That is why the National Association of 
Towns and Townships is so strongly supportive of this motion.
  In an aside, Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned on this floor that 
this should go through the committee process. With 252 cosponsors, 
repeated requests for a committee hearing and a committee markup, none 
has been forthcoming. We all know that the discharge petition process 
works very slowly and very poorly in this House.
  I want to thank each of my colleagues who have cosponsored this 
legislation, H.R. 830, and ask them to vote for the Walker motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for the Record.

                                              National Association


                                        for the Self-Employed,

                                    Washington, DC. July 12, 1994.
     Hon. Robert S. Walker,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Walker: The National Association for 
     the Self-Employed understands that you will soon offer a 
     motion to instruct the House conferees involving the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provisions contained in S. 
     4, the Senate version of the National Competitiveness Act. We 
     strongly support this effort.
       By offering your motion to instruct, you are taking a 
     strong step towards mitigating the paperwork burden and 
     nightmare small business persons face in trying to cope with 
     federal regulations. We believe the RFA provisions of S. 4 
     will lead to an improvement in productivity for small 
     business and in turn, result in an increase in economic 
     growth and job creation for the American work force.
       We are committed to achieving the RFA reforms contained in 
     S. 4. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the small 
     business community.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Bennie L. Thayer,
                                                    President/CEO.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC. July 12, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas W. Ewing,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Representative Ewing: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
     Federation, representing 215,000 businesses, 3,000 state and 
     local chambers of commerce, 1,200 trade and professional 
     associations, and 69 American Chambers of Commerce abroad, 
     strongly endorses strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility 
     Act (RFA) by allowing judicial review of agency compliance. 
     An amendment that would provide for this was adopted by the 
     Senate during its consideration of the National 
     Competitiveness Act.
       The House is expected to name conferees on H.R. 820, the 
     National Competitiveness Act, soon. At that time, 
     Representative Walker will likely offer a motion to instruct 
     the House conferees to accept judicial review of the RFA in 
     the conference report. We urge your support of that motion. 
     Since this is likely to be the only opportunity for the House 
     to vote on this issue this year--despite the fact that 252 
     House members are co-sponsors of equivalent legislation--the 
     Chamber will include this vote in its ``How They Voted'' vote 
     ratings for 1994.
       The importance of judicial review cannot be overstated. The 
     original RFA was designed to provide the small business 
     community respite from the ever-growing hindrance of 
     excessive regulation by requiring federal agencies to 
     consider the impact of proposed regulations on small 
     entities. Its intent was to ensure that the least burdensome 
     approach for regulatory implementation was adopted. The lack 
     of judicial review, however, has meant that agencies do not 
     have to answer to any compelling authority. As a result, 
     agencies routinely give the RFA minimal attention, if any at 
     all.
       Too often, small businesses have borne the brunt of the 
     cumulative impact of unreasonable and costly federal 
     mandates. Given their importance to our struggling economy, 
     we need to ensure not just their survival but their growth as 
     well. Judicial review as part of the RFA will place us closer 
     to that goal.
       Again, we urge your support for the Walker motion to 
     instruct on H.R. 820, the National Competitiveness Act, 
     regarding judicial review for the RFA.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                          Towns and Townships,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Robert S. Walker,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Walker: The National Association of 
     Towns and Townships (NATaT) represents 13,000 mostly small, 
     mostly rural communities across the U.S. which must comply 
     with and implement numerous unfunded federal mandates. In 
     this period of fiscal austerity, which only allows for 
     limited funding for local governments, alternatives are 
     needed to improve the federal government's ability to 
     consider the impact of federal policies on our communities.
       In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
     (RFA) and took the first step in addressing the ``one-size-
     fits-all'' approach used by federal agencies to develop 
     regulations. The RFA requires all federal agencies to conduct 
     analyses of proposed regulations that are expected to have an 
     impact on small entities--including small local governments 
     and businesses--and attempt to reduce the burdens of those 
     regulations. Accordingly, the act requires agencies to 
     consider alternatives to the proposed regulations that will 
     accomplish the agencies' objectives, while minimizing the 
     impact on small entities
       Agency compliance with the RFA has not been uniform, 
     primarily because the act lacks an enforcement mechanism. In 
     our view, allowing judicial review of the RFA would ensure 
     that federal regulators comply with the act. As a result, 
     NATaT strongly supports your motion to instruct conferees on 
     H.R. 820/S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, to agree to 
     a provision that would allow judicial review of the RFA.
       NATaT applauds your attention to this important issue. 
     Allowing judicial review of the RFA is essential to ensure 
     that small governments begin to benefit from more rational 
     federal regulations.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey H. Schiff,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



the regulatory flexibility act and judicial review--support the motion 
       to instruct conferees to the national competitiveness act

       Soon the House will consider a motion to instruct conferees 
     on the National Competitiveness Act to strengthen the Small 
     Business Regulatory Flexibility Act. In preparation for this 
     vote, it is important to understand why the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act is not currently protecting small business 
     from regulatory burdens as was originally intended when it 
     was enacted in 1980.
       The burden of regulation and paperwork is one of the 
     fastest rising areas of concern to small business owners, 
     according to an extensive survey by the NFIB Education 
     Foundation. Outside of taxes and health care, no issue is 
     more on their minds.
       Regulatory costs per unit of production are higher for 
     small business than for big business. There are economies of 
     scale regarding regulatory compliance. Simply put, small 
     business often cannot afford Federal regulations because 
     their limited resources to comply have not been taken into 
     account during the rule making process. Signed into law by 
     President Carter, the Reg-Flex-Act requires Federal agencies 
     to assess the impact of their proposals on small businesses 
     and to minimize the economic impact, if significant.


               why has the reg-flex act been ineffective?

       Federal agencies have ignored the Reg-Flex Act. Some 
     agencies, like the IRS, have exploited loopholes in the law. 
     Why? The Reg-Flex Act has no teeth.
       However, with a judicial review provision, an agency that 
     failed to adequately consider the economic impact of 
     regulations on small business could be challenged in court.


             why does small business need judicial review?

       The Clinton Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy at 
     SBA said it best at his confirmation hearing:
       ``The implementation of the noble goals of the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act have been impeded by government officials who 
     recognized that the Act is not judicially enforceable and 
     therefore has no teeth . . . You will have my enthusiastic 
     and consistent support for judicial review in the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act.''
       The Administrative Procedure Act, the National 
     Environmental Policy Act and the Freedom of Information Act, 
     for example, are effective because they are contestable in 
     court. Section 611 of the current Reg-Flex Act contains a 
     specific prohibition on judicial review.
       Judicial review will:
       Change agency compliance with the Reg-Flex Act from 
     voluntary to second nature.
       Ensure agencies consider the impact of proposed regulations 
     on small business and act accordingly.
       Make the Reg-Flex Act more effective for small business and 
     true to its original intent.
       Vice President Al Gore and SBA Administrator Erskin Bowles 
     have recognized the weakness of the Reg-Flex Act and support 
     strengthening it. The Senate overwhelmingly approved judicial 
     review in the ``National Competitiveness Act'' (S.4) and 
     there are over 240 cosponsors of Cong. Ewing's judicial 
     review legislation in the House of Representatives.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1994.


those who support this nation's small businesses should support walker 
           motion to instruct on national competitiveness act

       Dear Colleague: We are writing to encourage you to support 
     a motion which will be offered tomorrow by Rep. Walker to 
     instruct conferees on H.R. 820/S.4, the National 
     Competitiveness Act, concerning amendments to the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act.
       The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) became law in 1980. It 
     requires federal regulatory agencies to analyze the potential 
     impact of proposed regulations on small businesses and small 
     governmental entities and find ways to minimize that impact. 
     However, because the RFA is not subject to judicial review, 
     agency compliance with the Act has been poor.
       Over 250 House members have joined us in cosponsoring H.R. 
     830, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1993, which 
     would allow judicial review of the RFA and put some needed 
     ``teeth'' into this important Act.
       During Senate consideration of S.4, an amendment which 
     provides for judicial review for the RFA was unanimously 
     adopted. We are hopeful that language providing for judicial 
     review will remain in the National Competitiveness Act.
       We strongly urge all cosponsors of H.R. 830 to support Rep. 
     Walker's motion to instruct House conferees to agree to 
     provide for judicial review of the RFA.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas W. Ewing,
       Member of Congress.
     Jan Meyers,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business.
     John J. LaFalce,
       Chairman, Committee on Small Business.
     Ike Skelton,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Walker motion to instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate 
language included in H.R. 820 that allows regulatory flexibility to 
America's small businesses.
  Everyday I see how new Government regulations are breaking the back 
of America's small businesses. Countless individuals have come before 
the Small Business and the Science, Space, and Technology Committees to 
explain the devastating effects that these regulations have on them. 
And, whenever I go home to Dallas I am constantly asked when will 
Government allow hardworking Americans to pursue the dreams without 
having to worry about what roadblocks their Government will put up 
next.
  I want to remind Members how important small businesses are to 
America's economy. These businesses provide over 80 percent of 
America's work force. But, because the Government insists on 
intervening and imposing costly and burdensome regulations they put 
these businesses at risk of failing and therefore eliminating jobs for 
Americans.
  This is why I support the Walker motion to instruct conferees. What 
we want to do with this is simply protect the backbone of our economy 
which is vital to America's future. The motion to instruct simply 
enforces a previous law and gives it an enforcement mechanism. The 
easiest way to explain this provision is that it would minimize the 
impact of regulations that disproportionately affect small businesses.
  Congress by adopting this provision, would require Federal agencies 
to study the impact of the regulations they enforce and to minimize the 
impact they have on small businesses. Its most important provision is 
judicial review. It is time to force regulatory agencies to be held 
accountable for the regulations they implement on small businesses. 
Even the Vice President's National Performance Review concludes that 
judicial review is necessary.
  And if Members need more reassurance they should ask the NFIB, who 
represent over 600,000 small businesses. They strongly support this 
measure and then they can ask the 252 Members that have signed on to a 
bill that accomplishes this same goal.
  Let us give small businesses and their owners a break from the heavy 
hand of the Government. Let's for once do something to help the economy 
grow instead of doing something to stifle it. Vote for the Walker 
motion to instruct conferees.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I do rise to support the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I 
have a rather lengthy history with involvement with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. I served as chairman of a House subcommittee that 
dealt with that quite some years ago. Let me go through this, if I may.
  On September 19, 1980, the Regulatory Flexibility Act was signed into 
law. Its passage was the result of 3 years of work by the subcommittee 
that I chaired and this Congress.
  Importantly, it culminated in a decade of efforts by thousands of 
concerned businessmen and women across our country. They rebelled 
against a volcano of seemingly senseless, ill-conceived regulations 
that threatened to bury every one but was particularly harsh for small 
businesses.
  The tool that was forged was the RFA, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
a new chapter to the Administrative Procedures Act, requiring the 
bureaucrats to think about the effects of their actions, consider 
simple alternatives and include the interested public in on the 
process.
  The bill that is really the subject of this was introduced by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], H.R. 830, which would establish a 
judicial review process. I think that if we are going to fulfill the 
full intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we need that additional 
tool to do so, to require people to, in the bureaucracies, to know and 
explain and work out the effects of what they do in regard to small 
business.
  I would help us; in the long run, it would help them. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act is an important weapon in our efforts to reduce or 
eliminate unnecessary regulations, unnecessary paperwork, which, 
frankly, in so many instances, cripples small businesses.
  When it is operated properly, it makes sure that the small town 
businessman, business woman that I represent is sought out and asked 
their opinion on Government proposals that will influence his or her 
life.
  I think this motion is a proper one. I would hope that it would pass. 
The fact that this parallel bill by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing], has so many cosponsors tells us all that we are on the right 
track. I hope that this will pass. I intend to vote for the motion.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know of no one in this House or the other body who is 
not in favor of relieving the burden on small business. I have served 
here under eight past Presidents, I think now. And every one of them 
would make marvelous speeches about how important it was to support 
small business and to relieve them from unnecessary burdens of Federal 
or other regulation.
  The act which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], is the proud 
author of, the original Regulatory Flexibility Act, was passed during 
the administration of President Carter, a Democratic President. And 
President Carter also issued an Executive order which attempted to set 
forth guidance to the Federal departments as to how they would go about 
implementing this act and relieving the burden on small business.
  I would point out that President Reagan, when he was elected shortly 
after this act was passed, rescinded the Carter Executive order and 
issued his own Executive order, making even more explicit how we should 
relieve the burden on small business under the terms of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. And when President Clinton was elected, he rescinded 
the Reagan order and issued his own Executive order explaining to the 
Federal departments how they should do even more to lessen the burden 
on small business as a result of Federal regulation.
  I cannot understand for the life of me, after all these years in 
which we have had on the books both the statue and a series of 
Executive orders, that we still have the kind of problem that we have 
here. If we have a problem, it seems to me that we in the Congress 
perhaps should take some blame for failing to exercise the kind of 
oversight which would see that the law and the Executive orders are 
faithfully executed.
  Now we are going to punt. We are going to say, no, we should not take 
it. We think the courts ought to take it.
  I find a great deal of difficulty in accepting the fact that we are 
going to simplify the processes of Government by allowing for unlimited 
court appeals of Federal regulations. I think what we are going to 
simplify is the income problem of a lot of lawyers who are going to 
make a lot of money from pursuing these kinds of acts.
  But I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing how we are going to 
solve the problem of lowering the burden on small business by the 
process of including in an existing law, which has been on the books 
now for how many years, 14 years, a provision that now they can go to 
court in order to challenge the Federal regulations that have been 
adopted.
  What is equally interesting to me is that in the course of a number 
of bills that are moving forward in the House today, which have 
regulatory implications, we are finding a concerted move to add to 
those the text, in essence, of the existing executive order.
  Now, there is, genuinely speaking, a good reason why we do not write 
into law the text of an executive order. Mainly, the fact that 
executive orders are intended to be flexible. They are intended to 
provide guidance, but they are not intended to constitute a basis under 
which we can bring suit to the Federal courts, if we do not like the 
results of what is happening.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, this is a rather important both philosophical and 
practical issue. As I said before, I do not disagree with the need to 
reform the burden on small business. I have personally pledged in my 
district to any small business, if they are having regulatory problems, 
come to me and in my wisdom I will help them solve them, generally by 
raising a lot of hell with some bureaucrats who did not properly 
reflect the intent of Congress when they issued a regulation or when 
they sought to fulfill the intent of that regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am raising serious questions as to the effectiveness 
of a process, the purpose of which I agree with. I think the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] knows that I agree with this purpose. I 
would be differing with every Democratic President, as well as every 
Republican President, if I said I wanted to increase the burden on 
small business. I do not.
  Mr. Speaker, with those words of wisdom, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes some very, very valid 
points. They are ones that I think deserve to be addressed.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, he makes the point, as he did earlier, 
that this is not something which should be in the purview of this 
particular bill at this particular time, and that we ought to address 
it through the regulatory processes of the Congress. The problem is 
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], in pursuing this, have attempted to do this and 
have always been rebuffed, and always found that there was something 
else of higher priority for the Congress to take up. Therefore, the 
regular mechanisms have not worked for this bill, which is in fact 
supported broadly in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, secondly, it is suggested that somehow this is not a 
place where small business is really involved, and it is a Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology kind of a bill. I would suggest that 
small business is the competitive sector of our society at this time. I 
know that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] does share that 
concern, and has always been very, very solicitous toward small 
business concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that all of us try to work with our small 
businesses on this regulatory overload that the Federal Government has 
imposed upon that sector. Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is in a 
competitiveness bill where we ought to begin to address the real 
concerns they have out there. There is no doubt that this particular 
bill, about competitiveness, is one where, if we have a chance to help 
small business a little bit, we ought to go ahead and do so.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that this is a lawyer's 
bill, that what we are going to do here is going to end up giving 
lawyers more work. I would simply say to that that the problem for 
small business right now is that we have created a whole web of Federal 
regulation that is employing lawyers by the hundreds of thousands 
across the country; that the agencies have the ability to constantly go 
after business with the lawyers that are hired by the Government, and 
that small business in many instances is a victim. All this will do is 
give the victim some recourse within the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that rather than victimizing small business 
without recourse, that it is high time that in this country we give 
them the appropriate recourse that is provided to them by the courts. 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to think, too, that congressional oversight 
would take care of this problem, but the fact is we have gone 14 years 
now with this bill on the books and congressional oversight has not 
taken care of the problem. Businesses find themselves more and more 
burdened by Government regulation, and more and more the heavy hand of 
Government is causing uncompetitiveness in our society, and it is high 
time we changed that.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to make this an opportunity for 
dialogue, but since that is becoming the style, I am more than happy to 
do that.
  What really bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation and 
this motion to instruct are both based upon purposes and intentions 
which I fully support. However, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the old 
adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I am 
very worried that the good intentions will not be fulfilled, just as 
the good intentions of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] in 
drafting the original bill were not fulfilled.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that that does not happen. What I 
foresee here with this provision, which offers judicial review of any 
regulatory action, is that the gentleman would find the anti-
environmentalists, and this is what the environmentalists fear, 
offering a lawsuit to delay, modify, or prevent the kind of regulation 
that the environmentalists would fear is destroying the progress they 
have made.
  On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I can foresee environmentalists doing 
exactly the same thing. If a regulation comes forth from the 
administration, from the agency seeking to relieve the efforts, the 
regulatory efforts of that agency, the burden of those efforts on the 
small business community, and they would sue, and the gentleman would 
find on both sides suits going forward aimed at crippling and hobbling 
the efforts, good or bad, of the regulatory agency.
  If the gentleman thinks this is an improvement, I do not think that 
the gentleman is going to be very happy with the potential results of 
this, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I think, quite contrary to what our friend, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], says may well come to pass, 
the regulatory agencies that promulgate rules and regulations, which 
now do not have to worry at all about judicial review or any kind of 
review, would be prone to think twice before they promulgate something 
that does not make sense. It will cause them to do their homework more 
and to do their homework better.
  As a result, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman would have more 
substantial, easy to understand, and more workable rules and 
regulations, where the agency knows full well that should they do 
something foolish or out of line, it is certainly going to be taken up 
on a judicial review. I think the contrary would happen.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the important point that we do not want to miss 
here is the judicial review is very limited, and it has nothing to do 
with the substance of the power of the regulators to regulate. It is 
only judicial review of whether they have tried to do it in an 
economical, fair way. That is what the complaint is out there. I do not 
think any of us have enough staff in our offices at home to handle all 
of the complaints on that type of competitive regulatory power.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, this point could be deliberated at great length. We have, as 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] knows, a bill which we 
will mark up in our committee tomorrow which is aimed at improving the 
process of risk assessment. As all of the Members know who have been in 
this field of regulatory impact, the measurement of regulatory impact 
requires both an evaluation of the risk which is sought to be met by 
the regulation, plus an evaluation of the cost of the efforts involved 
to mitigate that risk, a cost-benefit analysis. None of these are exact 
sciences. We would not be trying to move a risk analysis bill if anyone 
knew exactly how to make risk analysis.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the scientific community does not, the 
policy community does not, the lay community does not, nor do we know 
how to make adequate cost-benefit evaluations, and even less do we know 
how do we do this magic thing called comparative risk analysis, in 
which we compare the dangers of smoking a cigarette with driving a car. 
None of these are exact sciences.
  What the Congress needs to do, and I will close with this sermon, we 
need to improve these processes of making these evaluation so 
enlightened policymakers can do what the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton] hoped they would do in 1980, and which he again hopes they 
will do in 1994 if we pass this slight amendment to the bill he 
originally offered.

                              {time}  1440

  I suggest to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and to 
anybody else who is listening, that this is a futile hope until we get 
under better control the processes which go into this and to which I 
hope we will be able to make a contribution.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. I 
could not agree with him more that we need to improve the processes by 
which we make these judgments.
  On the other hand, in the meantime, small business in this country 
needs some element of fairness within the process that presently 
exists. That is what this motion to instruct is all about, being fair 
to small business within the process now so that they have some 
recourse against the burden of regulation that has been imposed upon 
them by the Federal Government.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
the motion to instruct on H.R. 820, the National Competitiveness Act.
  This motion will instruct House conferees to agree to a provision 
that the Senate unanimously adopted which would allow judicial review 
of agency compliance with H.R. 820. The Senate language is similar to 
that contained in H.R. 830, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act, 
of which I am a cosponsor.
  Small business is the backbone of our country's economy. Over the 
next 25 years, the United States will create about 43 million jobs--
small business will create nearly 75 percent of these jobs. While this 
outlook is positive, small business owners have some very real and very 
serious concerns--Government regulation among them.
  The regulatory burden on businesses can be crippling--particularly on 
small businesses. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Senate 
provision would require Government regulatory agencies to consider the 
impact of any new regulations and draft these rules so that they will 
be the least burdensome.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the support of my colleagues for 
the motion to instruct. Freedom from the burden of too much Government 
regulation is crucial to America's competitiveness.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to instruct conferees. The Senate amendment to H.R. 820--which would 
mandate judicial review of regulatory flexibility analysis--has not 
been reported by the appropriate committees of the House of 
Representatives. It is premature for the House to agree to such 
provisions.
  I suspect that the purpose of seeking judicial review of regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not to improve the regulatory process, but to 
give the business community greater opportunity to obstruct and delay 
regulations designed to benefit workers, consumers, or the environment. 
In the Reagan-Bush administrations, OMB was assigned the task of 
improving the regulatory process, but we learned that their main goal 
was to thwart worker protection, consumer, environmental, and health 
and safety regulations designed to protect the public. Expanding 
judicial review of regulatory flexibility analysis will have the same 
effect.
  Would judicial review improve the Department of Labor's evaluation of 
the costs of its regulations? I doubt it. The Department already 
prepares extensive economic analyses of the regulations it proposes. 
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Mine Safety and 
Health Act, the Department must evaluate the economic feasibility of 
its regulations on each affected industry. If an industry cannot afford 
the costs of the regulation, it cannot be issued. I do not believe that 
additional analysis or judicial review of the analysis would provide 
regulations that better protect workers, consumers, or the environment.
  I believe, instead, expanded judicial review would have an adverse 
effect on the ability of the Department of Labor to do its job. Will 
expanded judicial review make it more difficult for the Labor 
Department to achieve the goals of ERISA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
or the Occupational Safety and Health Act? I suspect it will and that 
the proponents of expanded judicial review hope that such review will 
create new obstacles for regulatory agencies. Will judicial review 
affect the time it takes the Labor Department to promulgate regulations 
or the resources the Department needs to do its job? I fear that 
expanding judicial review of regulatory flexibility analysis will 
prevent the Department of Labor from adopting much needed worker 
protection and health and safety regulations in a timely manner.
  Therefore, I oppose the motion to instruct conferees. Expanded 
juridical review of regulatory flexibility analysis is a bad idea. It 
will create more litigation. It will make it more difficult for 
agencies to fulfill their statutory responsibilities. The relevant 
committees of the House have not reported legislation authorizing such 
review. Without adequate committee consideration of the impact of 
expanded judicial review, it is premature for the House to agree to 
such provisions. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct the House conferees to agree to the Senate amendment allowing 
judicial review of agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act [RFA].
  As legislators, sometimes we overlook the consequences of our 
actions. While one regulation will not break a small business, the 
total weight of the regulatory burdens that we, in Congress, impose on 
small businesses can close businesses that are essential to our 
economic recovery and prosperity.
  In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act [RFA]. This 
is a good piece of legislation that requires agencies to take a look at 
the burden that each proposed rule places on small firms. It also 
requires each Federal agency to develop a less onerous compliance 
system for small firms. Further, under the RFA, each agency is required 
to review their regulations every 10 years to see if they are still 
needed or if they should be changed.
  While the Regulatory Flexibility Act has been somewhat successful, it 
also has some weaknesses that need to be corrected. The problem is that 
the act has no teeth. Agencies can choose to ignore it and the Small 
Business Administration seems powerless to enforce it. Congress needs 
to clamp down and require compliance with this act, and it needs to add 
some teeth to it by adding a judicial review process for agencies that 
fail to comply with the act.
  With a judicial review provision, an agency that failed to adequately 
consider the economic impact of regulations on small business could be 
challenged in court. Judicial review would ensure that agencies 
consider the impact of proposed regulations on small business and make 
changes accordingly. Judicial review makes this act more effective for 
small business and more true to its original intent.
  Mr. Speaker, both Vice President Al Gore and SBA Administrator 
Erskine Bowles have recognized the weaknesses of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and support strengthening it. The Senate overwhelmingly 
approved judicial review in the National Competitiveness Act, and there 
are more than 240 cosponsors of Congressman Ewing's judicial review 
legislation in the House.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Walker's motion to instruct 
conferees to concur with Senate language which amends the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 380, 
nays 36, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               YEAS--380

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--36

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Durbin
     Eshoo
     Foglietta
     Gutierrez
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kopetski
     McDermott
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Synar
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berman
     Bishop
     Brewster
     Calvert
     Carr
     Cox
     Edwards (CA)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gingrich
     Machtley
     Owens
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Slattery
     Stokes
     Washington

                              {time}  1503

  Ms. PELOSI and Mr. BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. HINCHEY, MINGE, FARR of California, and MATSUI changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees and expects to appoint additional 
conferees shortly:
  From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for 
consideration of the House bill (except sections 211-14 and 504), and 
the Senate amendment (except title XI, sections 221, 303(d), 504, and 
601-13), and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Brown of 
California, Valentine, Roemer, McHale, Becerra, Walker, Lewis of 
Florida, and Rohrabacher.
  From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for 
consideration of sections 211-14 and 504 of the House bill, and 
sections 221, 303(d), 504, and 601-13 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Brown of California, 
Valentine, and Boucher, Ms. Eshoo, and Messrs. Becerra, Walker, 
Boehlert, and Bartlett of Maryland.
  From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for 
consideration of title XI of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committee to conference: Messrs. Brown of California, Valentine, 
Roemer, McHale, Becerra, Klein, Boucher, Walker, Linder, Hoke, and 
Baker of California.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs for consideration of sections 331-37, 341-61, 503(a) (4) 
and (5), 503(b) (5) and (6) of the House bill, and sections 216, 306-
07, the second 503(4), 1002, 1004, 1011, and title XI of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Gonzalez, 
Kanjorski, and Ridge.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and Labor for 
consideration of sections 346 and 407 of the House bill, and title XI, 
section 211-12 insofar as said sections relate to work force training 
and labor, 410, 604, 607-13, 1201-02, 1302 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Ford of Michigan, 
Williams, and Goodling.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Government Operations 
for consideration of title XI and section 1301 of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Conyers, Towns, and 
Clinger.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary for 
consideration of that portion of section 205 adding section 304(g) to 
the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, and section 361 
of the House bill, and title IX, sections 307, that portion of section 
603 adding section 101(d) to the High-Performance Computing Act of 
1991, 1005-09, 1011-13, and 1303 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Brooks, Synar, and Fish.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service for consideration of title VIII and section 1010 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Clay, Miss 
Collins of Michigan, and Mr. Myers of Indiana.
  As additional conferees from the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence for consideration of title X and section 307 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Glickman, 
Richardson, and Combest.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Rules for consideration 
of section 1301 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committee to 
conference: Messrs. Moakley, Derrick, and Goss.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Small business for 
consideration of that portion of section 204 of the House bill which 
adds a new section 303(c)(1) to the Stevenson Wydler Technology 
Innovation Act of 1980, and for the portion of section 212 which adds a 
new section 24(c)(1) to the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act and section 306 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Mr. LaFalce, Smith of Iowa, and 
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________