[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2087-H2144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 93 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 450.

                              {time}  1232


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 450), to ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government 
operations by establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking 
actions, and for other purposes with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], 
the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today we will begin to set the stage for major and much 
needed regulatory reforms beginning with H.R. 450, the Regulatory 
Transition Act of 1995.
  H.R. 450 provides a very necessary time out on the promulgation and 
implementation of regulations while Congress is in the process of 
deliberating long overdue regulatory reforms. During testimony provided 
at numerous hearings, both in our committee as well as other 
committees, we have heard endless tales of regulatory overkill. We are 
hearing the cries from small business owners that have shut down 
because they are overburdened by regulations--many of which are 
unnecessary or not cost-beneficial. We cannot afford as a society to 
continue along this path. According to the National Performance Review, 
the administration has conservatively estimated that Federal 
regulations cost the private sector alone at least $430 billion per 
year--which is about 9 percent of our gross national product.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 450, introduced by Congressman Tom DeLay and 
Congressman David McIntosh, provides for a regulatory moratorium to 
begin on November 20, 1994 and ending either on December 31, 1995 or 
when substantive regulatory reform--risk assessment and cost benefit 
analysis--is enacted, whichever is earlier. Although it is a broad 
moratorium on regulations, there are some very commonsense exclusions 
included in the legislation including exclusions for regulations to 
address imminent health or safety concerns or other emergencies, 
military or foreign affairs functions, internal revenue and financial 
issues, routine administrative functions, and also regulations that 
will streamline or reduce the regulatory burden. It is up to the head 
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs or IRA at OMB to 
[[Page H2088]] certify that the regulation qualifies for an exclusion 
and publish a certification to that effect in the Federal Register.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric today about how 
this bill will turn back the clock and undo Federal regulations which 
have been in place for 25 years. Or other tales of woe that this bill 
will not provide us with safe drinking water or allow us to have meat 
inspections. This is absolutely not the case, palpably untrue. This 
bill does not impact regulations issued before this temporary 
moratorium period. In addition, the health and safety exemption in the 
bill allows a great deal of flexibility and discretion to address these 
concerns. It will be up to those in the executive branch to make 
decisions as to what specific regulations will be exempt under this 
broad category.
  This is a way flexible piece of legislation.
  The legislation provides a number of benefits. First, it will give 
authorizing committees a chance to review regulations that are already 
in the pipeline and see whether they meet some of the criteria 
discussed here in Congress regarding cost-beneficial regulations. 
Second, it will also give some breathing space from the flood of 
regulations while Congress considers and passes major regulatory 
reforms.
  Third, it will give the administration the opportunity to review 
their own administrative processes. I was pleased to see that the 
President the other day indicated that they were going to undertake a 
very massive review of existing regulation. I think that complements 
what we are trying to do here with a moratorium.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of something 
that I read as a child:

     Double, double, toil and trouble;
     Fire burn and caldron bubble.
     Fillet of a fenny snake,
     In the caldron boil and bake;
     Eye of Newt and toe of frog,
     Wool of bat and tongue of dog . . .

  Mr. Chairman, like the witches' brew in Macbeth, the bill before us 
is a dangerous concoction that places the special interests of business 
ahead of the interest of the ordinary working family.
  H.R. 450 is not part of the Contract With America, and I doubt there 
are few Americans who went to the polls and thought they were voting to 
weaken food inspection procedures or to put a halt to testing for clean 
water.
  Regulatory moratoria are not new. Presidents Reagan and Bush each had 
a moratorium on regulations when they took office and President Clinton 
already has a regulatory review process in place.
  The problem with this bill, however, is that it goes far beyond those 
moratoria. On the one side, it does not ensure that regulations 
necessary to protect the health and safety of the American people are 
allowed to proceed. On the other, its broad sweep will kill dozens of 
regulations that no one would want to kill, including those that help 
our businesses remain competitive.
  In order to explain the nature of the debate that will follow, let me 
start by making one thing clear. We have all heard horror stories about 
regulations. Some are cited in the committee's report on the bill.
  We agree that foolish regulations should be halted until they receive 
a proper review. There is not a single amendment that we on this side 
of the aisle plan to offer that would allow those regulations to go 
forward. In fact, we have just two kinds of amendments.
  One group makes sure that commonsense rules that the vast majority of 
us on both sides of the aisle would agree should go forward, can go 
forward. The other group makes sure that the American people are not 
harmed as a result of the moratorium. Even a strong supporter of a 
moratorium should take a good look at these amendments, because they 
make sense.
  Let me briefly discuss some of our amendments to explain why they are 
so important to transforming this broad, sweeping, ambiguous bill into 
a moratorium that makes more sense.
  One of our first amendments will eliminate the retroactive aspect of 
the moratorium. To my colleagues who are normally concerned about 
retroactivity of legislation, and to those who have expressed a concern 
about passing laws that constitute a taking, you should be concerned 
about this bill's retroactive aspects. Businesses have made millions of 
dollars of investments based upon the rules they had in front of them. 
Changing the rules in midstream is totally unfair and unprofitable.
  We also have an amendment to clean up the judicial review language, 
so that clever lawyers cannot tie up regulations in court, even if they 
are exempted under the bill. Another amendment will clarify the 
language in the bill that attempts to define what constitutes an 
``imminent threat to health and safety'' in order to give the same 
protection to the American people that the bill gives to private 
property.
  We also have several amendments to legislatively clarify that we do 
not want certain regulations to be covered by the moratorium. Some are 
just commonsense rules that carry out laws that enjoyed wide support, 
or revise procedures that we would agree are necessary. For example, we 
think Members do not want to block the Federal Elections Commission 
from enforcing its new regulations prohibiting the private use of 
campaign funds. Similarly, we do not want to block sensible rules to 
enforce our trade laws, such as sanctions on China for copyright 
infringement.
  Other rules that we wish to protect are essential to the health and 
safety of the American people. One amendment, for example, would allow 
the Agriculture Department to continue its work on improving meat 
inspection to detect salmonella and E coli bacteria, which you may 
recall was responsible for the death of several children in the past 2 
years. Another gives the Federal Aviation Authority clear authority to 
regulate aircraft safety.
  Throughout our debate in committee, the sponsors of the bill would 
often reject our efforts to exempt particular regulations by citing 
some provision of the bill which might provide an exclusion. The 
committee report is filled with their opinions on how the exclusions 
should be interpreted.
  I would hope that if the proponents of the bill honestly and 
completely believe that certain regulations are exempted, they would 
just accept the amendment so we could proceed. We are offering these 
amendments to ensure that the regulations will be legislatively 
exempted and to send a strong message to the Senate that we do not want 
them to pass a moratorium that fails to exempt these regulations. We do 
not want to enable some clever lawyer to tie these regulations up in 
court.
  So please don't tell us that a certain regulation might be covered by 
an exemption. If you have no problem with the regulations in the 
amendment, just accept it, so that we can save everyone the time. We 
adopted an amendment in committee to exempt tax interpretations; we 
have done it for bank regulations. We ought to do the same with rules 
protecting the American people.
  In closing, let me note that at our markup, the room was filled with 
high priced lobbyists all watching to ensure their special interests 
were taken care of. Today there is a larger audience of people 
watching. They are the ones we are privileged to serve. Let us not 
forsake our responsibility to them--the American people--during this 
debate. Our mission here is to represent them, to ensure that they 
enjoy good health, breathe clean air, drink germ free water, and work 
in a safe place in pursuit of their happiness.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time for this colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the Committee Chairman has 
been willing to work with me to clarify the intent of House Resolution 
450.
  While this legislation does place a moratorium on regulations issued 
after 
[[Page H2089]] November 20, 1994, isn't it true that the bill also 
contains a provision exempting regulations dealing with routine 
administrative actions?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Alaska is correct. In fact, section 6 stipulates that there is an 
exclusion for routine administrative functions of an agency.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Furthermore, is it correct that you have 
clarified in your committee report that the bill does not apply to the 
expansion, contraction, or limitation of authority to harvest Federal 
fishery resources recommended by our Regional Fishery Management 
Councils or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission?
  Mr. CLINGER. The gentleman is correct, and we were pleased to 
incorporate his suggested language within our committee report.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Finally, Mr. Chairman, is it not true that H.R. 
450 does not cover normal, annual, and routine housekeeping regulations 
like those establishing the opening and closing of various fisheries?
  Mr. CLINGER. The gentleman from Alaska is once again correct and I 
compliment him for his leadership in clarifying this important matter.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for this 
colloquy.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], chairman of the subcommittee and coauthor of 
this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, this bill would say let us take a time-
out on Federal regulations. Let us say to the American people we are 
going to change the way we do business here in Washington, no more day 
after day, more and more regulations. We are going to stop and redo the 
way the regulatory system works, so that we do not have burdensome 
regulations that cost us jobs, cost consumers more every time they go 
to the grocery store and ultimately put America at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  The burdens of Federal regulations are enormous. One estimate is that 
they cost us $600 billion each year. That is the equivalent of $6,000 
for every household in America. That is why I refer to regulations as a 
hidden tax on the middle class. This moratorium will say enough is 
enough, we are going to put a stop to this daily entourage of new 
regulations.
  The cost of regulations to workers was documented in our 
subcommittee. Several small business men came in and talked about how 
they were no longer able to increase their work force, some of them 
indicated that they had to let workers go because of the cost of 
Federal regulations. One indicated he had increased investments over a 
series of years only to have the regulations changed, and that suddenly 
he had to face the choice of closing down his small business and 
letting tens of workers leave, or reinvest all of his life savings once 
again.
  A good friend of my mine, Gary Bartlett from Muncie, IN, came up to 
me and said, you know, I can compete in the world market. I have a 
small business that I started in my garage. We now make auto parts and 
sell to Europeans and Japanese auto companies, but my biggest enemy is 
Uncle Sam and all of the needless and unnecessary red tape and 
regulations that I have to go through day in and day out.
  If we look at the consumer, we have to spend 10 percent of our 
grocery bill; that means if you go to the grocery store and buy 50 
dollars' worth of groceries, $5 of that goes to pay for Federal 
regulations. We need to stop that hidden tax on the consumer.
  One of the regulations that will be stopped in our moratorium is a 
regulation that would force consumers in the New England States to 
spend $600 to $1,500 more every time they buy a new car. This 
regulation is unnecessary. There are ways we can receive the same 
benefits to the environment without asking the American people to pay 
$600 to $1,500 more every time they buy a new car.
  This hidden tax on the middle class has got to be cut back. We tried 
to work hard with the administration to identify regulations to cut, to 
have a bill that would work with them to move forward so we could 
signal to the American people we have put an end to the entourage of 
regulations, but no, this administration wants to side with the Federal 
bureaucrats and continue to issue Federal regulations.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory 
Affairs.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, last year, the Federal 
Government issued over 64,000 pages of regulations in the Federal 
Register compared to 44,000 pages 10 years ago. Estimates are that our 
Government employs nearly 130,000 bureaucrats to write, interpret, and 
enforce those regulations. The bureaucrats responsible for issuing 
regulations to solve our Nation's problems, have sometimes become the 
problems themselves. The American public is fed up with silly rules and 
regulations that cost us time and money and don't accomplish anything. 
Something needs to be done to change the process.
  When I first read H.R. 450 my reaction was that this bill was 
unworkable and frankly unnecessary. But the more I read and heard about 
the bill and the regulatory process, the more convinced I am that H.R. 
450 is a good idea.
  I speak today, Mr. Chairman, for a number of Democrats that support 
this bill. Do we think that everything in it is perfect? No. If we had 
dictatorial power we would do things differently, but basically it is 
workable. And I commend the chairman, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, and the minority and all of the staff for working with us 
on this bill.
  One of my main concerns about the original bill was the retroactive 
provisions. That was until I obtained a copy of the 615 regulations 
issued between November 9 and December 31 of last year and read them. 
The more I read, the more I believed that this bill was necessary. If 
every Member of Congress were required to read every Federal 
regulation, I am convinced that all of you would have a different view 
of the Federal regulatory process. The longer I worked on this bill, 
the more convinced I was that a wholesale attitude change was necessary 
in the regulatory process. I became convinced that what was needed was 
a 2 by 4 between the eyes of the Federal regulatory bureaucracy. H.R. 
450 is just that, a 2 by 4 which serves as a wake up call, putting the 
bureaucracy on notice that business as usual is over.
  This bill was crafted taking into account the failures of the Bush-
imposed moratorium. It is meant to be wide in scope and to avoid narrow 
exclusions. H.R. 450 exempts routine regulations, it exempts 
regulations which reduce or streamline the regulatory process, it gives 
the administration the full authority to exempt regulations that are a 
threat to health and human safety, and is limited to those regulations 
that need to be looked at and reassessed. H.R. 450 places a temporary 
hold on regulations until common sense risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis is passed and signed into law. Furthermore, H.R. 450 gives the 
committees of jurisdiction time to look at regulations and lets them 
ask the question: Do these regulations really make sense?
  The bottom line is that business as usual will be over with the 
passage of H.R. 450. It is a message that needs to be sent to the 
bureaucracy. The American people want a change in our inflexible and 
over-burdensome regulatory rulemaking process. I'm tired of going home 
and hearing yet another regulatory horror story. For example, Moorhead, 
MN, in my district, is being forced to pay $10 million to change their 
municipal water system when the engineering experts and health 
officials admit it is a waste of money. The regulations mandating this 
are not sensible, but typical of well-meaning but over-intrusive 
Federal bureaucrats.
  I want to thank committee chairman Clinger and subcommittee chairman 
McIntosh for their hard work and willingness to make this a bipartisan 
effort. While this bill is not perfect, it is workable and serves as a 
wake up call to the bureaucracy telling them things have changed. This 
bill puts us on course for a regulatory change in attitude which 
involves risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, and hopefully keeps 
the Federal Government out of the people's lives except when it is 
absolutely necessary.

[[Page H2090]]

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], another 
coauthor of this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for today for 16 years. Ever since 
I opened up my small business and started to have to deal with 
bureaucrats constantly knocking at my door and piling on the paperwork, 
I have wanted to do something about the problem of Federal 
overregulation. With H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, 
we begin the process of reforming the regulatory system.
  Regulations are out of control, and are only going more so under this 
administration. Measured by the number of pages in the Federal 
Register, in which all new regulations are published, each of Mr. 
Clinton's 2 years in office have seen the most regulatory activity 
since President Carter's last. The number of ``actual pages'', not 
counting corrections and blank pages in 1994, was 64,914 pages, the 
third highest total of all time, and an increase from 1993's count of 
61,166 actual pages. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, regulatory 
activity under the Clinton administration is increasing, not 
decreasing.
  In fact, the average American had to work full time until July 10 
last year to pay the costs associated with government taxation, 
mandates, and regulations. This means that 52 cents of every dollar 
earned went to the government directly or indirectly.
  On November 8, 1994, the American people sent a message to 
Washington. They voted for a smaller, less intrusive government. An 
important step toward reaching this goal is curtailing these excesses 
of Federal regulation and red tape that are now estimated to cost the 
economy over $500 billion annually.
  Although regulations are often well-intended, in their implementation 
too many are oppressive, unreasonable, and irrational. For example:
  An environmental engineer was criminally convicted of contaminating 
wetlands for moving two truckloads of dirt.
  Another man faced a grand jury because he stabbed a protected falcon 
with a pitchfork as it killed a chicken in his front yard.
  Mr. Chairman, one company paid $600,000 for failing to fill out a 
Federal form even though it had complied with an identical State law.
  A drycleaner was fined for not posting a piece of paper listing the 
number of employee injuries in the last 12 months, when in fact there 
were no injuries during that time.
  What do you think are the effects of such regulations? Besides the 
fact that Americans tend to lose respect for their Government, there is 
also the issue of cost. Regulatory costs that are imposed on 
businesses--both big and small--have to be paid, but you can be sure 
they are not paid by the business. Instead, these costs are passed 
directly on to the consumer, increasing the prices for the goods and 
services they buy and lowering our standard of living. Every American 
needs to realize that excessive regulation affects their family and 
their personal lives directly.
  The last thing the Government should be doing is making it harder for 
Americans to pursue their dreams of entrepreneurship. Rather, we should 
be facilitating it, so that Americans can provide for their families 
free of regulatory roadblocks, which will result in a continued high 
standard of living for the whole country.
  H.R. 450 is such a facilitator. This bill establishes the moratorium 
on Federal regulations President Clinton refused to order himself last 
December. It gives Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--some 
breathing room to pursue the process reforms that are embodied in the 
Contract With America, such as cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment. Those reforms will then apply to those regulations that 
were suspended during the moratorium period, so that no new regulations 
since the election will have been promulgated without having gone 
through the tests of sound science and proper cost and risk analysis.
  Make no mistake. A Federal regulation is a law that can affect life, 
liberty, and property of Americans. Fairness, justice, and equity must 
be reflected in the laws of the land, including Federal regulations.
  The 104th Congress should undertake a thorough review of Federal 
regulations, starting with the way they are made and enforced, and make 
such adjustments to the statutes of this land as are necessary to 
reflect the mandate of the American people. No such thorough review has 
been possible for some 40 years. It is a daunting but welcome task. It 
cannot be achieved overnight, nor even in the first 100 days of this 
Congress, but we can make a start. That start will be impeded if 
legions of new regulations go into effect before even the initial 
consideration for regulatory reform and relief can be given.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 450, the Regulatory 
Transition Act of 1995, as it is now written.
  I share the concerns of this bill about the burdens of regulation. I 
believe the regulatory maze needs to be cleared out. But this bill is 
not the way to go. This is the all-time case of throwing out the baby 
with the bathwater.
  H.R. 450 freezes action on almost all Federal regulations issued 
between November 20, 1994, and December 31, 1995. Its reach is so broad 
that even its sponsors can't tell us exactly what it embraces. For one 
thing, they did not try to inventory all the regulations issued or 
about to be issued before they filed this bill; and they cannot foresee 
all of the regs that may be needed over the next 10 months.
  This bill reaches from health and safety rules to trade rules to 
rules for auctioning the radio frequencies. It includes rules I would 
gladly vote to suspend and rules I have worked to see implemented. It 
makes no distinction between regs we need and those we don't, and 
that's the problem with it. By reaching so far, it runs the risk of 
creating as much confusion as it seeks to prevent.
  Let me give you just a sample of the regulations this bill may block:
  On February 3, the USDA issued a rule to reduce illnesses caused by 
contaminated meat and poultry, due to E coli and salmonella. Now, you 
may think this rule falls under the exception in the bill for emergency 
regulations that deal with imminent threats to health. After all, the 
Centers for Disease Control estimates that 9,000 people a year die from 
food-borne diseases. But we debated that question in committee and came 
to no clear conclusion, because no one can say definitively whether the 
USDA rule deals with an imminent threat to health. The sponsors of the 
bill refused to delete the word imminent, and wouldn't accept an 
amendment that would settle the issue by specifying that the USDA reg 
is excluded, so the bill comes to the floor with a fundamental issue 
like this unsettled.
  On December 21, HUD issued rules to prevent alcoholics and drug 
addicts from being admitted to HUD-assisted elderly housing. That's 
something most of us would support. Current regulations have been 
construed by the courts to treat disabled persons, as elderly, and the 
disabled include alcohol and drug addicts. Some may think that this 
rule falls under the exclusion for routine administrative functions, 
but that too is far from clear; and so unless we make this exclusion 
clear, the elderly may just have to wait to get the addicts out of 
their housing projects.
  On December 2, 1994, Customs issued a rule to stiffen the penalties 
against illegal textile and apparel imports. Next month, Customs will 
issue draft rules of origin for textile and apparel imports. These 
rules of trade will stop Hong Kong from shipping to us under their 
quota goods that are actually made in China. Why suspend regs that stop 
fraudulent trade?
  On January 4, 1995, an INS rule on asylum reform became final. This 
rule would defer the granting of employment for persons seeking asylum. 
Under the prior rule, asylum seekers were granted employment 
authorization simply upon filing for asylum. Everyone knows that asylum 
processing needs reform; why pass a bill that will stop it?
  On January 24, 1995, the FAA issued airworthiness directives aimed at 
potential safety problems in aircraft. These are real safety concerns, 
but they may not fall within the emergency exclusion a an imminent 
threat, 
[[Page H2091]] and also may not fall under the exception for routine 
administrative functions.
  This is merely a sample. There are at least a hundred regulations of 
some significance that have been issued that I could cite; and these 
are the regulations already issued. What health or safety rules will be 
issued or needed over the next 10 months that we can't foresee now? 
Often during markup, when we raised a question about prospective 
regulations, the sponsors assured us that they probably fell under one 
of the exceptions of the bill. But they could not be sure, so the issue 
is left hanging on words like imminent and routine, which will be 
litigated at length over the next year if this bill is ever enacted.
  In committee, we did carve out a few explicit exemptions for tax and 
banking regulations. But why have specific exemptions only for banking 
and income taxes?
  During consideration of the bill, amendments will be offered that 
exclude certain regs in clusters, under a particular heading. Our 
object in offering these amendments is to clear up a path through the 
enormous gray zone created because the boundaries of this bill are so 
ambiguous. For example, there will be amendments that make it clear 
that this bill does not block the Customs Modernization Act from being 
implemented, that make it clear that this bill does not stop sanctions 
against China or against other countries that engage in certain kinds 
of fraudulent trade, that settle any question about food safety 
regulation, that deal with airline safety, mine safety, that make it 
clear that this bill will not stop long-awaited rules for transuranic 
nuclear waste disposal, so that the Waste Isolation Pilot Project can 
go forward, that upgrade with mammography quality standards, that deal 
with personal use of campaign funds, that broaden veterans benefits for 
Persian Gulf syndrome, and that even deal with hunting season for ducks 
and waterfowl.
  There will also be amendments that make the bill prospective only and 
remove one of its most problematical features--judicial review. This 
bill is not without merit. But it needs a lot of work before it 
deserves to be passed, or else we will create far more confusion than 
we prevent by passing it.
                              {time}  1300

  In committee we did carve out a few explicit exceptions for tax and 
banking regulations. But why have specific exemptions that clarify the 
bill just for taxes and just for bikers? During consideration of this 
bill amendments will be offered that include certain regs and clusters 
under a particular heading. Our object in offering these amendments was 
a clear path through this fuzzy gray zone that is created by this bill 
because of boundaries of it are so ambiguous. I urge every Member to 
carefully consider and to vote for these clarifying amendments that 
will create sensible exceptions and exclusions to this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we are literally drowning in regulations. Let 
me say to my colleagues that something is dramatically wrong when the 
tooth fairy can be charged with mishandling biohazardous waste. Tens of 
thousands of pages of regulations have been passed, millions and 
millions of complex rules for average Americans to deal with. I 
guarantee the average American cannot get up in the morning and live 1 
day without violating one of these rules. We have tied up business, we 
have tied up industry, we have tied up local government. This is what 
the November 8 election was all about. The other side just does not get 
it.
  This bill does not stop regulations. This only says, ``Stop, look and 
listen.'' This bill does not affect public health, safety, and welfare 
where there is an emergency.
  I say to my colleagues, ``If all else fails, read the bill.''
  President Reagan's measure in 1981 did some good; I am sorry, his 
executive order only stopped some of the onslaught. If we do not have 
the leadership from this administration to do the same thing, this 
Congress will impose this moratorium, and this is not a permanent 
moratorium.
  If all else fails, read the bill. It is only temporary. It is only 
this year.
  I submit that we have to stop killing jobs, we have to stop killing 
productivity, and we have got to allow this country to compete in the 
international arena. If we pass this measure, we can begin to do just 
that.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 450, and I would 
like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] who I think has done an outstanding job on 
this. I want to commend him for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me this time to 
speak on this important issue.
  Speaking with people back home, time and time again, the problem of 
unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations is brought to my 
attention. So I am pleased that this House is now considering H.R. 450, 
the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, just so there is no misunderstanding, many existing 
Government regulations are necessary, and provide significant benefits 
to our country. My concern is that in recent years, at a time when the 
number of regulations are increasing, we are failing to ensure that 
these regulations address real risks at a cost that is comparable to 
the benefits provided. As you may know, improving the Federal 
Government's ability to conduct risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis has been an interest of mine and I look forward to continuing 
these efforts.
  I must agree that a moratorium on regulations is a controversial 
first step. But it is one that I support because we must begin now, if 
we are to reform the flawed processes which have resulted in so many 
regulations and simply do not work in the real world. I am pleased that 
the Congress will soon be considering important changes in our 
rulemaking process, such as requiring risk assessments on all major 
regulations. However, these changes will take time. That is why I 
believe that a moratorium on new regulations is a necessary first step 
toward reforming the regulatory process.
  No one can anticipate the future, and I believe that it is important 
that H.R. 450 grants the President broad authority to grant exemptions 
from the moratorium for emergencies. I am also pleased that the bill 
excludes regulations that repeal or streamline current regulatory 
burdens.
  Regulatory reform should be a priority for the 104th Congress, and I 
am encouraged that we are now moving forward with H.R. 450 to begin the 
effort on regulatory reform. I urge Members to support this 
legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party would like to have the 
American public believe that all government regulation is evil and 
burdensome. The proposal before us today will stop all government 
regulations issued since November 20, 1994. I believe this is another 
master gimmick being promoted by the headline hungry Republican Party 
that is willing to pursue destructive policy in order to gain favor 
with a disenchanted public. This is one more initiative by the 
Republican Party to close debate and rule by decree. This proposal 
paralyzes Government in order to fix it. This is not the way to do 
things around here. We do not need to hurt our fellow American citizens 
in order to help them.
  Let me give my colleagues two examples in agriculture alone. The 
first relates to the fresh cut flower and fresh cut greens promotion 
information program which was implemented when the rule passed in 
December 1994. If House Report 450 is passed today, the program cannot 
be implemented and will result in widespread losses to producers and to 
shippers. We are talking here about jobs.
  A second example is rules establishing comprehensive regulations 
governing the introduction of nonindigenous organisms that may be plant 
pests. It is estimated that harmful introductions have cost the 
American taxpayer $97 billion. We need these regulations to protect the 
American public.
  Mr. Chairman, my own district, where we have a base closure example, 
we required local hiring preferences. Those regulations were put into 
law just recently, the Federal Register, so that one could hire local 
businesses affected most by the base closure. Those base closures would 
be thrown out.
  [[Page H2092]] Lastly, let me just read a part of the bill here that 
says the enactment of new law or laws require that the Federal rule-
making process include cost-benefit analysis. I say to my colleagues, 
``You cannot, you cannot, do cost-benefit analysis. You can't do it for 
military music, the salute to the flag or to the kinds of provisions 
that are included in this bill.''
  I urge a rejection of House Report 450.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Bass], another new member of the committee.
  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Resolution 450.
  Sixty-five thousand pages--actually 64,914 pages--in 1994 alone. Who 
reads all these pages? Who is affected by all these pages? Who is 
writing all this staff? The answer is there are a lot of people writing 
a lot of regulations. Nobody has the opportunity really to understand 
what is going on. We need a rest.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what House Resolution 450 does. It gives us a 
rest for a little while. We have got to get on the stick here and 
reduce the size and influence of the Federal Government.
  Who is going to be affected by all these regulations and the 
moratorium that we will have over the next year? My colleagues, it will 
be families, small business people, people who are affected day in and 
day out by these regulations.
  I do not know what all these people are going to do who write all 
these regulations. They will probably be listening to classical music 
for the rest of the year, but it is time we pass this bill, House 
Resolution 450.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of Mr. Peterson. I support this bill very strongly because I 
think it will go a long way in preventing some irreparable damage to 
major industries in Kentucky, namely tobacco and the soft drink 
industry, and I fully support it, and I vigorously resist many of the 
amendments that will try to undo what this bill tries to do.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman of the still powerful Committee 
on Agriculture.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], for their work to make sure that this 
legislation will not in any way impede the routine regulatory decisions 
and actions vital to commerce in a very workmanlike fashion, which my 
colleagues have done. They have addressed the concerns of the Committee 
on Agriculture; I appreciate that; with report language that clearly 
states this legislation is not intended to apply to the marketing 
orders and our ability to distribute the vital commodities that we have 
to do.
  This legislation is good for agriculture, it is good for rural and 
small town America, and it is long overdue.
  Now some of my colleagues across the aisle, I understand their 
concern, but they have expressed very reasonable concerns about the law 
of unintended effects, that this moratorium will endanger essential 
regulations. That is not the case. This bill exempts routine 
administrative action and most of the warnings that have been raised by 
the majority.
  Now I realize virtually every Federal agency is under marching orders 
by this administration to warn of impending doom and that the 
regulatory sky will fall. That is not going to happen now. I am also 
sure that agency lawyers can interpret legislation to provoke all sorts 
of legal problems, if they so choose.

                              {time}  1310

  That does not have to be that way. We should not have a problem.
  The other side of the story in reality is that regulatory overkill 
pouring out of this town has endangered the economic well-being and the 
essential services of virtually every community, every county, every 
State, every business up and down Main Street; every hospital, every 
school, everybody in America. The total cost, $600 billion nationwide, 
and it is breaking the back of our local government.
  What is at stake is the very confidence of the people of the United 
States and their faith in our Government. We are regulating our 
citizens out of business with a shotgun, You-are-guilty-until-proven-
innocent approach. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] said 
we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Right now the 
bath water would not meet the clean water standards, the soap would not 
be labeled right, the tub would be judged unsafe, and parents could not 
bathe the baby without proper instruction, certification and schooling. 
It is time for moratorium.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, but let me 
say at the same time I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is producing rapidly a lot of 
legislation.
  I do think that we have to be careful. When we look at what 
moratoriums mean, basically any moratorium in my judgment is not good. 
It is basically creating temporary bottleneck and gridlock. This is 
something that the other side has abhorred for years. But when you have 
a moratorium, it means nothing can happen. You delay a decision.
  So what we are doing is creating regulations, in my judgment, that do 
not create jobs. What we are doing is preventing regulations that 
create jobs, that protect children, that keep planes and trains from 
crashing, and keep hunters from hunting. That is in essence what we are 
doing. What we are doing is basically trying to use Band-Aids after 
open heart surgery.
  The administration has worked hard and with success to streamline 
agency rule making. Let that continue. The Congress can use its 
oversight authority to curb overzealous agency action. The Vice 
President has taken the lead in this direction, not just with reforming 
government, by cutting Federal workers, over 280,000, to finance the 
crime bill, and there are task forces in every single department of 
government designed to curb regulation. This is ongoing. Why do we have 
to interfere with this process?
  This moratorium is so strict that agency employees would be 
prohibited from almost doing anything by risk assessment. In other 
words, a paralysis would virtually take place. Any agency decision to 
exclude a rule except for emergencies could be challenged in court, 
tying things up further and keeping lawyers further employed.
  The committee made sure that exclusions exist for tax and banking 
regulations, but they would not add exclusions for meat and poultry 
inspection, safe drinking water regulations, mine safety regulations, 
programs that help the working class. Assurances that exclusions 
protect health and safety regulations are not worth anything. They are 
going to be tied up in court with lawsuits. We are employing a lot of 
lawyers with this legislation.
  The committee language makes it easier to exclude regulations on the 
basis of damage to property, rather than damage to individuals and 
human beings. So what we have is piecemeal legislation, a piecemeal 
amendment process, exempting certain statutes and programs from the 
moratorium. It is more evidence of the fact that this is a bad idea. 
How do we pick and choose in a day what should be exempt and what 
should not be exempt?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the chairman of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes right at the heart of what 
the frustration in this country is, and I would challenge Members of 
this Congress to walk down the streets of your community, stop anyone, 
and ask them what their concerns are, and I bet you more than not you 
will hear that the 
[[Page H2093]] concerns are over-government regulations. For 10 years 
that is what I have heard in my district. It is ironic that people in 
the district look at the concerns and then recognize the fact that this 
administration is trying to govern by regulation.
  Most people in my district do not understand that regulation that 
seems to be so stupid can many times be put into law. What we are doing 
by this act, Mr. Chairman, is we are going to put the stupid test to 
regulations. If it is stupid, it is not going to become one.
  There is nothing that is creating more of a problem economically to 
the American people than over-government regulation. The average 
American family today is expending $6,000 a year to comply with Federal 
Government regulation. That is $6,000 they ought to be able to keep in 
their pocket.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whether the regulation is smart or stupid 
will make no difference under this legislation before us today because 
this legislation will stop all regulations, without giving 
consideration to whether it is very much needed by the middle class in 
this country.
  People look to regulations to protect them from harm. Whether it is 
environmental threats or safety concerns, regulations are in place to 
be there to protect people. This legislation would put a moratorium on 
all those regulations.
  The big winner will be the corporate special interests that will be 
relieved from the obligation to live up to standards that protect the 
public. The big loser will be the middle class, the people who are hard 
working and expect that someone is going to pay attention to them. And 
the people they are looking to are those of us in this Hall today.
  The tobacco industry illustrates to me a good example of how H.R. 450 
would work. There is probably no more protected special interest in 
America than the tobacco industry, yet the tobacco industry would 
probably be the Nation's biggest winner under H.R. 450.
  The Food and Drug Administration is in the process of conducting an 
investigation as to whether the tobacco industry acted improperly in 
adding or manipulating the nicotine in cigarettes to keep people 
addicted, and particularly marketing it to kids. So FDA is trying to 
decide do they have jurisdiction over this matter. This moratorium 
legislation would keep FDA from even doing its investigation, let alone 
promulgating any regulations.
  OSHA is looking at protecting people in the workplace from secondhand 
smoke. It is a serious environmental threat. It is a class A 
carcinogen. It can cause a nonsmoker who is forced to breathe in that 
smoke to get lung disease and heart problems. All of these concerns we 
think about when we associate cigarette smoking and the smoker, yet 
OSHA would be stopped from their investigation on this very issue 
because the scope of this proposal is so broad that they could not even 
get further comment on a proposal to deal with protecting people in the 
workplace.
  This is not what the American public wants, regulatory relief that 
allows the tobacco industry to continue to promote and sell cigarettes 
to our children.
  There are other examples of how this bill will hurt the middle class. 
It will delay efforts to improve the safety of meat, poultry, and 
seafood. It would remove dangerous chemicals from drinking water under 
a proposal, and those proposals would be stopped. There is a proposal 
to establish standards for mammography, and those standards would be 
stopped. Protect children from iron poisoning and reduce toxic 
emissions from incinerators, these are regulations that are about to be 
proposed, and they would be stopped by this moratorium.
  I think it is a part of what is clearly not just in and of itself a 
transition to another bill, it is part of a salvo on attacking all of 
our Nation's regulatory safety net.
  Other provisions we are going to get up before this Congress next 
week which are part of this so-called Contract with America would be 
even more extreme, because they would create a regulatory maze that 
would prevent the agencies from protecting our health and safety. They 
in fact would roll back 25 years of environmental progress.
  There are good regulations, there are bad regulations. Let us figure 
out how to make regulations smart and effective, not simply to take all 
regulations and stop them from going into effect, either through a 
moratorium, which is part of what this legislation would do, or the 
regulatory, so-called, reform bill that we will get next week, which 
will cripple government from doing anything to protect people. The 
people we are trying to deal with are the middle class.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 14 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has 
5 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], another new and very valued member of our 
committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many times we have 
watched NCAA basketball games or other basketball games on TV. We will 
see, when one team has a run and they have scored about 11 points in a 
row and the other team seems to be against the ropes. And we will hear 
the announcer oftentimes say, it is time to get a TO. They better take 
a TO. And we all know what that means. Let us take a time out.
  Let us, if one is the coach or if one is a supporter of that team, 
they know what that means. The other team has a run going. You are 
against the ropes and you need some time to just think about it, to 
regroup, to go back to the huddle and see of you cannot restructure 
this thing.
  I think what small business and even some big businesses around the 
country are saying, please, let us at least have a TO. Let us take time 
out so that we have time to recapture our thoughts and perhaps see if 
there is not some sensible way to deal with this.
  What American business is not saying is, we want no regulations from 
the Federal Government. I think what they are saying is, we want 
reasonable regulations. That is what this is about. This is a time out.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], for yielding time to me.
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, during the course of our deliberations on 
this bill, I am going to offer an amendment that would exempt from this 
moratorium the proposed regulations of the Federal Trade Commission to 
prevent telemarketing fraud. The Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse 
Prevention Act of 1994 was a law that was passed in the last session. 
That law had broad bipartisan support in the last Congress. It passed 
in the House by a vote of 411 to 3. It passed the Senate by a voice 
vote.
  Numerous congressional hearings over a 7-year period have shown that 
telemarketing fraud was costing Americans about $40 billion a year and 
that the elderly and small businesses are the principal victims. The 
hearings also showed that new legal tools were needed to stop this rip-
off. The law directs the FTC to issue its final regulations by August 
16, 1995, and then the law, in a novel approach, authorizes State 
attorneys general as well as the FTC to enforce these Federal 
regulations.
  H.R. 450 would bring to a halt this bipartisan effort to stop 
telemarketing fraud. H.R. 450 prohibits the FTC from issuing a final 
rule by the statutory deadline of August 16, and it even prohibits the 
FTC from going ahead with 
[[Page H2094]] analyzing public comments and holding a public hearing 
on the proposed rule.
  Sections 6(3)(A) of H.R. 450 makes it clear that the moratorium 
applies both to the issuing of a rule and to any other action taken in 
the course of the process of rulemaking. This amendment should be 
supported hopefully by both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, the last Congress spoke clearly and decisively on 
telemarketing fraud. There is no reason for us to put that work on 
hold.
  I urge support for this amendment, when it comes up in the debate.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask who is entitled to close debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is 
entitled to close debate.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out a couple of things that have been discussed 
during the debate this afternoon. The gentleman from California 
indicated that this bill was going to roll back 25 years of health and 
environmental legislation. And that would be true if in fact we were 
going to reach back and deal with the regulations that have been put on 
the books in those 25 years, but that clearly is not the case.
  This bill is only prospective, that is prospective from the point of 
November 20 until the end of the year. It is also temporary. We are not 
saying that this moratorium is going to go on forever. In fact, it has 
a final date of December 31 of this year. And could be much earlier 
than that if, in fact, regulatory reform legislation which we will be 
considering next week does pass.
  So this is not a long-term and it is also, Mr. Chairman, not an 
unprecedented step. During the administration of President Bush, there 
was an executively imposed moratorium on regulations which went on for 
over a year, I believe. And in that case, there were no deleterious 
effects, no horrible rending of the social network or the social safety 
network, no destruction of the environment as a result of that 
moratorium. This is merely an opportunity, a temporary opportunity to 
try to say, let us put a hold on these things until we really get a 
sense of how we are going about imposing regulations. And clearly, I 
think even on both sides of the aisle, it would be admitted that we 
have gone overboard, that we have a sort of a sausage machine that just 
grinds out regulations without any thought given to what the ultimate 
impact may be, what the cost may be to the people that we are 
impacting. So, yes, there are indeed many regulations that are vitally 
important to the health and safety. We think that those types of 
regulations are clearly covered and exempted under the exemptions that 
we provide for imminent threats to the health and safety of 
individuals.
  We do not think that this is a draconian device. It is merely a 
device that gives us a chance to review where we stand.
  I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation does 
indeed have a tremendous amount of support from hundreds, hundreds of 
national organizations inside and outside the beltway, including the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, the gentleman, chairman of the 
Committee of Agriculture, spoke earlier about the support of the farm 
community and the fact that their concerns, while having milk marketing 
orders and others, would not be affected. I think the American Farm 
Bureau Federation would not be endorsing this bill if there was a real 
threat to agriculture. The National Federation of Independent Business, 
the National Electrical Contractors, National Grocers Association, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the list goes on and on and on. So, Mr. 
Chairman, there is a tremendous amount of support for this bill outside 
this chamber, but also there is tremendous support right here in this 
chamber, for the legislation has about 150 cosponsors. In fact, it 
passed out of my committee, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, with a bipartisan vote of 28 to 13.
  I just wanted to try and put this thing in context, that we are 
really dealing here with a rather modest proposal to give both 
ourselves and the administration, when I point out there is a 
companion, I view the effort by the President when he said he is 
directing every department-level, cabinet-level office as well as every 
agency to review the regulations which they have, to take a hard look 
at them and to come back with recommendations for those that could be 
eliminated. We hope that they will do that. But that is a companion 
piece to what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with is 
primarily new regulations, new burdens that are going to be imposed, 
not those that are already in existence. We applaud the President's 
efforts to look at existing regulation and perhaps eliminate those.
  I think this would be a cooperative effort, not an adversarial 
effort, because we are both trying to do the same thing, which is deal 
with this regulatory overkill we have in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the Chair tell Members 
how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois, [Mrs. Collins] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a new and valued Member.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 450.
  The distinguished majority leader, who is an economist, has called 
government interference in our businesses and in our lives ``the 
invisible foot'' of big government. And he is right. That foot is on 
the throat of people who create jobs.
  Almost every day my office receives calls from small businessowners 
in Kansas who are caught between running their business and fighting 
with needless government regulations.
  One man in Wichita who runs a roofing business called my office 
because the government wants him to secure his roofing ladders with 
ropes. But the ropes create a safety hazard to the workers, who get 
their feet tangled in the ropes. This is clearly counterproductive.
  Let me quote from a letter recently received:

       As a small businessman I can tell you first-hand that I am 
     drowning in a sea of regulation from Washington.

  When we enact mindless regulation without understanding its costs we 
are playing a deadly game of Russian roulette with American jobs. When 
the gun goes off small businesses shut their doors, and ordinary 
working people lose their jobs. It's not smart, and it's not right.
  For these reasons I urge H.R. 450's passage.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 
450. The greatest burden that free enterprise and entrepreneurs and 
those who wish to pursue the American dream have today, the greatest 
problem they have is the regulatory burden they face every time they 
walk out the door, trying to create more jobs, trying to be more 
productive in this country.
  Yesterday we were visiting with one of the representatives from the 
administration, and it was pointed out to us that there has been a 
problem in recent years with job growth and job creation, and I pointed 
out to them that one of the greatest reasons, perhaps the greatest 
reason, that there has not been as much job growth in this country in 
recent years is because the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, those 
who believe in free enterprise have to operate with handcuffs every day 
because the regulatory burden is so great.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that this effort we are undertaking 
today is a bipartisan effort. There is strong support on both sides of 
the aisle. I am excited because small business people in America can 
once again look to Congress and understand that they will have a friend 
and an ally in Congress as they get up to work every morning, 
oftentimes 7 days a week, to create jobs and be more productive in 
America.
  Later on today, Mr. Chairman, we will also offer an amendment that 
will address private property rights. Regulatory burdens that have been 
imposed on people who own homes, small businesses, farms, and ranches 
across America mean people no longer have 
[[Page H2095]] an opportunity to do what they want on their own 
property.
  Regulations have also been a tremendous burden on them, and I am 
delighted that this amendment that we will be offering later on, which 
we will elaborate on, is a tremendous bipartisan effort, as well, that 
we are excited about presenting today.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned that there has been bipartisan 
agreement in committee with this legislation. I just want to point out 
that there has also been bipartisan opposition to this bill in 
committee.
  Let me say, too, Mr. Chairman, that I think that the Washington Post 
today really tells the story on this particular legislation. It has a 
story on the Federal page entitled ``Ambiguity Rules the Day.'' That in 
fact is what it does. This says ``The Republicans' rule-making 
moratorium aims to relieve Americans of burdensome Federal regulations, 
but the bill that comes to the House for debate today could create just 
as much confusion as it seeks to prevent.'' It goes on to say that ``* 
* * the moratorium * * *, the first of the measures to come to the 
House, may gain its notoriety not from what it seeks to stop but its 
ambiguity. The bill will allow thousands of exemptions and create 
enormous gray areas likely to confound both rule-making and their 
congressional opponents.'' Further it says ``Beyond specific 
categories, however, the bill becomes fuzzy enough to provoke immediate 
chaos.''
  There is no way I could say it any better than that, Mr. Chairman. 
What happens here is that we have this bill, which was very hastily 
crafted. I would want to say, it was not very artfully crafted. As I 
understand it, it is supposed to be a bridge between this bill and some 
others that have to do with risk assessments and cost analyses and 
things of that nature. It is a bill that does not do what it purports 
to do. It is very, very hazy, it is very, very fuzzy. It is the kind of 
legislation that I do not think has been very well-written. I think its 
purpose may have been laudatory, but its effect is not that.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly urge all of my 
colleagues to vote against this bill when it comes up for debate. The 
one thing we tried to do is to offer amendments that make good common 
sense.
  I would certainly hope that my colleagues would vote for the 
amendments that we have offered, because I just do not believe that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle intended for there to be 
chaos, intended for there to be fuzzy rulings and ambiguity about the 
kinds of things that this bill is supposed to do when it comes down to 
the operation of the Federal Government.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would say to them, pay close 
attention to the amendments that we have offered. They are very 
seriously given, they are very carefully thought out, they are very 
carefully drawn, and it seems to me that they are something we ought to 
do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a dialog with 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, in the last couple of years we 
have instituted some of the largest trade agreements that mankind has 
ever accomplished. Of course, in anything as complicated as that, it 
does take regulations to carry them out.
  We hope that the gentleman's language will give the administering 
agencies as broad a latitude as possible to carry out these agreements. 
We do not want to be in a position of not having passed these 
agreements, and having promised the world we will do some things, and 
then turn around and welsh on our own agreements.
  I have sent the gentleman some correspondence on this. I hope to 
receive the gentleman's assurance that he feels that it is important in 
carrying out these agreements that the administrators have pretty broad 
latitude in issuing their regulations.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that we are 
very sensitive and very aware of the concern of the gentleman and 
others on the Committee on Ways and Means that were so vitally involved 
in negotiating these agreements. We think that the language would 
clearly allow this.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
include for the Record a copy of my letter.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1995.
     Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing in regard to the 
     exception to the moratorium on Federal regulatory rulemaking 
     actions in H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, 
     for ``statutes implementing international trade agreements''. 
     While we believe this exception is essential if H.R. 450 is 
     enacted into law, we are deeply concerned about the narrow 
     interpretation of this language set forth on page 22 of the 
     Committee report which authorizes the Administration to 
     conduct rulemaking actions during the moratorium period only 
     with respect to provisions in such statutes which are 
     ``specifically required'' to implement U.S. obligations under 
     international trade agreements.
       Such a narrow interpretation is contrary to the statutory 
     basis on which implementing legislation for international 
     trade agreements has been developed and passed by Congress 
     and would potentially undermine the effectiveness of that 
     legislation. The special ``fast track'' procedures set forth 
     in the Trade Act of 1974, and reauthorized by subsequent 
     Congresses for consideration of trade agreement implementing 
     legislation, specifically states that such procedures apply 
     to legislation which contains provisions which are 
     ``necessary or appropriate'' to implement such agreements. 
     Those procedures also require the Congress to approve an 
     accompanying statement of administrative action which sets 
     forth procedures and interpretations which are subsequently 
     reflected in agency regulations.
       Within that framework and on a bipartisan basis, committees 
     of jurisdiction have developed, together with the Executive 
     branch, and Congress has passed legislation since 1974 
     encompassing statutory changes and authority to issue 
     regulations necessary or appropriate to implement U.S. trade 
     agreement obligations. For example, legislation passed by the 
     103d Congress on a bipartisan basis to implement and North 
     American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round 
     multilateral agreements represented a careful balance of 
     divergent commercial and political interests on a range of 
     issues. An interpretation of the exception to the moratorium 
     which limits rulemaking authority to only those provisions 
     that are specifically required to implement trade agreement 
     obligations is contrary to the intent of Congress in passing 
     this legislation and will preclude agencies from issuing 
     regulations to administer those provisions which are 
     appropriate to achieve effective or intended administration 
     of the statutes or agreements involved. Such an 
     interpretation also runs the risk of upsetting the careful 
     balance of interests reflected in the statute and 
     unnecessarily reopening the debate on controversial issues.
       In sum, we believe the statutory language contained in H.R. 
     450 should stand on its own. We further believe for the 
     reasons stated above that the interpretation given to this 
     language in your Committee report is totally inappropriate. 
     Any changes in previously enacted trade agreement 
     implementing legislation should be debated by committees of 
     jurisdiction through the normal legislative process, and not 
     be achieved through a regulatory vehicle such as H.R. 450.
       We appreciate your cooperation on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Sam M. Gibbons,
                                        Ranking Democratic Member.

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the gentleman from Florida, it is 
clearly our intent not to interfere with the carrying out of negotiated 
treaties, particularly referring to GATT and NAFTA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the author of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized 
for 3 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend you. It is an honor 
for me to be able to speak today on this bill that I helped author, and 
have a fellow colleague in the freshman class chairing the Committee of 
the Whole. You are doing a wonderful job, and I appreciate that.
  I want to thank also my Democratic colleagues who have supported us 
in this, particularly the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], the 
ranking member on our subcommittee. His contributions to this bill have 
helped craft it into a very strong piece of legislation.
  [[Page H2096]] Mr. Chairman, let me say, I do think the choice is 
clear today before this body, whether we are going to continue business 
as usual, to continue to have 4,300 new regulations coming out of this 
administration, to continue to be on the side of the 130,000 Federal 
bureaucrats who spend their time writing and enforcing regulations, or 
whether we are going to be on the side of the American people and say 
enough is enough. It is time we take a time out on Federal regulations. 
It is time that we have a moratorium, so we can go through and start 
getting rid of the unnecessary and ridiculous and burdensome 
regulations.
  I wanted to share with the body some of the examples that have come 
to my attention, both as chairman of the subcommittee, and as working 
with former Vice President Quayle, as his staff director of the Council 
on Competitiveness.
  One of those regulations was a rule that apparently would bar the 
tooth fairy in the United States. It was a requirement that every 
dentist not give back baby teeth to their parents. When we inquired, 
``Why on Earth would you need to have that type of regulation,'' the 
agency said ``We are worried that those baby teeth might be hazardous 
waste material.''
  Mr. Chairman, that, of course, is one of the most ridiculous 
assumptions we could possibly make. We asked ``Could you think about 
that a little longer?'' And they eventually said, ``Yes, the dentist 
can give back baby teeth.'' The tooth fairy can visit the American 
home.
  Another issue that has come to my attention was the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission guideline that recommended that on the worksite every 
bucket with 5 gallons or more that could contain water have a hole in 
the bottom of it.
  We asked ourselves, why on Earth would you want a bucket with a hole 
in the bottom of it?
                              {time}  1340

  Someone decided that it might contain water and that could become a 
hazard if someone slipped and fell and landed facedown in the bucket. 
Their response: Put a hole in the bottom of the bucket so that it leaks 
water and can no longer contain what it is meant to.
  Another example from my district was Mr. Floyd, who is a farmer in 
Muncie, IN. He has had his farm in his family for over 50 years now. 
One day one of the neighboring businesses accidentally broke the 
drainage tile that allowed his property to be drained and farmed, 
creating a big mud hole. Soon after that, he was visited by Government 
regulators who told him, ``You can no longer farm your farm. We've 
decided that this mud hole is a wetland and needs to be protected.''
  There you have Mr. Floyd, an 80-year-old farmer from Muncie, IN, 
going up against the Federal Government who says you can no longer use 
your farm because someone accidentally destroyed the drainage tiles and 
you now have a mud hole that we, the Federal Government, want to 
protect as a wetland.
  Those types of regulations are ridiculous and they need to come to an 
end. This moratorium will put a stop to that needless regulation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, over the course of our 
consideration of H.R. 450, a number of individuals and groups have 
expressed concerns over the impact that H.R. 450 would have on various 
important regulations. I have obtained copies of correspondence that 
these groups have sent to me and other Members. I would ask that these 
letters be inserted into the Record, for the benefit of my colleagues.
                                                       Nextel,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 1995.
     Hon. Cardiss Collins,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Collins: I am writing to you on an 
     urgent matter concerning the application of H.R. 450, the 
     ``Regulatory Transition Act of 1995'', to an ongoing Federal 
     Communications Commission (``Commission'') rulemaking which 
     would enhance competition in the mobile telecommunications 
     industry. As currently drafted, the ``regulatory moratorium'' 
     legislation could indefinitely postpone Commission adoption 
     of proposed rule changes which will result in the 
     introduction of new mobile services, enhanced competition in 
     the mobile marketplace, reduced administrative burdens on the 
     Commission, and greater radio spectrum auction fees to the 
     U.S. Treasury. While clearly this it not what the authors of 
     H.R. 450 intended, we believe that is what the effect of this 
     legislation will be, unless modified as suggested below.
       Nextel Communications, Inc. (``Nextel''), is today the 
     leading operator of traditional analog Specialized Mobile 
     Radio (``SMR'') systems. Upon closing of certain pending 
     transactions, Nextel will provide fleet dispatch 
     communications to approximately 750,000 customers throughout 
     the United States, Nextel has already invested nearly half a 
     billion dollars to develop, construct and operate a 
     nationwide digital wide-area SMR system which is fifteen 
     percent more efficient than existing analog technology. This 
     unique service offers mobile workforce customers a 
     combination of private network dispatch, mobile telephone, 
     paging, text messaging, mobile data (including portable 
     computer and portable fax support) and enhanced services such 
     as voice mail and call forwarding, all on a single handset. 
     Nextel is currently operating its new digital system 
     throughout most of California and is introducing this service 
     in the greater New York and Chicago areas this quarter. In 
     California alone, Nextel has created over 500 new jobs.
       The Commission last year initiated a rulemaking procedure 
     concerning wide-area block licensing for radio spectrum 
     currently allocated for SMR services. The Commission's 
     rulemaking is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993 (``OBRA 93'')
      which established a new common carrier category of mobile 
     communications providers--``Commercial Mobile Radio 
     Service'' or ``CMRS''. In creating this new category of 
     service, Congress mandated that the Commission eliminate 
     regulatory disparities among different types of mobile 
     service providers offering competing services. The 
     ``regulatory parity'' provisions were designed by the 
     Congress to promote fair competition among providers of 
     commercial mobile services, regardless of their current 
     regulatory status, and are an essential part of the 
     spectrum auction provisions contained in OBRA 93.
       The regulatory parity provisions in OBRA 93 require that 
     SMR services reclassified as CMRS be subject to technical 
     requirements comparable to those that today apply to 
     substantially similar common carrier services, such as 
     cellular telephone and Personal Communication Services 
     (``PCS''). The reclassified SMRs have until August 10, 1996 
     to make whatever changes are necessary to come into 
     compliance with the new regulations. Delay in adopting 
     regulatory parity rules will harm reclassified SMRs who do 
     not yet know what regulations they will be required to comply 
     with only 18 months from now. Such delay will prolong the 
     existing competitive disadvantage of these carriers vis-a-vis 
     cellular and PCS services, contrary to the express intent of 
     OBRA 93. The mobile communications consumer will be the 
     ultimate loser.
       Delay in finalizing the Commission's regulations will also 
     harm the government. The Commission is now burdened with 
     nearly 40,000 backlogged, private radio service applications, 
     many of them for SMRs. It is proposing the elimination of 
     some of its current licensing requirements and substituting 
     others which will greatly simplify the licensing process and 
     allow the Commission to eliminate much of its current 
     processing burden. The creation of a contiguous spectrum 
     block wide-area SMR license in the pending rulemaking will 
     permit the further introduction of spectrum efficient 
     technologies. In addition, as part of the pending rulemaking, 
     the Commission is proposing to auction wide-area SMR licenses 
     on a Major Trading Area basis to operate on four blocks of 
     contiguous spectrum. A wide-area, contiguous channel block 
     license would promote regulatory parity and enhanced 
     competition while bringing the U.S. Treasury much needed 
     revenues.
       While the regulatory parity provisions of OBRA 93 are 
     clearly intended to enhance fair competition by equalizing 
     regulatory obligations, in reality a new regulatory scheme 
     would be substituted for the existing one. Thus, it is not 
     entirely clear that the exclusion which exists under H.R. 450 
     for rulemakings which the Head of the Agency and the 
     Administrator of OIRA certifies is limited to ``repealing, 
     narrowing, or streamlining a rule, regulation, or 
     administrative process'' would be applicable to the 
     Commission's regulatory or parity rulemaking. Nor is it clear 
     that the exclusion applicable to an ``action relieving a 
     restriction or taking any action necessary to permit new or 
     improved applications of technology'' could be used to exempt 
     the Commission's rulemaking from the moratorium--although 
     this is the clear intent of the Commission's proposal.
       Nextel firmly believes that any further delay in the 
     Commission's rulemaking would play into the hands of those 
     entrenched market participants who fear increased 
     competition. Delay will deny consumers the benefits of 
     increased competition. Delay will also reduce revenues to the 
     Treasury and perpetuate an impossible Commission 
     administrative burden. H.R. 450 should be amended to exclude 
     from the moratorium rulemakings which are designed to enhance 
     competition.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert S. Foosaner,
                        Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

                                               [[Page H2097]]

                               National Education Association,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 1995.
       Dear Government Reform and Oversight Committee Member: On 
     behalf of the 2.2 million members of the National Education 
     Association, I urge you to vote against HR 450, the 
     Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, during Committee markup.
       HR 450 would freeze and delay implementation of a broad 
     range of important federal regulations until an unspecified 
     future date and would retroactively apply to many regulations 
     already in effect. If enacted, HR 450 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 understand 
     their responsibilities for complying with federal laws.
       Among the hundreds of regulatory actions that could be 
     negated by this bill are:
       Department of Labor final regulations to implement the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act, scheduled to take effect on 
     April 6;
       Department of Education guidance to states and school 
     districts on how to implement the new Gun-Free Schools Act;
       Regulations currently being developed by the Education 
     Department that are necessary to implement the new provisions 
     of the recently enacted Elementary and 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; and
       Expected FCC regulations to implement the Children's 
     Television Act.
       By imposing an across-the-board freeze on all federal 
     regulations, the Congress would prevent the federal 
     government from carrying out its responsibilities and leave 
     many Americans without the benefit of important guidance and 
     protections. NEA urges you to vote against this ill-conceived 
     plan for reducing the scope of safeguards Americans expect 
     from the federal government.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael D. Edwards,
     Interim Director.
                                                                    ____

                                   U.S. Department of Justice,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1995.
     Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Spratt: This responds to your letter 
     seeking the views of the Department of Justice on the 
     judicial review provision contained in H.R. 450, the 
     Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. Specifically, you ask 
     whether section 7 of the bill authorizes a remedy of judicial 
     review for an individual seeking to delay or stop a 
     regulation.
       Section 7 states that, ``No private right of action may be 
     brought against any Federal agency for violation of this 
     Act.'' However, its next sentence contravenes this apparent 
     bar to a private right of action by providing. ``This 
     prohibition shall not affect any private right of action or 
     remedy otherwise available under any other law.'' In effect, 
     standard Administrative Procedure Act review would still be 
     available to challenge an agency's determination that a rule 
     fit within an exemption and was legal under the Act. This is 
     recognized by the House Government Reform & Oversight 
     Committee report which states,
       This section makes it clear that the Act does not grant any 
     new private right of action. However, this section does not 
     affect any private right of action (for a violation of this 
     Act or any other law) if that right of action is otherwise 
     available under any other law (such as the Administrative 
     Procedure Act provisions of title 5, United States Code).
       As you know, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 450. 
     Its judicial review provision is but one of the bases for 
     this opposition. We believe section 7 will result in 
     litigation each time a new rule is promulgated during the 
     moratorium. We strongly oppose this language and think the 
     bill should include an express bar to judicial review.
       We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this 
     important issue. The Office of Management and Budget has 
     advised this Department that there is no objection to the 
     submission of this report from the standpoint of the 
     Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sheila F. Anthony,
     Assistant Attorney General.
                                                                    ____

                                  Aluminum Company of America,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 1995.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and 
         Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, Government Reform and 
         Oversight Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McIntosh: I am writing to express the 
     concerns of Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) about the 
     potential effect of your proposed moratorium on federal 
     rulemaking activities on the promulgation of EPA's rule to 
     implement the Acid Rain Opt-In Program for Combustion 
     Sources. The proposed rule was published in the Federal 
     Register on Friday, September 24, 1993; it has just cleared 
     OMB, and is in the final clearance process at EPA.
       Alcoa has strong concerns about the timing of this rule, 
     which, as you can see, already has been delayed several 
     years. Under the requirements of Title IV of the 1990 Clean 
     Air Act Amendments, the program should have been established 
     in May 1992. A public hearing and comment period followed the 
     proposal of the rule; 43 comments were filed and while some 
     addressed how certain parts of the program should be 
     implemented, none suggested the program should not exist. 
     Significant positive benefits of the program could be lost, 
     if the rule is not promulgated soon.
       As the attached paper entitled AGC Opt-In Concerns 
     describes, Alcoa's subsidiary, Alcoa Generating Corporation 
     (AGC), owns three generating units at the Warrick Power Plant 
     in Warrick County, Indiana, which supply electricity only to 
     our aluminum plant and are, therefore, classified as 
     industrial boilers. The opt-in program presents an 
     opportunity for AGC to lower the cost of making aluminum by 
     lowering the net cost of the electrical energy supplied to 
     the smelting process. Reducing the sulfur dioxide emissions 
     through fuel switching and other control means and selling 
     the resultant excess allowances to others would provide a 
     cost improvement that would allow the Warrick smelter to be 
     more competitive and would help protect the jobs of more than 
     900 Indiana employees.
       Phase I of the Acid rain Program began on January 1, 1995. 
     AGC had hoped to opt in to the program before that time so 
     that we could take advantage of the utility markets' need for 
     allowances. Use of allowances would enable utilities to meet 
     the requirements of the Clean Air Act at a lower cost to them 
     and their consumers. Any further delay in the issuance of the 
     regulations jeopardizes our ability to negotiate necessary 
     contracts and participate in the program at all.
       The delay in this rule also threatens our ability to become 
     a host site for a full scale test of a process selected under 
     the DOE Clean Coal III technology program. As a host site for 
     the NOXSO scrubbing process at one of our units, we might 
     assure continued use of our current Indiana coal source at 
     that unit, but also have the opportunity be part of the 
     development of a technology to protect other high sulfur coal 
     sources. Without opt-in, our participation in this project 
     will not be feasible.
       The opt in program seems to be an excellent way for our 
     country to continue to make environmental progress while 
     respecting considerations of cost-effectiveness and helping 
     our industries to remain competitive. Delays in its 
     initiation will threaten those benefits. I urge you to 
     consider our concerns and assure that your greatly 
     appreciated efforts to improve our regulatory environment do 
     not mistakenly prevent the implementation of a rule that will 
     benefit all stakeholders.
       Thank you for your consideration. I would welcome the 
     opportunity to discuss this matter or answer any questions 
     you may have about our interest and shall contact your staff 
     to see about arranging a meeting.
           Sincerely,
                                              Marcia B. Dalrymple,
     Manager, Government Affairs.
                                                                    ____

                          Read the Fine Print

                        (By Thomas O. McGarity)

       Austin, Tex.--After the elections, the Republicans asked 
     President Clinton for an outright ban on new Federal 
     regulations. The White House said no--that it would generate 
     needless litigation and red tape. Then the new House majority 
     whip, Tom DeLay of Texas, introduced a bill to impose a 
     retroactive moratorium on rulemaking.
       Representative DeLay's ``Regulatory Transition Act of 
     1995'' would bar executive and independent agencies from 
     issuing proposed or final rules, policy statements, inquiries 
     and possibly guidance manuals until the end of June. It would 
     also stay any actions the agencies have taken since the 
     election. Hearings on the bill have been held in the House, 
     and it is expected to move through both houses with little 
     serious debate.
       The purpose of the moratorium is to stop agencies from 
     issuing new regulations while the Republicans enact the 
     regulatory reforms promised in their Contract With America. 
     But the fine print in the bill shows that the moratorium 
     would not apply across the board to all regulations.
       The act exempts actions that would repeal, narrow or 
     streamline rules or regulatory processes or ``otherwise 
     reduce regulatory burdens.'' In short, the moratorium is a 
     sieve that would screen out rules that protect the 
     environment, consumers, workers and victims of discrimination 
     while allowing changes that cut the costs of complying with 
     regulations.
       The bill exempts action necessary to deal with ``an 
     imminent threat to health or safety.'' This is meant to be a 
     very narrow exception, and a DeLay staff member told the 
     media that it would not apply to pending Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration rules to protect workers from death 
     and injury. The aide said it would not apply to the proposed 
     OSHA ergonomics standard, which would protect assembly line 
     workers from repetitive motion injuries.
       The bill had been in the hopper just a few days when 
     special interest groups that helped finance last year's 
     campaign became troubled. The Independent Bankers Association 
     of America and the American Bankers Association realized that 
     the moratorium would prevent the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation from carrying out a planned reduction in the 
     premiums banks pay to rebuild reserves drained by bank 
     failures that stemmed from deregulation in the 1980's.
       Faced with the prospect of paying millions of dollars in 
     premiums they had not counted 
     [[Page H2098]] on, the bankers pressed Mr. DeLay's office for 
     an amendment to address their special situation and were 
     assured that he would be happy to oblige.
       Thus, the frazzled workers on the poultry assembly line who 
     must slice seven birds a minute get no relief. The workers' 
     boss's banker does.
       The new majority claims that a new age has arrived on 
     Capitol Hill, but to those outside the Beltway it sure looks 
     like politics as usual.
                                                                    ____

                              The Secretary of Transportation,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1995.
     Hon. Cardiss Collins,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Collins: As the House of Representatives takes up 
     H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, I would like 
     to state the Department of Transportation's strong opposition 
     to enactment of the bill. If H.R. 450 were presented to the 
     President, I would recommend that he veto the bill because of 
     its interference with important transportation safety 
     regulations.
       The President has made elimination of unreasonable and 
     burdensome regulations a priority and has directed a detailed 
     review of all the Department's regulations. This preserves 
     each agency's ability to carry out its statutory mandate in 
     the public interest. In contrast, H.R. 450 is designed to 
     interrupt the regulatory process while consideration is given 
     to permanent revisions. This approach would gravely impair 
     the Department's ability to carry out its most important 
     responsibilities. It would also create tremendous confusion 
     with respect to rules that have gone into effect or have 
     deadlines during the moratorium period, especially those that 
     the bill would cover retroactively.
       H.R. 450 would halt important transportation safety 
     initiatives, such as rules to make commuter airlines meet the 
     safety requirements of larger carriers, highly cost-
     beneficial rules to reduce deaths and injuries from head 
     impacts in car crashes, and action to prevent natural gas 
     pipeline explosions and hazardous material releases. The 
     moratorium indiscriminately affects all Federal rulemaking 
     activity, regardless of its merit or benefits. Retroactively 
     taking regulations out of effect, after industries have 
     invested time, money, and effort in compliance, imposes 
     needless costs and disruption on regulated parties.
       The narrow exceptions built into the proposed bill do not 
     surmount these objections. The cumbersome approval procedure 
     proposed for ``emergency'' safety rules would unacceptably 
     slow action to respond to genuine emergencies immediately 
     (e.g., FAA directives addressing equipment on an aircraft 
     that needs to be modified to prevent crashes). Further, many 
     important safety rules may not address ``imminent'' hazards. 
     Many routine agency actions, often issued by DOT field 
     offices (e.g., Coast Guard adjustments of opening times for 
     drawbridges), appear not to fall within the bill's 
     exceptions. Although some of our rulemaking may qualify for 
     exclusion, the availability of judicial review could 
     indefinitely hold up action in these areas as well.
       I want to work with Congress to improve further the way 
     that this agency and others carry out their statutory 
     responsibilities, but this legislation will interrupt and 
     delay our common goal.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to transmittal of this letter, and that 
     enactment of H.R. 450 would not be in accord with the program 
     of the President.
           Sincerely,
     Federico Pena.
                                                                    ____

                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1995.
     Hon. Cardiss Collins,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Collins: Thank you for your work on 
     behalf of food safety issues.
       On February 3, 1995, the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
     (FSIS) published the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and 
     Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems proposed rule. 
     Sanitation requirements, microbial testing, and process 
     control systems for all meat and poultry plants as proposed 
     in the rule are designed to close an existing gap in the 
     current inspection system that does not focus directly and 
     scientifically enough on preventing contamination of raw meat 
     and poultry products with microbial pathogens. The magnitude 
     of the problem underscores the importance of uninterrupted 
     efforts to eliminate pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7, 
     Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes in the food supply. 
     Nearly 5 million cases of foodborne illness and 4,000 deaths 
     may be associated annually with meat and poultry products 
     contaminated by microbial pathogens according to the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention.
       A regulatory moratorium, which applies to the Pathogen 
     Reduction/HACCP proposed rule, would deny the United States 
     Department of Agriculture's ability to meet the public's 
     valid expectations concerning the safety of the food supply. 
     All work on the FSIS Pathogen Reduction/HACCP proposal would 
     have to be suspended throughout the moratorium period. The 
     public comment period would need to be put on hold. Public 
     information briefings throughout the country to encourage 
     public participation in the rulemaking process and answer 
     technical questions would need to be canceled.
       The adverse impact on food safety is an important reason 
     why the Administration opposes the passage of H.R. 450. We 
     appreciate your efforts and the efforts of your fellow 
     Members of Congress to protect the public's health and 
     welfare.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael R. Taylor,
     Under Secretary Food Safety.
                                                                    ____

                                               U.S. Securities and


                                          Exchange Commission,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 1995.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Dingell: Thank you for your letter of 
     February 6, 1995, inquiring about the potential effect of the 
     regulatory moratorium of H.R. 450 on the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission and securities markets. I am writing to 
     respond on behalf of the Commission.
       It is difficult to identify which Commission rules would be 
     affected by this moratorium. In part, the difficulty is due 
     to the uncertain duration of the moratorium. In the most 
     recent version we have of the bill, a copy of which is 
     attached, the moratorium period would end either with passage 
     of regulatory reform legislation or on December 31, 1995. It 
     is head to predict, in February, what rules may be necessary 
     because of changes in the securities markets before December.
       It is also difficult to identify which rules would be 
     affected because of uncertainties in the legislative 
     language. The ``regulatory rulemaking actions'' that may not 
     be taken during the moratorium period are defined to include 
     not only the issuance of rules and proposed rules, but also 
     ``any other action taken in the course of the process of 
     rulemaking,'' other than cost-benefit analysis or risk 
     assessment. ``Rulemaking'' is defined as ``agency process for 
     formulating, amending or repealing a rule.'' These 
     definitions could be read to reach not only the issuance of 
     rules and proposals by agencies, but any work by agency staff 
     on rules or potential rules. If this reading is correct, a 
     moratorium could seriously impede the Commission's ability to 
     formulate and adjust its rules to the changing realities of 
     the securities markets.
       We have thus not attempted a comprehensive catalog of the 
     Commission rules and rulemakings that are or could be 
     affected by H.R. 450. There are, however, several important 
     rules that we believe would probably be affected by the 
     moratorium:
       Unlisted Trading Privileges. As you know, Congress last 
     year passed the Unlisted Trading Privileges Act (``UTP Act'') 
     to simplify the process of obtaining UTP for a security 
     listed on another exchange. The purposes of the Act including 
     reducing regulatory burdens and opening up competition among 
     the exchanges. The Act required that the Commission issue 
     rules within 180 days, i.e., by April 21, 1995. The 
     Commission presently expects to issue final rules shortly 
     before that date.
       Although H.R. 450 has an exception for rules that the head 
     of an agency and head of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs both certify are ``limited to * * * 
     reducing regulatory burdens,'' it is not clear that the UTP 
     rules would come within this exception. If not, and if H.R. 
     450 passes before the Commission adopts final UTP rules, the 
     Commission would not be able to issue these rules until the 
     moratorium ends. If the moratorium legislation passes after 
     the Commission adopts rules, the rules would not take effect 
     until the end of the moratorium period. In either case, the 
     ironic effect of H.R. 450 will be to delay adoption and 
     implementation of rules generally designed to reduce 
     regulatory burdens and to make competition among securities 
     markets more fair. Delay will also injure investors, who are 
     the ultimate beneficiaries of intermarket competition.
       Risk Disclosure. The Commission is considering issuing a 
     rule of interpretation to improve disclosure by corporate 
     issuers regarding certain financial instruments, including 
     derivatives. Similarly, the Commission is exploring methods 
     to improve disclosure of the risks in mutual fund portfolios, 
     including the risks created by derivative investments. 
     Depending upon the timing and scope of the moratorium, work 
     on both of these projects could be suspended.
       Municipal Disclosure. The Orange County bankruptcy has 
     again shown how important disclosure is to the individual 
     investors who now hold over $500 billion worth of municipal 
     securities. On November 10, 1994, the SEC revised the rules 
     that apply to brokers and dealers of municipal securities to 
     encourage more complete, more timely disclosure by municipal 
     issuers. These rules are now set to take effect on July 3, 
     1995. If H.R. 450 passes after July 3, 1995, the retroactive 
     provision of Section 3 would delay the effective date of 
     these rules until the end of the moratorium period.
       Three-Day Settlement. The delay between a securities trade 
     and settlement creates risk not only for the parties to the 
     trade but also for the entire securities settlement system. 
     In October 1993, the SEC adopted a rule to shorten the 
     settlement cycle for corporate securities from five to three 
     business days. This rule is now set to take effect on June 7, 
     1995. If H.R. 450 passes after June 7, 1995, the retroactive 
     provision of Section 3 would 
[[Page H2099]]  delay the effective date of this change until the end 
of the moratorium period. The result would probably be substantial 
costs for the securities industry and customers in changing the 
settlement period from five to three business days on June 7, then back 
to five business days under H.R. 450, and then back to three business 
days under the rule.
       Electronic filing. The SEC's electronic filing system, 
     known as EDGAR, makes documents filed with the SEC available 
     more rapidly and electronically. In December 1994, the SEC 
     adopted a schedule for the continuing transition to 
     electronic filing, which provided that companies not yet 
     filing electronically would begin on various dates starting 
     in January 1995 and ending in May 1996. H.R. 450 would 
     extend, until the end of the moratorium period, the deadline 
     for the companies required under this schedule to start 
     filing electronically prior to passage of H.R. 450.
       These are but a few examples of how H.R. 450 would affect 
     securities markets and investors. If you or your staff have 
     any questions about these issues, please do not hesitate to 
     contact us.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Arthur Levitt,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 450. 
I'll be the first to admit that certain Federal regulations make little 
sense and should be repealed. Moreover, we need to more carefully 
evaluate the effects of regulations and work with the regulated 
community to ensure that we accomplish our goals in the most efficient 
and sensible manner. This bill does not achieve these goals. In fact, 
it employs a meat cleaver when a scalpel is more appropriate.
  This legislation is another example of bad public policy that has 
been hastily put together in order to meet an arbitrary deadline set by 
the Republicans in their Contract With America. It is becoming 
painfully obvious to me that ``the Contract says we are going to do 
this'' is becoming the refrain around here regardless of the 
implications of these ill-conceived proposals which I believe were 
thrown together to because they sound good on the surface. I do not 
believe the American people think that just because the contract says 
something will be done that it should be when it becomes clear that it 
is bad policy.
  This bill isn't the Regulatory Transition Act, it's the Regulatory 
Demolition Act. It suspends all regulations issued between November 20, 
1994, and December 31, 1995. Originally the bill only covered a 6-month 
period but it has been increased to more than a year. Oh, I know the 
bill says until December 31 or when other regulatory reform measures 
are enacted, whichever comes first. I think most of my colleagues agree 
that the other body is far less enamored with these proposals than 
Republicans in the House so it is safe to assume that December 31 is 
the more likely deadline. The language in this bill will result in the 
suspension of just about every regulation issued during this period. 
The definition of emergency is so narrow that few regulations will 
qualify and onerous certification requirements just compound this 
problem. I am also very concerned that while the bill includes 
endangerment of private property in its definition of imminent threat 
to health or safety, it does not include general threats to public 
health, safety and well-being. If not implementing a regulation might 
adversely affect a developer then we'll allow it, but a regulation 
addressing a human health issue can only go into effect if it will 
prevent death or serious injury rather than safe guard general welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill will actually undermine efforts to 
improve the regulatory process. It defines regulatory action banned by 
the bill very broadly, including notice of inquiry, advanced notice of 
proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking. For those 
familiar with the process of developing regulations, these are 
information gathering measures which open the process to all interested 
parties and afford them the opportunity of to raise important issues 
and point out possible pitfalls. These devices allow agencies to say 
here is what we are thinking about doing, what is your reaction and how 
can we do things better. I wish my Republican colleagues would explain 
to me how the process can be improved if agencies are barred from 
soliciting input from entities which might be covered by a regulation. 
This definition is totally counterproductive and again demonstrates 
that the proponents of this bill have not fully thought out its 
effects.
  I am very concerned about the implications of this bill on the 
interests of the residents of my State. For example, important 
regulations issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in December 
1994 and January 1995 designed to protect certain New England 
fishstocks will be repealed. These regulations will help to stem the 
dramatic decline of haddock, cod, and flounder and rebuild these 
important species. Without these measures, it is very likely that these 
species will become extinct thereby driving fishermen in communities 
like Stonington, CT, out of business. As the bill is written, these 
regulations, which respond to an emergency, do not qualify as such. 
Furthermore, regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 
last month to improve air quality in the Northeast will be declared 
void. These regulations were requested by nine States in the region and 
are among the most flexible I've ever seen. This bill casts aside the 
will of nine States and abrogates regulations which are a model of 
flexibility. Once again, this bill throws the baby out with the bath 
water purely and simply.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an ill-conceived measure which will jeopardize 
the health, safety, and well-being of every American. It does not 
facilitate a transition as the title suggests. Instead, it creates a 
massive chasm which its proponents virtually guarantee can not be 
bridged. It does not seek a separate out those measures which have 
widespread public support or address many important issues which might 
not cause immediate death. This bill is bad public policy and should be 
defeated.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 450. This is 
absurd legislation intended to prevent the President from exercising 
his constitutional responsibility to enforce the laws of the United 
States. It is an ill-conceived bill that creates tremendous confusion 
as to what kinds of regulations are subject to the moratorium and what 
kind are not. In effect, the new majority wants to make the President a 
powerless executive. If they succeed, the public will suffer.
  The impact of this legislation on regulations intended to protect the 
health and safety of American workers clearly illustrates the extent of 
the confusion that enactment of this legislation would cause. The bill 
specifically provides that the Office of Management and Budget's 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs may 
issue a waiver for any regulation that is certified as necessary 
because of an imminent threat to health or safety. The term ``imminent 
threat to health or safety'' is further defined to mean ``the existence 
of any condition, circumstance, or practice reasonably expected to 
cause death, serious illness, or severe injury to humans * * *.''
  The Supreme Court has interpreted the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act to require a finding that a hazard poses a significant risk to 
workers before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] 
may regulate it. Therefore, based upon the text of the bill, it would 
appear that regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration are potentially exempt under the imminent threat to 
health or safety exemption.
  However, the committee report accompanying this legislation, Report 
No. 104-39 part I, goes on to state:

       The inclusion of the word ``imminent'' is not intended to 
     pose an insurmountable obstacle to the certification of 
     health or safety regulations. Rather it is intended to guard 
     against the undisciplined use of this exception as a means to 
     evade Congress' intent. For example, this committee does not 
     intend this exception to include OSHA's regulations 
     prescribing ergonomic protection standards which require 
     employers to build new work environments to prevent disorders 
     associated with repetitive motions. Such regulations would 
     not be excepted from the moratorium under section 5(a) 
     because they do not address a threat that is imminent.

  The imposition of a test of imminence of injury is absurd. 
Apparently, while the Republicans continue to adhere to the view that 
employers should not kill employees immediately, it is perfectly 
alright for employers to kill them slowly.
  OSHA has prepared a protective rule to safeguard workers from 
exposure to methylene chloride, a carcinogenic solvent used to strip 
furniture and for other purposes. Methylene chloride is a carcinogenic. 
It does not kill instantly. It nevertheless produces death. By OSHA's 
estimate, a 1-year delay results in an estimated 21 deaths and 32,000 
illnesses that otherwise would have been prevented. In my view, the 
methylene chloride rule clearly falls within the purview of the 
imminent threat to health and safety exception. Nevertheless, the 
committee report creates confusion and invites litigation over this 
issue.
  The Republican indifference to the health and safety of working 
Americans becomes explicit with regard to the ergonomic regulations 
that the committee specifically intends to be subject to the 
moratorium. It is estimated that a 1-year delay of the ergonomic 
regulations will result in serious musculoskeletal or cumulative trauma 
disorders to 300,000 additional workers. Liberty Mutual estimates that 
the average musculoskeletal disorder costs $8,000 in workers' 
compensation claims, including wage replacements and medical benefits. 
The 300,000 additional ergonomic injuries, therefore, pose a potential 
cost of $2.4 billion. Many of these injuries would be prevented by the 
timely issuance of a protective standard requiring employers to develop 
ergonomics programs for at-risk jobs. Apparently, the Republicans 
prefer to allow workers to continue to be injured.
  Mr. Chairman, based upon what has been put forward to explain this 
bill, it is impossible 
[[Page H2100]]  to tell what kind of regulations are subject to the 
moratorium. What does it mean to streamline a regulation? What kind of 
matters relate to foreign affairs functions? What is a routine 
administrative function? More seriously, what is an imminent threat to 
health or safety?
  The confusion engendered by this legislation is impractical, counter-
productive, and unnecessary. It is also dangerous. I, therefore, urge 
the defeat of H.R. 450.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Regulatory 
Transition Act--it represents another commonsense reform in the 
Republican Contract With America.
  The Federal bureaucracy is out of control issuing regulation after 
regulation. Many of these are unnecessary and have become great burdens 
on American businesses. Many of these regulations are contradictory 
and--in some cases--jeopardize the economic prosperity and personal 
safety of the public.
  For example, in my own district I witnessed the struggle between the 
Federal Aviation Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service over 
whose regulations were more important at Ontario Airport. The FAA's 
regulations require the destruction of vegetation around the airport. 
This is needed to keep birds away from being sucked into the engines of 
the jets flying people in and out of the airport. This is clearly a 
safety issue--one bird strike can crash an airliner.
  But, because there was an endangered species--an endangered insect--a 
fly--near by, Fish and Wildlife regulations prohibited the destruction 
of the vegetation near the runway.
  For 8 months everything was stalled and the risk of bird strikes 
increased. The bureaucrats were so academic and dedicated to their own 
particular regulations, they became illogical. An insect became more 
important than the life and death of people.
  It's time to say, ``stop!'' to this nonesense.
  It's time to re-evaluate and reform the way new regulations are 
issued. This bill will make sure that any new regulations are:
  First, necessary;
  Scond, logical--that means they make practical sense;
  Third, cost-effective; and
  Fourth, do not contradict other laws and regulations already in 
effect.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
450, the Regulatory Transition Act. This legislation prohibits Federal 
agencies from promulgating new rules and regulations until December 31, 
1995. In addition, the bill suspends any Federal rules issued since 
November 20 of last year.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides a needed time out from the 
onslaught of Federal regulations. Currently over 110 executive branch 
agencies issue regulations, including approximately 22 independent 
regulatory boards and commissions. Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester 
Institute of Technology places the total cost of complying with Federal 
regulations at $600 billion in 1994. Other estimates find the annual 
cost of these regulations to be closer to $1 trillion annually.
  The worst aspect of excessive Federal regulation is its impact on job 
creation. According to the Heritage Foundation, regulation destroys 
jobs in several ways:

       First, reductions in efficiency, productivity, investment, 
     and economic growth due to regulation translate into fewer 
     jobs. Second, regulations may raise the general costs of a 
     particular business, leaving it unable or unwilling to hire 
     as many workers as before. Third, regulations may raise the 
     cost of employment by imposing specific costs tied to each 
     new employees hired.

  In order to provide flexibility, the bill includes commonsense 
exceptions for the enforcement of criminal laws, military and foreign 
affairs, reduction of preexisting regulatory burdens, continuation of 
agencies' routine administrative functions, or because of an imminent 
threat to health or safety.
  Mr. Chairman, the people from my district and my State want to see 
their families unburdened from the heavy regulation that destroys real 
economic opportunity. A year off from costly Federal regulations will 
help advance this objective.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 450.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having been read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 450

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Transition Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that effective steps for improving the 
     efficiency and proper management of Government operations, 
     including enactment of a new law or laws to require (1) that 
     the Federal rulemaking process include cost/benefit analysis, 
     including analysis of costs resulting from the loss of 
     property rights, and (2) for those Federal regulations that 
     are subject to risk analysis and risk assessment that those 
     regulations undergo standardized risk analysis and risk 
     assessment using the best scientific and economic procedures, 
     will be promoted if a moratorium on new rulemaking actions is 
     imposed and an inventory of such action is conducted.

     SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS.

       (a) Moratorium.--Until the end of the moratorium period, a 
     Federal agency may not take any regulatory rulemaking action, 
     unless an exception is provided under section 5. Beginning 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     effectiveness of any regulatory rulemaking action taken or 
     made effective during the moratorium period but before the 
     date of the enactment shall be suspended until the end of the 
     moratorium period, unless an exception is provided under 
     section 5.
       (b) Inventory of Rulemakings.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     conduct an inventory and publish in the Federal Register a 
     list of all regulatory rulemaking actions covered by 
     subsection (a) taken or made effective during the moratorium 
     period but before the date of the enactment.

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND JUDICIAL 
                   DEADLINES.

       (a) In General.--Any deadline for, relating to, or 
     involving any action dependent upon, any regulatory 
     rulemaking actions authorized or required to be taken before 
     the end of the moratorium period is extended for 5 months or 
     until the end of the moratorium period, whichever is 
     later.
       (b) Deadline Defined.--The term ``deadline'' means any date 
     certain for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any 
     authority established by or under any Federal statute or 
     regulation, or by or under any court order implementing any 
     Federal statute or regulation.
       (c) Identification of Postponed Deadlines.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall identify and publish in the Federal Register 
     a list of deadlines covered by subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. EMERGENCY EXCEPTIONS; EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) Emergency Exception.--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, 
     shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action if--
       (1) the head of a Federal agency otherwise authorized to 
     take the action submits a written request to the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget and 
     submits a copy thereof to the appropriate committees of each 
     House of the Congress;
       (2) the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget 
     finds in writing that a waiver for the action is (A) 
     necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety 
     or other emergency, or (B) necessary for the enforcement of 
     criminal laws; and
       (3) the Federal agency head publishes the finding and 
     waiver in the Federal Register.
       (b) Exclusions.--The head of an agency shall publish in the 
     Federal Register any action excluded because of a 
     certification under section 6(3)(B).

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     agency as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code (relating to administrative procedure).
       (2) Moratorium period.--The term ``moratorium period'' 
     means the period of time--
       (A) beginning November 20, 1994; and
       (B) ending on the earlier of--
       (i) the first date on which there have been enacted one or 
     more laws that--
       (I) require that the Federal rulemaking process include 
     cost/benefit analysis, including analysis of costs resulting 
     from the loss of property rights; and
       (II) for those Federal regulations that are subject to risk 
     analysis and risk assessment, require that those regulations 
     undergo standardized risk analysis and risk assessment using 
     the best scientific and economic procedures; or

       (ii) December 31, 1995.
       (3) Regulatory rulemaking action.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``regulatory rulemaking action'' 
     means any rulemaking on any rule normally published in the 
     Federal Register, including--
       (i) the issuance of any substantive rule, interpretative 
     rule, statement of agency policy, notice of inquiry, advance 
     notice of proposed rulemaking, or notice of proposed 
     rulemaking, and
       (ii) any other action taken in the course of the process of 
     rulemaking (except a cost benefit analysis or risk 
     assessment, or both).
       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``regulatory rulemaking action'' 
     does not include--
       (i) any agency action that the head of the agency and the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget certify in 
     writing is limited to repealing, narrowing, or streamlining a 
     rule, regulation, or administrative process or otherwise 
     reducing regulatory burdens;
      [[Page H2101]]   (ii) any agency action that the head of the 
     agency and the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget 
     certify in writing is limited to matters relating to military 
     or foreign affairs functions, statutes implementing 
     international trade agreements, or agency management, 
     personnel, or public property, loans, grants, benefits, or 
     contracts;
       (iii) any agency action that the head of the agency and the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget certify in 
     writing is limited to a routine administrative function of 
     the agency;
       (iv) any agency action that--

       (I) is taken by an agency that supervises and regulates 
     insured depository institutions, affiliates of such 
     institutions, credit unions, or government sponsored housing 
     enterprises; and
       (II) the head of the agency certifies would meet the 
     standards for an exception or exclusion described in this 
     Act; or

       (v) any agency action that the head of the agency certifies 
     is limited to interpreting, implementing, or administering 
     the internal revenue laws of the United States.
       (4) Rule.--The term ``rule'' means the whole or a part of 
     an agency statement of general or particular applicability 
     and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or 
     prescribe law or policy. Such term does not include the 
     approval or prescription, on a case-by-case or consolidated 
     case basis, for the future of rates, wages, corporation, or 
     financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, 
     facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefor, or 
     of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on 
     any of the foregoing, nor does it include any action taken in 
     connection with the implementation of monetary policy or to 
     ensure the safety and soundness of federally insured 
     depository institutions, any affiliate of such an 
     institution, credit unions, or government sponsored housing 
     enterprises or to protect the Federal deposit insurance 
     funds. Such term also does not include the granting an 
     application for a license, registration, or similar 
     authority, granting or recognizing an exemption, granting a 
     variance or petition for relief from a regulatory 
     requirement, or other action relieving a restriction or 
     taking any action necessary to permit new or improved 
     applications of technology or allow the manufacture, 
     distribution, sale, or use of a substance or product.
       (5) Rulemaking.--The term ``rulemaking'' means agency 
     process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.
       (6) License.--The term ``license'' means the whole or part 
     of an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, 
     charter, membership, statutory exemption, or other form of 
     permission.
       (7) Imminent threat to health or safety.--The term 
     ``imminent threat to health or safety'' means the existence 
     of any condition, circumstance, or practice reasonably 
     expected to cause death, serious illness, or severe injury to 
     humans, or substantial endangerment to private property 
     during the moratorium period.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTIONS.

       No private right of action may be brought against any 
     Federal agency for a violation of this Act. This prohibition 
     shall not affect any private right of action or remedy 
     otherwise available under any other law.

     SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW; SEVERABILITY.

       (a) Applicability.--This Act shall apply notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law.
       (b) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, or the 
     application of any provision of this Act to any person or 
     circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such 
     provision to other persons or circumstances, and the 
     remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.

  The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be considered for amendment under the 5-
minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having 
been read.
  Pursuant to the order of the house of today, the following amendments 
and all amendments thereto will be debatable for the time specified, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment:
  Amendment 18, by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] or the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for 40 minutes;
  Amendments 21 and 22 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] for 30 minutes;
  Amendment 28 by the Gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] for 30 
minutes;
  Amendment 5 or 6, by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for 20 
minutes;
  Amendment 30, by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for 
30 minutes;
  Amendment 36 or 37, by the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for 
30 minutes;
  Amendment 7, by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] for 30 
minutes;
  Amendment 25 or 26, by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton] for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] for 20 
minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for 20 
minutes.
  Amendment 38 by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for 30 
minutes;
  Amendment 20 by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] for 20 
minutes;
  Amendment 35 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for 20 
minutes;
  Amendment 3 or 4 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for 
10 minutes, and amendment 34 by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer] for 10 minutes.
  Further, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole May postpone a 
request for a recorded vote on any of the 11th through 15th amendments 
until the conclusion of debate on those amendments, and may reduce to 
not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in this series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
  Further amendments will be in order following disposition of the 
aforementioned amendments, subject to the limit of 10 hours pursuant to 
House Resolution 93.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Condit

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Condit: In the proposed section 
     6(2)(B), strike the period at the end and insert a semicolon, 
     and after and immediately below clause (ii) insert the 
     following: ``except that in the case of a regulatory 
     rulemaking action with respect to determining that a species 
     is an endangered species or a threatened species under 
     section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) or designating critical habitat under 
     section 4(a)(3) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)3)), the term 
     means the period beginning on the date described in 
     subparagraph (A) and ending on the earlier of the first date 
     on which there has been enacted after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act a law authorizing appropriations to 
     carry out the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or December 31, 
     1996.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CONDIT. Did the Chair state that I am in control of 20 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman is in control 
of 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give 10 minutes 
to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the cosponsor 
of the amendment, for his use, and retain 10 minutes for my use.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 
450 that would extend the regulatory moratorium for new listing of 
endangered species or designation of critical habitat under the 
Endangered Species Act. These moratoria would continue until the law is 
reauthorized on December 31, 1996.
  Under the current law, numerous species have been listed without 
adequate scientific proof of the need of their protection. This has 
resulted in severe regulatory action which would limit the use of 
natural resources and private 
[[Page H2102]]  property while creating significant economic hardships 
on communities throughout this country.
  For example, species listing a critical habitat designation has 
caused land values to plummet which has caused serious tax revenue 
shortfalls in many local communities across the United States. In this 
regard, the endangered species stands as a prime example of an unfunded 
Federal mandate.
  We understand and we appreciate the value of protecting species that 
are truly in danger of becoming extinct. However, this decision needs 
to be based on sound scientific data with consideration to the economic 
impact that it would cause local communities throughout this country.
  This is not what is happening under current law. Until the Endangered 
Species Act is reauthorized and these issues are considered, a 
moratorium should be placed on additional endangered species 
designation.
  Several bills in Congress have been introduced with bipartisan 
support that would attempt to do what we are trying to do today, Mr. 
Chairman. That is, limiting new listing of endangered species or 
threatened species as well as limiting designated critical habitat. The 
Endangered Species Act does not consider an impact on human population, 
and I believe that this extended moratorium would provide leverage, and 
we need some leverage, necessary to ensure that the Endangered Species 
Act would be reauthorized in this Congress.
  Today that is why I stand to urge the adoption of this amendment. It 
would give us the opportunity to spend some time to force Congress to 
consider reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. It would also 
give breathing room for communities across the country, local 
governments, private property
 owners, so that they could catch up with the list of endangered 
species that have been passed up to this point.

  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Members support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand with Mr. Condit in offering this 
amendment today. Our amendment will extend the regulatory moratorium in 
the case of new listings of endangered species or designations of 
critical habitat until the Endangered Species Act [ESA] is reauthorized 
or the end of 1996. The ESA expired in 1992 and until the act is 
reauthorized the bureaucracy should be shut down.
  Under current law several species have been listed without adequate 
scientific proof of the need for their protection. This has resulted in 
severe regulatory actions which limit the use of natural resources and 
private property. These regulations have no real benefit to species 
protection. Over the last few years we have seen more and more cases of 
lives of law-abiding citizens being affected by ESA actions. These 
regulatory actions have resulted from a poorly written law.
  Do I have interests that concern me parochially? Yes, I do. I am 
concerned about the possible listing of a 2-inch minnow. This could 
lead to unneeded regulation of drinking water for 11 cities in Texas 
and pumping of water by farmers for irrigation. Excess pumpage of 
ground water could result in fines of up to $100,000 for individuals 
and $200,000 for corporations per incident, plus 1 year of jail time. 
Our people and our economy depends on the use of these resources for 
their survival. Yet they could be subject to these enormous fines for 
normal water usage. Even though the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service 
says the minnow is endangered the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
concludes that the Arkansas River Shiner is neither threatened nor 
endangered.
  When the act is reauthorized it should be rewritten to bring more 
legitimate science into the process and include strong provisions to 
protect property rights. Until that is accomplished the bureaucracy 
should not be allowed to continue wasting Federal resources. Citizens 
Against Government Waste says our amendment ``addresses one of the many 
examples of waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.''
  There is no need to protect species which are not endangered while 
restricting the use of precious natural resources and private property.
  Support the bipartisan amendment to bring rational science back into 
the endangered species process.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, in the event that the time is opposition 
is not claimed, may I as the chairman of the committee claim that time?
  The CHAIRMAN. In the absence of a true opponent the gentleman, as 
chairman of the committee, may claim the time with unanimous consent.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time in 
opposition might be claimed by myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, it is my understanding someone may be coming in opposition to 
the amendment, so I would ask that the gentleman not do that at this 
time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], one of the supporters of the amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Condit 
amendment to House Resolution 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 
1995.
  It is important that we know what this amendment does and does not 
do.
  It does not gut the Endangered Species Act. The ESA and its 
substantive provisions are left intact, untouched by the amendment.
  The amendment does put the brakes on what is clearly a runaway train. 
Simply put, the Department of Interior is overwhelmed by the sheer 
number of listing decisions it faces.
  There is plenty of blame to be shared for the current predicament we 
find ourselves in as we struggle with reforming the ESA.
  A recent Wall Street Journal article reports that a last-minute 
consent decree signed by Bush administration officials on their way out 
the door left over 400 species petitions waiting at the Department of 
the Interior before the current administration was even sworn in.
  To be specific on December 15, 1992, the Bush administration signed a 
settlement agreement stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
would act on 382 species petitions by September 30, 1996.
  That settlement agreement is a legally binding requirement for the 
Service to act on nearly 400 species listing petitions in less than 4 
years. And the agreement does not prevent new petitions from being 
added to that list of nearly 400.
  Be that as it may, there is clearly a crisis in the implementation of 
the ESA.
  The Condit amendment calls for a much needed time out in the species 
wars--a battle that threatens to divide people of goodwill on all 
sides.
  The moratorium is temporary; it gives Congress the ability to control 
its own destiny.
  This moratorium goes away so long as this Congress deals with 
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
  Otherwise, the moratorium expires naturally on December 31, 1996, 
after the adjournment of the 104th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act is broken. But it needs to be 
fixed, not gutted.
  This amendment will give us time to carefully consider how to fix the 
act. It also puts more pressure on both the legislative and executive 
branches to fix the act.
  I have my own ideas about how we can fix the ESA. Basically, I 
believe we need to open up the act to allow for more public review and 
input.
  We need comprehensive, multi-species habitat plans that take into 
consideration the human impacts of listings.
  And we need a clear statement of the economic impacts of a listing 
decision. I am not advocating that ESA decisions be driven solely by 
the impacts on the treasury, but I am saying that 
[[Page H2103]]  we need to know the exact burdens associated with the 
benefits we seek.
  The ESA as written now is like a black box. A petition is dropped 
into the box and a listing comes out of the side. Unfortunately, the 
process that takes us from that petition to the listing is either 
unknown or incomprehensible to the average American citizen.
  We need to open the act to the sunshine--to the light of public 
review.
  We also need to restore the people's faith in the accuracy and 
quality of the science used in listing decisions.
  I have a six-point plan for reauthorization of the ESA. These 
concepts in my plan have received favorable review by a wide range of 
interests, including local farm bureaus, the Governor of California, 
and others interested in reforming rather than gutting the ESA.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit my proposal for reauthorization of the ESA and 
the Wall Street Journal article I cited earlier to be included in the 
Record.
  In closing, I reiterate my support for this commonsense approach to 
call a time out to let the agencies charged with implementing the ESA 
to catch their breath.
  We have to make some tough choices. We can no longer treat these 
species questions as if we have an unlimited pot of money for ESA 
purposes. The ongoing, hostile budget debate highlights the fact that 
we have limited resources in every aspect. We have to live within our 
means.
  I support the Condit amendment as the first logical step toward a 
commonsense reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
  Finding a Balance for California: Reauthorization of the Endangered 
                              Species Act

                       (By Congressman Vic Fazio)

       The stakes for California in the reauthorization of the 
     Endangered Species Act could not be higher. California has 
     more listed species and candidate species than any other 
     state. Each country has at least one species listed.
       Reasonable implementation of the Endangered Species Act 
     (ESA) calls for balancing of environmental quality with the 
     economic livelihood and cultural identity of many California 
     communities. Over the last few years, I have spoken 
     repeatedly about the need for significant improvements in the 
     ESA. As Congress prepares to debate the reauthorization, I 
     have suggested six specific changes to the Act that I believe 
     are vital to California's interests.
       First, the implementation of the Act must provide an 
     opportunity for greater public input. Currently, the public 
     has no role in the petition process to list a candidate 
     species endangered until after the agency has decided to list 
     a candidate species as threatened or endangered.
       Second, we need to speed up the process of developing and 
     implementing species recovery plans. Right now, recovery 
     plans have been prepared for barely forty percent of all 
     listed domestic species. I believe the preferred time for the 
     development of recovery plans should be in no less than one 
     year after the listing occurs. Delays only serve to disrupt 
     local economies and put the listed species in continued, and 
     sometimes increased, jeopardy.
       Third, the Act should include a thorough peer review of the 
     data and analysis considered in decisions to list. Currently, 
     the Act requires agencies to use ``the best scientific and 
     commercial data available'' in making listing decisions. 
     Unfortunately, ``the best scientific and commercial data 
     available'' is not defined in the Act or the accompanying 
     regulations. Unbiased peer review is the best way to ensure 
     that the information used will support a listing decision 
     without any subjective interpretation and ensure that it is 
     both clear and convincing.
       Fourth, Section 10 of the Act should be expanded to 
     encourage the development of habitat conservation plans which 
     address more than one listed or candidate species. The Act 
     currently does not permit the development of habitat 
     conservation plans for candidate species nor does the Act 
     clearly encourage multiple species plans. Careful habitat 
     planning can prevent the need to list a candidate species and 
     speed the recovery of species already listed.
       Fifth, the Act should be amended to provide equal access to 
     the courts for those who challenge the listing of a species. 
     Currently, the Act provides for judicial review for only 
     those individuals or parties that oppose an agency's decision 
     denying a petition to list a species. No similar access to 
     the courts is provided to those who challenge the listing.
       Sixth, and finally, the Act should be amended to require 
     the development of an economic impact report concurrently 
     with the listing of a species. The public has a right to know 
     the best estimate of the total cost of implementing the Act 
     for a given species. The report should detail the various 
     direct and indirect economic factors that will be implicated 
     by a listing and provide a reasonable estimate of the larger 
     economic picture in light of the listing.
       Balance is the key to reauthorizing the Endangered Species 
     Act. The stakes in California are high, but we can protect 
     our environment without destroying our economic prosperity by 
     providing for greater public input into the decisions that 
     affect us all.
                                                                    ____

           [From the Wall Street Journal, February 17, 1995]

     Caught in a Trap--Democrats Get Snared By GOP Pact on List of 
     Endangered Species--A Bush-Era `Critter Quota' Boosts Animal 
   Protection--And Antiregulatory Ire--Mosquitoes versus a Rare Frog

                           (By Timothy Noah)

       Tiburon, CA.--It is Charlie Dill's job to kill disease-
     bearing mosquitoes, but he has had another pest on his mind 
     lately: the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service.
       Mr. Dill, manager of the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito Abatement 
     District, a local-government agency, keeps mosquito 
     populations in check by dropping small fish that love to eat 
     the insects into ponds and streams. Trouble is, some 
     researchers say these ravenous mosquito fish also love to eat 
     the eggs of California red-legged frogs, which, though rare, 
     can be found in the San Francisco Bay area. And the service 
     has proposed placing the frog on the endangered-species list.
       Though people like Mr. Dill worry that this may make 
     mosquito hunting more difficult, Interior Department 
     officials say they had little choice. They cite a little-
     known legal settlement that President Bush's Interior 
     Department and environmental groups reached after the 1992 
     election. The agreement committed the Clinton administration 
     to propose listing nearly 400 endangered species over four 
     years--in effect imposing a critter quota.


                           `a wink and a nod'

       Thanks to the quota, the number of plants and animals 
     annually added to the list of endangered species, which 
     averaged 50 a year during the Reagan and Bush 
     administrations, now averages nearly 100 a year. This 
     heightened regulatory activity, in turn, has added to a 
     political backlash against environmental rules in general and 
     the Endangered Species Act in particular.
       ``What our predecessors did was fight the lawsuit and then 
     after the election was over, with a wink and a nod, say to 
     the plaintiffs, `We'll agree to whatever those numbers 
     are,''' complains Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. ``It puts 
     us in a reactive mode, always working from a very tight 
     corner that we've been painted into.''
       Former Bush administration officials deny that there was 
     any deliberate effort to make life miserable for their 
     Democratic successors. But ``a lot of stuff got flushed 
     through'' between Election Day and Inauguration Day, concedes 
     former Interior Department Solicitor Tom Sansonetti.
                              snail's pace

       The rising tide of antiregulatory sentiment in the new 
     Republican-controlled Congress is viewed as a rebellion 
     against the liberal policies of a Democratic administration. 
     And, it is true, Democrats generally do tend to view 
     government regulation more favorably than their Republican 
     adversaries. But since the wheels of government don't turn 
     quickly, some of the rules most abhorrent to conservatives--
     or the circumstances that created them--are the product not 
     of two years of Democratic-run regulatory agencies but of the 
     previous 12 years of Republican rule. The critter quota is 
     one such example.
       During the Reagan administration, a conservationist in 
     Boulder, Colo., Jasper Carlton, grew frustrated with the Fish 
     and Wildlife Service's seeming reluctance to add animals and 
     plants to the federal endangered list. Mr. Carlton was 
     uniquely well-equipped to notice this because he was among 
     the most active endangered-species litigants in the U.S.; to 
     date, he has been a plaintiff in 90 cases involving 
     endangered species. In Mr. Carlton's words, he was ``getting 
     fed up with the fact that it was so hard to get a listing of 
     any species.''


                           bottleneck in west

       Endangered-species listings, which had numbered 57 in 
     fiscal 1980, the last full year Democrat Jimmy Carter was 
     president, dropped to five in fiscal 1981. By the mid-1980s, 
     annual listings had crept back up to around 50, but data 
     collected by Mr. Carlton suggested that even this pace wasn't 
     keeping up with extinctions that the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service's own officials saw looming. The backlog was 
     particularly hefty in the West, home of the California red-
     legged frog. (The West leads the nation in threatened 
     extinctions because of its diverse topography and because of 
     the relative newness of its commercial and residential 
     development.)
       Mr. Carlton figured that the backlog violated the fairly 
     exacting requirements of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, 
     which stipulates that if scientific evidence shows a species 
     is endangered, it must be placed on the endangered list, 
     regardless of political or economic consequences. So he 
     joined the Fund for Animals and several other environmental 
     groups in suing the Interior Department to compel the 
     listings.
       The department wasn't confident it could defeat the 
     environmental groups in court. And after President Bush lost 
     the 1992 election, recalls Eric Glitzenstein, an attorney for 
     the Fund for Animals, ``a lot of potential objections'' to 
     settling ``were cleared away. . . . Maybe the Republican 
     administration 
     [[Page H2104]]  thought, `Hey, let's see how the Democrats do 
     with all these listings.'''
       ``I'm sure there were forces in the department . . . who 
     were very cognizant of the fact that the Bush administration 
     was no longer going to have to deal with that,'' says Steven 
     Goldstein, who at the time served as spokesman for Interior 
     Secretary Manuel Lujan.
                           choosing to settle

       The government lawyers chose to settle. In an agreement 
     dated Dec. 15, 1992, the Bush administration pledged that the 
     Fish and Wildllife Service would, by Sept. 30, 1996, propose 
     listing all species ``for which substantial information 
     exists to warrant listing them as either endangered or 
     threatened.'' The service had a list of these species--382 to 
     be exact. Substitutions could be made, with proper reasoning, 
     and certain species could be dropped from the backlog list, 
     but only with voluminous scientific justification that in 
     most cases would be hard to come by. (The settlement 
     addresses only ``proposed'' endangered-species listings, but 
     since more than 0% of all such proposals become, after a 
     period of public comment, legally enforceable ``final'' 
     listings, that distinction is largely moot.)
       Today, at least one Bush administration official contends 
     that signing the agreement was a mistake because it compelled 
     the Interior Department to make too many listings. ``They 
     wouldn't have signed if I had anything to do with it,'' says 
     Cy Jameson, former director of the Bureau of Land Management.
       Other former Bush officials disagree. John Turner, former 
     director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, maintains the 
     agreement had ``little impact'' because he was already 
     accelerating the agency's actions on endangered species. He 
     says it is ``absolutely not'' true that the November election 
     goosed the decision to settle; the mandate to list about 100 
     species a year ``fit within the targets that we'd outlined 
     for ourselves.''
       On this last point, the numbers bear Mr. Turner out, In 
     1991, Fish and Wildlife listed 54 endangered species; in 
     1982, it listed 93, Virtually all of the 1982 listings were 
     proposed before the Fund for Animals filed its lawsuit and 
     became final before the settlement was struck in December 
     1992. The listings increased, Mr. Turner says because ``I 
     just believed strongly in protecting diverse life forms.''


                           frenzy of activity

       Nevertheless, the net result of the critter quota has been 
     that the Clinton administration is compelled to maintain a 
     frenzy of species listing. By legal fiat, listings have 
     maintained a brisk pace (95 in 1988), 103 in 1994), and will 
     continue to do so through the 1996 election year. There 
     currently are 919 plants and animals on the list.
       Today, Mr. Babbitt says ``I would not have signed'' the 
     settlement, though he adds that, given the listings 
     bottleneck in the 1980s, the quota was probably inevitable. 
     ``When administrative agencies fail to do their job,'' he 
     says, ``they are inviting this kind of judicial takeover.''
       Which brings matters back to item No. 135 on the court-
     ordered list of 382 species: the California red-legged frog.
       Naturalists are puzzling over the causes for a declining 
     frog population world-wide, but in the case of the California 
     red-legged frog the answer is pretty straightforward. The 
     long-legged amphibian was plundered by grenouille hunters for 
     French restaurants that sprang up in San Francisco in the 
     wake of the California Gold Rush, then fell victim to 
     competition with the heartier bullfrog, introduced by 
     settlers from the East in the 1890s. After widespread 
     agricultural and urban development in the 20th century, the 
     red-legged frog's range shrank to a few coastal areas, which 
     are believed to represent only about a quarter of its former 
     habitat.
       By 1992, Mark Jennings, a zoologist affiliated with the 
     California Academy of Sciences, was petitioning Fish and 
     Wildlife to declare the California red-legged frog 
     endangered. The department proposed listing the frog in 
     February 1994--and promptly set off a squall among 
     California's mosquito hunters.
       The trouble began with the circulation of a study written 
     by Randy Schmieder, a recent graduate of the University of 
     California at Santa Cruz. As an undergraduate, Mr. Schmieder 
     had compiled evidence suggesting that the non-native mosquito 
     fish used by public-health officials to gobble up mosquito 
     larvae were also gobbling up the eggs of red-legged frogs.
       Mr. Schmieder's findings, and the fact that he then lacked 
     a graduate degree, have made him the subject of criticism 
     among mosquito-fish partisans. But in its proposed listing, 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service noted Mr. Schmieder's findings, 
     and the agency says it may have to limit use of mosquito fish 
     to protect the frogs. (Mr. Babbitt says the California red-
     legged frog is ``a case that cries out for more biology and 
     careful research.'')


                            risk of disease

       Mr. Dill says any restrictions on use of mosquito fish is 
     cause for concern. California officials have been using the 
     South American fish to control mosquito populations since a 
     malaria epidemic during the 1920s. In 1993, the last year for 
     which data are available, Mr. Dill's small Petahamn-based 
     agency put 1,200 fish in 222 different water sources: ponds, 
     streams, bird feeders, artificial lagoons and wherever else 
     mosquitoes are liable to swarm.
       Without proper mosquito control, says Mr. Dill, 
     Californians risk contracting a variety of diseases, such as 
     encephalitis, which had been detected in the animal 
     population as recently as 1993. Should use of the mosquito 
     fish be restricted in the future, he adds, he wouldn't stop 
     killing mosquitoes. Rather, ``there would be a direct 
     increase in the amount of chemicals we use'' to control 
     mosquito infestation. The chemicals Mr. Dill refers to are 
     ``biological'' pesticides, generally viewed as less harmful 
     than their synthetic counterparts. But they are more harmful 
     than mosquito fish, Mr. Dill says--and more expensive, too.
       ``If only they would take their time,'' Mr. Dill says of 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service's final declaration that the 
     red-legged frog is endangered, which is expected soon. ``We 
     need the freedom to put the fish wherever we think it would 
     do us some good.''
                                                                    ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 1995.

           Summary of Endangered Species Act Petition Actions

       The data below reflect findings on listing petitions 
     received by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990, 1991, 
     1992, 1993, and 1994. The data pertain only to petitions to 
     list taxa and do not include petitions to delist, reclassify, 
     revise critical habitat, list humans, etc. More than half of 
     the petitions were rejected either at the 90-day or 12-month 
     stage. Section A is taken from petitions received during 1990 
     through 1993 (4 years) because only a few petitions received 
     in 1994 have had 12-month findings come due.
       A. 12-Month Findings on Species Petitioned for Listing in 
     1990, 1991, 1992 & 1993:
       Not Warranted--26 native species (no foreign species).
       Warranted/Warranted but Precluded--42 native + 53 foreign 
     birds = 95.
       12-Month findings overdue--23 native species (no foreign 
     species).
       90-Day Findings on Species Petitioned for Listing in 1990, 
     1991, 1992 & 1993:
       Substantial--89 native species + 53 foreign birds = 142.
       Not Substantial--115 native species (no foreign species).
       90-day findings overdue--2 native species (no foreign 
     species).
       Subset of petitions to list native species during this 
     period:
       206--native species petitioned for listing.
       115--turned down at 90 days.
       91--remaining.
       26--turned down at 12 months.
       42--warranted/warranted but precluded.
       23--findings overdue.
       0--(68 percent turned down).
       B. Petitions Received in 1994:
       26 native species.
       8 foreign species (7 butterflies, koala).
       34 species.
       As of 2/15/95:
       90-day finding substantial--8 native + 8 foreign.
       90-day finding not substantial--0.
       12-month finding not warranted--1 (lynx).
       12-month finding warranted/warranted but precluded--0.
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, if no one is here to claim the time of the 
opposition, is it proper under the House to ask for disposition of that 
time at this time, so that all of the time by proponents is not used up 
prior to someone claiming the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire if any Member in the Chamber 
rises in opposition to this amendment?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I will have a parliamentary 
inquiry after the Chair has answered the gentleman's parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the Chair has not answered 
the gentleman's question yet.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was attempting to determine if there was any 
Member in the Chamber seeking recognition in opposition.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. That was not his question, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time can be disposed of by unanimous consent.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, can the time be retained so 
that a Member who is probably on the way can have the opportunity to 
speak in opposition to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. If a Member were to object, the time could only be 
claimed by a Member in opposition.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COMBEST. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: In order 
to be able to have equal debate on the 
[[Page H2105]]  issue, could the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] both reserve their time, and 
let us wait until someone appears or a decision is made about the 
remaining 20 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask if any Member in the Chamber is 
opposed to the amendment and wishes to be recognized?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. The Chair has not answered the question, 
Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is exercising his prerogative to determine if 
there is opposition.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am exercising mine as a 
Member of this body to have an answer so I can know how I want to 
approach this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend. Does a Member in the 
Chamber rise to claim time in opposition?
  If there is no Member in the Chamber to claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment, does any Member object to the chairman of the 
committee claiming the time?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CLINGER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, in the event no one is in the Chamber to 
claim time in opposition to the amendment and this is the appropriate 
time to make that claim, does the time lapse?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time does not lapse until the Chair puts the 
question on the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. In other words, the Chair is telling me, Mr. Chairman, 
if someone comes at the end of this debate when all of the proponents 
of the amendment have completed their time, and somebody in opposition 
appears and spends 20 minutes attacking the amendment, the proponents 
would not have an opportunity to answer those points?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the order of the House.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewomen will please state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
the majority always has or the offerer of the amendment always has the 
opportunity to close. If in fact, as I understand, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest] is coauthor of that amendment, in that case would 
he not have the opportunity to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the Member claiming time in opposition were 
representing the committee position,
 then that Member would be entitled to close.

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I said, if the one who is the 
author, the offerer as a coauthor of the amendment would have the time 
to close if in fact he were a Member of the majority who has offered 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The answer to the gentlewoman's question is ``no.''
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. It is?
  The CHAIRMAN. It would depend on who controls the time in opposition.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] 
certainly controls that amount of time. If he has that amount of time I 
am sure a gentleman on this side of the aisle would yield him that time 
to close if he so chose or even if he asked.
  Mr. CONDIT. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CONDIT. What happens if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] 
and myself finish our time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Then the Chair would put the question on the amendment.
  Mr. CONDIT. What if I yield back the balance of our time at this 
moment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may do that.
  Mr. CONDIT. And we would call for a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do the gentlemen yield back their time?
  The gentleman from California is recognized.
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding if the gentleman 
from California and gentleman from Texas yield back their time, the 
question would be put?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. COMBEST. Under the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, if I 
could I want to be certain there is not a misunderstanding that we are 
trying to close this out. I was wishing, if some Member were here to 
enter into debate, that we might be able to do that.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield, the Member we 
thought was on the way over here apparently has not come over here and, 
therefore, I would suggest that he might not be on his way any longer. 
He had plenty of time to get here by now.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments 
and realize she may be in a somewhat peculiar situation and I want to 
make sure there is not a misunderstanding that we are trying to close 
out debate here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Condit amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague, Mr. Condit, in 
offering a bipartisan amendment to extend the Regulatory Transition Act 
to cover new regulations under the Endangered Species Act.
  The Endangered Species Act has destroyed the rights of hardworking, 
tax-paying American families for the sake of blind cave spiders, fairy 
shrimp, and golden-cheeked warblers. The following horror stories are 
not exceptions; they are the rule:
  Landowners in 33 Texas counties are endangered because their land may 
be designated as ``critical habitat'' for the golden-cheeked warbler. 
This designation could render vast amounts of property useless and 
valueless.
  In Montana, a rancher was fined $3,000 for violating the Endangered 
Species Act. His crime? He shot and killed a grizzly bear that charged 
him on his own property.
  In Round Rock, TX, a school might not be expanded because Federal 
agents discovered a blind cave spider nearby. Government officials 
forced this delay after the school district had spent almost $100,000 
of taxpayer money on environmental studies.
  Just imagine if the Endangered Species Act had been around throughout 
history. In the Bible, Noah could have been condemned as an animal-
hater, fined, and kept from launching his arc. American history could 
have been changed forever: George Washington could have been imprisoned 
for cutting down the cherry tree. Lewis and Clark could have been fined 
for trampling native grasses.
  Until Congress reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act to balance 
common sense with environmental concerns, we must protect American 
landowners by putting regulators on a leash. This amendment would 
extend the regulatory moratorium on listing of endangered or threatened 
species or designation of critical habitat until Congress reauthorizes 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Join this bipartisan coalition and support the Condit amendment.
                              {time}  1400

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, today, I join a bipartisan group including Messrs. 
Condit, Combest, Smith, Edwards, and Hayes, in offering an amendment 
which will help put a stop to the 
[[Page H2106]]  current abuses of the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. I 
am very proud to be a part of this effort.
  In its current form the Endangered Species Act--though well 
intentioned--works contrary to, and often against, one particular 
species--the human being.
  Many hard-working ranchers, farmers, and homeowners in Texas have a 
greater fear of the golden cheeked warbler than they do of Federal tax 
hikes and tornadoes. In my own hometown of San Antonio, TX, the entire 
source of water has been held hostage by Federal agencies and courts 
over a small fish called the fountain darter. This amendment is an 
important first step to allay some of those fears and bring common 
sense to the ESA process. We in Congress must act and insure that human 
beings no longer play second fiddle to spiders and snakes.
  Specifically, this amendment will suspend the further listing of 
endangered or threatened species and the designation of new critical 
habitat until the Endangered Species Act is reauthorized by Congress. 
The ESA's authorization expired in 1992. This measure is a realistic 
vehicle toward reforming the ESA. Passage will compel Congress to 
consider human factors and bring balance to the ESA when it considers 
the reauthorization. ESA must be reconstructed with amendments which 
not only protect the environment, but respect property rights.
  Protecting property rights does not mean that threatened species 
cannot be protected. It simply means that human costs should be 
considered when the ESA is imposed. It also means that Government 
agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, should be creative in 
finding ways to balance these goals, rather than slamming the heavy 
fist of the Federal bureaucracy down on landowners. The Federal 
Government should work in concert with the true stewards of the land, 
instead of threatening them with fines without warning.
  Please join us in this important bipartisan effort. It is long since 
past time that we bring sanity and common sense to the ESA process. 
This will stop current abuses and make possible real reform of the ESA.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. I also strongly support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment coauthored by 
my good friends, Mr. Condit and Mr. Combest. I believe that of all the 
amendments offered to improve this legislation this is one of the most 
important.
  The 104th Congress must put a moratorium on any future endangered 
species listings until the Endangered Species Act is reauthorized. As 
currently written, the Endangered Species Act should be considered a 
pariah in society and be cast out with many other over-zealous big-
government institutions that plague individual freedom, industry and 
potential economic development. It is fundamentally flawed and must be 
redrafted.
  Last month, I came to the floor and spoke in morning hour about a 
little bait fish lurking in the Arkansas River Basin that might have 
the power to stop those in the agriculture industry from irrigating 
their land, or protecting their crops. I wondered if the little bait 
fish might inhibit rural towns from utilizing their primary water 
sources or impact a major metropolitan area's $250 million downtown 
restoration project which is crucial to its economic future. I spoke of 
my dissatisfaction with the Fish and Wildlife Service who failed to 
respond to my queries on the proposed listing of the Arkansas River 
Shiner in a timely fashion. And I called on my colleagues to cosponsor 
legislation putting a moratorium on any new listings until the ESA is 
reauthorized.
  This bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Condit and Mr. Combest will 
buy the American people time and protection from the ever growing ESA 
web that is sweeping our country. I am confident this Congress will 
shortly take up this task. I look forward to infusing a little common 
sense into the act. Private property rights, economic impact, cost-
benefit analysis, and human compassion must be an integral part of a 
new Endangered Species Act.
  In addition to the sponsors of the amendment, I would like to laud 
Mr. Smith, Mr. Bonilla, and Mr. Pombo for their efforts on the issue. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important addition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Condit 
bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450. As a cosponsor of H.R. 490, the bill 
introduced by my colleague, Mr. Smith, the gentleman from Texas. I am 
quite aware of the hardships that have been caused by sending the 
original Endangered Species Act into regulatory overdrive. In my 
district, there have been coal operations endangered because of the 
potential listing of a water snake that happens to abide in mines. 
There have been farmers with easements placed on their farms to 
preserve potentially critical habitat for bats. The horror stories 
elsewhere about ranchers being fined for protecting their sheep from 
bears and farmers jailed for killing rats are numerous.
  But beyond the horror stories, there is a fundamental issue at stake. 
The rights of American citizens to own and enjoy their property. No one 
is advocating the wanton extermination of legitimate species here. But 
it's time that we make a decision about what takes a higher priority--
the property rights of taxpaying American citizens or the comfort of 
creeping things and the special interests that represent them. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge passage of the Condit-bipartisan amendment and final 
passage of H.R. 450.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona, [Mr. Hayworth].
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this 
amendment.
  This amendment provides Americans temporary relief from the onerous 
and intrusive provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA].
  When residents of Greenlee County, AZ attempted to repair a dirt road 
after flooding wiped it out last November, heavy handed bureaucrats 
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened a daily fine of 
$20,000 if the work wasn't halted.
  The dirt road in question is near the Blue River designated as 
habitat for the loach minnow which the Fish and Wildlife Service has 
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
  Elsewhere on the Blue River, in Pinal County, AZ, the county is 
seeking to replace a bridge which washed out during a flood in 1993. 
The county has two alternatives: Spend $4 million to replace the washed 
out bridge in the same high risk location, or build a bridge upstream 
out of harms way for half the cost.
  Common sense would dictate building the cheaper, safer bridge. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I've learned that nothing makes sense 
about the ESA and the only thing common is for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to trample on the rights of people.
  The ESA has allowed bureaucrats to make decisions having serious 
negative economic consequences throughout regions of the United States. 
These decisions are made without benefit of comprehensive economic 
analysis or without public accountability.
  Let me mention an example of just one area of the ESA in desperate 
need of reform. The Fish and Wildlife Service views State borders as a 
division of species habitat. For example, if you have a population of 
birds that crosses a State border, it could be considered as two 
different species. One could be listed, while a plentiful amount lived 
on the other side of the stateline. Again, common sense is lacking from 
the process.
  Of the 853 species placed on the endangered or threatened lists in 
the law's 22 year history, only 24 have come off. Of this 24, over half 
should not have been listed in the first place. In some cases the 
courts have forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove species from 
the list. With regards to recovery programs it is estimated that each 
species cost an average of $3 million to recover. I should also note, 
Mr. Chairman, that another 3,600 are being considered for listing. 
Unless we reform the ESA, beginning with this temporary moratorium, 
expect to see the problems faced by those in Greenlee and Pinal County 
coming soon to a city, county, or backyard near you.
  As a member of the Endangered Species Task Force, I believe that we 
must address these concerns immediately. In the interim, however, the 
Condit amendment halts further listings until Congress can properly 
reauthorize the ESA.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
  (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  [[Page H2107]] Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman, and I stand in 
strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].
  (Mr. STOCKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand in support of this bill 
and this amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Condit-
bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450 and in doing so recognize the 
importance of reforming the Endangered Species Act. This amendment is 
virtually the same as a bill introduced last year by Congressman Henry 
Bonilla and me. The act, expiring in 1992, should have been 
reauthorized by Congress more than 2 years ago. Since that time, 
endangered and threatened species continue to be listed and critical 
habitats continue to be designated--without the act being reviewed by 
Congress.
  This amendment is simple. It would suspend the authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior to designate funds for the further listing of 
any endangered or threatened species or for the designation of critical 
habitat until the Endangered Species Act is reauthorized.
  If we do not adopt the Condit-bipartisan amendment, the Endangered 
Species Act could continue in full force without congressional review.
  Presently, 775 animals, plants, and insects are listed as endangered 
or threatened under the Endangered Species Act--almost a 400-percent 
increase from the original endangered species list. Another 3,900 
species are candidates for listing.
  I see the result of this in my own backyard where the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Department proposed to designate portions of 33 counties for 
the protection of the golden-cheeked warbler. This proposal would have 
encompassed some 20 million acres.
  The current enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is a direct 
attack on private property rights. It seems that there are more 
protections for bugs and birds than for people and their constitutional 
private property rights.
  We cannot continue an act that is not working. Help stop Endangered 
Species Act abuse; return common sense to environmental law. Vote yes 
on the Condit-bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Condit-
bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act.
  The Condit-bipartisan amendment would extend the regulatory 
moratorium for new listings of endangered species or designation of 
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. Therefore, 
there could not be any new listings until Congress reauthorizes the ESA 
or until December 31, 1996.
  The lack of common sense exercised under the ESA in designating 
critical habitat was clearly illustrated in the State of Texas last 
year when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 33 counties in 
Texas as critical habitat for the golden cheeked warbler.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service regulations in designating this 
critical habitat fly in the face of common sense. Property owners in 
the habitat area have been prohibited from making even the most limited 
alterations on their land, such as building fences or trimming 
hedgerows.
  The critical habitat designation is intended to prevent activities 
that harass the warblers. However, the activities that are considered 
harassment include ``chasing away a warbler that took up residence on 
the front porch of a farmhouse,'' according to a Fish and Wildlife 
official interviewed in the Wall Street Journal. This same official 
considered the Agency's enforcement of its policies ``reasonable and 
prudent.''
  Reasonable and prudent enforcement of the warbler's critical habitat 
should not mean that private property owners are stripped of their 
rights to manage their own holdings. Reasonable and prudent enforcement 
should mean that concern for the environment and endangered species is 
tempered with common sense to protect the rights of landowners.
  The only reasonable and prudent course is for Congress to unite to 
see that common sense drives changes in the current regulations. We can 
do that today by supporting the Condit-bipartisan amendment to H.R. 
450.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor 
of the Condit amendment to H.R. 450--the Regulatory Transition Act.
  Let me tell you a little story about an animal called the copper-
belly water snake.
  It's a nonpoisonous snake that ranges from Michigan to Kentucky--
mostly in the wetlands.
  Now by all accounts it's a very nice snake. And those of us from farm 
States know that snakes provide a useful service removing rodents and 
other nuisances.
  But if the copper-belly water snake is added to the threatened 
species list, thousands of farmers throughout Kentucky could be out of 
work.
  We've heard too many such stories:
  The farmer who accidentally ran over an endangered mouse.
  Or the man who killed a rat in his basement, only to find out that it 
was a protected species.
  What sort of fine might a Kentucky farmer be forced to pay if he 
accidentally ran over a copper-belly water snake?
  Would the regulatory forces that serve as judge, jury, and 
executioner impound his tractor?
  Our farmers are generally the best stewards of our land. They have to 
be--their crops depend on fertile soil and clean air and water.
  The men and women who literally make their living off the land are 
already suffering due to overzealous regulators.
  The coal industry could also be affected by the copper-belly water 
snake.
  Nearly 500 people in the western Kentucky county of Daviess still 
depend on coal-mining to put bread on the table.
  Are we to shut down the few remaining mines if a copper-belly water 
snake decides to go undergound?
  Let me again say, Mr. Chairman, that I have no quarrel with the 
copper-belly water snake.
  I've certainly never been bitten by one.
  But I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to H.R. 450--so 
that our farmers, miners, and indeed all of us aren't bitten by the 
latest version of the snail darter or spotted owl.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  The amendment was agreed to.
             amendments offered by mrs. collins of illinois

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have amendments at the desk 
that were proposed by Mr. Kanjorski, who is on his way to the Chamber, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments, Nos. 21 and 22, is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois: Amend 
     section 6(2)(A) (page , line ) to read as follows:
       (A) beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     Amend section 7 (page , beginning at line ) to read as 
     follows:

     SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       This Act shall not be considered to authorize or require 
     any action that is subject to judicial review.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois that the amendments be considered en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House of today, the proponent 
and an opponent will each control 15 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] is on his way to the Chamber.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendments.
  As far as I am concerned, the two worst things about this bill are 
that it is retroactive and that it does not prohibit judicial review. 
The gentleman's amendment solves both problems.
  Under the bill, many regulations that have already been issued would 
be suspended, even though business and others, in good faith, may have 
made major investments in order to comply.
  In addition, proponents of this bill overlook the fact that Federal 
regulations often create markets and opportunities for business. H.R. 
450, with its retroactive starting time for the moratorium, would 
require agencies to take away opportunities that business has already 
received.
  For example, the FCC took action recently to allocate for sale of the 
private sector 50 megahertz of spectrum 
[[Page H2108]]  that has been controlled by the Federal Government.
  Why would we want to stop this rulemaking which will create new 
opportunities for U.S. telecommunications firms, and at the same time 
cut back the Federal Government's role in telecommunications?
  Mr. Chairman, we ought not to be changing the rules once the game has 
already started, and that is what this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 450 also fails to prevent a court challenge of an 
agency decision to exclude a rule from the moratorium.
  Although the bill does not specifically authorize judicial review of 
agency decisions, neither does it preclude judicial review under the 
authority of other laws.
  The committee report states, and I quote:

       The section makes it clear that the Act does not grant any 
     new private right of action. However, this section does not 
     affect any private right of action (for a violation of this 
     Act or any other law) if that right of action is otherwise 
     available under any other law (such as the Administrative 
     Procedure Act provisions of title 5, United States Code).

  With the courts looking over their shoulders, clever lawyers can tie 
up regulations in litigation for months, even if they fall under one of 
the bill's exclusions.
  Judicial review, therefore, effectively guts the authority in the 
bill to exempt a rule or regulation from the moratorium.
  Unless excluded, important health and safety rules, rules pertaining 
to foreign affairs or military functions, rules relating to the 
provision of benefits, as well as rules affecting financial 
institutions could be suspended by the courts--even if an agency head 
believed these rules fell within the statute's exemption provisions.
  The authors of this bill recognize that it is a difficult decision to 
decide that a rule is necessary to avoid an imminent threat to health 
and safety, so the committee report provides guidance. However, it is 
almost a certainty that if an agency exempts a regulation under that 
standard, business will be in court to challenge that decision. Is that 
what we want?
  The gentleman's amendment is a major improvement over the language of 
the bill, because it eliminates judicial review and retroactivity. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I do so to rise in opposition to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Kanjorski's amendments en bloc.
  Let me point out that in terms of trying to do this in a cooperative 
effort, we did request of the administration to have them declare a 
moratorium on all regulation activity for the first 100 days of this 
Congress so that we would have an opportunity to do that. That was not 
an unprecedented action. In fact, moratoria have been declared by both 
Presidents Reagan and Bush heretofore.
  This basically would move the date only prospectively, but it would 
not pick up a vast horde of regulations, frankly, that really, I think, 
need to be looked at before they are passed on to the American people, 
about 600 during the time of this amendment.
  So, moving this to a prospective date I think would undercut a real 
purpose that we are trying to accomplish here.
  The other element that I think needs to be dealt with is the 
amendment to eliminate all judicial
 review, which is included in the gentleman's amendment, is 
unnecessary. This amendment is really redundant because section 7 of 
H.R. 450 already contains a limitation on judicial review. It provides 
simply that no private right of action may be brought against any 
Federal agency for violation of this act. This makes it clear that the 
act does not grant any new private right of action enforceable in the 
courts.

  It is clear because this moratorium was limited in nature. The 
longest it can go is to December 31 of this year. And then it could be 
terminated much before that if in fact we pass regulatory reform under 
H.R. 9, that the time period that would be involved would be so short 
you would not really be able to conduct an effective judicial review.
  On the other hand, we did not want to take away from people the 
rights that they presently have under existing law, primarily under the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
  So I would submit this amendment is really unnecessary because there 
is no extended or no expanded right of judicial review in the bill. For 
that reason, I would oppose the amendment
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 13 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to further yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] will be 
recognized for 13 minutes.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], and I rise in support of 
the amendment, obviously, because what we have here in the text of this 
legislation is that when you join it with what would be allowed under 
the APA rule is that every rule promulgated by every agency of the U.S. 
Government will be subject to court review and court action.
  What we are structuring here is an absolute freeze on the actions of 
government for the next period of time, however that may eventually 
last, that the moratorium is in place.
  If that is not bad enough, what we are allowing here by virtue of 
allowing judicial review under the APA regulations is that in the 
future any contested promulgated rule or regulation frozen in place in 
this time can be attacked by virtue of the right of review under 
judicial review. So that 4 years down the road, if something is felt to 
not comport with the act itself in the moratorium, you will be able to 
have an attack and a request for judicial review to go over that and 
have that rule or regulation set aside or the effectiveness set aside.
  A simple example would be a rule or regulation by the wildlife area 
in Interior. If there were a question raised on the licensing or area 
qualifications for duck hunting--duck hunting--which nobody in this 
Chamber would oppose, activists rights organizations could attack the 
promulgated rules and regulations allowing that duck hunting to occur 
however and for whatever purpose the rule is promulgated. It would end 
up in the court and the decision under the judicial review would take 
such a period of time that whatever the purpose and finality of that 
ruling would be, would be inconsequential because of the passage of 
time.
                              {time}  1410

  What we have created here in essence, when we look at the total bill 
itself and the judicial review that is allowed under existing law by 
implication of this entire statute, is we have allowed an opportunity 
for those people who fundamentally and philosophically do not believe 
that government should work in any respect. They will have accomplished 
their end.
  This is not just a moratorium. This is not just a surgical procedure 
to rule out of order improper or zealous rule makers or improper 
application of rules. This is a process and procedure that by not being 
surgical in our strike will allow those people with the worst 
intentions to prevail and to have consequences that we cannot even 
determine now, during the moratorium period, or for years thereafter, 
and the one thing we are certain of is that by use of allowing judicial 
review of this act we are going to allow the freezing of the remaining 
2 years of the Clinton administration.
  Now, if that is the intention of the makers of this statute, and if 
the intention of the makers of this statute is not providing for no 
judicial review during the moratorium period or thereafter, they will 
accomplish their end.
  So I would recommend that everybody from the minority or the majority 
that desires to close government down in all respects of what we do, 
they should definitely vote against this amendment, but if they are 
sensitive to the fact that what we are doing is causing a wealth of 
litigation to occur by anyone and for any purposes, then we should 
seriously review what we are doing today.
  [[Page H2109]] We have, on February 22, received a communication from 
the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs and under 
the signature of the Assistant Attorney General of the United States 
that lays out the Justice Department's position on this amendment, and 
not reading the entire letter other than the fact that they support the 
amendment in its entirety, if I can quote a portion of this?
  It says, ``As you know, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 450. 
Its judicial review provision is one of the bases for this opposition. 
We believe section 7 will result in litigation each time a new rule is 
promulgated during the moratorium. We strongly oppose this language, 
and we think the bill should include an express bar to judicial 
review,'' and this amendment provides that ``express bar'' to judicial 
review.
  I cannot urge my colleagues more firmly, and this is not a partisan 
issue. This is a Government issue. This is a question of whether or not 
we believe this Government should function and whether or not we are 
not capable as a Congress of finding another way to correct 
overzealousness in rulemaking or improper applications of rules. The 
fact is there are tens of thousands of rules promulgated every year. 
The overwhelming majority are necessary and do not cause problems or 
conflict with the people, but in fact enable us to carry on government. 
In order for us to solve the problem of perhaps 1 or 2 percent where 
there is some disagreement we are throwing out literally the baby with 
the bath water, and I think the admonishment of the U.S. Department of 
Justice should be taken seriously and those people that are interested 
in Government functioning should understand that they have made a 
thorough review of this act, and particularly section 7, and on the 
basis of that I would recommend all my colleagues to act in a 
bipartisan way to see certain that we do not freeze the activities of 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], a very valued and contributing member of the 
committee.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me focus the debate on this issue.
  Quite frankly what we have here is a proposal to subsume the entire 
moratorium in one rule. The language which appears in the existing bill 
is carefully crafted to preserve the rights which presently exist. That 
language appearing in section 7 says no private right of action may be 
brought against any Federal agency for a violation of this act. What 
that means plainly and simply is: By the passage of this measure we are 
not creating a new and separate right of action. However, there is a 
second sentence also intended to preserve that balance, and that is: 
This prohibition shall not affect any private right of action or remedy 
otherwise available under any other law.
  Mr. Chairman, those combined two sentences are designed to preserve 
the status quo, and what that means is that anyone who is in a 
rulemaking proceeding and who has a right to bring an action under the 
Administrative Procedures Act is authorized to bring that act under 
this section. No new action is created, but no existing action is taken 
away.
  What the Kanjorski amendment does when it proposes to change the 
language of section 7 is to literally take away the entire meaning of 
the moratorium. What it would do in effect is to say that any 
regulatory agency which chose to ignore willy-nilly the moratorium 
itself and to proceed with a regulatory action, no matter what the 
basis for that was, could not be challenged in court for doing so. The 
plain and simple effect of that is to mean that no regulatory action 
would be stopped. We would have passed a moratorium which would say 
that for this period there were to be no ongoing rulemaking regulatory 
actions, and yet there would be absolutely no penalty whatsoever for a 
Federal regulatory agency that just simply chose to ignore that 
language altogether.
  I suggest to my colleagues that when they understand that language of 
the Kanjorski amendment and when they understand that effect, it is not 
surprising that the administration supports that amendment and opposes 
the current language in the bill, and it is not surprising that what 
they will have done is rendered this entire act meaningless. This 
Congress is not about passing a moratorium which will have no effect 
whatsoever, a moratorium which will say the U.S. Congress wants to 
suspend all rulemaking actions and all regulatory actions except those 
for which there are enumerated exceptions, but nonetheless imposes no 
penalty whatsoever for doing so.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot more strongly than that urge the rejection of 
that amendment on the ground that it would render the entire moratorium 
and the very important purpose the moratorium will serve nugatory and 
accomplish nothing.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to and perhaps engage with the gentleman.
  I think the gentleman is suggesting that rulemaking authority, as 
passed in statute by this body, has no way of a check and balance 
operating, and I suggest that most authorizing legislation authorizes a 
Cabinet-officer-level individual. The secretary shall have the 
authority to promulgate rules and regulations so that any agency that 
would come under the umbrella, and most of them do, of a Cabinet 
officer would subject that Cabinet officer to impeachment from office 
if he violated the clear intent of Congress as expressed by this 
legislation.
  We are not crippling this legislation. What we are basically doing is 
taking out the second sentence of section 7 because that is the devil 
in the details. The gentleman said that the purpose of section 7, and 
he read it, that no right of action may be brought against any Federal 
agency for violation of this act.

                              {time}  1420

  That is a great sentence, and if that were the only sentence, I would 
have no problem with that. But the next sentence says ``This 
prohibition shall not affect any right of action or remedy otherwise 
available under any other law,'' which is the Administrative Procedures 
Act of the United States. So individuals do have actions and rights of 
actions under the Administrative Procedures Act, so therefore the 
second sentence really vitiates the expressed intent in the first 
sentence, and using the description of legislative language, the second 
sentence becomes controlling of the first sentence.
  So very clearly we can have actions that exist under the 
Administrative Procedures Act, will exist in this act and be able to be 
used to attack all future rules and regulations.
  Let me tell you how serious it is. The seriousness is in rulemaking 
as it is described. We are just thinking we are attacking things 
already out there. This legislation defines rulemaking. The term 
``rulemaking'' means any agency process for formulating, amending, or 
repealing a rule. It means that if your constituent or mine who finds a 
commentary period and expresses their feelings on a rule or regulation 
and sends that in, if the agency opens that commentary, they have 
violated the rulemaking procedure of this House, and it could not only 
cause them difficulty under this act, it could vitiate that rule and 
the subsequent value or efficacy of that rule in the future.
  We are really muzzling, gagging, the American people, interested 
people in legislation, Members of Congress. If I send a letter to an 
agency about the fact that I do not think the rule or regulation should 
be effective the way it is, and that agency opens my letter, under this 
basis that is formulating, amending, or repealing and taking an agency 
process to do that, and they are in violation of the statute. And under 
the APA section under judicial review, that process could be knocked 
out, the rule itself could be knocked out in the moratorium period of 
time, and thereafter if the moratorium leaves a ``no other actions 
taken of that process'' during the moratorium period of that time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman, with the understanding that 
we will trade time back in the future.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make a couple of points. 
First, by acknowledging that what you think should happen here is that 
we 
[[Page H2110]]  should go to the Under Secretaries or the Secretaries 
who have the authority to promulgate your rules, you are acknowledging 
that the Kanjorski amendment would leave no judicial remedy for an 
Agency which chose to ignore the moratorium. You are at least agreeing 
that is your proposal.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. There is no process to ignore it? No. You can just 
tell the Secretary.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely. So everyone affected by a rulemaking 
proceeding would be left at the mercy of calling the Secretary of that 
particular regulatory Agency and asking him to stop. He could not go to 
court and pursue the current legal rights he would have but for the 
language. That is, you are taking away a right he would have under the 
APA to go to court and challenge a rulemaking proceeding by the 
Kanjorski amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Reclaiming my time, I am taking away the advantage 
that wealthy individuals and corporations in this society would have to 
stop the progress and protection of our people, whereas average 
Americans could never assume their rights under the APA.
  I think it goes to the essence of what this act is all about, and 
maybe it extends beyond this act and goes to what we are here for this 
first 100 days, it is all about. It is a tremendous shift of power, to 
give the wealthiest elements and corporations of our society a special 
seat in government, a special opportunity in litigation, to frustrate 
the protections and the needs of average Americans. You bet your life I 
think that is the problem.
  Mr. SHADEGG. What we are talking about really is the fact that 
average Americans take advantage of the APA on a regular basis, and 
that you are taking advantage of this moratorium to take away their 
right to go to court and challenge the regulatory agencies that are 
currently regulating and taking away their rights. The purpose of the 
moratorium is to preserve the status quo for the time period. The 
language of section 7 does that precisely by saying we are creating no 
new right of action, but we are preserving the existing rights of 
action.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. No, you are going beyond that, so that I may answer 
you. You are reserving a right of action that is based on this statute, 
if the APA rules are the vehicle to bring that action. So you are 
accomplishing nothing by the first sentence, it does not even matter 
being there, because the second sentence becomes controlling, and 
everybody who could attack this and would be denied that right under 
the first sentence of the act, has the right under the second sentence 
if they proceed under Administrative Procedures Act.
  Mr. SHADEGG. The first sentence of the amendment simply says that 
this legislation does not in and of itself create a new right of 
action. That is because it was not the goal of those who are proponents 
to create a new right of action or to increase any amount of 
litigation. That is what the sentence says.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. What it says in simple language, maybe I cannot read 
it right, this prohibition shall not affect any private right of action 
or remedy otherwise available under any other law. The Administrative 
Procedures Act allowed people to go for judicial review to attack every 
other law and every law, and this is every law, and therefore they come 
in and have the same rights that they have.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Therefore the moratorium as written preserves their 
current legal rights and your amendment would take away those rights.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I am going to the essence of what the moratorium is 
all about. Are we attempting to have a moratorium and freeze until you 
have an opportunity to examine what may be misused and abused, or are 
you using the moratorium to freeze Government and deny average people 
the rights of judicial review, but allow large corporate entities to 
spend the money and to take the actions to frustrate this Government, 
and not only frustrate this Government, but to frustrate the rights of 
average American people who cannot afford the legal price to pay to go 
to litigation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, on February 15, 1995, HUD issued 
regulations to revise and clarify the final rule on escrow accounting 
procedures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The final 
rule was published on October 26, 1994 and established accounting rules 
and methodologies for computing escrow accounts on federally related 
loans. The amendments to those regulations, which were published last 
week make a number of changes which were sought and are supported by 
the mortgage industry. I would like to clarify that it is just these 
type of regulations that would fall within the exclusion of Section 
6(3)(B)(i).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, the gentleman is exactly right. The recently 
published amendments to the final rule on escrow accounting procedures 
are an example of the type of regulation intended to be covered by that 
exclusion. The February 15 regulations reduce regulatory burden by 
streamlining the notice required to be sent to borrowers by lenders 
when itemizing their escrow account. That regulation amending the final 
rule also streamlines the administrative process for implementing this 
major new requirement that is being imposed on mortgage servicers, by 
providing an additional month to allow the industry to gear up to 
comply with the final rule.
  It is exactly the type of rule that we would allow to go forward 
because it limits the burden and reduces the regulatory impact.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose 
of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from California, [Mr. 
Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the moratorium on Federal regulations 
does not apply to the California Bay-Delta agreement of December 15, 
1994, and the actions necessary to implement that agreement.
  The December 15 agreement is an accord between the Federal agencies 
of the Department of the Interior, Commerce, and EPA and the State of 
California. It is not a Federal regulatory action.
  The agreement calls for the withdrawal of the EPA final rules for 
water quality standards in the delta, once the California Water 
Resources Control Board adopts its own final rules under State law. 
This is expected to happen in March 1995. Thus, there is no impediment 
to the implementation to the bay-delta agreement as a result of the EPA 
regulations becoming subject to the moratorium.
  The agreement also calls for the 1995 Biological Opinions on winter 
run salmon and Delta smelt to be consistent with the bay-delta 
agreement. This means that the existing 1994 biological opinions must 
be revised to conform to the bay-delta agreement. It should be clear 
that the revision on these biological opinions is not a regulatory 
action subject to the moratorium. If, for some reason, the 1994 
biological opinions could not be revised to conform to the bay-delta 
agreement, there could be a significant water cost to Federal and State 
contractors south of the delta. This would be a significant obstacle to 
the continued implementation of the bay-delta agreement.
  We know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is aware of the 
environmental problems in California in the San Francisco Bay and the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. We know that you are also aware of 
the recent historic agreement between the State of California and a 
number of Federal agencies that has temporarily resolved many of the 
environmental problems in the delta.
  Mr. CLINGER. The gentleman is correct. I am aware of the agreement.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[[Page H2111]]  [Mr. Kanjorski] for the purpose of raising a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, is the discussion on the floor germane 
to the amendment or not germane to the amendment, and should it not be 
included in some other aspect of the transaction occurring today? I was 
kind enough on my side to yield to the other side to have a discussion. 
I thought the remainder of the time of my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], would be either used on my amendment, or 
the gentleman would afford me the opportunity to discuss some of the 
pertinent facts relevant to my amendment. But now I see nongermane 
material is being discussed here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The debate must relate to the amendment when that 
question is raised.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. It does, as it clarifies the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] may 
proceed.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, while we considered offering an amendment, 
we do not, at this time, believe that the bay-delta agreement is 
jeopardized by H.R. 450. We are, however, seeking your assurance that 
should questions arise during continued debate on this legislation, you 
will work with us to make sure that the agreement--which is so 
important to the agricultural, urban, and environmental interests of 
California--is protected from the requirements of H.R. 450.
  Mr. CLINGER. My colleagues have my assurance that I will work with 
them on this issue.
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis], a member of the committee.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I am always puzzled when I hear remarks about only wealthy 
individuals and big corporations would be able to sue under this act. I 
have perused the language of the act and find no such language that 
excludes small businesses, individuals, or anyone else who feels 
aggrieved by a large Federal bureaucracy from suing.
  Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania can show me the language he 
is referring to.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, what I am showing the gentleman is 
partiality and reasonableness.
  Does he know of any of his constituents on an average basis that can 
afford legal counsel of $50,000 to $100,000 to attack the efficacy of a 
rule?
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell the 
gentleman what we found in Fairfax County, when we held hearings on 
this at the Fairfax Government Center.
  First of all, to go back to the issue of retroactivity that the 
gentleman talked about, we have over 50 billion dollars' worth of 
costs, if all of these regulations were to be promulgated, that would 
go down, many of these on small businesses and individuals across this 
country. We heard the testimony of Mr. Bill McGillicuddy, a small 
businessman with AutoCare, Inc., talking about some pending rules and 
regulations before the EPA under the Clean Air Act and how this, Mr. 
Ron Harrel, a Mobil Oil dealer in Fairfax, Dennis Dwyer of Potomac 
Mills Exxon in Virginia. These individuals would be put out of 
business, if certain regulations now pending before EPA were put into 
compliance.
  Their option here is to come as a group and sue. They may not have 
the money individually, but a group of service station operators 
together could get together. These are not wealthy individuals. They 
are not big corporations. But they need this remedy of judicial review 
to be able to correct what I consider to be some very, very gross 
overreaching by the Federal bureaucracy. That is really the issue in 
this case.
  And to make this a class-warfare issue, that this applies only to 
wealthy individuals and corporations is, I think, misleading and really 
gets us off the point.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I hope I do not leave the impression of a class-warfare issue, because 
I could go to the other side. I would predict under the present act, if 
it goes into effect as it does now, you will see billions of dollars of 
construction activity come to a grinding halt until the people that are 
making that investment are certain as to what the status of the law, 
the rule or regulation will be.
  Mr. DAVIS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Would the gentleman consider the fact that there are 
billions of dollars in activity that do not happen to date because 
banks cannot lend money, not knowing the regulatory impact of 
properties that are held as collateral for loans to do commercial 
activity? And would the gentleman answer the question, the gentleman 
from Virginia, how many people does he represent that have $250,000 to 
go into Federal court to have to assert a constitutional takings under 
the fifth amendment since there is no low-cost administrative procedure 
to undermine them from the burdens that they now face under regulations 
of disclaimer?
  Mr. DAVIS. I would just note once again, it is the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses, the small businesses that are 
endorsing this legislation and moving forward. And I understand the 
gentleman's concern. I will oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 271, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No 160]

                               AYES--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--271

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     [[Page H2112]] Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Ehlers
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1452

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi and Mr. SERRANO changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendment offered by ms. slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter: At the end of section 5 
     (page   , after line   ), add the following new subsection:
       (c) Food and Water Safety Regulations.--Section 3(a) or 
     (4)(a), or both, shall not apply to any of the following 
     regulatory rulemaking actions (or any such action relating 
     thereto):
       (1) Meat and poultry inspection.--Any regulatory rulemaking 
     action to reduce pathogens in meat and poultry, taken by the 
     Food Safety and Inspection Service of the United States 
     Department of Agriculture and with respect to which a 
     proposed rule was published on February 3, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 
     6774).
       (2) Drinking water safety.--Any regulatory rulemaking 
     action begun by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act that relates to control of microbial and disinfection by-
     product risks in drinking water supplies.
       (3) Importation of food in lead cans.--Any regulatory 
     rulemaking action by the Food and Drug Administration to 
     require that canned food imported into the United States 
     comply with standards applicable to domestic manufacturers 
     that prohibit the use of lead solder in cans containing food, 
     taken under sections 201, 402, 409, and 701 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and with respect to which a 
     proposed rule was published at 58 Federal Register 33860.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] will be recognized for 15 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
chairman of the committee, will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, anyone who dismisses the problem of micro-organisms in 
our food has not been reading the newspapers. But few realize just how 
widespread these quiet killers are.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, bacteria 
in meat and poultry products cause nearly 4,000 deaths and 5 million 
illnesses each year. Last year's outbreak of E. coli at fast food 
restaurants on the West Coast is just one example of such a tragedy. In 
fact, there were confirmed outbreaks of E. coli in dozens of States 
over the past 2 years, and other pathogens such as salmonella are even 
more widespread.
  For a person infected by a food-borne pathogen, there is usually no 
treatment or cure. These diseases are particularly dangerous for 
children and the elderly, whose immune systems are weaker. For them, 
the sickness often follows a painful course ending in death.
  Beyond the enormous human suffering caused by food poisoning in meat 
products, the economic cost is gigantic. Estimates vary, but the price 
tag in medical care and lost wages is over $4.5 billion annually.
  For this reason, I have written a simple, carefully drafted 
amendment. It would clearly exempt three particular regulations crucial 
to providing safe food and water.
  One has to do with the importation of food in lead cans which we do 
not allow American manufacturers to do, and the other is the 
cryptosporidium that is being found in America's drinking water.
  We will hear more about these issues from other speakers. As a former 
bacteriologist with a master's in public health, I would like to 
concentrate on the third regulation, which would finally modernize our 
outmoded meat inspection system.
  Just this month, the Department of Agriculture started the process of 
developing new pathogen standards. The proposed rule began a 120-day 
comment period--double the standard length. The Department also plans 
an aggressive outreach campaign to hear the views of every concerned 
party. In fact, the administration has followed a model of responsible 
regulation, carefully listening to every viewpoint before reaching any 
decision.
  Unfortunately, not exempting food safety would stop that process 
right in its tracks. In a letter to me yesterday, the Undersecretary 
for Food Safety told me what would happen under a moratorium. He 
wrote--and I quote:

       All work on the . . . proposal would have to be suspended 
     throughout the moratorium period. The public comment period 
     would need to be put on hold. Public information briefings 
     throughout the country . . . would have to be cancelled.
  That is not reform, Mr. Chairman. It is vandalism. This process would 
benefit everyone, even those who want to change the proposal. It is 
supported by industry and consumer groups, and suspending it serves no 
purpose. While we saw the development of new pathogen standards, more 
Americans will be poisoned by their dinner at home or what they eat in 
restaurants or what they eat at school.
  Mr. Chairman, these are invisible killers. We are going to hear that 
this will be taken care of in the imminent threat to health and safety. 
Unfortunately, the kinds of pathogens that we are talking about do not 
give an advanced notice that they are going to happen. We will not know 
that there is a threat to health and safety until after it has 
occurred.

                              {time}  1500

  What we are trying to do with the new regulation, Mr. Chairman, is to 
prevent it from happening in the first place.
  The tragedy is that in the United States when food inspection started 
in 
[[Page H2113]]  1906 or 1907, based on a public outcry from a book by 
Upton Sinclair, we have maintained that same method of operating and 
checking on meat and poultry, with very little update. What we were 
doing now was for the first time to recognize the role of pathogens in 
meat inspection and what happens.
  But every day that we delay this moratorium that would cause this 
delay, 11 Americans will lose their lives and every day over 13,000 
will be ill. The delay caused by the moratorium will sentence 3,420 
more people to die needlessly in the United States.
  It does not matter what Members think of the details of the 
Agriculture Department proposal, or it does not matter what they think 
of the regulatory process overall. It does not matter what their 
district is or what political party they belong to. A vote for this 
amendment is a vote for your constituents, it is to ensure that food 
and water are safe.
  I am not willing to sacrifice my constituents' lives, health, and 
wealth on the altar of regulatory reform, and I ask all of my 
colleagues not to sacrifice theirs. Please support the Slaughter 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from Milwaukee, WI, and Milwaukee, WI, 
unfortunately made national headlines in 1992 because of a severe 
outbreak of illness resulting from the parasite, cryptosporidium.
  This amendment also would permit the research and the regulations 
that are being done at the Federal level by the EPA on the outbreak, 
and provide help to other communities who suffer this same tragedy in 
their own communities.
  Since this tragedy has already hit my community the easiest thing in 
the world for me to do is say we have already taken care of the problem 
in Milwaukee. I do not care what happens anywhere else in the country; 
if they have another outbreak in another community, that is their 
problem. But I do not think that is what the American people want. I do 
not think the American people want the Federal Government, when it has 
the opportunity and the resources and the requirement, to come in and 
try to help people save lives.
  In committee and on the floor today I am going to guess that we are 
not going to hear anything about the merits of this regulation. No one 
will talk about why we should stop the work on cryptosporidium. What we 
are going to hear is that it is not part of the program or somehow we 
are going to slow down this bill and/or we are going to try to gut this 
bill because of this amendment.
  But this is a good amendment. The Federal Government by its nature 
does not only do bad things. I know it comes as a surprise to some 
Members of this body, but the Federal Government actually does some 
good things, and preserving safe drinking water in our country is one 
of them, preserving safe food in our country is another.
  I am all for getting rid of unnecessary regulations, but let us do it 
when we find a regulation that does not work. But when we have a 
regulation that works, let us work it, let us have it help save lives. 
And this is what this amendment does.
  So I would ask the Members of this body to please vote their 
conscience and do the right thing. A regulation that works should move 
forward.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an extreme bill; while calling 
for a moratorium on new Federal regulations may sound good, it will 
have unintended consequences that will put millions of Americans at 
risk.
  Our amendment is simple and straightforward: It will allow the 
Federal Government to continue its efforts to ensure the safety of our 
Nation's food and water.
  For example, this amendment will allow the Federal Government to 
continue its efforts to protect our citizens from the threats posed by 
cryptosporidium in our water and E. coli bacteria in our meat.
  In my district, in my home of New York City, people are very worried 
over recent discoveries of the cryptosporidium parasite in our water 
supply.
  They have good reason to be worried: Recent outbreaks in Milwaukee of 
the disease caused by this parasite, cost over 100 people their lives 
and made hundreds of thousands sick.
  The medical evidence clearly demonstrates that for our most 
vulnerable populations this illness can be fatal.
  Only in 1994, was the EPA able to issue rules about collecting data 
on the dangers posed by this disease.
  And now the experts at EPA tell us that this bill will halt testing 
for this deadly parasite.
  We cannot allow that to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, the safety of our drinking water is precisely the type 
of problem that the Federal Government is best equipped to combat 
because it affects the residents of all 50 States.
  Water does not respect State boundaries; neither do parasites or 
bacteria.
  As currently drafted, this bill could present a threat to every 
American who eats or drinks.
  Our amendment would simply remove any ambiguity about the continuing 
ability of the American Government to combat these deadly threats.
  Parasites don't take a moratorium; microbes don't take a moratorium, 
and safeguards shouldn't take a moratorium.
  Please support this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I do so to 
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I know of her expertise in this 
area as a microbiologist and her great concern for the implications of 
this measure, but I would submit that the amendment is really 
unnecessary because the bill does provide a very, very broad exception 
for health and safety. In fact, if Members read the Washington Post, it 
would suggest it would exempt everything out of that. I do not think we 
go that far, but I think it does provide the kind of assurance to the 
gentlewoman that that kind of thing would not be held up.
  The legislation reads, imminent health and safety means the existence 
of any conditions, circumstance, or practice reasonably expected to 
cause death serious illness or severe injury to humans.
  And the legislation is very flexible, Mr. Chairman. It is structured 
so that the head of the OIRA regulatory administration will make the 
determination as to what qualifies as imminent health and safety, and 
the head of OIRA determines it meets the criteria, and I think the 
sorts of things the gentlewoman from New York is mentioning would 
probably meet that criteria that the regulations could and should be 
promulgated and implemented.
  I suggest it is not just end result that is going to be affected by 
this, because the opponents say that humans need to die or get 
violently ill prior to meeting a test for imminent health or safety. 
This is just not the case. The regulations can be promulgated 
prospectively if it is perceived that without doing so there would be 
harm done, and I think the case that the gentlewoman talks about would 
not be precluded from proceeding with the testing for that purpose.
  So I would submit that the gentlewoman's amendment is not necessary 
and would be covered by the existing exemptions in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the author of the measure, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important as we 
discuss this legislation that we be aware of the important changes that 
were made in committee on the bill dealing with health and safety. I 
think Members will hear a lot of claims by the administration and 
others that this legislation would undo 20 years of regulation, that 
this legislation could lead to the loss of life and other claims which 
are clearly preposterous and intended to scare the American people.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I want to read the provision of this 
bill that deals with health and safety. Any regulation that is needed 
to protect against an imminent threat to health and safety is exempt 
from the moratorium and can go forward. The definition of imminent 
threat to health and safety means ``any regulation that is 
[[Page H2114]]  needed to prevent the condition, circumstance, or 
practice reasonably expected to cause death, serious illness, or severe 
injury to humans or substantial endangerment to private property during 
the moratorium.''
  What this exception says very clearly is that the regulatory bodies 
can protect against death, they can protect against threats of severe 
injury, and they can protect against threats of substantial 
endangerment to private property. All they need to do is go to the 
President's staff at OMB and say we need an exemption. The President 
can issue that immediately, and the agency can go forward.

                              {time}  1510

  Now, perhaps some of these agencies are not competent enough to deal 
with these threats, and they may try to hide behind the moratorium and 
not issue the regulation. But let it be very clear today, looking at 
this language in the bill, any serious threat to human health or safety 
can and will be dealt with pursuant to this moratorium.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman just said, I think, you added some words 
in there as you talked, the term ``imminent threat to health or 
safety''; then you said, ``means a proposed rule that deals with the 
existence''; I do not see that ``means a proposed rule'' in there at 
all.
  Mr. McINTOSH. The language of the bill says that any regulatory 
action needed to address an imminent threat to health or safety can go 
forward, and what this language does is tells us what regulations are 
dealing with an imminent threat to health or safety.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Right. The existence of a condition, circumstance, or 
practice reasonably expected to cause death, serious illness; now, what 
if you are just trying to improve on a process of inspection so that 
you have less likelihood of causing disease? That is not an imminent 
threat, I would say.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say I think that is an important question. I 
think the test the agency would need to meet in those regulations is: 
Are they calculated to prevent death, serious injury, or substantial 
loss to property? A lot of times an agency will say, ``We are 
protecting health and safety,'' but when you actually read the 
regulation, none of the provisions end up meeting that criteria. In 
those cases, they could not go forward.
  But if they want to improve an inspection process and can show that 
they will prevent a death or severe injury, then they would be exempt.
  Mr. VOLKMER. What if they cannot positively, but based on the best 
scientific evidence that it is an improvement over an inspection 
process that is currently being used, but you cannot show that if you 
do not do it there are going to be deaths, you cannot show that serious 
illness is going to occur?
  Mr. McINTOSH. The burden on the agency is to show their regulations 
would be helpful.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], I know previously you worked for 
Vice President Quayle. I think it is probable we have an obligation to 
point out you misspelled existence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Torricelli], who has done a good deal of work on this issue.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The Members of the majority may not think that this will impede 
regulations for food safety.
  But one would think the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be 
somewhat controlling. In a letter to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter], they have written that the current program will be 
suspended. There will not be a need for public comment. They will not 
proceed with the February 3 regulations, because while the threat to 
human safety is real, it is not imminent. It is substantial, but it may 
not be immediate. And years of work, years of work to try to protect 
the American people are going to be lost.
  My colleagues, 2 years ago a young woman in my district named Katie 
O'Connell walked into a fast-food restaurant in New Jersey, and 48 
hours later she was dead. That case has been repeated 4,000 times a 
year, year in and year out across this country.
  We have an epidemic of food safety, because we have not improved the 
methods of inspecting food for 75 years in this country. The average 
American food inspector has less than a half a second to use his eyes 
and his nose in the age of the computer and electronic sensor to 
determine whether or not food is safe for your table, and they are 
missing thousands of times determining contaminated food.
  The cost of the February 3 regulations on the industry will be two-
tenths of 1 cent per pound. Too much of a cost to bear for American 
industry to save thousands of lives.
  I know the majority wants to vote with their leadership. I know they 
want to lessen the burden. But the costs for your constituents are too 
great.
  My colleagues, support the amendment. It is simply the right and 
decent thing to do.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the gentlewoman from 
New York that that misspelling was deliberate. We wanted to just see if 
everybody was paying attention, and we are delighted that you were.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just flabbergasted by this debate on this 
amendment. I just ask the Members to read the bill.
  Nothing in this amendment nor much of what has been said in support 
of this amendment has anything to do with the bill. The bill is very 
specific in giving exemptions to these regulations that affect safety 
and health and food inspections and many other of the issues.
  It is obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is the first 
step down the slippery road to status quo.
  What is underlying the statements by the President and proponents of 
this amendment is that they believe in regulations. They believe in the 
regulatory police. They believe in what has been going on in the last 
40 years as it pertains to regulation. They believe in being able to 
find that man that got fined for moving two truckloads of dirt, or they 
believe in the regulations that classify children's teeth as hazardous 
waste and take on the tooth fairy herself.
  What we are trying to do and what the American people are trying to 
ask us to do is give us a break from these outrageous regulations that 
have been placed upon us.
  What the proponents of this amendment want to do is gut the 
moratorium bill and stop the regulatory reform effort. Over and over 
again we keep hearing about what horrible things we are going to 
inflict on the American people through this moratorium. We have heard 
it from the White House, from a number of the executive agencies, and 
from certain Members.
  Clearly the other side has run out of ammunition against this bill 
and has resorted to the lowest of politics in trying to scare the 
American people beyond what is even contemplated by the moratorium.
  The bill cannot be written more clearly. The moratorium exempts 
regulations that are needed to protect against imminent threat to 
health and safety.
  Their examples of such regulations could include food regulations on 
E. coli bacteria, medical testing regulations for cancer. The 
President, in the bill, the President decides when written by the head 
of the agency whether that particular regulation ought to be exempted.
  Remember, it is up to the Federal agency to identify which 
regulations should be exempt from the moratorium.
  And I finish with this, if the President of the United States had 
shown any leadership on regulations, we would not even be discussing 
this bill at all.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the committee.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  [[Page H2115]] Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, no one can see 
E. coli, salmonella, or any other bacteria on meat. Visual inspection 
is inadequate. Only microbial testing, as could be required under the 
U.S. new meat inspection rule, can tell whether the meat we feed our 
children might actually kill them.
  At our committee's markup of this bill, we had a young woman who 
appeared who lives every day with the tragedy that can come from 
bacterial contamination of meat.
  Mrs. Nancy Donely from Chicago, IL, lost her 6-year-old son, Alex, in 
July of 1993 after he ate E. coli contaminated hamburger meat. She has 
made the safe food campaign her passion. She led opposition to the meat 
industry's efforts recently to dispense with sampling hamburger for E. 
coli. She is a very strong advocate for the USDA's new meat inspection 
regulations.
  Mrs. Donely has said Alex's last words to her were, and I quote, 
``Mommie, don't worry.''
  For us not to worry that we have failed to protect little children 
like Alex from illness and death caused by bacteria-contaminated meat, 
we have to vote to exempt the meat inspection regulations from the 
moratorium in this legislation. It just seems to me that there is a 
commonsense way to go about any kind of bill that would put a 
moratorium on something that is so important as the food we eat, as the 
water we drink, as the air we breathe, as benefits we give to all 
American people, that we simply cannot fail to pass this amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York.

                              {time}  1520

  It just makes good sense in order to do so. Nobody wants to be 
accused of not protecting our children. We hold our children to be the 
most precious possessions, and in order for you to continue to protect 
their health, we certainly have to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment.
  All Members should support this amendment. Unless we explicitly 
exclude the new meat and poultry inspection rule from the moratorium, 
the Department of Agriculture has told me that they do not believe the 
rule would qualify for an exception under the bill's exception for 
rules that are needed to deal with imminent threats to health or 
safety.
  You will likely hear the proponents of the bill claim that they have 
taken care of this problem in the committee report, and there is no 
need to worry. Be on notice, however, that in order to exempt the new 
meat and poultry inspection rule from the moratorium, the Department of 
Agriculture would have to determine that failure to issue the rule 
would pose an imminent threat to the public health or safety.
  Now, I want to make sure each Member of this House understands 
completely that the Department of Agriculture does not believe it could 
make the determination necessary to exclude this regulation.
  Let me read from a letter I received from Michael R. Taylor, Under 
Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, that is dated February 22, 
1995. It says in part that:

       All work on the FSIS [Food Safety and Inspection Service] 
     Pathogen Reduction/HACCP proposal would have to be suspended 
     throughout the moratorium period. The public comment period 
     would need to be put on hold. Public information briefings 
     throughout the country to encourage public participation in 
     the rulemaking processs and answer technical questions would 
     need to be canceled. The adverse impact on food safety is an 
     important reason why the Administration opposes the passage 
     of H.R. 450.

  So, should we care that the moratorium would block implementation of 
the new meat and poultry inspection rules?
  I firmly believe we should. Meat and poultry sold to the American 
consumer are currently being inspected under procedures that were 
implemented in 1907. These 82-year-old procedures simply call for 
visual inspection of animal carcasses.
  The meat inspection rule that the Department of Agriculture published 
recently in the Federal Register represents a drastic improvement over 
this outdated, outmodied system. This regulation would, for the first 
time, simply require that processors test meat and poultry regularly 
for bacteria. This regulation is also the Agriculture Department's 
long-awaited response to the massive food borne illness outbreak that 
spread across the west coast 2 years ago.
  No one can see E. coli, salmonella, or any other bacteria on meat. 
Visual inspection is inadequate. Only microbial testing, as could be 
required under the USDA new meat inspection rule, can tell whether the 
meat we feed our children might kill them.
  At our committee's markup of this bill, we had a young woman appear 
who lives each day with the tragedy which can come from bacteria 
contamination in meat. Mrs. Nancy Donley, from Chicago, IL, lost her 6-
year-old son, Alex, in July of 1993, after he ate E. coli contaminated 
hamburger meat.
  She has made the safe food campaign her passion. She led opposition 
to the meat industry's efforts recently to dispense with sampling 
hamburger for E. coli, and she is a strong advocate for the USDA's new 
meat inspection regulation.
  Mrs. Donley has said that Alex's last words to her were, ``Mommy, 
don't worry.''
  For us ``not to worry'' that we have failed to protect children like 
Alex from illness and death caused by bacteria contaminated meat, we 
must vote to exempt the meat inspection regulation from the moratorium 
in this legislation.
  I completely disagree with the proponents of this bill that we should 
delay for 1 minute, much less 6 months, the implementation of 
regulations that can require the testing needed to detect bacteria on 
meat. Only such testing will reduce the number of deaths and illnesses 
from food poisoning.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would exempt from the 
moratorium rules that provide important protections for the public 
health. If the proponents of the bill feel so strongly that their bill 
exempts these matters, then we need to make that point explicit and 
clear in the bill itself.
  When concerns were raised in the committee about the moratorium's 
possible application to bank and tax regulations, these matters were 
excluded from the bill. We should do the same thing for the important 
food and water safety regulations addressed by the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentleman of the House, I cannot believe 
what the other side of the aisle is saying. Let us really get the facts 
straight here.
  They are accusing us of delaying. They are accusing us of endangering 
health and welfare.
  Well, let me say this: I served on the subcommittee that oversaw this 
matter, so I know in depth what tool place. The problem with E. coli 
bacteria is not anything new. The report goes back to May 21, 1993. The 
question about risk-based inspections and the need for monitoring meat 
and poultry are here in these reports that span the length and breadth 
of this administration.
  Come on, let us get the facts straight here. What is going on?
  Mike Espy said at a press conference, May 1993, he said, ``The regs 
are on the way. I have directed FSIS officials to publish in 90 days.''
  Do not give me that.
  Let us see what the New York Times said about delays in this process. 
This is an article in the New York Times, June 9, 1994.

       The decision by the Agriculture Department in 1993 which 
     spared Tyson and other poultry producers from rigorous 
     inspections brought a chorus of complaints from the meat 
     packers and consumer groups about enforcement of an industry 
     with longstanding ties to the President.

  Come on, let us not scare the people of this country. We also know 
that we heard in those hearings on E. coli bacteria, people were told 
to cook their meat.
  The point brought up about Milwaukee, here is another example: There 
are 53 water contaminants mandated by this Congress in regulations to 
study and the Milwaukee contaminant was not one of them. The blame is 
here. We are not delaying anything.
  You saw the chairman of this subcommittee stand up and give an 
explanation of the exemptions for public health, safety, and welfare.
  I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is not going to do anything to 
endanger any child or any individual. It is not going to endanger the 
health, safety, and welfare of one American.
  What we are doing is we are saying we are overegulating. We are 
saying--why not concentrate on real problems. 
[[Page H2116]]  We are passing regulation after regulation that does 
not make any sense. We are tying up industry, business, and local 
government, and the people of this country are rebelling against that 
regulation. That was the message on November 8, and that is the message 
today.
  If we want to look at delay, if we want to look at reasons for 
endangering the health and welfare and safety of people, look at what 
this administration has done, look at the delays that have been caused 
here. The date of this rule is February 4, 1995. That is when it came 
out. Those are the facts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem we had in committee with this is the 
language of the bill itself. The imminent threat to health or safety 
exclusion falls under section 5, which is emergency exceptions. So the 
context of this is there must be an emergency and there must be an 
imminent threat.
  We tried to rewrite this language so it would clearly apply to cases 
of food health and safety, to no avail.
  So I ask the other side, and yield the time necessary to get an 
answer: Is the bill, is the regulation which deals with E-coli, with 
salmonella and other food pathogens, is that sort of regulation 
sufficient to come under this exclusion? Will they state for the record 
whether or not this sort of regulation would be excluded under this 
language, since they seem to imply that it already is? Is that what 
they are saying, that the regulation is already excluded? Or are they 
saying this kind of regulation dealing with food-borne pathogens, E-
coli, salmonella, are they saying it is so excluded that it is 
unnecessary to have this amendment?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many of you have read this rule. This 
is the rule that is being talked about. I think everybody should take a 
copy of it and read it; that is, the proposed rule.
  You know, we need to get back to what the situation is. First of all, 
if the department knows how to reduce the threat to health and safety, 
they have the power to do that without having to go through rulemaking 
already.
  Second of all, there is nothing in the proposed rule that is going to 
guarantee that we are going to have--we are not sure. Some people think 
what is in here is going to reduce the risk, and some people are not so 
sure it is not going to cause more problems. So there is a difference 
of opinion on the issue.
  There are different aspects in this regulation. Some of this 
regulation does not go into effect for 4 or 5 years. So it is way 
beyond the moratorium. There are some specific issues that may do some 
good: The antimicrobial rinsing provisions that are in this bill where 
they are going to ask the companies to have that as standard operating 
procedure. Some folks argue that, by putting the Federal regulation in 
place, we are actually going to get in the way of industry.
  So I do not think that you can argue that holding up parts of this 
bill, this rule, if they are held up, which I do not think they will 
be, is going to make any difference. They were 3 years getting out in 
the first place.
  Lastly, we had this discussion about cryptosporidium in the 
committee. You know, this is a problem, and we got all the groups 
together, the water organizations, to discuss how to deal with this, 
and they all agreed what they should do. I do not believe we need a 
Federal rule or regulation to accomplish this. The testimony was that 
they all agree what needs to be done, they can go out and do it. Why do 
we have this mentality in this country that unless the Federal 
Government mandates that you regulate or that you do a rule, that it 
cannot be done? Clearly, this case is being taken care of with the 
local communities working together. We do not need a rule in that area.
  So this is covered in the exception, and I oppose the amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a member of the committee.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlewoman, my friend from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] for yielding to me.
  This amendment would do 3 things: It would enable us to regulate 
pathogens in meat and poultry, deadly microbes in drinking water and 
lead in canned food. Those are the 3 specific regulatory areas we are 
trying to insure will continue.
  You heard from Mr. Barrett, who represents Wisconsin, where thousands 
of people in Milwaukee got sick because of cryptosporidium in the water 
supply. The Environmental Protection Agency was able to take that 
experience, and when they found cryptosporidium in the Washington area 
water supply, they were able to stop it. As a result, we did not have 
thousands of people getting sick in the Washington area.
  What they now need to do is to determine what the appropriate 
tolerable level of cryptosporidium is. They need to conduct the 
experiment. This would prevent them from being able to do that.
  You know, I cannot imagine why we would want to prevent these kinds 
of what are really both common sense and terribly important 
regulations.
  On the one hand you say we ought to leave it up to the administration 
to exercise judgment, and the rest of the time they spend criticizing 
the administration for exercising poor judgment. Let us get the law 
protecting the America.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of time 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], who is a member of the 
committee and who is also an expert in this area.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, and I do so because this amendment frankly is exactly why we 
need regulatory reform. The fact is that what this amendment is trying 
to do is to preserve a rule making regulatory process of the Department 
of Agriculture that does not repeal the existing regulations. It just 
overlaps a whole bunch of new regulations on top of existing 
regulations at a cost of $750 million for implementation, $250 million 
annually, and then on top of that they are doing this without any kind 
of comprehensive meat inspection reform. Comprehensive meat inspection 
reform means you change the law and you change the regulations. You got 
to do both. They are trying to pick one thing up in isolation and say 
they have got to do that. As has been articulated earlier here, my 
colleagues, they do not need this exemption to deal with critical food 
safety issues. They did not propose this regulation until 20 months 
after the E. coli outbreak occurred, and so this is all face-saving 
propaganda that has nothing to do with comprehensive meat inspection 
reform. The subcommittee will take that issue up, and we will bring it 
to this Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R. 450 the 
Regulatory Transition Act offered by my colleague from New York, Ms. 
Slaughter. This amendment is the least that should be done to minimize 
the damage to public health that will result if this ill-conceived 
piece of legislation is enacted.
  I note that we once again have a narrow time-limit to debate and 
amend a hastily-crafted bill here on the floor. I would have to agree 
with the majority that we may as well not use more than 10 hours on 
H.R. 450. All the time in the world would not be enough to improve this 
bill, and it would take us many days to enumerate all the regulations 
that protect human health and safety, ensure workers a 
[[Page H2117]]  safe workplace, protect our food supply, maintain and 
improve our environment, create jobs, and save taxpayer and consumer 
dollars.
  I will offer one such example of a set of regulations that would be 
stiffled by the enactment of this bill: the regulations to improve our 
meat and poultry inspection system. The Food Safety and Inspection 
Service recently issued a proposed rule to modernize our meat and 
poultry inspection program. This rule has been in development for quite 
some time. The need for improvements to our inspection system were 
brought to national attention through the tragic deaths of a number of 
children 2 years ago when they became the victims of an outbreak of a 
food-borne illness. Ten years ago, the National Academy of Sciences 
recommended that FSIS develop a program that would control 
contamination from pathogenic microorganisms. A GAO study completed in 
May of last year recommended that FSIS develop a mandatory hazard 
analysis and critical control point system. USDA has now followed this 
wise advise. Why should this regulatory action be postponed? Do we need 
a few more outbreaks of food-borne illness or a few more deaths to 
qualify this rule for an exemption from this moratorium?
  The FSIS estimates that compliance with this rule will cost industry 
$2 billion over a 20-year time period. However, it is estimated to save 
3 to 12 times that amount in public health costs, not to mention that 
it will save lives. How much does it cost the restaurant industry and 
the meat and poultry industry if an outbreak of a devastating disease 
results in public perception that their products are unsafe? Too much.
  The assumption that underlies this legislation is that all Federal 
regulations are unjustified. This is ridiculous. Some of our children 
grow up to be criminals. Should we put a moratorium on the birth of any 
additional children until we find a solution to that problem? Let us 
not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This bill proceeds from an 
incorrect assumption and then broadly applies a one-size-fits-none 
solution to regulatory problems associated with some specific statutes.
  There are statutes that we have enacted that have not enabled Federal 
agencies to pursue the most cost-effective regulatory pathways. They 
should be improved. Instead of jeapordizing public health and safety 
through passage of one-size-fits-all legislation, let us do regulatory 
reform as it should be done. We need to use a common sense, 
responsible, statute-by-statute approach to achieve the sensible, cost-
effective regulatory policy that industry and the public deserve.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on the gentlewoman's amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Slaughter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                              recored vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 249, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 161]

                               AYES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--249

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Barton
     Ehlers
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1550

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Meek for, with Mr. Barton against.

  Messrs. LIVINGSTON, BROWDER, CRAMER, and BROWNBACK, Mrs. LINCOLN, and 
Mr. WILLIAMS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: In Section 
     6(3)(B)(ii), after the comma following ``agreements'' insert 
     the following: ``including all agency actions required by the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act,''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the gentleman from 
Indiana, [Mr. Burton], and a member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  [[Page H2118]] Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the statement I am about to make, while it applies to 
the textile industry, other parts of the GATT agreement that apply to 
steel, auto parts and possibly other industries would also be 
positively impacted by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the Regulatory Freeze Bill, 
H.R. 450, to prevent this legislation from inadvertently thwarting an 
action specifically mandated by Congress on an important matter 
pertaining to Customs Service rules of origin.
  Congress was very clear on what it wanted Customs to do last year 
when it approved the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, because that 
legislation spelled out in precise detail how the U.S. Customs Service 
would be required to promulgate this rule of origin for textiles and 
apparel. There is no leeway for the bureaucracy to make any 
interpretation because Congress told them what to do. The regulation 
was actually spelled out for Customs when Congress approved these 
principles as part of the Uruguay Round implementing legislation.
  For years the United States Customs Service has used a cutting rule 
of origin which permits country-of-origin status to be determined by 
where a garment is cut, not where it is actually made. This has enabled 
China to ship billions of dollars worth of goods through third 
countries in circumvention of the quotas they have agreed to.
  No other major country has used such a liberal rule of origin 
requirement which permits quota evasion. And in the Uruguay Round 
agreement itself, the signatory nations agreed to work to standardize 
the rules of origin for textile production and products.
  Accordingly, the U.S. Customs Service recommended and this Congress 
agreed, as part of the Uruguay Round implementing bill, to bring our 
Customs rules in line with the rest of the world.
  What I am offering today is an amendment to clarify that these 
regulations, which were considered and duly voted on by the Congress 
and which by law must be issued shortly, will be exempted from the 
regulatory freeze. There simply is no need to freeze actions which have 
been directed by the Congress.
  And I would like to once again state, Mr. Chairman, that the 
amendment is drawn in such a way as to positively impact on other 
industries such as the steel industry and auto parts industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] seek 
recognition in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that if no Member 
is prepared to seek to control the time in opposition to the amendment, 
that the time might be given to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman's request that the time 
in opposition be given either to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] or to the gentleman from South Carolina?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, that is my request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this is an 
outstanding amendment. I think it is supported by all Members on this 
side that I know of. It is much needed to this bill.
  It is interesting to me, though, that an amendment like this that is 
providing an exception, like the one before, there will be others after 
it, is going to now be accepted by the majority. I agree with that, but 
I do not understand the philosophy of the majority. Perhaps the 
chairman can elaborate on that, why they can accept certain ones as 
exceptions and not others. Can the gentleman from Indiana tell me why?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from 
Missouri, my position is, I do not really think the amendment is 
necessary, because I think that it is covered under the existing 
exceptions that are provided for foreign affairs and because there is a 
trade exception under the bill. But I do not think that, in other 
words, I think it may be covered but to ensure that, we would certainly 
accept this amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not say that on the last 
amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It may be an interpretation of what is really 
insurance as far as these industries are concerned.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will be gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a 
question.
  The gentleman's amendment refers to rules, ``as required by section 
334 of the Uruguay Round Act.''
  Under the bill, there is an exclusion in section 6(3)(B)(ii) for 
rules relating to ``statutes implementing trade agreements.''
  Why, therefore, I would ask the gentleman, does he believe his 
amendment is necessary?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, 
I think I agree with what the chairman said, that it probably is not 
absolutely necessary. However, there are a number of industries in this 
country that feel like there needs to be some insurance that there is 
no misinterpretation. That is why we have offered the amendment, to 
make sure they feel comfortable with this piece of legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's 
concern. As a matter of fact, I have a couple of concerns myself.
  One, of course, has to do with the textile and apparel workers. I 
have a lot of those in the city of Chicago, and I know this moratorium 
bill would have made it more difficult for customs to stock illegal 
textile imports, so I am going to support the gentleman's agreement.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 450 could stop our Government from 
imposing sanctions against China for pirating copyrighted United States 
products, like compact disks and videocassettes. I would also like to 
think that that would also clarify that those sanctions would not be 
permitted, as well.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think it could be interpreted 
to be broad in that regard, too.
  I would just reclaim my time and thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments. I think this amendment speaks for itself, and I would rather 
not get into a lengthy discussion on China and other things of that 
type. However, I do think this amendment is broad enough that it 
probably covers a lot of those concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. This 
amendment would ensure there would be no interruption in the rulemaking 
authority for the Rules of Origin provision contained in the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act. It is of great importance to the textile and the 
apparel trade during the current 10-year phase out period for all 
import quotas on these products.
  The rules of origin provision has the full support of the U.S. 
textile and apparel unions and trade associations representing some 2 
million American workers.
  Adoption of this amendment is also essential to help to deter fraud 
and abuse of the Rules of Origin by several leading exporting 
countries.
  [[Page H2119]] Under the new rules, the country of origin is where 
the garment is assembled or where the fabric is woven.
  The illegal transshipment of apparel products has in the past been a 
key irritant in our bilateral relationship with China. I ask my 
colleagues for their support for this provision, which will prevent any 
future efforts by China to export garments into this country illegally 
under the quota of its neighbors, including Hong Kong and countries in 
Asia and Latin America.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I am very 
concerned about the fact that there should be some kind of sanctions 
imposed against China for pirating patented and copyrighted United 
States products, such as compact discs and videocassettes, and the 
Trade Representative has recently announced those sanctions.
  They would be implemented pursuant to a rule printed in the February 
7, 1995, Federal Register. Few challenge our findings that China has 
violated the intellectual property rights of American companies. We 
know of at least 29 factories in southern China which produce 75 
million compact discs a year, of which 70 million are exported.
  These pirated copies are competing directly with U.S. exports, and 
cost the copyright industries of the United States almost $1 billion in 
lost exports each year. For the past 20 months we have been negotiating 
with China in an effort to get them to agree to stop these pirating 
activities. Those efforts have failed.
  In documents provided to the committee by the Office of Management 
and Budget, H.R. 450's impact on the China sanctions is described in 
this way: ``The moratorium would hold up the trade sanctions and 
subject them to challenge, affecting the administration's ability to 
set trade policies to protect U.S. firms and consumers.''
  Therefore, I am very happy about the gentleman's amendment. The 
reality is that the sanctions the administration has said it would 
impose on China are the only leverage we have to encourage the Chinese 
to stop pirating United States copyrighted products.
  Why would we ever want to make it more difficult for the 
administration to get the Chinese to stop violating United States 
intellectual property rights? Similarly, a proposed rule published in 
December by the Customs Service would establish a 180-day conditional 
release period for imported textiles and textile products, during which 
it can be determined whether a product is entitled to entry into the 
U.S. market.
  It is well-known that many foreign countries successfully avoid U.S. 
textile quotas by shipping their products through a third country. The 
conditional release period provided for in the new rule would have 
given Customs the time it needs to verify country of origin and to stop 
illegal shipments from entering our country.
  In documents provided by OMB, the impact of H.R. 450 on the rule is 
described in the following way: ``Textiles will continue to enter the 
United States illegally due to lack of a provisional approval period, 
unfairly competing with products from domestic textile producers.''
  Therefore, it just makes all kinds of sense to have the gentleman's 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is just about time for us to look very 
carefully at the kinds of rulemaking that would be stopped if H.R. 50 
were not amended by some real sensible amendments, so I thank the 
gentleman for offering this, because it certainly does a great deal to 
help those people in my district who are textile workers, and those in 
my district who are very concerned about the fact that there is so much 
copyrighting of videocassettes and compact discs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen].
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a fine amendment. It was an oversight 
that it was not included in the original bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge our 
Members to vote for it. It corrects a situation for the textile and 
apparel industries that badly needs to be realized and corrected.
  I commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for sponsoring this 
amendment, and I join hands with him to get it passed.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Radanovich].
  (Mr. RADANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I am told that I may inform my 
colleagues in this House that I have an amendment to offer, but in the 
interest of ensuring the speedy passage of H.R. 450, I will not offer 
the amendment, but instead start a dialogue concerning an issue which 
must be dealt with in the near term. That issue is the regulation 
concerning ``fresh'' and ``frozen'' chickens. My points are these:
  Why cannot this wait until the moratorium is over?
  Shoppers across the country are paying anywhere from 40 cents to 1 
dollar more per pound for chicken they think is fresh, when it isn't. 
This means that American homes are being defrauded of millions of 
dollars each year and to wait means we are sitting back and knowingly 
allowing this fraud to continue for an entire year.
  In California in particular, it would mean another year in which out-
of-state processors can intentionally undersell regional producers by 
misrepresenting their product. The industry has 25,000 employees and 
has steadily lost market share to frozen chicken sold as fresh.
  How long has this fight been going on?
  USDA has been trying to change this rule since 1988. The Food Safety 
and Inspection Service changed it's policy to stop the use of the term 
``fresh'' on frozen chicken, but powerful national poultry producers 
intervened and stopped the new policy from going into effect.
  The California legislature tried to act on its own to prohibit 
mislabeling in September, 1993. When they were stopped from doing so by 
a Federal court, they started working to persuade USDA to adopt a 
better standard for the whole country.
                              {time}  1610

  Mr. Chairman, based on these concerns, I urge the Committee on 
Agriculture to consider in some appropriate context the passage of a 
special allowance for this regulation. I find it difficult being a 
small businessman with this kind of concern, and I support fully H.R. 
450, but I wish that in this particular area, a consideration would be 
given.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a short fax sheet explaining 
the history of this problem, as follows:

                     The Fresh Chicken Controversy

       Historically, national poultry producers have been putting 
     fresh labels on frozen chicken. They freeze their chicken 
     rock solid, label it fresh, truck it across the U.S., thaw it 
     out locally and sell it to consumers as if it had never been 
     frozen. These producers know that consumers will pay a 
     premium for fresh food, but consumers don't know they're 
     being duped.
       On July 11, 1988, after months of scientific analysis, the 
     Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service (FSIS) issued Policy Memo 022B, raising the fresh 
     poultry labeling standard from 0 to 26 degrees Fahrenheit. 
     This meant that national producers could no longer put fresh 
     labels on chicken chilled below 26 degrees--the actual 
     freezing point for poultry. National producers were not happy 
     with this policy change.
       On January 11, 1989, despite FSIS's scientific conclusions 
     six-months earlier, USDA abruptly rescinded Policy Memo 022C 
     and restored the old standard allowing producers to once 
     again freeze chicken as low as 1 degree Fahrenheit and still 
     label it as fresh.
       In 1993, the California legislature unanimously passed a 
     law mirroring the short-lived Federal standard of 26 degrees. 
     The National Broiler Council and the Arkansas Poultry 
     Federation sued, arguing that a 
     [[Page H2120]]  state cannot pass a more stringent labeling 
     rule than the U.S. government. USDA filed a brief in the 
     lawsuit supporting the poultry industry position. A Federal 
     court blocked enforcement of California's law on 
     jurisdictional grounds on April 8, 1994. The issue was 
     appealed.
       Many other states, including New York, Arizona, Oregon, 
     Maine, Alaska, Illinois, Washington and Puerto Rico, have 
     passed poultry labeling laws regarding the definition of 
     ``fresh'', as well as organic and kosher production and 
     processing.
       On February 10, 1994, USDA Secretary Mike Espy issued a 
     press release, pledging that USDA would direct the Food 
     Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to reexamine whether 
     current policy on fresh labeling is reasonable.
       On June 16, 1994, the Government Operations Subcommittees 
     on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations and 
     Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture 
     conducted a joint hearing on USDA rules concerning ``fresh'' 
     labels on poultry products. Richard Rominger, USDA Deputy 
     Secretary, testified that FSIS staff would review current 
     policy on two tracks: evaluate scientific literature 
     concerning temperature effects on poultry, and, conduct 
     regional hearings to assess consumer expectations. These 
     results would form the basis of any policy revision regarding 
     labeling of ``fresh'' poultry.
       Support for a new rule continued to grow. Well-known and 
     respected consumer groups urged Secretary Espy to act, 
     including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, 
     National Consumers League and Public Voice for Food & Health 
     Policy.
       On July 27, ``The Truth in Poultry Labeling Act of 1994'' 
     was introduced by Senators Boxer and Feinstein and 
     Representative Condit in the 103rd Congress. The Senate 
     approved Senator Boxer's Amendment to S. 2095 expressing the 
     sense of the Senate that delays in proposing a new rule must 
     be ended and a decision must be made ``as expeditiously as 
     possible.''
       FSIS Administrator Michael R. Taylor promised Senator 
     Barbara Boxer and Representative Condit that truth-in-
     labeling would be addressed on a ``fast track''.
       On August 26, 1994, USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service 
     announced public hearings on the use of the term ``fresh'' on 
     the labeling of raw poultry products to be held on: September 
     12, 1994 in Modesto, California; September 16, 1994 in 
     Atlanta, Georgia; and September 20, 1994 in Washington, D.C., 
     to assist FSIS in developing a new policy.
       Consumer advocates, chefs, consumers and home economists 
     came forward and testified at these public hearings across 
     the country that it was time for USDA to listen to consumers 
     and end mislabeling of poultry.
       In a letter to Senator Boxer and Congressman Condit. USDA 
     promised a rule before Thanksgiving.
       On December 14, 1994, a victory was won by California 
     consumers when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated 
     the provision making it illegal for poultry frozen below 26 
     degrees Fahrenheit to be advertised or sold as fresh.
       Consumer advocates Public Voice for Food and Health Policy 
     and the National Consumers League implored USDA to change 
     federal labeling laws so that all Americans are afforded the 
     same protection against the misrepresentation of frozen 
     chicken being sold as fresh.
       On December 21, 1994, Senator Boxer again urged USDA Deputy 
     Secretary Rominger to expedite rule-making, particularly in 
     light of the recent California Court decision. Deputy 
     Secretary Rominger again assured her that a proposed rule 
     would be announced within four weeks. Consumers, chefs, 
     consumer advocates, home economists and members of Congress 
     continue to anxiously await USDA's resolution of this 
     priority issue.
       While USDA drags its feet, Congressman Condit introduces 
     H.R. 203, ``The Truth in Poultry Labeling Act'' in the 104th 
     Congress.
       On January 17, 1995, FSIS finally acts and releases a 
     proposed regulation on labeling ``fresh'' poultry prohibiting 
     the use of the term ``fresh'' being used on raw poultry 
     products whose internal temperature has gone below 26 degrees 
     and requiring thawed products which have gone below 26 
     degrees to be labeled ``previously frozen.''
       Truth-in-advertising and honest labeling have not yet been 
     achieved. Consumers, consumer advocates, poultry producers, 
     and other supporters who believe in honest labeling can tell 
     USDA to not bow to the pressure of those producers interested 
     in continuing to mislead the public. FSIS must be vigilant in 
     preserving the rights of consumers. Comments to the Federal 
     Register will be accepted until March 20, 1995.
       A federal rule on poultry freshness will not stop national 
     producers from selling chickens nationwide, nor will it stop 
     them from selling at lower prices than in-state growers; it 
     will simply enable consumers who wish to pay a premium for 
     freshly killed poultry to make an informed selection.

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I had an amendment to do the very same thing. I still 
plan to offer it, if time allows, because I have been in contact with 
USDA and the general counsel over there, and they advise me that these 
regulations will not be able to go forward if this bill passes and 
becomes law as it is presently written. What it will mean is that the 
matter now being proposed at USDA to correct the problem that the 
gentleman has in California will not be done.
  So I think that the gentleman surely would join with me in that 
amendment if we get an opportunity to do it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I wish to raise the issue, but I have no intention of 
stopping the speedy passage of H.R. 450.
  Mr. VOLKMER. What do you mean? You had rather not take care of the 
problem?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I had rather it be taken care of in the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Committee on Agriculture. How are we going to do it in 
the Committee on Agriculture? I am a member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I am not interested in slowing the passage of H.R. 
450, sir.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Yippee.


                    amendment offered by mr. spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

       At the end of the bill (page   , after line   ), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC.  . REGULATIONS TO AID BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS.

       Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, shall not apply to any of 
     the following regulatory rulemaking actions (or any such 
     action relating thereto):
       (1) Conditional release of textile imports.--A final rule 
     published on December 2, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 61798), to 
     provide for the conditional release by the Customs Service of 
     textile imports suspected of being imported in violation of 
     United States quotas.
       (2) Textile imports.--Any action which the head of the 
     relevant agency and the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs certify in writing is a 
     substantive rule, Interpretive rule, statement of agency 
     policy, or notice of proposed rulemaking to interpret, 
     implement, or administer laws pertaining to the import of 
     textiles and apparel including section 334 of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465), relating to textile 
     rules of origin.
       (3) Customs modernization.--Any action which the head of 
     the relevant agency and the Administrator or the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs certify in writing is a 
     substantive rule, interpretive rule, statement of agency 
     policy, or notice of proposed rulemaking to interpret, 
     implement, or administrater laws pertaining to the customs 
     modernization provisions contained in title VI of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-
     182).
       (4) Actions with respect to china regarding intellectual 
     property protection and market access.--A regulatory 
     rulemaking action providing notice of a determination that 
     the People's Republic of China's failure to enforce 
     Intellectual property rights and to provide market access is 
     unreasonable and constitutes a burden or restriction on 
     United States commerce, and a determination that trade action 
     is appropriate and that sanctions are appropriate, taken 
     under section 304(a)(1)(A)(ii), section 304(a)(1)(B), and 
     section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 and with respect to 
     which a notice of determination was published on February 7, 
     1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 7320).
       (5) Transfer of spectrum.--A regulatory rulemaking action 
     by the Federal Communications Commission to transfer 50 
     megahertz of spectrum below 5 GHz from government use to 
     private use, taken under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1983 and with respect to which notice of proposed 
     rulemaking was published at 59 Federal Register 59393.
       (6) Personal communications services licenses.--A 
     regulatory rulemaking action by the Federal Communications 
     Commission to establish criteria and procedures for issuing 
     licensee utilizing competitive bidding procedures to provide 
     personal communications services--
       (A) taken under section 309(j) of the Communications Act 
     and with respect to which a final rule was published on 
     December 7, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 63210); or
       (B) taken under sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications 
     Act and with respect to which a final rule was published on 
     December 2, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 61828).
       (7) Wide-area specialized mobile radio licenses.--A 
     regulatory rulemaking action by the Federal Communications 
     Commission to provide for competitive bidding for wide-area 
     specialized mobile radio licenses, taken under section 309(j) 
     of the Communications Act and with respect to which a 
     proposed rule was published on February 14, 1995 (60 Fed. 
     Reg. 8341).
       (8) Improved trading opportunities for regional 
     exchanges.--A regulatory rulemaking action by the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission to provide for increased 
     [[Page H2121]]  competition among the stock exchanges, taken 
     under the Unlisted Trading Privileges Act of 1994 and with 
     respect to which proposed rulemaking ws published on February 
     9, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 7118).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] will be recognized for 15 
minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Spratt-Payne-Coble-Ballenger-
Hefner-Rose amendment to H.R. 450.
  Basically, Mr. Chairman, this amendment carves out several selected 
exceptions to this regulatory freeze to allow for rules that American 
businesses have actually sought and supported. Our amendment would mean 
the moratorium would not apply to five subject areas:
  No. 1. Trade sanctions against China. Mr. Chairman, if this bill 
passes, the administration may, I cannot say this with any certainty, 
but it may be barred or at least impeded from imposing sanctions 
against China for pirating our patents and copyrights. Section 6 of the 
bill does exclude from the freeze ``statutes implementing international 
trade agreements.'' But the sanctions we would impose upon China do not 
implement any international trade agreements, they are sanctions 
imposed under our own trade laws. So they may not be precluded as a 
rule-making action as this bill is written now.
  Our amendment would make certain simply that we can sanction China 
for pirating our patents and copyrights, and I do not see how anybody 
can oppose that.
  No. 2. Implementation of the so-called Customs Modernization Act. 
American exporters and importers alike support the Customs 
Modernization Act because it cuts costs and cuts delays as well. The 
Customs Service supports it because the Modernization Act saves 
millions of dollars and allows Customs to streamline its operations and 
get rid of obsolete requirements. H.R. 450 will potentially stop 
Customs from implementing by regulation all parts of the Modernization 
Act. Surely there is no reason for us to do that. The Spratt-Payne-
Coble-Ballenger-Hefner-Rose amendment would ensure that this bill does 
not inadvertently get in the way of Customs modernization. There is 
nothing wrong with that.
  No. 3. Wider access to telecommunications, the so-called auction of 
the spectrum. H.R. 450 will potentially suspend rules that govern the 
auction of the spectrum that have been issued recently and it could 
require the FCC to shut down its auction for as much as the next 10 
months. Since December, these FCC auctions have raised $6.1 billion. Do 
we want to have
 H.R. 450 stop the Government from collecting revenues of this 
magnitude for the rest of the year? Do we want to prevent the FCC from 
making available additional spectrum to police and public safety 
officials under new and revised regulations? Our amendment would make 
certain that we do not do that.

  No. 4. Improved opportunities for regional stock exchanges. The SEC 
issued rules this month to allow for increased competition among 
regional stock exchanges. H.R. 450 would freeze these rules with all 
others. Our amendment would simply ensure that they go forward.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Customs is about to issue textile rules of 
origin which we just talked about that will authorize our Government to 
stop exporting countries like Hong Kong from shipping to us goods under 
their quota which are actually made in China. This is a form of fraud. 
Surely we do not want to block rules that crack down on fraudulent 
trade. That is why we just accepted the Burton amendment, but mine goes 
further and deals with other textile and apparel import rules and 
regulations that deal with fraud, evasion and circumvention.
  For example, Customs has recently issued another rule that stiffens 
the penalties against textile transshipments which are a form of fraud 
and quota evasion. This amendment would simply allow that these 
regulations against trade fraud and evasion take effect. That should 
not be objectionable to anybody, particularly since the Burton 
amendment was just accepted without objection without any more than a 
voice vote.
  I say to my colleagues, regardless of how you want to vote on H.R. 
450, you ought to vote for this amendment. If you want to have our 
Government have the power to impose trade sanctions upon China, you 
should vote for this amendment. If you want to see the auction of the 
spectrum and the billions of dollars it is generating in revenues for 
the Treasury go forward under new clarified rules of procedure, then 
you should vote for this amendment. If you want to crack down on fraud 
and evasion by countries that ship billions of dollars into our markets 
but flout our rules of trade, then you should vote for this amendment.
  These are regulations, as I said at the outset, that American 
businesses have sought and supported, many of us in this House have 
sought and supported them, and we gain nothing and we lose a lot by 
freezing actions on them for 13 solid months.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, basically I think the same argument would apply to this 
as would apply to some of the others that have been suggested, and, 
that is, whether this would accomplish what the gentleman really seeks 
to accomplish. It seems to me that we have provided an exemption here 
that would deal with the issue that the gentleman raises. I gather 
there are two issues raised in this amendment. The one on the textile 
element was not covered by the last amendment, may I ask the gentleman?
  Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman will yield, it was only partially 
covered by the last amendment, because the last amendment went to the 
rules of origin which are a legally dictated rule that was imposed upon 
the Treasury Department by the GATT-implementing legislation when it 
was passed. This deals with a wider spectrum of rules and regulations 
that apply to fraud, evasion, circumvention, textile trade fraud, more 
than just the rules of origin problem.
  Mr. CLINGER. Specifically what do you provide with regard to the FCC?
  Mr. SPRATT. There are rules now pending which have been issued by the 
FCC that will deal with additional auctions of the spectrum in a 
certain megahertz range. We will have members of the Committee on 
Commerce come here shortly and speak to that. But basically if those 
rules do not go forward, then the auction itself could be impeded and 
billions of dollars could be in jeopardy.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the author of the legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that much of the 
provisions that are being discussed in this amendment actually can go 
forward under the exceptions that we currently have in the bill. 
Specifically those dealing with the FCC licensing provisions, we have 
an exemption for licenses that would allow the FCC to go ahead and 
issue all of those licenses. It is my understanding that it is their 
practice to implement their policies on a license-by-license basis, be 
able to go forward, both with the auction and the other licenses that 
they would seek to offer.
  In terms of the regulations regarding trade in the textile area, to 
the extent those are related to an international trade agreement, the 
exception there would apply. Those that are related to fraud in a 
criminal sense would be able to go forward under the exception allowed 
for regulations necessary to enforce criminal statutes.
  For those reasons, I think the real gravamen of this amendment is 
taken care of already in the bill and we do not need to have special 
exceptions in this case.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of 
our committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois, [Mrs. Collins].
  [[Page H2122]] (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given 
permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Business loves to complain about burdensome Federal regulation, but 
the fact of the matter is that business also benefits from Federal 
regulation. The regulations included in the gentleman's amendment make 
this point very clear.
  The regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission which 
are contained in the Spratt amendment are good examples of Federal 
regulations that benefit business. The FCC has a rulemaking under way 
pertaining to mobile wireless radio services, such as wireless fleet 
dispatch communications.
  There is a company in Chicago, NEXTEL, which is eager to compete in 
providing this service, and they need this rule issued to be able to 
compete effectively.
  Why would we want this moratorium to apply to rules like this? Are we 
against regulations that will produce revenues for the Federal Treasury 
and increase competition?
  NEXTEL does not believe the exclusions in the bill protect them, and 
they have said so in a letter to me. They would not be eligible for the 
exclusion for new technologies. Their technology is already being 
offered in Los Angeles, and as of last month in Chicago as well. But, 
to compete with other telecommunications firms, NEXTEL needs the common 
carrier status which this rule would grant it.
  Furthermore, NEXTEL is by no means the only beneficiary of this rule. 
Until this new rule goes forward, more than 800 companies similar to 
NEXTEL all over the country, will be stopped from competing to provide 
wireless mobile radio services.
  Finally, regulations will soon be issued by the Securities and 
Exchange Commission which will promote the competitiveness of regional 
stock exchanges in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Los 
Angeles and San Francisco.
  These regulations would eliminate the time regional stock exchanges 
must wait before they can trade in new stocks listed on the principal 
exchanges.
  I was a cosponsor of the Unlisted Trading Privileges Act under which 
these regulations are being issued. This legislation had strong bi-
partisan support and passed the House three times before it was 
included in last year's budget reconciliation bill.
  Why would we want to block implementation of regulations that will 
promote competitiveness of the regional stock exchanges?
  Unless we are willing to surrender to foreign unfair trade practices 
and do not care about creating a competitive, state-of-the-art 
telecommunications industry, we should exempt these regulations from 
the moratorium.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  I will simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I was in favor of the Burton 
amendment, a good sound amendment, but I believe the Spratt-Coble-
Ballenger-Payne amendment extends the propriety thereof and I think it 
extends it in areas that are needed.
  Sanctions against transshipments and other forms of quota violations, 
in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, are epidemic and I think we need this 
additional amendment to address that.
  Textile and apparel workers, my mom used to be one, worked at a 
hosiery mill, was a machine operator. I represent thousands of 
employees who earn their living to this day in textile miles, a very 
significant cog in the American wheel of industry.
  I think this is an amendment that is needed. I think it will address 
areas that in my opinion the Burton amendment does not address, and 
furthermore, I think will do harm to no one.
  I think it will enhance America's role, in fact, not just in the 
textile and apparel area but otherwise. I urge support of the amendment 
and I thank the gentleman for having yielded time to me.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Spratt, Payne, Coble, Ballenger, Hefner, Burr, Rose, Funderburk 
amendment to H.R. 450. While I am pleased that the gentleman from 
Indiana's amendment was accepted and I think it was a very important 
amendment. It does not address several other issues that are critical 
to American industry, particularly the American textile industry, while 
I am pleased our amendment on the other hand, does in fact speak to the 
needs of our industry.
  Our amendment is a good government amendment. It protects American 
businesses and workers from unintended consequences of the regulatory 
moratorium. It allows several specific exemptions to the moratorium 
that American businesses want and need.
  Our amendment will allow the Customs Service to continue its fight 
against illegal transshipments. These illegal shipments or textile and 
apparel goods represent up to $4 billion in lost sales every year to 
the American textile and apparel industry.
  Last year, as part of the GATT implementing bill, the Congress 
directed the Customs Service to take additional measures to fight this 
serious transshipments problem. Unfortunately, the language of H.R. 450 
would prevent the Customs Service from issuing regulations to implement 
what Congress specifically requested.
  The Customs Modernization Act is also addressed. Importers and 
exporters alike have complained for years that Customs procedures and 
structures are badly in need of reform. In response to those concerns, 
Congress passed the Customs Modernization Act as part of the NAFTA 
implementing bill in 1993.
  Since then, Customs has been proceeding in a very deliberate manner 
to reform itself in a way that will be more responsive to the 
businesses who depend on importing and exporting to survive.
  However, this comprehensive, bipartisan, and widely supported effort 
will not go forward without the exemption that this amendment would 
grant.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment is aimed at just one thing: Preserving 
American jobs by preserving the competitiveness of American businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt-Payne 
amendment. It is a necessary and important piece of amendatory 
legislation.
  This bill is going to have some surprising effects, many harmful, and 
many which will surprise those who support it.
  I refer specifically to the situation with regard to FCC regulations 
which govern the behavior of the entirety of the telecommunications 
industry.
  I would point out to my colleagues that the amendment would prevent 
the suspension of a series of important regulations relating to the 
issuance of new licenses for operations of portions of the radio 
spectrum to assist the growth of our telecommunications industry.
  I would tell my colleagues if these regulations are suspended, 
serious consequences occur. First of all, American industry is delayed 
in getting into the new telecommunications services. American business 
and consumers are hurt by that action.
  Revenues are lost both to providers of service and to users of 
telecommunication services.
  Beyond that, it will preclude the taxpayers from benefiting from the 
competitive bidding procedures established by the Congress in the 1993 
reconciliation bill.
  The Spratt-Payne amendment ameliorates to a large degree these 
deficiencies. It exempts from the sweeping scope of this legislation 3 
important FCC regulations that create business opportunities and that 
protect the public interest.
  [[Page H2123]] It exempts those which protect the public safety and 
bring important revenue into the Federal Treasury.
  The amendment also provides an exception for regulations issued last 
November that created the Personal Communications Services, the PCS's.
                              {time}  1630

  These regulations establish geographic areas that would be covered by 
PCS licenses. They establish the bandwidth and other circumstances 
associated with the behavior of licensees.
  The regulations establish the basis for companies to bid for licenses 
at auction. In December, on the 5th day, the FCC commenced to auction 
the PCS licenses. This auction is still going on today. As of the close 
of business last night, bids totaling $6.3 billion had been logged into 
the FCC computers. When the three pioneer preference licenses are 
factored in, the total amount in FCC computers is $6.9 billion that 
would come to the taxpayers if the FCC is not precluded from including 
those revenues in those regulations because of the enactment of this, 
quite frankly, silly piece of legislation.
  What will happen to these bids if the regulations that govern the 
licenses are suspended? Will the bidders such as AT&T or Pacific 
Telesis or any other bidders keep bidding? Will they continue to make 
payments to the Treasury hoping that the regulations will ultimately be 
permitted to take place?
  Another regulation that the Spratt-Payne amendment would exempt from 
the allocation or, rather, from the provisions of this legislation, are 
allocations of 50 megahertz of radio spectrum the Federal Government 
has transferred to the FCC for new uses, something that the American 
manufacturing and telecommunications industry desperately needs. 
Potential users of these frequencies are police, fire, public safety 
users of the spectrum in our largest cities. There is a critical 
shortage of this spectrum.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the language of the bill and to adopt 
the Spratt-Payne amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt-Payne-
Coble-Ballenger amendment. It is important to textile workers and 
industry in North Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I thank him and the gentleman from Virginia for making this 
amendment.
  To follow on what the gentleman from Michigan was just referring to, 
we have two very important issues that would, in fact, be affected if 
we did not pass the amendment before us right now. No. 1, out of the 
Commerce Committee last year we passed legislation on something called 
unlisted trading privileges.
  Now, it all sounds very technical, but the net result of it is that 
it allows the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the Boston Stock Exchange, 
the Chicago Stock Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, Cincinnati Stock 
Exchange to get into all new activities in a much more telescoped 
timeframe than they have ever been allowed to engage in trading before. 
It is a real spur to competition out in the marketplace. It is 
something ultimately we were able to pass on a unanimous basis.
  But if the amendment does not pass, it will be impossible for the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to be able to get this regulation in 
place and to give benefits to the Chicago and Philadelphia and Pacific, 
other regional, stock exchanges in their competition with New York and 
the American Stock Exchange.
  Second, we have a tremendous revolution taking place in this country 
that involves cellular phones, faxes, and wireless technologies of all 
kinds. Last year we passed laws out of the Commerce Committee so that 
the Federal Communications Commission would transfer 50 megahertz of 
spectrum for use in this area.
  By the way, when you think about 50 megahertz, you have an idea just 
what that is, that is all of the spectrum now being used for cellular 
phones, all of them. We are talking about moving over the spectrum so 
we can have this revolution so the Dick Tracy two-way wrist radio is 
something that is in the stores within 2 or 3 years.
  If this amendment does not pass, it is going to stall, delay, and 
make almost impossible our ability as a Nation to get our product out 
onto the international market first so that we are most competitive, so 
the jobs are here in the United States.
  Those are two examples. We could go on, but I think that just so you 
have a sense of the range of concerns of industries as diverse as the 
Pacific Stock Exchange and every cellular and fax and wireless company 
in the United States. Let us hope this amendment passes.
  Anyone who is listening, American competitiveness very much depends 
upon the Spratt-Payne amendment passing this House this afternoon.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we feel that the items that the gentleman is 
attempting to deal with in this amendment would be eligible to go 
forward under exemptions which are provided in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the author of the legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the points that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], has raised 
are some very important changes in the regulatory system, and he and 
his staff are to be commended for having worked on those, in particular 
reducing the burdens on some of the exchanges outside of New York so 
that they can offer those additional services.
  It is the opinion of the authors of this bill and my committee, 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
full committee, those types of regulations are exempt from the 
moratorium precisely because they do reduce the current regulatory 
burden on the private sector, and that the SEC could go forward with 
those regulations. The FCC can go forward with its licenses and allow 
the private sector, through an auction process, to expand the cellular 
phone markets and other services that they seek to provide for.
  So I think the problem is addressed in the moratorium legislation. 
There is not a need for an explicit amendment.
  One of the things that we have very carefully guarded against is 
starting a long list of particular regulations that would be exempt 
because of the problem of statutory construction. If you have a very 
general provision that says we are going to protect health and safety, 
we are going to allow regulations that reduce burdens on the economy, 
but then you start a list of particular amendments or particular 
regulations, there might be something that is not on the list, and our 
concern was those items not on the list that protect health and safety 
or reduce a burden could be held up because they were not listed.
  We tried to keep it a very general provision allowing the particular 
regulations that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] 
mentioned to go forward.
  For that reason, I would urge that the body today vote against that 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is an exemption in your legislation for licensing. What we have 
to distinguish though is the difference between licensing and the FCC 
promulgating rules and regulations with regard to bandwidth, with 
regard for geographic distancing, with regard to who is eligible. Right 
now, based upon the regulations that are out there, $6\1/2\ billion--
billion dollars--has been bid by companies for this spectrum.
  If we change that today, all of that money is just going to be taken 
back off the table by all of these companies because of the uncertainty 
which is going to be established. So it has a big 
[[Page H2124]]  impact on our deficit-reduction objectives as well, 
because these companies are bidding based upon the FCC's ability to lay 
out not just the licensing but the eligibility, bandwidth, geographic 
spacing of all of these technologies as well.
  So I appreciate what you are trying to do in licensing. It just does 
not quite reach the problem, and it will affect all of the cellular 
phone competition out there in the market.
  Mr. McINTOSH. If I could respond to that, because I want to make it 
clear to the FCC, in our opinion they can continue to grant those 
licenses. It is my understanding they can, on a case-by-case basis, 
apply all of those criteria as they issue the particular license. I 
want them to be sure and go ahead and issue those licenses.
  Mr. MARKEY. If the gentleman will yield further, they can issue the 
licenses under the exemption. What they cannot do is establish the 
regulations for the conditions dealing with the issuance of the 
license, and that is not in fact exempted in your language; they will 
be handcuffed in terms of the ability to take the next step, and as a 
result, all the bidders will pull the $6 billion worth of bids for this 
spectrum off the table.
  You have an error here in terms of the overall operation of how the 
FCC actually promulgates regulations, and it has an impact on a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that passed which will generate $6 to 
$10 billion if the FCC is allowed to proceed as they have.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying I think 
that the provisions in the bill right now would let them specify those 
general policies and continue on with their licensing program. But I 
appreciate my colleagues' bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 189, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 162]

                               AYES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--189

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Barton
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Porter

                              {time}  1658

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Barton against.

  Mr. NEY, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. 
METCALF, and Mr. SCHUMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CHAMBLISS and Mr. STOCKMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1700


                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 36.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: In section 5(a)(2) (page , 
     line   ), strike ``imminent threat'' and insert ``substantial 
     endangerment''.
       In section 6(7) (page   , beginning at line 
       )--
       (1) strike ``death, serious illness, or severe injury'' and 
     insert ``substantial endangerment'';
       (2) in the heading strike ``Imminent threat'' and insert 
     ``Substantial endangerment'', and in the text strike 
     ``imminent threat'' and insert ``substantial endangerment''; 
     and
       (3) strike ``during the moratorium period''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and a Member opposed, will each 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  [[Page H2125]] Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and 
myself. The purpose of this amendment is to apply the same protection 
to human health that H.R. 450 would provide to private property. This 
bill provides an exemption from the moratorium for imminent threats to 
health or safety. In section 6(7) this is defined to be a reasonable 
expectation of death, serious illness or severe injury to humans, or 
substantial endanger- ment to private property.
  This definition in H.R. 450 provides significantly more protection to 
private property than to health. My amendment would equalize the level 
of protection. It would apply the substantial endangerment test to both 
private property and human health. It is inconceivable to me that this 
body would want to go on record as providing more protection to private 
property than to human health. It is inconceivable that we want to set 
up a different standard for the protections of private property than 
for human health, which is exactly what this bill would do, and it does 
not make sense. Let me explain why H.R. 450 provides more protection to 
private property than human health.
  This bill in the case of private property requires a reasonable 
expectation of an endangerment, and that would be sufficient to exempt 
a regulation from the moratorium. There is no requirement to show that 
there is a reasonable expectation of actual injury. All you have to 
show is that private property is placed in jeopardy.
  In the case of human health or safety, the standard of a reasonable 
expectation of an endangerment is not enough to exempt the regulation. 
It is not enough to show that people will be put in a dangerous 
situation. Instead, you must show it is likely that there will be 
actual death, actual illness, or injury.
  This test is much more difficult to meet than private property tests. 
It is much easier to show that there is a reasonable expectation that 
some property may be endangered but not actually injured, which is the 
private property test, than to show that there is a reasonable 
expectation that some person will be actually injured, which is the 
health test.
  Private property gets more protection than health for a second 
reason, also. A regulation to protect private property can be exempted 
from the moratorium so long as the endangerment is just substantial. 
When it comes to human health, however, the agency must show that the 
injury is either severe or serious. Obviously, the threshold of showing 
that an injury to health or people is serious or severe is higher than 
the threshold of showing that an injury to property is merely 
substantial.
  So this amendment would delete the requirement that the injury occur 
during the moratorium period. It would equalize the standard. This is 
essential to ensure that agencies can act to prevent serious health 
impacts that should occur, especially outside the moratorium period.
  Mr. Chairman, let me describe this issue of the moratorium period. 
The Food and Drug Administration is in the process of examining whether 
there ought to be any regulations with respect to the tobacco industry, 
but under the language of this bill, they only look for a threat to 
severe injury during the moratorium period.
  Well, there is no more important health and safety regulation being 
considered than the one that deals with FDA, where they are concerned 
about tobacco companies targeting children. But work on this regulation 
would be halted under H.R. 450 because FDA could now show that the 
injury to children would occur during that moratorium period.
  Three thousand kids start smoking everyday. Hundreds of these kids 
will eventually die from smoking. Under H.R. 450 this is not considered 
an imminent threat because they are not going to die for 20 to 30 
years.
  So we would do two things in this amendment: One, establish the same 
standard whether it is public health or danger to property; and not 
restrict the legislation to threats only within the moratorium period.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will be recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, merely to point 
out to the gentleman in the report where we make it very clear that it 
is certainly not the intent to raise concerns or interest in property 
to a higher level than that which we provide for human health. We 
define ``imminent threat to health or safety'' to mean the existence of 
a condition, circumstance, or practice reasonably expected to cause 
death, serious illness, or severe injury to humans, or substantial 
endangerment to private property, during the moratorium period. In 
setting forward this definition, the Committee has not elevated 
protections of private property above human health or safety, or even 
attempted to equate endangerment to private property with death, 
illness or injury to humans. Rather, it seeks to protect both human 
health and safety and private property according to appropriately 
separate and distinct standards. It is the Committee's understanding 
that the moratorium should not prevent the promulgation of rules and 
regulations that are necessary to make food safe from E. coli bacteria, 
or others discussed in regard to the slaughter amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we reject the notion this is somehow raising this 
concern to a higher degree.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  I am very concerned about how H.R. 450 would impede the Department of 
Energy's ability to write needed safety regulations for the clean-up of 
the Hanford nuclear weapons complex.
  The Hanford complex has 1500 sites contaminated by radioactive and 
hazardous waste. Some of this radioactive waste has begun to leak into 
the Columbia River and contaminate its water and fish. DOE needs the 
ability to act quickly to promulgate regulations to protect the safety 
of workers at the Hanford site and to protect the public from the 
hazardous waste stored there.
  You say that H.R. 450 contains an exemption for regulations to 
address ``imminent threats to health and safety.'' What I want to know 
is how long will it take the DOE to get an exemption under this law? It 
is my understanding that DOE would have to submit a written request to 
OMB and to the appropriate congressional committees in the House and 
Senate. Then OMB would have to find in writing that this waiver was 
indeed necessary. And finally the DOE Secretary would have to publish 
the findings and waiver in the Federal Register. How long will this 
process take?
  Mr. Chairman, the threats to public safety from the Hanford complex 
are real and can impact citizens throughout the entire Northwest. If 
there is any doubt that the Department of Energy will be impeded in 
protecting American citizens from Hanford's radioactive hazards, then I 
say that risk is too great.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Waxman amendment.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  (Mr. ERHLICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, with all due apologies to my subcommittee 
chair and to the gentlewoman on the other side, we have, in fact, 
corrected the misspelling, a demonstrative piece of evidence we have 
here. The gentleman from California will recall our debate in 
subcommittee and in committee and, in fact, on the floor of the 
[[Page H2126]]  House. As the chairman quite rightfully said, this bill 
does not provide a priority to property and the committee report, in 
fact, specifies that property is not elevated above health and safety. 
But because the gentleman made such an eloquent point in committee, I 
have gone through the legal research to the code.
  As the chart here states, the term ``imminent threat to safety or 
health'' means the existence of any condition, circumstance, or 
practice reasonably expected to cause death, serious illness or severe 
injury to humans or substantial endangerment.
  The issue the gentleman raised in committee was, what about the 
relative thresholds here. Do we have a lower threshold with respect to 
property as opposed to health and safety? That is the point I 
researched. I would like to tell the gentleman that in the code, the 
term ``serious illness'' is actually defined. And the definition of 
serious illness is an imminent hazard. It is subsumed within the 
definition of imminent hazard. That definition applies to death, 
serious illness and severe personal injury, and that applies to human 
beings.
  Under the other part of the definition of imminent hazard, we see the 
provisions that apply to property. Substantial endangerment to health, 
property or the environment. So that it is quite clear under the code, 
under the way the actual terms are defined under the code, we have not 
created separate thresholds with respect to human health and safety on 
the one hand and property on the other.
  In fact, what we have done is create the same threshold with respect 
to the central issue here, although we have used different language 
with respect to health on the one hand, property on the other.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman claims that they are both 
treated the same, why not use the same language? Why have any doubt? 
The clear wording of that section is to say that there is a substantial 
endangerment for property but reasonably expected to cause death or 
injury when it comes to people. Why not a substantial endangerment to 
people or a substantial endangerment to property?
  It just seems to me that the gentleman's logic is incorrect, as is 
the spelling at least of one of the words on that chart. If we are 
going to achieve the same result, both property and humans, then let us 
use the same standards.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I understood the gentleman's 
point, but the fact is, the language, the verbiage used in the code 
uses different language dependent upon whether we are talking about 
humans on the one hand, property on the other. And that was the point I 
made earlier.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the only point I would say is that we are writing the law here. Let us 
write the law so that the standard is the same and we will not have 
what I believe in clear words that give a higher threshold before we 
will protect human beings than before we step in to protect property 
while this moratorium is in effect.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment that saves human lives 
and I strongly urge its adoption.
  In its current form, the moratorium does not apply to regulations 
that protect against imminent threats of serious illness, severe 
injury, or death or substantial endangerment to private property. As 
Mr. Waxman described, this is an absurd provision that gives greater 
protection to private property than to human life. I think this is a 
absurd set of priorities that needs to be changed.
  Furthermore, the bill is misleading because it does not allow 
regulations that protect public health and safety. In fact, it 
threatens regulations implemented last year that:
  Promote safer meat, poultry, and seafood;
  Establish standards for water quality;
  Set standards for disposal of nuclear and other hazardous waste;
  Set motor vehicle safety standards for brake systems;
  Amend performance standards for children's life jackets;
  Set safety standards for baby walkers and children's toys; and
  Standardize aviation rules.
  Under the current definition of ``imminent threat of human health and 
safety,'' regulations that protect against activities that cause 
cancer, AIDS, or any other illness that has a latency period cannot be 
implemented. Today 1 in 3 of us will get cancer, and tragically 1 in 4 
will die of it. Over 60 different occupations are at a documented risk 
of cancer, including farmers, petrochemical workers, asbestos workers, 
plastics manufacturers, and radiations workers. If this amendment is 
not adopted, the administration will not be able to respond to this 
expensive and debilitating health care crisis by implementing 
regulations that prevent cancer.
  For instance, regulations that provide certification standards for 
mammography that are required by law will not be implemented unless 
this amendment is adopted. Regulations that prevent breast cancer and 
save lives should be implemented.
  Indoor air regulations that protect against toxic exposures that 
ultimately cause asbestosis, lung cancer, or other serious respiratory 
illnesses, will also be prohibited if this amendment is not adopted. 
OSHA has been considering a rule banning smoking in workplaces 
nationwide, the FDA is considering to regulate cigarettes as a drug, 
and the Department of Health and Human Services is working on 
regulations that limit smoking in schools and other places where 
children congregate. All of these plans will be put on hold unless this 
amendment is adopted. Lung cancer is the No. 1 cancer killer. The 
immediate implementation of regulations like these could save many 
lives.
  Also, nuclear safety standards for waste disposal, like the 
regulation allowing nuclear wastes to be transferred from sites in 
Idaho, Colorado and other States to a WIPP facility in New Mexico, will 
be retroactively canceled. Thus, more Americans could potentially be 
exposed to toxic substances that cause serious illness and death.
  I simply do not see the sense in the current language which allows 
regulations that protect against deaths in 1995, yet prohibits 
regulations that protect against deaths in other years. If the drafters 
of this bill intended to protect against cancer and AIDs, then this 
intention should be made clear in the plain meaning of the definition 
of ``imminent threat to human health or safety.''
  I strongly urge you to support this amendment which clearly states 
that we care enough about human lives to permit regulations that 
prevent serious illnesses, severe injuries, and death in any year and 
gives human lives as much protection as the bill gives to private 
property.
                              {time}  1720

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank and 
compliment the gentleman from Vermont, and I have to admit I am 
befuddled by the fierce opposition to this amendment. It seems like 
common sense to me.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], I think gave an eloquent 
explanation as to why we have in the exact same paragraph two different 
standards, one for property, one for human life, but we are going to 
use different language to meet the exact same standard.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the author of the legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is incumbent as we start 
thinking about changes in this finely crafted exemption for health and 
safety that we address some of the particular problems that have come 
to our attention in drafting this moratorium.
  For example, there is the guideline from the Consumer Product Safety 
[[Page H2127]]  Commission which would require that all buckets have a 
hole in the bottom of them, so that they can allow water to go through 
and avoid the danger of somebody falling face down into the bucket and 
drowning; the leaky bucket regulation.
  There is also the regulation that allows FDA officials to break into 
a doctor's office in Kent, WA, and hold at gunpoint the doctors and the 
nurses there to force them to answer a series of questions, because 
they use injectible vitamin B and other products. Would those 
regulations be exempt under this new standard?
  There is also a regulation that the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, OSHA, promulgated which would require that all baby 
teeth be disposed of as hazardous waste material, rather than be given 
back to the parents, to allow the tooth fairy to come back and do that. 
How would the amendment apply to those regulations?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, is reiterating the point I 
was making. Yes, there are regulations which are silly; yes; there are 
regulations which are useless and should be gotten rid of, but the 
scope of what the gentleman is talking about is not amusing.
  Yes, holes in buckets is very funny, gets good laughs, I agree with 
the gentleman. But cancer and breast cancer, particularly, are very 
serious problems in America. AIDS is very serious. It is not a laughing 
matter.
  What the gentleman's legislation does is it may deal with the holes 
in the buckets, fine, but is also preventing the Government from taking 
measures that will save people from getting cancer. That is not so 
funny.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman let me make it very 
clear that this moratorium does not do that. There is the language 
which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Erlich] pointed out, and I 
pointed it out earlier, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York, [Ms. 
Slaughter] for pointing out the spelling error, which seriously says 
regulatory agencies must deal with health and safety threats that pose 
an imminent danger to human health and safety. That exception would 
allow regulations that prevent loss of life to go forward.
  What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is to protect the American people 
from the silly, stupid, needless regulations that not only are 
humorous, they are very serious in their consequences of costing jobs 
when companies move overseas or go out of business. They are very 
serious when consumers have to spend $6,000 a year more to comply with 
those regulations. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.).
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Waxman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the definition of imminent threat to health or safety 
that is now in the bill H.R. 450., is inadequate. It is an unusually 
high standard for demonstrating personal injury; it would require that 
death, serious illness, or severe injury occur during the moratorium 
period.
  It would also permit substantial endangerment to private property to 
be a basis for finding imminent threat to health or safety. Not only is 
it unusual to have harm to property as a basis of a health or safety 
standard, but it would also arguably be easier to exempt a rule on the 
basis of endangerment to private property than it would be to exempt a 
rule on the basis of a threat to human health.
  The Waxman amendment, therefore, does one important thing; it 
equalizes the standard for injury to persons and injury to property. 
Under the amendment, a regulation could qualify for the imminent threat 
to health or safety exemption, if it could be expected that substantial 
endangerment to humans or private property would occur.
  Why is it so important to have a reasonable standard? The answer is 
because no one, including the authors of this bill, can say with any 
certainty whether a particular regulation would be excluded from the 
moratorium. A perfect example of this is the meat inspection rule.
  At the end of our committee's debate on the amendment to exempt the 
meat inspection rule, the chairman of the subcommittee spoke with Mrs. 
Nancy Donley, whose 6-year-old son died from eating E Coli contaminated 
hamburger. He told Mrs. Donley that he would put language into the 
committee report, making it clear that the Agriculture Department could 
go forward with the meat inspection rule.
  I think the addition of this language in the report could be helpful, 
but it provides no assurance that the meat inspection rule can go 
forward. The bill does not prohibit anyone from challenging in court an 
Agriculture Department decision to exempt the meat inspection rule from 
the moratorium. Furthermore, what about all the other perhaps equally 
significant health or safety rules that are not mentioned in the 
committee report. A standard is needed that could be used to exempt 
these rules as well.
  We, therefore, need a clear and simple standard under which we could 
exempt a matter on grounds of threat to health or safety. The Waxman 
amendment gives us such a standard, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Mica], a member of the committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the Waxman 
amendment. I would like to make several points.
  First of all, the new language that is being proposed here, I really 
do not believe that it does that much to protect public health, safety, 
and welfare. I know the gentleman is well-intended, I know our 
independent colleague is well-intended, that they are indeed concerned 
about public health, safety, welfare.
  However, I think that we have provided in this moratorium some very 
specific language that in fact will do the job. In fact, we are not 
ending regulation as we know it. This is not an end to regulation. This 
is, again, as I said earlier on the floor, this is a stop and let us 
look at what we are doing with these regulations. Let us make some 
sense.
  We have a mechanism in the bill and I believe we have a precedent for 
the language that we have put in this bill, to really accomplish what 
they would like and really, in a more effective fashion. That is why we 
have to defeat the Waxman amendment.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned here. We are all human 
beings. I am a parent. I have children. I am concerned about the air 
they breathe, the water they drink. I am concerned about our 
environment.
  However, we have to start taking all this regulation in perspective. 
This is not an indefinite moratorium. Even the moratoriums of the 
Reagan administration were more long-term than this. In fact, this even 
says if we take time and read it, that when we have some provisions in 
place to look at the cost and the benefit and risk, that we can go 
forward.
  We have in here protections that reasonable people, working together, 
can use to go forward, and we can enact necessary restrictions and 
needed regulations.
  No, in fact, this is not an end to regulation as we know it. This 
bill is concerned about people; that we have limited resources; that 
this country and its taxpayers want the very best regulation as far as 
protection of the health and public welfare and safety of our children. 
So yes, we on this side of the aisle, are concerned.
  We want to work with the gentleman, and we want to pass something 
reasonable. We think our language is better. I urge my colleagues to 
come down here and to sort through all of the smoke and mirrors, to 
defeat this amendment, to pass a well-crafted, a well-defined piece of 
legislation that will put a stop sign, that will put a yield sign, and 
that will also put a go sign and a green light where we must protect 
public health, safety, and welfare.
  With those comments, I do appreciate the gentleman's position, and 
speak against his amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] a member of the committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waxman 
amendment. I do so for a couple of reasons.
  [[Page H2128]] First of all, Mr. Chairman, we are convinced on this 
side that the amendment is not needed. We know the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman] is sincere in his concern about human health. I 
also want to make the point, I think to a certain degree, however, we 
labor under an illusion, and part of the background for this amendment 
is that somehow government regulation can create a risk-proof society, 
and that somehow, with more government regulation, we can completely 
prevent people from getting cancer, from people getting sick, from 
people not having a certain risk as it relates to their health.
  The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and I used this example in 
committee, and I would share it with the body now, last year I was 
invited to the Governor's mansion of the State of Minnesota.
  I was 1 of 17 Members who ate pineapple. As a result, I got sick. In 
fact, we never really did determine what the bacteria was, but I would 
share with the Members that that pineapple had been inspected by the 
USDA, it had been processed all the way under USDA regulations.
  I guess what I said then and I would say now is that I got sick under 
government regulations, and I got well, despite government regulations. 
The truth of the matter is we cannot create a completely risk-proof 
society.

                              {time}  1730

  We see over there about 64,000 pages of government regulations. Bad 
things still happen. There is no amount of government control or 
regulations that is going to completely stop that.
  I really do not believe that this amendment is needed. I rise in 
opposition to it. I would encourage a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CLINGER. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, to close debate on my amendment, I yield 
the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I remain perplexed. We hear 
the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Minnesota talk about 
how they do not like bureaucrats. ``We don't like bureaucratic 
language. We don't like unnecessary or silly regulations.'' Yet before 
us we have a paragraph where you have two standards: One standard for 
property, a different standard for human life.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has eloquently explained 
why it does not make sense to have those two standards and argues that 
the standard for property is higher than the standard for human life. 
The gentleman from Maryland argues that is not the case, that even 
though they are different phrases, they have the same identical 
meaning. That is not only a lawyer's dream, it is a law review editor's 
dream to have within the same paragraph two different definitions and 
have someone argue that they are the same language, that they have the 
same meaning.
  Somehow I fail to see what is going on here other than to say if you 
are arguing that we want to have the same standard, why create 
bureaucratic language to give two different meanings to two different 
phrases? If you mean that they have the same standard, let us give them 
the same standard. There is no other explanation and no other clear-cut 
way to do it than to say let us not create more litigation, let us not 
create a dream for lawyers, let us say what we mean. If we mean it is 
the same standard, let us say so.
  What we are doing here, you are opening yourself up for attack by 
setting a lower standard for human life than for private property. That 
is not what we want to do. We do not want to create more regulation, we 
do not want to create more litigation, and this amendment goes to that 
goal.
  If you want more regulations, if you want more litigation, then 
defeat the Waxman amendment, because he is trying to streamline the 
process and have clear, simple language. For those reasons, I think it 
makes sense.
  Again, I am completely befuddled as to why we want to have a 
paragraph with two different definitions that the majority argues have 
the same meaning.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 259, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 163]

                               AYES--167

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--259

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     [[Page H2129]] Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Barton
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz

                              {time}  1750

  Messrs. STEARNS, SHADEGG, and GORDON changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. STUPAK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I rise in order that if the 
distinguished chairman would engage in a colloquy with me about 
definitions and applications of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I was going to offer to exempt 
regulations of the Department of Agriculture for the moratorium. 
Although I support a moratorium on regulations, I have discussed the 
specific provisions of this bill with the Department and have concerns 
that the exceptions contains in the bill are too narrow to prevent 
disruptions of USDA programs and operations that benefit consumers, 
farmers, ranchers, agribusiness, and our Nation as a whole.
  As you know, during the 103d Congress, the Committee on Agriculture 
led the way in reforming the bureaucracy by reorganizing the Department 
of Agriculture. The reorganization of the Department included the 
establishment of an Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis 
to review all major regulations of the Department affecting human 
health, human safety, or the environment.
  This is the first such established in any major department of the 
Federal Government.
  I look forward to seeing the regulations promulgated by all Federal 
agencies made subject to risk-assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman if I am correct in 
stating that the regulatory moratorium contained in this bill is not 
intended to affect regulations implementing the provisions establishing 
the Office of Risk Assessment and the regulations undergoing such risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that is absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman. I also thank the gentleman 
for the clarification and would like to include in the Record an 
analysis prepared by the Department of Agriculture listing the 
regulations that may be affected by the moratorium, and I will ask for 
such permission in the House.
  I want to be sure that the Department will be able to continue to 
help farmers, ranchers, exporters, and the food service industry to 
supply agricultural products for our Nation's consumers and consumers 
around the world. I also want to be sure that the agency charged with 
implementing and enforcing animal and plant quarantine laws is able to 
carry out its charge to protect against long-term hazards associated 
with animal and plant diseases.
  Finally, I want to be sure the Forest Service is able to manage our 
National Forest System lands for the benefit of recreational users, 
timber industry, ranchers, and the wildlife in our forests and 
rangelands.
  I would also like to ask the gentleman if I am correct in stating the 
bill before us is not intended to affect regulations making routine 
adjustments to USDA activities or programs including the following: 
establishing industry self-help and promotion programs for port, beef, 
milk, fruit, vegetables, and specialty crops, commodity grading 
programs, animal-plant health programs, adjustments in agriculture 
under article 28 associated with GATT, timber-sale contracting, animal 
damage control programs, labeling of meat and poultry products, and 
internal USDA regulatory streamlining and reform.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for those clarifications.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas for yielding, in that we have both worked on the gentleman's 
statement, and we have mutual concern and interest in making sure this 
bill in no way impedes the regular, normal business procedures and, 
yes, also regulations simply within the Department of Agriculture.
  I think the colloquy is extremely important. I associate myself with 
the gentleman's remarks, and I think this should take care of many 
concerns that both of us share.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As I have discussed earlier with the chairman, I am sure he knows my 
feelings that this colloquy really, in my opinion, does not solve the 
basic problem as to whether the law actually does these things or does 
not do it, and I know the intentions of the gentleman, and that is the 
word that is used, it is not intended to do these things. It was never 
stated in his colloquy it would not do these things. That gives me 
great concern.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. de la 
Garza was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
have an amendment that I have printed in the Record and hope to offer 
at a later time, maybe tomorrow, that would exempt the wool and mohair 
promotion program.

                              {time}  1800

  That was a program that we enacted last year, as the chairman will 
remember, in response to the fact that we had done away, this House had 
done away with the wool and mohair program. This is one that does not 
cost the taxpayers money, it is just like the other programs that he 
has enumerated before, pork and beef and milk. This is one that is 
financed by the producers themselves. The regulations are now in 
process. If we do not exempt them, that means they are not going to 
have anything at the end of this year when the present program expires.
  As a result, will the gentleman agree with me that the wool and 
mohair self-promotion program which we passed last year is not exempt 
from this bill?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I ask the gentleman 
from Missouri to repeat his question.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The present law that we passed last year for the wool 
and mohair promotion program, which is patterned after the dairy 
program, the beef, pork, and all the rest, is going through the 
regulatory process right now for the first time. This colloquy does not 
cover that? I have talked this over with my ranking member, and he 
agrees with me.
  I just want to know if the gentleman from Kansas also agrees that it 
is not covered and that if we are going to exempt it, we would have to 
do so specifically.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, normally I would be more than happy to 
agree with the gentleman from Missouri. But the key word is 
``routine.'' The question is whether the Department of Agriculture 
counsel feels that 
[[Page H2130]]  the regulations that are now being promulgated apply.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Roberts and by unanimous consent, Mr. de la Garza 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. I continue to yield to the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this whole thing depends on whether the lawyer 
down at the Department of Agriculture believes that the regulations 
that are now being promulgated in regards to the wool and mohair 
program fall in the classification of routine. You can talk to John 
Golden down there; he is the attorney. He expressed some concerns not 
only in this regard but the whole laundry list of things that was 
listed here. In talking to Secretary Rominger last night, I know what 
the situation is here. We have many agencies under marching orders from 
the administration who express concern about this. We share that 
concern. I think it does fall under the category of routine.
  We have made our best effort in this colloquy to make it very clear 
to the Department that it is routine and that this bill will not 
interfere with any regulations in regard to the self-help and promotion 
program for the hard-pressed wool grower.
  So my answer to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is, with 
all due respect, I think it is exempted. He has a different view. I 
think we can make sure. We have oversight responsibility to take care 
of it.
  The information referred to follows:

                                             FOREST SERVICE SUMMARY                                             
   [Cummulative List of Agency Rules and Policies for OMB Review, revised January 25, 1995. Those intended for  
                              publication between July 18, 1995 and June 15, 1995]                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Title of regulation                                                                                
   List          or policy;               Reg action           FS recommendation  OMB recommendation     Staff  
              publication date                                                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........  Rangeland             Proposed Rule.............  Sig...............  Sig...............  RGE       
             Management,                                                                                        
             Livestock Use and                                                                                  
             Grazing Fees; April                                                                                
             28, 1994.                                                                                          
1.........  Hells Canyon NRA--    Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Private Lands;                                                                                     
             December 14, 1993.                                                                                 
1.........  Hells Canyon NRA--    Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Public Lands;                                                                                      
             January 19, 1994.                                                                                  
1.........  National Forest       Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  LEI       
             Prohibitions; Law                                                                                  
             Enforcement                                                                                        
             Activities;                                                                                        
             February 16, 1994.                                                                                 
1.........  Land Exchanges;       Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
             March 8, 1994.                                                                                     
1.........  Federal Cave          Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Resources                                                                                          
             Protection; June                                                                                   
             17, 1994.                                                                                          
*1........  Land and Resource     Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  RN        
             Management                                                                                         
             Planning--in                                                                                       
             clearance now.                                                                                     
*1........  Group Uses of NFS     Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  RHWR      
             Lands--in clearance                                                                                
             now.                                                                                               
*1........  Log Export &          Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  TM        
             Substitution.                                                                                      
**1.......  Timber Sale           Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  TM        
             Contracting:                                                                                       
             Cancellation of                                                                                    
             Timber Sale                                                                                        
             Contracts.                                                                                         
*1........  Indian Allotments...  Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
1.........  Timber Sale           Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Contracting:                                                                                       
             Financial Security                                                                                 
             of NF Timber Sale                                                                                  
             Contracts; February                                                                                
             2, 1994.                                                                                           
1.........  Timber Sale           Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Contracting:                                                                                       
             Downpayment,                                                                                       
             Transfer or                                                                                        
             Retention;                                                                                         
             Speculative Bidding                                                                                
             Criteria; Reduction                                                                                
             of Performance                                                                                     
             Bond; February 2,                                                                                  
             1994.                                                                                              
2.........  Small Tracts Act      Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
             Revision.                                                                                          
*2........  Hydropower            Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
             Applications.                                                                                      
2.........  Recreation Residence  Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Authorization                                                                                      
             Policy; June 2,                                                                                    
             1994.                                                                                              
2.........  Use of Fixed Anchors  Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             for Rock Climbing                                                                                  
             in Wilderness.                                                                                     
2.........  Revise Land Status    Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
             Regulations                                                                                        
             (technical                                                                                         
             amendment); January                                                                                
             20, 1994.                                                                                          
2.........  Prohibition on        Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Mechanical                                                                                         
             Transport and Other                                                                                
             Activities in                                                                                      
             Wilderness.                                                                                        
*2........  Mining Operations in  Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  M&GM      
             the Smith River                                                                                    
             National Recreation                                                                                
             Area Litigation: FS                                                                                
             failure to adopt                                                                                   
             rules.                                                                                             
2.........  Use of Bait in Bear   Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  WL&F      
             Hunting; March 14,                                                                                 
             1994.                                                                                              
*2........  Special-Use           Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Applications and                                                                                   
             Administration of                                                                                  
             Special-Use                                                                                        
             Authorizations.                                                                                    
2.........  Species Surplus to    Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Domestic                                                                                           
             Manufacturing Needs.                                                                               
3.........  Below-Cost Timber     Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Sale Program Policy                                                                                
             and Guidelines.                                                                                    
**3.......  Timber Sale           Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  TM        
             Contracting: Timber                                                                                
             Sale Performance                                                                                   
             and Payment Bond                                                                                   
             Form Revision.                                                                                     
3.........  National Forest       Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  LMP       
             System Land and                                                                                    
             Resource Management                                                                                
             Planning Manual                                                                                    
             (FSM 1920).                                                                                        
*3........  State and Private     Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  S&PF      
             Forestry Assistance                                                                                
             Stewardship                                                                                        
             Incentive Program.                                                                                 
3.........  Locatable Minerals..  Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  M&GM      
3.........  Change to             Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Transaction                                                                                        
             Evidence Appraisal                                                                                 
             as Prime Method of                                                                                 
             Appraising FNS                                                                                     
             Timber.                                                                                            
3.........  Collection of         Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Reimbursable Costs                                                                                 
             for Processing                                                                                     
             Special-Use                                                                                        
             Applications and                                                                                   
             Administration of                                                                                  
             Special-Use                                                                                        
             Authorizations.                                                                                    
3.........  Timber Sale           Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Contracting:                                                                                       
             Indices To                                                                                         
             Determine Market                                                                                   
             Related Term                                                                                       
             Additions.                                                                                         
3.........  Timber Sale           Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Contracting: Market                                                                                
             Related Term                                                                                       
             Additions.                                                                                         
3.........  Timber Sale           Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Contracting: Pre-                                                                                  
             Award Information                                                                                  
             Requirements.                                                                                      
3.........  Solid Waste Disposal  Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
             Policy.                                                                                            
3.........  Hells Canyon NRA--    Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Private Lands; June                                                                                
             13, 1994.                                                                                          
3.........  Hells Canyon NRA--    Final Rule................  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Public Lands; July                                                                                 
             19, 1994.                                                                                          
4.........  Private Sale of       Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Golden Eagle                                                                                       
             Passports.                                                                                         
*4........  Occupancy and Use of  Final Rule (no prior        N-Sig.............  Sig...............  RHWR      
             Developed Sites &     proposed rule)                                                               
             Areas of              (considered minor but OMB                                                    
             Concentrated Public   says Sig.).                                                                  
             Use.                                                                                               
4.........  Animal Damage         Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  WL&F      
             Management; June                                                                                   
             13, 1994.                                                                                          
5.........  Ski Area Fees.......  Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  RHWR      
**5.......  Timber Sale           Proposed Rule and Proposed  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  TM        
             Contracting:          Policy.                                                                      
             Extension of                                                                                       
             Certain TS                                                                                         
             Contracts To Permit                                                                                
             Urgent Removal of                                                                                  
             Timber From Other                                                                                  
             Lands (FSM proposed                                                                                
             policy as appendix).                                                                               
*5........  Special Uses          Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  RHWR      
             Management--Outfitt                                                                                
             ing and Guiding.                                                                                   
5.........  Appeal of Land Use    Proposed Rule.............  N-Sig.............  N-Sig.............  L         
             Decisions Related                                                                                  
             to Small Business                                                                                  
             Program.                                                                                           
6.........  National Forest       Second Proposed Rule......  Sig...............  Sig...............  LEI       
             Prohibitions; Law                                                                                  
             Enforcement                                                                                        
             Activities.                                                                                        
6.........  Range Management.     Proposed Rule (action       Sig...............  Sig...............  RGE       
             Grazing in the        suspended Dec. 1994).                                                        
             West; Qualification                                                                                
             Criteria for Fee                                                                                   
             Discounts.                                                                                         
*6........  Fee Schedules for     Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  Sig...............  RHWR      
             Communications Uses                                                                                
             on NFS Lands.                                                                                      
**7.......  Timber Sale Contract  Proposed Policy...........  Sig...............  ..................  TM        
             Revision.                                                                                          
8.........  Timber Sale           Proposed Policy...........  N-Sig.............  ..................  TM        
             Contracting:                                                                                       
             Elimination of                                                                                     
             Stumpage Rate                                                                                      
             Adjustment                                                                                         
             Procedure Contracts.                                                                               
8.........  Rangeland             Final Rule (action          Sig...............  ..................  RGE       
             Management. Grazing   suspended Dec. 1994).                                                        
             Fees.                                                                                              
*9........  Use of Bait in        Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  ..................  WL&F      
             Hunting.                                                                                           
*10.......  Animal Damage         Final Policy..............  N-Sig.............  ..................  WL&F      
             Management.                                                                                        
7.........  Grazing               Final Rule................  ..................  Sig...............  RGE       
             Administration                                                                                     
             (permit issuance,                                                                                  
             applications etc.).                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Lists of Significant Regulatory Actions submitted to OBPA: List 1, November 5, 1993; List 2, December 22, 
  1993; List 3, February 2, 1994; List 4, May 5, 1994; List 5, June 16, 1994; List 6, July 29, 1994; List 7,    
  September 9, 1994; List 8, October 20, 1994; List 9, December 2, 1994; and List 10, January 13, 1995.         

                           issue: environment

       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-165-3, National Environmental Policy Act 
     Implementing Procedures. Sets forth procedures APHIS will 
     follow to comply with NEPA.
       Beneficiaries: Consumers; environmental groups.
       Impact: Many environmental groups have been lobbying APHIS 
     for years to redesign and publish these procedures. They will 
     see their withdrawal as backing away from commitment to 
     environmental quality.
       Date: Final rule published 2/1/95; effective 3/3/95.
       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-026-2, Introduction of Nonindigenous 
     Organisms That May Be Plant Pests. Would establish 
     comprehensive regulations governing the introduction 
     (importation, interstate movement, and release into the 
     environment) of certain nonindigenous organisms that may be 
     plant pests. Responds to an Office of Technology Assessment 
     report stating that harmful introductions cost an estimated 
     $97 billion between 1906 and 1991, and that controls are 
     urgently needed. The rule would clarify the current 
     ``permit'' process, which can take a long time and which 
     importers do not like.
       Beneficiaries: American public; university and corporate 
     researchers.
       Impact: Failure to proceed would endanger agricultural 
     production and the environment, alarm environmental groups, 
     and frustrate researchers seeking permits under the outmoded 
     current system.
       Date: Proposal published 1/26/95.


                       issue: international trade

       States affected: All.
       Rule: There are several important regulations pending. Some 
     of these regulations directly affect our implementation of 
     GATT. These regulations relate to requests from foreign 
     countries or importers to remove or ease restrictions on 
     importations of various commodities. One such regulation 
     under development (Doc. No. 94-106-1) would revise 
     [[Page H2131]]  our animal import regulations to allow for 
     importations from regions, rather than countries only, and to 
     recognize levels of risk, rather than just diseased/disease-
     free areas. Another regulation that has generated 
     considerable interest concerns the importation of logs, 
     lumber and other unmanufactured wood (Doc. No. 91-074-1). 
     Other examples include importation of animals and germ plasma 
     from countries where scrapie exists (Doc. No. 94-085-1), 
     importation of additional species of embryos from countries 
     where foot-and-mouth disease exists (Doc. No. 94-006-1), 
     removal of a staining requirement for imported seed (95-004-
     1), and a number of regulations allowing the importation of 
     additional types of fruits and vegetables from various 
     countries, including Mexico, Korea, and Chile. In addition, 
     we routinely publish regulations to change the disease status 
     of a country or area, based on changes in those conditions. 
     Pending regulations include ones to declare Spain free of 
     African horse sickness and swine vesicular disease, and to 
     declare Switzerland free of foot-and-mouth disease and 
     viscerotropic velogenic Newcastle disease. These changes 
     would relieve certain restrictions on imports from those 
     countries. Conversely, we sometimes need to publish a 
     regulation to restrict imports when there is an outbreak of a 
     pest or disease in a country or area.
       Beneficiaries: The ability to improve the variety and 
     supply of animals, plants, and their products benefits 
     producers, importers, brokers, food distributors and 
     processors, and consumers. Northwest lumber mills would 
     benefit from the rule concerning wood imports.
       Impact: When the scientific/biological data provides no 
     indication of substantial pest or disease risk from the 
     importation, failure to revise our regulations puts us in 
     violation of GATT. There is considerable pressure on the 
     United States to implement these many of the regulations 
     listed above in response to GATT. Failure to finalize Doc. 
     No. 94-106-1 could result in other countries putting 
     additional restrictions on U.S. exports. While there is often 
     opposition to regulations of this type, there is always some 
     interest, usually for the purpose of improving bloodlines or 
     stock, or establishing a supply to meet a new or growing 
     market. Northwest lumber mills are eager for wood rule 
     because they believe it will give them additional logs to 
     cut, and some environmentalists prefer using imported to 
     domestic logs. A number of mills have stated they will go out 
     of business without a reliable source of imported logs.


            specific rules with international trade impacts

       States affected: Cattle and swine producing States.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-106-1, Regionalization for Animal 
     Imports. Would revise
      our animal import regulations to allow for importations from 
     regions, rather than countries only, and to recognize 
     levels of risk, rather than just diseased/disease-free 
     areas.
       Beneficiaries: Producers, importers, brokers, food 
     distributors and processors, and consumers benefit from the 
     ability to improve the variety and supply of animals, plants, 
     and their products.
       Impact: Failure to proceed would produce opposition from 
     animal breeding industries and GATT partners.
       Date: Proposal under development.
       States affected: New Hampshire, New England States.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-080-2, Specifically Approved States 
     Authorized to Receive Mares and Stallions Imported From CEM-
     Affected Countries. Allows horses imported from countries 
     where contagious equine metritis exists to be treated and 
     quarantined in NH.
       States affected: NH and other New England States.
       Beneficiaries: Horse industry in NH and elsewhere in New 
     England. This rule gives New Hampshire an economic advantage 
     for valuable import.
       Impact: Withdrawal would cause objection from 
     beneficiaries.
       Date: Direct final rule effective 12/16/94.
       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-096-3, Horses From Mexico; Quarantine 
     Requirements. Removes restrictions that are no longer 
     necessary on the importation of horses from Mexico. 
     Restrictions were to prevent the introduction into the U.S. 
     of Venezuelan equine enteritidis, which is no longer present 
     in Mexico.
       Beneficiaries: Importers of horses from Mexico.
       Impact: Would negatively affect relations with Mexico and 
     could cause repercussions in other animal or plant health 
     areas if Mexico retaliates. Would be contrary to NAFTA and 
     GATT.
       Date: Final rule published 1/26/95; effective 2/16/95.
       States affected: California.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-157-3, Mexican Fruit Fly Regulations; 
     Removal of Regulated Area. Removes restrictions on movement 
     of citrus and other regulated articles.
       Beneficiaries: Growers, wholesalers, exporters.
       Impact: California production would be negatively impacted 
     by the failure to lift the quarantine. Fruit and vegetable 
     producers and associations would be likely to complain about 
     this action.
       Date: Published 1/26/95; effective 2/27/95.
       States affected: California.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-117-1, Oriental Fruit Fly; Quarantine 
     Part of LA County, CA. Quarantines an area to prevent OFF 
     spread and protect export markets.
       Beneficiaries: Growers, wholesalers, exporters.
       Impact: Withdrawal would allow OFF spread. If spread 
     occurs, it would likely lead Japan and U.S. citrus States to 
     reject CA citrus.
       Date: Published 11/14/95; effective 11/7/95.
       States Affected: Primarily CA, FL, and HI.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-147-2, Imported Palms. Allows certain 
     palms to be imported from New Zealand and Australia. 
     Beneficiaries: Supported by comercial ornamental plant 
     growers. Hawaiian Representatives Patsy Mink and Neil 
     Abercrombie supported this rule.
       Impact: Withdrawing this rule would reduce the number of 
     sources for Howea palms to one. Opposition from nurserymen in 
     CA, FL, and HI.
       Date: Final rule published and effective 1/24/95.
       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-031-2, Inspection of Animals Exported to 
     Canada and Mexico. Requires a final inspection before export 
     of livestock, including horses, shipped by air to Canada or 
     Mexico.
       Beneficiaries: The American Horse Council supports this 
     rule.
       Impact: Failure to take this action could result in sick 
     animals being exported to Canada and Mexico, and having to be 
     returned to the U.S.
       Date: Final rule published 1/24/95; effective 2/23/95.
       States affected: CA, FL, all.
       Rule: Doc. No. 89-154-2, Importation of Plants Established 
     in Growing Media. Allows additional genera of plants in 
     growing media (potted plants) to be imported into the United 
     States.
       Beneficiaries: Importers and brokers of imported products.
       Impact: From the standpoint of GATT, there is no sound 
     biological reason to continue to prohibit these imports, 
     which would be the effect of a moratorium. California and 
     Florida representatives are most likely to hear from their 
     constituents, although other areas may be affected as well.
       Date: Final rule published 1/13/95; effective 2/13/95.
       States affected: All (GATT/NAFTA issue).
       Rule: Doc. No. 89-117-4, Honeybees and Honeybee Semen From 
     New Zealand. Allows imports.
       Beneficiaries: Apiary industries.
       Impact: If we withdraw the rule, we may be challenged under 
     GATT conflict resolution procedures.
       Date: Final rule published 2/1/95, effective 3/3/95.
       States affected: California.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-042-2, True Potato Seed From Chile. 
     Allows imports.
       Beneficiaries: Plant breeders, potato producers.
       Impact: California Department of Food and Agriculture 
     supports this, and several California companies (especially 
     Esca Genetics/TPS Products) have invested heavily in 
     expectation of it. CA Rep. Anna G. Eshoo wrote in support of 
     it.
       Date: Final published 2/16/95, effective 3/20/95.
       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-069-1, Tangerines From Cheju Island 
     (Korea). Would allow imports.
       Beneficiaries: Consumers; exporters seeking reciprocal 
     arrangements.
       Impact: GATT issue, we could be challenged if we withdraw 
     it.
       Date: Under development.
       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-114-1, Imported Fruits & Vegetables; 6th 
     Periodic Amendment. We do this kind of rule regularly to 
     allow newly-requested frutis and vegetables to be imported.
       Beneficiaries: Importers, wholesalers, consumers.
       Impact: Delaying this rule would affect importers and 
     distributors in most States, and reduce the variety of 
     produce available to consumers.
       Date: Proposal nearly ready to publish.
       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-116-3, Fresh Hass Avocados From Mexico. 
     Would allow imports of Hass avocados.
       Beneficiaries: Importers, consumers.
       Impact: Mexico has been seeking this change for years and 
     will accuse the U.S. of violating NAFTA if we do not pursue 
     the proposal. Domestic avocado producers would support the 
     delay in this proposal.
       Date: Under development.
                     issue: animal and plant health

       States affected: All.
       Rule: There are several important regulations pending. Some 
     of these are necessary to prevent the spread of pests and 
     diseases within the United States. These include additions to 
     lists of noxious weeds (Doc. Nos. 93-126-3 and 94-050-1). 
     Others are needed to protect U.S. livestock and poultry from 
     additional sources of disease and to further the eradication 
     of bovine tuberculosis. Examples include payment of indemnity 
     for cervids destroyed because of tuberculosis (Doc. No. 94-
     133-1), payment of indemnity for cattle and bison destroyed 
     following exposure to tuberculous cervids (Doc. No. 93-125-
     1), discontinuance of the in-bond program for cattle from 
     Mexico (Doc. No. 94--87-1), and a revision of domestic 
     regulations pertaining to viscerotropic velogenic Newcastle 
     disease (VVND) in birds and poultry (Doc. No. 87-090-2). In 
     addition, APHIS routinely publishes rules related to changes 
     in the disease or pest conditions in a State or area. When 
     an 
     [[Page H2132]]  outbreak occurs, the Agency must move quickly 
     to contain the outbreak, and keep the pest or disease from 
     spreading. Examples include regulations quarantining areas 
     because of fruit flies, pink bollworm, and pine shoot beetle, 
     and regulations that change the disease status of a State or 
     area because of new outbreaks of brucellosis or tuberculosis.
       Beneficiaries: U.S. livestock and poultry producers, as 
     well as fruit, vegetable, and grain producers, exporters, 
     food distributors and processors, and consumers.
       Impact: The spread of noxious weeds would result in a 
     reduction in usable agricultural acreage, harming the cattle 
     industry and other agricultural entities. Failure to finalize 
     the tuberculosis regulations would impede efforts to 
     eradicate the disease in the U.S., hurting the livestock 
     industry and creating human health concerns. The revisions to 
     the VVND regulations would, among other things, reduce the 
     number of birds that would have to be destroyed if there is 
     an outbreak of that disease in U.S. poultry flocks. Failure 
     to take emergency actions could cause severe economic losses 
     to U.S. agriculture.


           specific rules with animal or plant health impacts

       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 92-098-3, Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and 
     Analogous Products; Packaging and Labeling. Prohibits certain 
     repackaging of, and removal of labels on, veterinary 
     biological products.
       Beneficiaries: Consumers (primarily animal hobbyists and 
     breeders).
       Impact: Consumers (primarily animal hobbyists and 
     breeders), will continue to suffer from the lack of dose 
     instructions available to them when they purchase single 
     doses of vaccines, etc. This has resulted in illness and 
     death among animals. Failure to implement the regulations 
     will allow this situation to continue. Biologics 
     manufacturers will be happy because they do not want to 
     comply with labeling requirements.
       Date: Published 1/12/95; effective 8/19/95.
       States affected: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
     Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
       Rule: Doc. No. 92-139-8, Pine Shoot Beetle Quarantine 
     Areas. Quarantines areas in States because of the pine shoot 
     beetle.
       Beneficiaries: The Christmas tree industry is most directly 
     affected by the failure to quarantine to prevent the spread 
     of the pest. This industry exists in Indiana and surrounding 
     States.
       Impact: States with PSB that lack a Federal quarantine will 
     likely have to comply with commerce restrictions imposed by 
     surrounding States. This is a routine action that could apply 
     to other States as well in the next 6 months.
       Date: Interim rule published 1/9/95; effective 12/29/94; 
     more rules pending.
                         issue: animal welfare

       States affected: All.
       Rule: Several are pending, including one concerning ``Swim 
     With The Dolphins'' programs (Doc. No. 93-076-3), one that 
     would remove a requirement for hot-iron face-branding of 
     certain cattle (Doc. No. 95-006-2), and one that would allow 
     certain diseased horses to be moved to slaughter without 
     being permanently marked with a hot iron, chemical, or freeze 
     brand or lip tatoo (Doc. No. 94-061-2).
       Beneficiaries: Animal welfare issues have generated intense 
     and widespread interest among animal rights organizations and 
     the American public in general. The ``Swim With The 
     Dolphins'' regulation is supported by the Humane Society of 
     the United States, the Animal Welfare Institute, the American 
     Zoo and Aquarium Assn., and the Alliance of Marine Mammal 
     Parks and Aquariums. Animal Rights International and People 
     for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been lobbying hard 
     for changes to our face-branding requirements.
       Impact: The ``Swim With The Dolphins'' regulation is 
     necessary to ensure facilities with these programs adhere to 
     certain standards for care of the dolphins. Animal welfare 
     activists, especially in Florida, would weigh in heavily if 
     we do not take this action. An earlier (1994) rulemaking that 
     removed face-branding requirements for certain imported 
     cattle generated tremendous interest and support, including 
     full-page ads in the Washington newspapers and New York 
     Times.


               specific rules with animal welfare impacts

       States affected: All.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-006-3, Identification of Certain Cattle 
     Imported From Mexico. Allows cattle from Mexico to be 
     permanently identified with a mark located high on the hip 
     rather than be face-branded with a hot iron.
       Beneficiaries: Generated tremendous interest and support, 
     including full page ads placed in Washington newspapers and 
     New York Times by Animal Rights International. PETA and other 
     animal welfare groups also lobbied hard for this change.
       Impact: Serious opposition from animal rights 
     organizations. After many years and considerable effort, the 
     United States is nearing eradication of tuberculosis. While 
     we are moving to eradicate the last areas of infection in the 
     United States, we must improve our level of protection 
     against new introductions of the disease, which not only 
     affects cattle, but can be transmitted to humans. In addition 
     to being an animal health issue, this became an animal 
     welfare issue. This issue was so important to the animal 
     welfare community that it generated thousands of letters and 
     resulted in full-page advertisements in national newspapers.
       Date: Final rule published 12/22/94; effective 1/23/95.
                         issue: domestic trade

       States affected: All.
       Rule: Several are pending, including one that would give 
     accredited veterinarians additional time between inspection 
     of animals and the issuance of a certificate for their 
     movement (Doc. No. 94-027-1) and one that would provide an 
     additional official test for pseudorabies in swine (Doc. No. 
     94-064-2). In addition, APHIS routinely publishes rules 
     related to changes in improvements in disease or pest 
     conditions in a State or area. When a pest or disease is 
     eradicated, the Agency should relieve unnecessary 
     restrictions on producers and others as rapidly as is 
     practical. An example of this would be removing an area from 
     quarantine for Mediterranean fruit fly, or raising the 
     brucellosis status of a State to Class Free. These actions 
     relieve restrictions on interstate movements and improve the 
     marketability of previously restricted articles.
       Beneficiaries: The rule concerning accredited veterinarians 
     would primarily affect large swine producers in Iowa, 
     Illinois, North Carolina, Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, 
     Georgia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and South Dakota. 
     The swine industry, especially in Illinois and Iowa, is very 
     interested in the pseudorabies test docket because making the 
     test available would allow thousands of herd owners to 
     qualify their animals for interstate movement to new markets. 
     Supporters of the pseudorabies test include vaccine producers 
     Kline Beecham and IDEXX, State animal health officials, the 
     American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians 
     (AAVLD), and the United States Animal Health Association 
     (USAHA). Other types of domestic trade actions pending would 
     benefit the U.S. livestock in general, as well as fruit and 
     vegetable producers, exporters, food distributors and 
     processors, and consumers.
       Impact: A moratorium would keep unnecessary restrictions on 
     producers and others. Lack of the pseudorabies test rule, in 
     addition to keeping many markets closed to many swine 
     producers, would hinder Federal and State efforts to 
     eradicate pseudorabies because swine producers are reluctant 
     to vaccinate their animals if their markets for those swine 
     would be restricted.


               specific rules with domestic trade impacts

       States affected: Colorado.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-134-1, Brucellosis; CO From Class A to 
     Class Free. This interim rule raised the brucellosis status 
     of Colorado.
       Beneficiaries: Livestock producers in CO.
       Impact: Invalidating would place unnecessary restrictions 
     on livestock moving from the State, and would hurt their 
     marketability. This is a routine action that could apply to 
     other States as well over the next 6 months.
       Date: Published and effective 1/23/95.
       States affected: all cattle producing States.
       Rule: Doc. No. 94-093-2, Brucellosis in Cattle and Bison; 
     Payment of Indemnity. Authorizes payment of indemnity for 
     additional cases.
       Beneficiaries: Herd owners affected by brucellosis.
       Impact: Failure to finalize would hinder brucellosis 
     eradication efforts. Members likely to hear from NCA, USAHA 
     and other farm groups.
       Date: Proposal published 1/31/95.
       States affected: Hawaii primarily; also Alaska.
       Rule: Doc. No. 93-088-2, Avocados From Hawaii. Allows 
     avocados to move from Hawaii into Alaska without treatment.
       Beneficiaries: Hawaiian avocado growers and related 
     industries; consumers in Alaska.
       Impact: HI has a strong interest in this rule. Hawaiian 
     avocado growers would be negatively affected.
       Date: Final rule published and effective 12/28/94.
       States affected: All--national issue. Northeast, CA heavily 
     affected.
       Rule: Doc. No. 92-151-3, National Poultry Improvement Plan 
     and Auxiliary Provisions. Revises Plan standards.
       Beneficiaries: poultry producers, food safety interests.
       Impact: This rule will implement recommendations made by 
     industry groups; failure to finalize will negatively affect 
     efforts to control disease and improve the health of poultry 
     flocks.
       Date: Final rule published and effective 11/18/94.


   organizations and associations that routinely express interest in 
                       accomplishing aphis rules

       American Association of Nurserymen, Animal Rights 
     International/Coalition for Non-Violent Food, Humane Society 
     of the U.S., American Veterinary Medical Association, 
     National Cattlemens Association, U.S. Animal Health 
     Association, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 
     FDACS, PETA, American Horse Council, National Pork Producers, 
     Doris Day Animal League, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Society 
     for Animal Protective Legislation, Fund for Animals, National 
     Milk Producers Federation, Texas & Southwestern Cattle 
     Raiser's Assoc., State Agriculture Departments, State Cattle 
     Feeder Associations, American 
     [[Page H2133]]  Farm Bureau Federation, Eastern Milk 
     Producers, State Cattlemens Assocs, and State Animal Health 
     Commissions.
          issue: nutrition labeling of meat and poultry (usda)

       States affected: All
       Rule: This rule amends current regulations to provide 
     condified language for provisions that previously cross-
     referenced RDA regulations, make corrections to existing 
     regulations, and minor technical changes. This rule 
     streamlines and makes consistent an existing regulation.
       Beneficiary of the Rule: Industry, consumers, health 
     professionals, nutrition interests, laboratories, libraries--
     anyone who uses the Code of Federal Regulations.
       Impact of H.R. 450: Would leave existing, more cumbersome 
     regulation in force.
       Date: Published January 3, 1995.


     issue: nutrition labeling of ground beef and hamburger (usda)

       States affected: All
       Rule: This rule would permit the nutrition labeling of 
     ground beef and hamburger to include ``____% lean'' ``____% 
     fat.''
       Beneficiary of the Rule: Consumers; truth-in-labeling 
     issue, dieticians, nutritionists, industry; marketing 
     advantage.
       Impact of H.R. 450: Suspension of the rule will deny 
     consumers information to help them make healthy dietary 
     choices.
       Date: Expected to publish in second quarter of FY 1995.


issue: poultry products produced by mechanical separation and products 
             in which such poultry products are used (usda)

       States affected: All, primarily poultry producing states
       Rule: Rule would require that mechanically separated 
     poultry be identified in ingredients statements of hot dogs, 
     bologna and other processed products as ``mechanically 
     separated chicken or turkey'' instead of simply ``chicken'' 
     or ``turkey.'' Because bones and carcass parts are ground and 
     crushed to extract adhering meat fragments, mechanically 
     separated product has a physical form and texture that differ 
     from ordinary chicken or turkey meat.
       Beneficiary of the Rule: Consumers; truth-in-labeling. The 
     meat industry, whose mechanically separated and deboned 
     products do not differ in texture from ordinary meat 
     products, supports this rule because it would make a labeling 
     distinction between the content of mechanically separated 
     poultry and meat products.
       Impact of H.R. 450: The suspension of this rule would leave 
     current regulations in force, which allow mechanically 
     separated poultry to be labeled ``chicken'' or ``turkey,'' 
     but require mechanically separated or deboned meat to be 
     labeled as such.
       Date: Published December 6, 1994. Comment period closes 
     March 6, 1995.


 issue: opportunity to promote and strategically market sheep products 
                   through producer self-help (usda)

       States affected: California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, 
     Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South 
     Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
       Rule: USDA must publish rules to implement the newly 
     enacted Sheep Research and Promotion Act passed by Congress. 
     U.S. sheep producers have collectively voted to assess 
     themselves and importers, to use the funds collected to 
     conduct research and promotion activities to strategically 
     market sheep and products.
       Beneficiaries: U.S. sheep producers, and consumers of lamb 
     and wool products.
       Impact of H.R. 450: The Nation's sheep and wool producers 
     will be unable to collectively come together, across a dozen 
     states, to develop marketing strategies to expand markets for 
     their products if H.R. 450 is implemented. In the meanwhile, 
     foreign producers will be strategically targeting U.S. 
     consumers as a growing niche market, and promoting their 
     foreign-origin lamb at the expense of domestic producers.
                   issue: cotton classing fees (usda)

       States affected: California, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, 
     Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri
       Rule: Annual determination of fees to be charged cotton 
     producers who voluntarily request and obtain grading services 
     to determine the quality of their cotton.
       Beneficiaries: U.S. cotton producers, and wholesale and 
     retail buyers of cotton and products made from cotton.
       Impact of H.R. 450: USDA can reduce the fees charged to the 
     Nation's cotton producers, saving them millions of dollars. 
     Each year, based on expected crop size, USDA determines by 
     formula the fee needed to cover cotton quality grading 
     services (classing). The past season's cotton crop was record 
     large, and since fees are partly determined by expected 
     volumes, the large crop generated more revenue than needed. 
     This year, USDA can reduce the fee charged to producers, and 
     save U.S. cotton growers $3-4 million. In turn, such savings 
     reduce costs to growers, which are passed on to consumers, 
     both domestic and foreign. U.S. cotton exports are a fast-
     growing market, and U.S. cotton has become one of the most 
     competitive fibers worldwide. Any opportunities to keep costs 
     low, while maintaining the availability of quality assurance, 
     would be lost if H.R. 450 is enacted.


issue: pathogen reduction in meat and poultry products; hazard analysis 
           and critical control point (haccp) systems (usda)

       States affected: All
       Rule: The proposed rule is designed to eliminate a critical 
     gap in the meat and poultry inspection program and reduce the 
     incidence of foodborne illness caused by pathogenically 
     contaminated meat and poultry products. Through mandatory 
     HACCP, we will (1) target pathogens that cause foodborne 
     illness; (2) strengthen industry responsibility to produce 
     safe food; and (3) focus inspection and plant activities on 
     prevention objectives.
       Beneficiary of the Rule: Consumer interests, persons at 
     greatest risk for foodborne illness: elderly, children, 
     persons with compromised immune systems.
       Impact of H.R. 450: According to the Centers for Disease 
     Control, foodborne illness from all food sources range from 
     6.5 million to 81 million cases each year, and up to 9,000 
     deaths. Suspension of this rule would forego yearly public 
     health benefits ranging from $990 million to $3.7 billion. 
     These estimates include the cost of medical care and lost 
     work time.
       Date: Published February 3, 1995. Comment period ends June 
     5, 1995. USDA's goal is to publish a final rule by the end of 
     the year.


 issue: use of term ``fresh'' on the labeling of raw poultry products 
                                 (usda)

       States affected: Poultry producing states, particularly 
     California, Arkansas, Georgia, and Minnesota
       Rule: The proposed rule would amend the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (PPIA) to prohibit the use of the term 
     ``fresh'' on the labeling of raw poultry products whose 
     internal temperature has ever been below 26 deg.F. Raw 
     poultry product whose internal temperature has ever been 
     below 26 deg.F, but above 0 deg.F, may not be labeled as 
     ``fresh'' and must be labeled as ``previously frozen.'' Raw 
     poultry product whose internal temperature has ever been at 
     or below O deg.F may not be labeled as ``fresh'' and must be 
     labeled as ``frozen'' or ``previously frozen.''
       Beneficiary of the Rule: Truth-in-labeling issue benefiting 
     consumers, as well as regional poultry producers whose 
     products compete in local markets with nationally 
     distributed, previously frozen birds that can be thawed and 
     labeled ``fresh'' under current regulations.
       Impact of H.R. 450: Existing regulations allowing 
     previously frozen poultry to be labeled as ``fresh'' would 
     remain in force, causing continued confusion in the 
     marketplace.
       Date: Published January 17, 1995. Comment period closes 
     March 20, 1995.


  issue: meat produced by advanced meat/bone separation machinery and 
                      meat recovery systems (usda)

       States affected: All, primarily states with large meat 
     processing industries
       Rule: Rule amends the federal regulations to allow meat 
     produced by advanced meat and bone separation machinery to be 
     labeled as ``beef'' or ``pork'' instead of ``mechanically 
     separated beef or pork.'' This action was taken to update the 
     definition of ``meat'' to acknowledge advances in meat 
     separating technology that enable meat to be separated from 
     the bones of livestock without grinding, crushing, or 
     pulverizing bones to remove adhering skeletal tissue.
       Beneficiary of the Rule: Truth-in-labeling issue that 
     benefits consumers. Also, the meat industry benefits from a 
     redefinition of meat that includes mechanically separated 
     product.
       Impact of H.R. 450: Suspending this regulation would meet 
     with opposition from the meat industry which, for years, has 
     claimed that poultry producers have a market advantage in 
     that product they produce using mechanical separation can be 
     labeled simply as ``chicken'' or ``turkey,'' while beef or 
     pork produced through mechanical separation must be labeled 
     as ``mechanically separated.'' The meat industry could be 
     expected to point to this as another illustration of how 
     unequal meat and poultry regulations result in preferential 
     treatment of the poultry industry.
       Date: Published December 6, 1994. Comment period closes 
     March 6, 1995.
     Impact of a Regulatory Moratorium on Industries Served by the 
                  Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

       Marketing Orders and Agreements: Under a moratorium, these 
     self-help programs will be useless as a viable tool for 
     producers to use to help strategically market perishable 
     commodities.
       Regulations Affected by a Moratorium: Operating rules for 
     marketing strategies, committee budgets and expenses, and 
     industry assessments. For producers in 38 fruit and vegetable 
     self-help programs, annual rules are needed to determine 
     seasonal marketing strategies, set budgets and assessments, 
     and notify industry members. For dairy producers in 37 milk 
     order regions, periodic rules are used to invoke, suspend, or 
     amend marketing order provisions to keep orders current with 
     market conditions, and enable dairy producers to 
     strategically market milk and dairy products.
       There are approximately 75,000 small fruit and vegetable 
     producers, and 92,000 small dairy producers, as well as U.S. 
     consumers of higher quality, stable supplies of fruits, 
     vegetables, milk and dairy products, that benefit from these 
     self-help programs.
       These small businesses have few opportunities to come 
     together to collectively solve their marketing problems, earn 
     fair and stable returns for their products, and compete in a 
     tough global marketplace by promoting 
     [[Page H2134]]  quality, wholesome U.S. products. A 
     moratorium will effectively render these programs useless as 
     a viable marketing tool by producers.
        dairy milk marketing orders--actions since november 1994

       Approximately 92,000 dairy farmers (about three-quarters of 
     all dairy farmers) participate in 38 federal milk marketing 
     orders. Their average herd size is 75 cows, and before 
     expenses, dairymen average less than $150,000 in annual 
     sales.
       Federal marketing orders are initiated by producers; if a 
     majority believes that the order no longer serves their 
     interests, they are free to terminate the program. Moreover, 
     in the case of any changes that would be considered 
     substantive, the affected producers must vote to approve 
     those changes. In other words, milk marketing orders, and the 
     rules under which they operate, are truly in the hands of the 
     producers, not a federal agency.
       Since November 1994, revisions in 11 milk marketing orders 
     have been initiated; these 11 orders represent over 34,500 
     milk producers. These actions are not regulatory burdens 
     imposed on industry. Rather, the actions taken or proposed to 
     be taken, by industry, help to keep marketing orders dynamic, 
     so they reflect current market conditions facing dairy 
     producers, with respect to adequate supplies of milk needed 
     in a market, milk prices received by producers, and 
     recordkeeping or other ``housekeeping'' or administrative 
     procedures. Actions taken since November include the 
     following:
       Central Arizona Milk Order (135 producers covered)--Action 
     to correct marketing inequities within the order. Rescinding 
     the action means recalculating dairy farmers' milk checks, 
     and some producers might have to refund income they have 
     already received and used to cover expenses.
       Central Arizona Milk Order--Action taken to propose, 
     beginning March 1, 1995 and extending indefinitely, 
     suspension of certain pooling provisions applied to 
     producers' milk. Inability to suspend the pooling 
     requirements could result in an imbalance of supplies to meet 
     demand in fluid, soft, and hard products markets, with 
     adverse consequences for producer prices and incomes.
       Carolina and Tennessee Valley Orders (covering 3,100 
     producers)--Action to provide notice of a hearing, whose 
     purpose is to correct pricing problems that exist in the 
     orders. Failure to hold the hearing and correct the pricing 
     problems will lead to imbalances in milk supplies relative to 
     local demand, with negative consequences for incomes of some 
     producers in the order areas.
       Carolina Milk Order (1,550 producers covered in the 
     Carolina Order alone)--action initiated to propose relaxing 
     certain order provisions for the period January-February 
     1995, to correct pricing problems. Rescinding the action 
     would result in loss of money for some handlers.
       Georgia, et al. (covering 1,355 producers)--Initiation of a 
     formal rulemaking process to consider proposals to merge a 
     number of marketing areas in the Southeast under one order. 
     Additional actions have been taken to accommodate the 
     industry by providing time extensions to file exceptions to 
     proposed amendments.
       Additional actions have been taken to accommodate the 
     industry by providing time extensions to file exceptions to 
     proposed amendments.
       Chicago Milk Order (covering approximately 18,000 
     producers)--Action taken to accommodate all interests in the 
     order, by providing an extension of time for filing 
     exceptions on proposed amendments to rule.
       Southern Illinois-E. Missouri Milk (covers over 2,250 
     producers)--Action to relax certain provisions of the order, 
     to enable better balancing of supplies. Without the action, 
     excessive milk would be shipped for fluid use, unnecessarily 
     depressing prices and resulting in inefficient allocations of 
     supplies to meet local demand.
       Southern Illinois Milk Order--Action to relax pooling 
     regulation for producer milk that is supplied by 2,257 
     producers. Cooperatives will lose money without the 
     suspension, because members' milk will be ineligible for 
     pooling.
       Central Illinois Milk Order--Action proposed to relax 
     pooling requirements. Rescinding this action means that dairy 
     farmers covered under this order would not be able to have 
     their milk priced and pooled, and would lose income.
       Southern Michigan Milk Order--Action taken at the request 
     of the industry, to update the method of paying the 3,600 
     dairy farmers covered under this order for their milk.
       Iowa Milk Order--Action taken to withdraw an earlier 
     proceeding initiated to increase the pool supply of milk; 
     supplies now appear to be adequate for meeting local needs. 
     Over 3,400 producers are covered by this order.
       Tennessee Valley Milk Order--Action taken to prevent the 
     uneconomical shipment of milk and ensure that milk produced 
     under the order during the fall will continue to be pooled.
       Texas Milk Marketing Area--Action proposed to suspend 
     certain provisions of the order from March 1, 1995 through 
     July 31, 1995. Requested by a cooperative association 
     representing a substantial number of the 2,400 producers 
     covered by the order. Failure to suspend the provisions could 
     result in uneconomical and inefficient movements of milk.
       Other actions that would affect all dairy milk marketing 
     orders, and must be approved by a majority of the affected 
     producers:
       Class II Milk Pricing: This decision changes the Class II 
     pricing formula for soft dairy products (yogurt, cottage 
     cheese, etc.) under Federal orders, and will mean more income 
     for dairy farmers.
       M-W Price Series: Decision to replace current outdated 
     pricing series, will improve the accuracy of milk payments to 
     dairy farmers in reflecting actual market conditions.
  Fruits and Vegetables--Marketing Orders--Actions since November 1994

       Over 75,000 fruit and vegetable producers, farming an 
     average of 54 acres, participate in 38 federal marketing 
     orders that generate an average of $70,000 in gross sales to 
     producers. Marketing orders are self-help programs that 
     enable producers to develop marketing strategies to compete 
     in a market where buyers have a much greater natural market 
     advantage. Buyers tend to have a greater market advantage not 
     just because there are fewer buyers than sellers, but because 
     the products are highly perishable--producers have limited 
     ability to use time to their advantage and hold commodities 
     off the market until more favorable terms appear.
       Federal marketing orders are initiated by producers; if a 
     majority believes that the order no longer serves their 
     interests, they are free to terminate the program. Moreover, 
     in the case of any changes that would be considered 
     substantive, the affected producers must vote to approve 
     those changes. Fruit and vegetable marketing orders are truly 
     in the hands of the producers, not a federal agency.
       Actions initiated by industry, since November 1994, cover 
     more than 63,000 fruit and vegetable producers operating 
     under some 22 marketing orders. Actions since November 
     include announcements of seasonal marketing strategies to 
     improve or maintain returns, in the face of unexpected large 
     crops, or measurable changes in crop quality, announcements 
     of budgets, expenses, and assessments, for committees to 
     administer the marketing orders locally.
       Domestic Peanuts (covering 25,000 growers, with average 
     sales of $36,000 per grower)--Actions taken to update 
     marketing agreement provisions for the recent marketing 
     season, and to assess non-signatory peanut handlers, which is 
     mandated by law.
       Far West Spearmint Oil (256 producers, with average annual 
     sales of $100,000)--Action to announce salable quantities and 
     allotment shares for ``Class 1'' and ``Class 3'' spearmint 
     oil, to avoid extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices and 
     thus help maintain stability in the Far West spearmint oil 
     market.
       Far West Spearmint Oil--Action to announce salable 
     quantities and allotment shares for the 1995-96 marketing 
     season. This rule needs to be effective during the June 1, 
     1995-May 31, 1996 marketing year. Without it, handlers will 
     be unable to purchase or handle spearmint oil from the 
     marketing order area, resulting in immediate farmer income 
     loss.
       Cranberries (1,046 growers in 10 states)--Action to impose 
     financial responsibility on handlers by setting late payment 
     charges. Late payments of assessments hinder the ability of 
     the committee to carry out its financial obligations 
     responsibility, such as prompt payment for services, 
     salaries, and other current expenses.
       California Almonds (7,000 producers, with average annual 
     sales of $130,000)--Action to establish marketing strategy 
     for the 1994/95 crop season, by announcing salable, reserve, 
     and
      export market share recommendations for handler compliance. 
     Inability to pursue the marketing strategy will lead to 
     fluctuations in supplies in various markets and attendant 
     price variability.
       Kiwifruit (600 producers, with average annual sales of 
     $27,000)--Action to change district boundaries, to accurately 
     reflect distribution of growers in membership on 
     administrative committee.
       California Olives (covering 1,200 producers, with an 
     average of $47,000 in sales per producer)--Action to 
     establish and announce a marketing strategy for olive growers 
     for the 1994-95 season.
       California Olives--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally.
       California Peaches and Nectarines (1,800 producers, with 
     average annual sales of $57,000)--Producers voted in a 
     referendum to terminate this order. This action would carry 
     out that termination request by industry.
       California Raisins (4,500 producers, with average annual 
     sales of $80,000)--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally.
       California Table Grapes--Action to pursue marketing 
     strategy, by relaxing minimum quality requirements currently 
     in effect for table grapes grown in southeastern California, 
     and imported table grapes, to increase the marketing of 
     grapes that would not otherwise meet the grade requirement. 
     This action conforms to industry practice of allowing the 
     marketing of good quality, but smaller bunches, of grapes. 
     Rescinding or preventing the action would result in loss of 
     income to some producers and handlers for these smaller size 
     grapes.
       California Walnuts (5,000 producers, with average annual 
     sales of $73,000)--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally.
       [[Page H2135]] Colorado Irish potatoes (390 producers)--
     Action to announce expenses for administrative committee to 
     run marketing order locally.
       Colorado Irish Potatoes--Action to realign the 
     representation of the administrative committee to more 
     accurately represent the distribution of growers in the 
     industry.
       Florida Avocados (200 producers, with average annual sales 
     of $18,000)--Action to increase expenses to provide funding 
     for a research project to improve marketability of Florida 
     avocados; without funding, the research project will be 
     terminated.
       Florida Celery--Action to notify the industry that the 
     marketing order will be suspended after 60 days notification 
     to Congress. The industry wants the order suspended at this 
     time. Nullification of the Final Rule would delay suspension.
       Florida Citrus (11,965 growers, with average sales of 
     $22,546 each)--Marketing strategy based on a larger citrus 
     crop, to raise minimum quality grade characteristics, to 
     improve consumer appeal and keep producer returns from 
     declining with excess supplies.
       Florida Citrus--Action by the Florida citrus industry 
     requesting that quality standards for grapefruit, oranges, 
     tangelos, and tangerines be revised to more clearly reflect 
     current cultural and marketing practices.
       Florida and Imported Citrus--Action to relax the minimum 
     size requirement for red seedless grapefruit, to expand the 
     length of marketing season for Florida handlers and importers 
     of red seedless grapefruit to permit them to continue to ship 
     for the entire 1994-95 season.
       Florida Limes (150 producers, with average sales of 
     $39,000) and Avocados--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally.
       Florida Tomatoes (250 producers)--Action to clarify 
     ambiguities in certain rules and regulations of the marketing 
     order, to improve compliance.
       Florida Tomatoes--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally.
       Florida Tomatoes--Action to assure that producer 
     representation on the committee more closely reflects the 
     distribution of growers in the industry.
       Idaho Potatoes (1,846 producers, with average annual sales 
     of $119,000)--This action is the second of a four-step formal 
     rulemaking process to amend existing marketing order 
     provisions to more appropriately reflect marketing conditions 
     and strategies needed for Idaho potato growers.
       Oregon and Washington filberts and hazelnuts (851 
     producers, with average annual sales of $28,000)--Action to 
     establish a marketing strategy for the 1994-95 season, by 
     setting recommended shares for domestic, export and other 
     outlets. The percentages stabilize the supply of domestic 
     inshell filberts/hazelnuts in order to meet the limited 
     domestic demand and provide a reasonable return to producers.
       Texas Grapefruit (1,000 producers, with average annual 
     sales of $15,607)--Marketing strategy to raise quality and 
     relax size requirements for the 1994-95 marketing season.
       Texas Citrus--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally; 
     otherwise, marketing order cannot continue.
       Texas Citrus--Action to revise container and container pack 
     requirements, to facilitate marketing and business 
     operations.
       Texas Melons--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally; 
     otherwise, marketing order cannot continue.
       South Texas Melons--Action to increase expenses for the 
     Administrative Committee to fund an additional research 
     project. Without these funds, the research project would have 
     to be terminated.
       Texas Onions--Action to announce expenses for 
     administrative committee to run marketing order locally; 
     otherwise, marketing order cannot continue, and the committee 
     will be unable to implement needed compliance activities and 
     a planned market development program.
       Walla Walla (Washington) Sweet Onions--Action is the second 
     of a four-step formal rulemaking process to establish a new 
     marketing order for Walla Walla onions in Washington, as 
     requested by growers.
       Research and Promotion Programs--Under a moratorium, sheep 
     producers will not be able to implement the promotion program 
     authorized by Congress to help promote sheep, wool, and lamb 
     products.
       An important upcoming issue is the opportunity for the 
     Nation's sheep ranchers to promote and strategically market 
     sheep products through this self-help mechanism. Producers in 
     California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New 
     Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 
     Vermont, and Wyoming recently received authorizing 
     legislation to initiate this program through self-
     assessments. USDA must publish rules in order to implement 
     the program. Producers collectively will vote on whether to 
     assess themselves and importers, to use the funds collected 
     to conduct research and promotion activities.
       With a moratorium, sheep and wool producers will be unable 
     to collectively come together, across a dozen states, to 
     develop marketing strategies to expand markets for their 
     products. In the meanwhile, foreign producers will be 
     strategically targeting U.S. consumers as a growing niche 
     market, and promoting their foreign-origin lamb at the 
     expense of domestic producers.
       Other R&P issues expected to surface in coming months 
     include:
       Soybeans--The Department is required to conduct a producer 
     poll in a timely manner to determine if a refund referendum 
     should be held. That poll is tentatively set for early 
     summer, and procedures for its conduct must be finalized so 
     that producers can receive adequate notice.
       Watermelons--The industry will be unable to revise its 
     program, for which it has already received authority to 
     eliminate refunds and revise assessments.
           industry-financed research and promotion programs

       Various industry groups have petitioned for and received 
     authorization to collectively assess themselves and use the 
     funds to conduct research and fund promotional activities for 
     their commodities. All of the 16 active R&P programs are 
     totally self-supported. No taxpayer dollars are used. The 
     cost of the Washington staff is reimbursed by the industries. 
     As with other self-help marketing order and agreement 
     programs, R&Ps are initiated by producers, and can be 
     terminated by producers when the programs are no longer 
     considered to be effective. The following actions have been 
     initiated by industries since November:
       Egg Research and Promotion Act--Producer Vote to Increase 
     the Assessment Rate: The American Egg Board (AEB) would be 
     unable to collect the 10 cents per 30-dozen case assessment 
     beginning February 1, 1995, and the assessment would revert 
     to 5 cents. AEB would have to develop a new budget and submit 
     it to the Department for approval. Projects as outlined in 
     AEB's 1995 budget are already in progress and would have to 
     be scrapped. The 10 cent assessment was approved by the 
     producers in a referendum held September-October 1994, and 
     the increase was heavily publicized.
       Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and 
     Information Order: This rule implemented the program. 
     Termination of the program would result in a substantial 
     widespread revenue loss to producers and shippers.
       Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Order: 
     Interim Final Rule was published May 2, 1994. This action 
     clarifies and corrects the Order and rules and regulations 
     which were amended in August 1991.
       Lime Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Order: 
     This Final Rule implemented the changes to the Order which 
     reflect amendments made by Congress in December 1993 to the 
     authorizing legislation. Before the 1993 amendments the 
     program was inactive. A moratorium would nullify this 
     industry program.
       Pork Research and Promotion; Increase in Assessment Rate: 
     The increase in the overall assessment rate is needed to 
     provide additional funding to enable the pork industry to 
     better assist the movement of record supplies of pork to 
     consumers at improved producer price levels. A portion of all 
     funds collected are redistributed to states to facilitate 
     state promotional activities for pork.
       Potato Research and Promotion--Change in Size of 
     Administrative Committee: This Final Rule adopts without 
     change an Interim Final Rule published September 26, 1994. 
     Not implementing this rule would prevent the committee from 
     selecting members on a representative basis. The Final Rule 
     does not change the Interim Final Rule which would remain the 
     active regulation.
                   industry financed grading programs

       Under a moratorium, cotton growers will pay $3-4 million in 
     higher grading fees that are not necessary, if USDA is 
     prevented from reducing the fees through the regulatory 
     process.
       USDA can reduce the fees charges to the Nation's cotton 
     producers, saving them millions of dollars. Each year, based 
     on expected crop size, USDA determines by formula the fee 
     needed to cover cotton quality grading services (classing). 
     The past season's cotton crop was record large, and since 
     fees are partly determined by expected volumes, the large 
     crop generated more revenue than needed. This year, USDA can 
     reduce the fee charged to producers, and save U.S. cotton 
     growers $3-4 million. In turn, such savings reduce costs to 
     growers, which are passed on to consumers, both domestic and 
     foreign. U.S. cotton exports are a fast-growing market, and 
     U.S. cotton has become one of the most competitive fibers 
     worldwide.
       Any opportunities to keep costs low, while maintaining the 
     availability of quality assurance for growers that is 
     recognized as the universal standard of quality, would be 
     lost with a moratorium. Cotton producers in California, 
     Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee, 
     Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri would pay more than needed for 
     a service they value.
     industry-financed quality grading and grade standards programs

       Quality grade standards, and the grading services provided 
     by AMS, are wholly voluntary programs, financed through fees 
     paid by industry for services on demand. These customers are 
     the ``cash and carry'' customers who must be satisfied with 
     AMS service, and believe in the value of the grading service, 
     because they are under no obligation whatsoever to use the 
     grading service. The application of grade standards 
     facilitates trade, and the use of contracts in trade, over 
     long distances where commodities cannot be inspected 
     visually. Grading also increases buyer confidence, by 
     providing up front assurances about the quality of the 
     product before purchase. All of the actions below are 
     [[Page H2136]]  examples of actions initiated by industry, 
     and AMS makes sure that there is industry consensus before 
     the action becomes final:
       Beef Grades: Proposal would revise the beef grade standards 
     to assure that older cattle are not included in the U.S. 
     Choice and U.S. Select grades, thereby improving the overall 
     quality of beef in these grades. The action will improve both 
     the consistency of and consumer satisfaction with beef 
     grades.
       Dairy Grading Standards: Changes in Anhydrous Milkfat and 
     Butteroil Requirements: Changes were made in the USDA grade 
     standards for anhydrous milkfat and butteroil, that more 
     closely aligned U.S. requirements with international 
     standards. Without the changes, domestic manufacturers of 
     anhydrous milk and butteroil would not be able to compete on 
     equal terms in international markets. As a result, Dairy 
     Export Incentive Program contracts could not be filled, and 
     the dairy industry could lose $1.3 million in annual sales.
       Frozen Bean Standards: Proposal would revise quality 
     standards for grades of frozen green and frozen wax beans. 
     The proposed action will improve trade contracts between 
     processors and buyers and improve the marketing of frozen 
     green beans.
       Onion Standards: A broad spectrum of growers and shippers 
     of onions requested that the U.S. grade standards be revised 
     to provide clear, objective interpretation and to bring the 
     standards into conformity with current harvesting, handling 
     and marketing practices.
       Poulty Grade Standards: These changes update the voluntary 
     poultry grade standards in response to advancement within the 
     poultry industry and changes in consumer preferences.
       Tobacco Standards: Action requested by the industry to 
     improve the integrity of American burley tobacco. Industry 
     has been trying for 2 years to get rule in place and it would 
     have strong reaction to any more delay.
                     agricultural marketing service

Implications for AMS Programs Should a Regulatory Moratorium Be Imposed

                               User fees

       The Agricultural Marketing Service administers 50 laws 
     which translates into an equal number of programs for the 
     marketing sector of Agriculture. AMS is unique in that 76% of 
     funding required to provide its services to the agriculture 
     community is paid by numerous players throughout the 
     agricultural marketing chain. Should a regulatory moratorium 
     be imposed, AMS would be unable to promulgate adjustments of 
     annual fees for the numerous inspection and grading 
     activities offered by AMS as well as numerous self-help 
     programs initiated by the various industries. For example:

                            Cotton classing

       In the area of cotton, AMS classes 98% of the cotton crop. 
     Annual fees, which are based on the size of the crop, are 
     announced via Federal Register publication in early spring in 
     order for AMS to assess a uniform fee to the industry when 
     the classing season starts up on June 1. Given the size of 
     the crop this year, AMS will actually be able to consider 
     adjusting the annual fee downward. Without the ability to 
     announce a fee that is in compliance with the formula 
     prescribed in Sec. 3A of the Cotton Statistics and Estimates 
     Act, the Department could actually be in a situation of 
     charging a fee higher than is needed to provide the service 
     to the industry. Although such savings may be a few cents per 
     bale, that savings translates into the big dollar savings for 
     America's producers when they are looking at a record crop 
     which needs classing.

                            Marketing orders

       Federal marketing orders for milk, fruits, vegetables and 
     specialty crops are unique programs that are recommended by 
     industry and approved by the Secretary. Unlike most 
     regulations, these are requested by the industries that are 
     being regulated. Growers and producers voluntarily initiate 
     all marketing orders. A formal rulemaking process, including 
     a hearing on grower/producer approval by a two-thirds or 
     larger majority in referendum, is required before any program 
     may be implemented.
       Once operational, industry committees recommend changes in 
     regulations that will assist the industry in addressing 
     unique marketing challenges. The perishability of most of the 
     commodities regulated under these programs makes rapid 
     responses to changes in crop and market conditions essential. 
     Under a regulatory moratorium, timely responses to changes in 
     crop and market conditions will not be possible. Such delays 
     are not only disconcerting to the industries, but result in 
     loss of revenue without the necessary objectives being met.
       Under the Federal Milk Order Program, it should be noted 
     that regulatory actions sometimes occur during the course of 
     the year that will in fact suspend certain provisions of that 
     particular federal milk marketing order. For example, 
     regulations are often utilized to suspend the requirements to 
     pool plant qualification of a milk manufacturing plant 
     operated by a cooperative. Milk orders utilize the 
     opportunity to suspend regulations to avoid unnecessary milk 
     movements. A regulatory moratorium would preclude suspending 
     such requirements, thereby requiring unnecessary and 
     uneconomic shipment of milk.

                           Organic standards

       The Department received authority in the 1990 Farm Bill to 
     establish an organic standards program. Over the period of 
     the past five years, the Department has worked closely with 
     the National Organic Standards Board and all segments of the 
     organic community in developing standards by which the 
     organic community can market its products in the mainstream 
     of American Agriculture. The Department is proceeding to 
     publish rulemaking that will provide the necessary standards 
     for implementation of this program. A regulatory moratorium 
     would further delay this effort to the disadvantage of 
     organic producers.

                  Sheep Research and Promotion Program

       The Department expects to promulgate regulations and 
     implement this new program this year. The Department would be 
     unable to implement this Act this year in event of the 
     moratorium.

               Watermelon Research and Promotion Program

       The watermelon industry under a moratorium would be unable 
     to revise its program for which it has already received 
     statutory authority to eliminate refunds and revise its 
     assessments. The industry is asking for a promulgation of a 
     final rule by March 1 of this year.

                 Soybean Research and Promotion Program

       The soybean legislation approved by Congress in the 1990 
     Farm Bill requires the Department to conduct a producer poll 
     in a timely manner to determine if a refund referendum should 
     be held. The poll is tentatively set for early summer. 
     Procedures for its conduct must be finalized in time to 
     adequately inform producers. A regulatory moratorium would 
     obviate the Department's ability to meet the statutory 
     requirement.
                  Pork Research and Promotion Program

       The pork industry wishes to increase the rate of assessment 
     from .35% to .45% of the market value of porcine animals. The 
     overall assessment increase is needed by the pork industry to 
     better assist their program efforts for the marketing of 
     record supplies of pork to consumers at improved price 
     levels. A regulatory moratorium would preclude this 
     rulemaking from taking place.


 issue: strategic marketing of fruits, vegetables, and dairy products 
               through producer self-help programs (usda)

       States Affected: For fruit/veg--mainly Southern and Western 
     States; for dairy--nearly every State.
       Rules: Self-Help Marketing Programs--Operating Rules for 
     Marketing Strategies, Committee Budgets and Expenses, and 
     Industry Assessments. For producers in 38 fruit/vegetable 
     self-help programs, annual rules are needed to determine 
     seasonal marketing strategies, set budgets and assessments, 
     and notify industry members. For dairy producers in 37 milk 
     order regions, periodic rules are used to invoke, suspend, or 
     amend marketing order provisions to keep orders current with 
     market conditions, and enable dairy producers to 
     strategically market milk and dairy products.
       Beneficiary: 75,000 small fruit and vegetable producers, 
     and 92,000 small dairy producers, as well as U.S. consumers 
     of higher quality, stable supplies of fruits, vegetables, 
     milk, and dairy products.
       Impact of H.R. 450: The average fruit and vegetable 
     producer who participates in a self-help marketing order 
     farms just 54 acres, and earns about $70,000 in annual sales, 
     before expenses. The average dairy producer who participates 
     in a marketing order has just 75 cows, with a total value of 
     milk sales before operating expenses, of less than $150,000.
       These small businesses have few opportunities to come 
     together to collectively solve their marketing problems, earn 
     fair and stable returns for their products, and compete in a 
     tough global marketplace by promoting quality, wholesome U.S. 
     products. H.R. 450 will effectively render these programs 
     useless as a marketing tool.
       H.R. 450 would also prevent the initiation of new self-help 
     programs that have recently been enacted by Congress, to help 
     producers promote horticultural products, sheep, wool, and 
     lamb.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I would like to enter into a similar colloquy with the chairman of 
the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. Chairman, a recent tragedy in the Midwest, involving a regional 
airline brought to the public's attention that 2 different sets of 
safety standards exist for the airlines, one for the major airlines and 
one for the regional airlines.
  It is my understanding Secretary Pena is looking into that and is 
expected in a short period of time to be releasing a new set of 
regulations bringing the regionals up to a par with the major airlines. 
That is something that is long overdue, since more and more cities are 
being served by regional airlines and fewer and fewer cities are having 
full jet service.
  I hope it is the intention of the Chair to allow, within the 
discretion that he has for technical adjustments, when this bill is put 
into its final stage would somehow include some language so that it is 
very clear that when these 
[[Page H2137]]  regulations come down, they will not be subject to the 
terms of this bill.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in colloquy with the 
chairman, and the answer is it is pretty clear to me that the 
circumstances we are talking about here, which is obviously the safety 
involved in regional aircraft, is a very, very critical one and one 
that clearly relates to safety of individuals and constituents a 
threat.
  We have seen too many accidents, too many deaths resulting from this.
  So that I think it is clearly exempt under the exemption we provided 
for imminent threat to health and safety. The language specifically 
says that substantial endangerment to private property during the 
period of the moratorium. So under either of those criteria, it would 
be covered.
  I think we should also try to clarify that.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, while we have the interested 
parties here, could I address the ranking minority member and ask if 
she would be in agreement to allow during the technical revisions at 
the end of the bill to allow the chairman, if need be, to include that 
language? It is a lot quicker than offering an amendment. Again, we all 
know regulations are coming that would otherwise be necessary. I would 
hate to see anyone hurt because this Congress failed to do its job.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, 
``With all certainty.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in order to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my question is this: Section 5 of the Regulatory 
Transition Act of 1995 provides for certain exceptions to the 
regulatory moratorium in the case of regulations which are necessary 
because of an imminent threat to health or safety. While I applaud this 
section, I am concerned that it might be construed to apply to 
regulations proposed under the National Flood Insurance Program.
  I have been trying to work with the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency as that agency prepares to issue a final rule implementing 
amendments to the national flood insurance program. This amendment--
which was passed as part of the 1992 housing reauthorization--addressed 
areas which once had adequate flood protection, but which had 
experienced a decertification of their flood control system. 
Importantly, these amendments only apply to areas which are in the 
process of recertifying a flood control project. Thus, these 
communities have the distinction of having once prepared for a flood 
and of having to do so once again. Certainly, this is not an instance 
of trying to get out of dealing with a flood threat.
  Unfortunately, FEMA has not considered the legislative history of 
this issue, and is preparing to issue a final rule that will impose a 
requirement for local homeowners to buy flood insurance and for certain 
construction projects to be modified to reflect a possible flood.
  This rule will cost homeowners several hundred million dollars per 
year, and even more in lost economic opportunity, as builders delay 
construction projects to avoid having to elevate structures that will 
only be at risk for a short period of time, until the flood control 
project is recertified. In sum, we are facing a multibillion dollar 
cost from this rule, while the cost to recertify the flood control 
project is only $300 million. Meanwhile, the risk of a flood is less 
than 1 percent in any given year.
  In my mind, that small risk does not constitute an imminent threat to 
health and safety, as defined under this bill in section 5. Would you 
agree with this characterization?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, yes, I concur. Rulemaking by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency which imposes flood insurance on a 
community cannot be construed as an imminent threat to health and 
safety, and thus would not be eligible for consideration under section 
5 of the bill.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of the legislation, who 
knows it better than anyone.
  Mr. McINTOSH. I thank the gentleman.
             amendment offered by mrs. collins of illinois

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois:
       At the end of section 5 (pages   , after line   ), add the 
     following new subsection:
       (c) Common Sense Regulatory Improvements.--Section 3(a) or 
     4(a), or both, shall not apply to any of the following 
     regulatory rulemaking actions (or any such action relating 
     thereto):
       (1) Personal use of campaign funds.--A regulatory 
     rulemaking action by the Federal Election Commission 
     governing personal use of campaign funds, taken under the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and with respect to 
     which final rules were published on February 9, 1995 (60 Fed. 
     Reg. 7862).
       (2) Immigrant asylum requests.--A regulatory rulemaking 
     action to improve procedures for disposing of requests for 
     asylum under immigration laws, taken by the immigration and 
     Naturalization Service and with respect to which final rules 
     were published on December 5, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 62284).
       (3) HUD regulatory improvements.--A regulatory rulemaking 
     action by the Department of Housing and Urban Development--
       (A) to establish a preference for the elderly in the 
     provision of section 8 housing assistance, taken under 
     subtitle D of title VI of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 and with respect to which a final 
     rule was published on December 21, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 65842);
       (B) to eliminate drugs from federally assisted housing, as 
     authorized by section 581 of the National Affordable Housing 
     Act and section 161 of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1992 and with respect to which a final rule was 
     published on January 26, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 5280); or
       (C) to designate urban empowerment zones or enterprise 
     communities, taken under subchapter C of part I of title XIII 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and with 
     respect to which a final rule was published on January 12, 
     1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 3034).
       (4) Compensation to persian gulf war veterans.--A 
     regulatory rulemaking action to provide compensation to 
     Persian Gulf War veterans for disability from undiagnosed 
     illnesses, taken under the Persian Gulf War Veterans' 
     Benefits Act and with respect to which a final rule was 
     published on February 3, 1995, (60 Fed. Reg. 6660).
       (5) Child molester database.--A regulatory rulemaking 
     action by the Department of Justice to require persons 
     criminally convicted of a sexually violent offense against a 
     minor to register with State law enforcement agencies so that 
     such agencies can develop a database of the identities and 
     residences of those offenders, taken under title XVII of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
       (6) Migratory bird hunting.--A regulatory rulemaking action 
     by the Department of the Interior that establishes the 
     hunting season, hunting hours, hunting areas, and possession 
     limits for migratory birds, and with respect to which final 
     rules were published on November 21, 1995 (59 Fed. Reg. 59967 
     and 59 Fed. Reg. 60060).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be recognized for 15 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot during this debate about 
regulations that do not pass the commonsense test. A proposal 
considered by Federal agencies to require the manufacture of buckets 
that leak has often been cited as an example of what is wrong with 
Federal regulation.
  What the proponents of this bill do not like to admit, however, is 
that some regulations actually do pass the commonsense test. It is 
important to 
[[Page H2138]]  remember, therefore, that H.R. 450 does not just stop 
bad regulations--it stops virtually all regulations.
  There is no exemption in this legislation for regulations that simply 
make good sense. As a result, the amendment I am offering would exempt 
several regulations that I believe most Members will agree make sense, 
and should not be subject to a moratorium.
  Regulations that would be exempt from the moratorium under my 
amendment include: rules prohibiting the personal use of campaign 
funds; improved procedures to dispose of meritless petitions for asylum 
under immigration laws; rules to give preference to the elderly in 
public housing, to exclude drug addicts from public housing and to 
designate empowerment zones and enterprise communities; rules 
authorizing payment of benefits to Persian Gulf veterans; rules 
providing for the development of a data base for child molesters; and 
rules necessary to establish the hunting season for ducks and other 
waterfowl.
                              {time}  1810

  Let me speak first on the duck hunting issue.
  My amendment would exempt from the moratorium the Interior 
Department's regulations establishing the hunting season, hunting 
hours, hunting areas, and bag limits for migratory birds. Without this 
exclusion, this year's hunting season for ducks and other waterfowl 
could be canceled, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  I am sure the bill's proponents did not have the Nation's hunters in 
their sights when they took aim at Federal regulation. However, without 
the exclusion contained in my amendment there will not only be 
disappointed hunters this hunting season, but there will also be 
reduced Federal and State revenues from the sale of licenses and duck 
stamps.
  Why would we want the moratorium to stop the hunting season?
  I would also caution my colleagues against relying on assurances from 
the bill's proponents that there is no need to worry, because this or 
that regulation can be excluded under the term of the bill.
  There are no automatic exclusions under this bill. Furthermore, since 
the bill allows the courts to review an agency decision to exclude a 
matter, the agencies will be very reluctant to grant exclusions.
  Let me give my colleagues a little background on some other rules, 
and I think it will be very clear why they should be excluded from the 
moratorium:
  The Federal Elections Commission has recently completed a rulemaking 
clarifying its prohibition against the personal use of campaign funds.
  The new FEC rule defines personal use to include expenses such as 
club memberships, clothing, tuition payments, and mortgage and rent 
payments on a candidate's personal residence. If the FEC's rule is not 
allowed to go into effect, there will be no definition of personal use, 
and the opportunity for intentional, or inadvertent violation of the 
law will increase.
  It is my belief that the American people will hold each of us no less 
accountable than Members of past Congresses for excesses and abuses of 
our office.
  Why then should we want H.R. 450 to stop the FEC from aggressively 
enforcing its ban on the personal use of campaign funds?
  Similarly, the Department of Justice issued a final rule on December 
5, 1994, which will make it easier to deport immigrant aliens who file 
meritless cases for asylum.
  Under this rule, persons who are seeking asylum would not immediately 
become eligible to receive employment authorizations. Under the 
previous rule, asylum seekers were granted employment authorizations 
immediately upon filing for asylum. As a result, many fraudulent asylum 
petitions were filed in order to obtain much sought after employment 
authorizations.
  We have had many examples of abuses of our asylum laws in recent 
years.
  The Moslem religious leader who is accused of masterminding the 
bombings of the World Trade Center in New York City has remained in the 
United States, after filing a request for asylum. The sniper attack 
last year outside the Central Intelligence Agency was also perpetrated 
by an asylum applicant.
  In both these cases, the individuals involved were able to extend 
their stay by filing appeals and exhausting their administrative 
remedies under the asylum regulations now in effect. Such tactics have 
meant that it now takes the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
[INS] up to 2 years to process an asylum application.
  If we do not exempt this rule from the moratorium, we will be 
protecting those who do not have a legitimate claim for asylum in our 
country. According to the administration, and I quote,

       The effect of H.R. 450 would be an institutionalization of 
     the prior, unworkable and inefficient asylum system.

  I do not believe that is in the interest of the American people.
  Neither do I believe it to be in the public interest to repeal HUD's 
designation of more than 100 empowerment zones and enterprise 
communities throughout the United States. I am happy to say that 
Chicago was designated one of the empowerment zones.
  Under this program, cities would be given tax incentives, flexible 
block grants, waivers, and flexibility with existing Federal resources 
and priority consideration for discretionary Federal programs. In 
short, cities would get the kind of cooperation and flexibility from 
the Federal Government that they have been seeking for a long time.
  Why would we want the moratorium to stop this regulation? Members of 
the majority have been advocating this approach for years.
  I would remind the bill's proponents that when a question was raised 
about whether the moratorium would apply to bank and tax regulation, 
the response was to clearly exempt these matters in the provisions of 
the bill itself. I would ask for the same treatment for the rules 
contained in the amendment I am offering.
  Let me conclude that my statement is a commonsense fix on this bill, 
yet if this amendment is defeated, I would be willing to grant that we 
are going to end up passing this in the new Corrections Day that the 
Speaker has promised us.
  I believe the regulations my amendment would exempt do make good 
sense, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do this reluctantly because I know that the minority 
has attempted to marshal the amendments into en bloc amendments. 
Unfortunately this amendment really is too en bloc. We have too many 
disparate elements included in this amendment, some of which may be 
meritorious, but others which I think are redundant or unnecessary. So, 
because it has a whole potpourri of various considerations, various 
exemptions included in this, I think it goes beyond, and it really 
would have the effect of gutting the intent of the bill, which we are 
trying to resist as many exemptions as possible here because we feel 
that the exemption provisions in the bill itself are very broad. They 
would allow amendments to go forward clearly for a variety of reasons, 
whether for to protect the health and safety, whether it is 
streamlining or removing regulations, reducing the regulatory burden on 
people and for normal, routine operations.
  There are a number of exemptions in here, and to start down the 
slippery slope of identifying specific programs I think would be a 
mistake, and I would also submit, Mr. Chairman, a number of the 
provisions in the gentlewoman's amendment I think would be clearly 
covered by some of those exemptions that are applied in the bill. For 
example, the immigrant asylum provision would really be covered, I 
believe, under the streamlining exemption. It says that one is actually 
removing regulations that are imposed in this area, and it is making 
the system easier. So I think they would not be affected by or they 
would be exempt under this amendment. The child molester data base 
would be covered clearly, I think, under the criminal enforcement 
exemption. Again that is already in the bill, and to specifically list 
child molesting 
[[Page H2139]]  might preclude the consideration of other vitally 
needed criminal regulations that should go forward.
  So, there are a number of other items, as I have indicated, like the 
migratory bird hunting amendment. I would tell the membership we are 
going to deal where there is an amendment that will be forthcoming that 
I think addresses the migratory bird hunting problem with greater 
finesse. This would provide us an exemption, spell out an exemption, 
for migratory bird hunting. The amendment that will be considered in 
due course defines what the existing exemption would include within the 
existing exemption and make it clear that this was a sort of thing that 
we intended to be included within the existing exemption.
  So, for those reasons I must oppose the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify or amend 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] 
by taking the language that applies in the amendment that is in the 
amendment lines 2, 3, and 4, beginning with the word ``section'' and 
insert ``it also,'' and on page 3 between lines 14 and 15.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
have the gentleman repeat his request.
  Mr. VOLKMER. If you take the language in the front of the amendment, 
line 2, section 6, et cetera down to ``thereto,'' take the same 
language and put it over on page 3, between lines 14 and 15; that is 
all it does.
  Mr. CLINGER. Further reserving the right to object, what is the 
purpose of this amendment?
  Mr. VOLKMER. It does not change the substance of the amendment at 
all.
  Mr. CLINGER. Why are we moving it, if it does not change the 
substance? What is the effect of the change?
  Mr. VOLKMER. The effect is the change will permit me to ask for a 
division or separate vote on that last part, on the migratory bird 
hunting.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, we are going to 
deal with that matter in a subsequent amendment, and we feel that the 
amendment that will be offered later is a more artfully drafted 
amendment. So I would not want to muddy the water here, and I must 
maintain my objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for 
yielding, and also thank her for her leadership and allowing me to have 
input and assistance on this amendment.
  In their haste to expedite the process, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle seem to have forgotten there are some helpful 
regulations needed by hunters, veterans, seniors, crime fighters, and 
even Members of Congress. The Collins-Stupak amendment would make some 
important needed corrections in this legislation.
  H.R. 450, the regulatory moratorium, is for the birds, but, more 
specifically, it is for ducks, geese, doves, woodcocks, and pigeons. In 
fact, it really should be renamed the Migratory Bird Safe Passage Act 
of 1995, because one of the consequences of the legislation is that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Federal regulations would not be able to set 
up this year's migratory bird hunting season and bag limits. Under the 
provisions of the migratory bird treaty, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
allows waterfowl hunting between September 1 and March 9. Because of 
the moratorium that we have here today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
would be hard-pressed to set the hunting season before September 1, 
1995. Without this amendment, 3 million duck hunters can hang up their 
shotguns, States will forego $1 million in license revenue, and rural 
communities such as northern Michigan which depend on the hunting 
season will lose an aggregate total economic benefit of $3.6 billion. 
In Michigan's upper peninsula alone, over 5,000 duck hunters bring 
nearly $1 million to our economy.
  Further, this amendment reminds us that we should reflect on our goal 
for veterans. Many of the young veterans from the gulf war are 
suffering from a mysterious delibitating disease. The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs recently authorized benefits for soldiers and their 
families to help them cope with the gulf war syndrome. The 
authorization, aimed at providing relief, would be considered under 
this legislation a burdensome regulation. I find it unconscionable that 
now we put forth a moratorium and turn our back on our suffering 
veterans.
  What about our seniors? HUD regulations, which will help keep drug 
and alcohol abusers out of senior housing complexes are now under 
assault. Every senior should be afforded the opportunity to live in 
comfort and safety in their home. The moratorium would halt this rule 
making process and would continue to put our Nation's seniors at risk.
  The Collins-Stupak amendment would allow duck hunters to hunt this 
year by exempting them from the rulemaking action of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service with regard to the migratory bird treaty. It provides 
for our veterans and it protects our seniors. I ask that my colleagues 
support this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I 
can fully appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment to H.R. 
450 regarding VA compensation. However, I believe the amendment is 
unnecessary because under section 6, veterans' benefits would be 
already exempt.
  If you would allow me to paraphrase, I will read you under the 
definition of section 6 exclusions: The term ``regulatory rule making 
action'' does not include any action relating to statutes implementing 
benefits.
  Our committee has asked the VA their opinion about this. They have no 
concern about this, since this clearly exempts them and they have no 
problem with it. So I urge my colleagues not to be concerned about the 
Persian Gulf compensation regulations. It would not affect them.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUMP. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman thinks it is 
clear, others do not. So if you support my amendment, then it would be 
clear and there would be no confusion about the issue.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess my objection to 
it would be that this may be used to enhance the passage of this 
amendment, and I object to the amendment for other purposes, too. I 
want to make it perfectly clear it does not affect compensation for 
Persian Gulf war veterans.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, it is the agency that has to make the determination. That is 
why I would like to have it in this bill, so the agency would be clear 
of the congressional intent.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would repeat under the 
rule, exclusion section 6, it is not necessary and does not affect 
veterans.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], a coauthor of the amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, national statistics indicate that rapists are ten times 
more likely to repeat their crimes than other types of criminals. The 
American people are right to be outraged by the sensational cases where 
such sexual predators were released into our communities, and often 
neither the police nor the community knew they were there.
  Polly Klaas in California and Megan Kanka in New Jersey are two 
recent examples of young children allegedly 
[[Page H2140]]  abused and murdered by released sex offenders. In my 
home town of Rochester, NY, Arthur Shawcross went on a rampage of 
serial rape and murder while he was on parole for abusing and murdering 
two young children.
  Communities across the Nation have similar horror stories to tell. 
And we here in Washington heard those stories, and vowed to take 
action. Last year, I introduced legislation expanding our national 
crime database to cover all sexual predators. A sexual predator 
database was included in last year's comprehensive crime legislation, 
with strong support from Republicans and Democrats alike.
  By collecting this information nationally, and making it available by 
computer to every police department in the country, we can help prevent 
new tragedies from occurring.
  Let me close with an example of a recent case in which the predators 
database could have made all the difference. Two years ago, Virginia 
authorities were puzzled by the crimes of the notorious ``maintenance 
man rapist,'' who attacked as many as 18 women by posing as a repairman 
to gain access to their homes and then brutally raping them.
  Tragically, Eugene Dozier had already been convicted for a string of 
rapes in New York in which he used exactly the same predatory tactics. 
He was released from prison in New York and moved down the coast to 
northern Virginia. Information from a nationwide database would have 
led Virginia police right to his door. Instead, 18 women were 
needlessly brutalized before the maintenance man rapist was brought to 
justice.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Collins amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Collins 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, an amendment divided 
against itself cannot stand. And the Collins amendment has so many 
different divisions, it cannot stand the scrutiny of reason.
  Look at what we have here. We have a giveaway to the FEC, a special 
break for HUD, a little something for the veterans, and how about 
something for duck hunters? We are going to have a duck hunting 
amendment that follows later on tonight. Taken alone, each one of these 
special exemptions may sound good. Taken together, this amendment 
quickly escapes reason.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not lose sight of the real issue here. What we 
are trying to do is end the regulatory burden on our small businesses 
and the American family. What the opponents are trying to do is to keep 
these job-killing regulations flowing and going. Mr. Chairman, I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this amendment and support the underlying 
bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1830

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  The reason why I had to fashion my amendment in the way I did is 
because we had time limitations, and I wanted to make sure that these 
four particular parts of the amendment were being covered somehow. So 
all we could do is cluster the amendment, and that is why my amendment 
has four different categories in it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the ranking 
Member's problem and appreciate the problem, but the point still is the 
same. This is an amendment that is trying to undercut the bill and the 
intent of the bill.
  The bill takes care of the problems, as we have said all day long, of 
many of the Members that want certain regulations to continue, safety 
and health, routine licensing, regulations that lift burdens on other 
regulations. The bill takes care of most of this.
  I understand that the gentlewoman supports and that side of the aisle 
supports regulation, but what we are trying to do here is to put King's 
X on regulations until we are able to implement our regulatory reform 
package and, hopefully, see that the President signs them.
  We could all play political games, some for political cover, but the 
real intent of these amendments is to destroy the underlying intent of 
the legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, let me say to the gentleman that it is not the 
intention to do any kind of political amendments. What it is the 
intention to do is to let American people know what is in this bill and 
what is not in this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand, we all 
understand what is going on here. Those that want to protect the 
regulations want to do as much as they can.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think that the only point I would like to stress again, I know that 
there are many in this Chamber, many in their offices who are concerned 
about an issue that has become very, very prominent in this debate. 
That is whether or not we would have a duck hunting season in this 
country this year. I want to assure those that might be inclined to 
vote for this amendment because of that concern that there will be a 
subsequent amendment that will deal, I think, more artfully with that 
problem and will make it very clear that the exemption that exists in 
the bill is meant to cover the very concern that people have had about 
having a duck hunting season.
  I think it is better than the proposal in the gentlewoman's 
amendment, which would carve out a totally separate exemption and, 
therefore, I think open the door to massive other numbers of exemptions 
which we are trying to resist.
  So I would encourage those who might be inclined to vote for this 
amendment because of the migratory bird provision not to do so. They 
will have that opportunity when the amendment, the next amendment, one 
of the amendments will be considered later.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for clarifying that 
fact, because I understand there is no higher priority in this body 
than to make sure that we do have duck hunting season. We will take 
care of that.
  But there are other amendments within this package of common sense 
amendments that we really need to take care of.
  It is probably so that there are Members on this side of the aisle, 
the Democratic side, who really believe that whatever regulation the 
Federal Government issues, it is needed. It is important and they would 
not question it. There are obviously Members on the Republican side who 
seem to feel that any Federal regulation is wrong and should not have 
been issued.
  I suspect, and I would suggest to the Members of this body, that the 
truth probably lies somewhere in between, that there are regulations 
that are just plain nutty and we have had those shared with us today 
and will tomorrow as well.
  There are regulations that in their implementation they are 
excessive. They are implemented in a cookie cutter approach, when the 
intent is good but the result is not what this legislative body 
intended. Then there are other regulations that are absolutely 
essential and necessary, and we would really not object to those, if we 
had an opportunity to fully consider them.
  That is, it is those regulations that we are considering in this 
amendment. This amendment was put together under the guise of common 
sense.
  When we talk about the asylum issue, for example, OMB has told us 
that under H.R. 450, they would not be able to issue those INS 
regulations.
  Now, we have been working with INS for years. It does not make sense 
to have 450,000 political asylum cases in limbo, waiting to be 
processed. It increases by 100,000 a year. There is nothing to do with 
the political situation in other countries. It is because people have 
figured out how to use this loophole.
  You have got people in other countries that consider themselves 
immigration consultants, and they tell people that ``you get on the 
plane, you 
[[Page H2141]]  flush your papers down the toilet en route. You get 
over there and you say you are claiming political asylum. It will take 
2 years before they process and by then they will never find you.'' 
That is what happened with Mir Amal Kansi who killed two people outside 
the CIA. He was on political asylum. The people that bombed the World 
Trade Center, political asylum. We have got thousands of people that 
have no business being in this United States.
  So we finally got a regulation that the INS issued that will make 
sure that they all get processed in 6 months instead of 2 years.
  That is a regulation that OMB tells us they will not be able to 
implement this year if H.R. 450 passes as is.
  It needs to be changed. Other amendments that have been included in 
this package need to be changed. I would hope that we would do so.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment gets to the heart of the problem with 
the Regulatory Moratorium Act.
  This legislation assumes that all regulations are bad and that 
Government only works to impose new and unnecessary burdens on 
businesses and citizens. By arbitrarily reaching back to November 1994, 
this legislation attempts to impugn the motives of any regulation not 
implemented with the advise and consent of the new Republican 
revolutionaries. This is fine as political rhetoric, but it is 
shortsighted and destructive as public policy.
  My concerns focus on an individual case in point. On December 5, 
1994, regulations were published in the Federal Register that provide 
desperately needed reforms of our political asylum process. This reform 
is important because the number of political asylum cases has exploded. 
In 1983, there were fewer than 5,000. This grew to 56,000 in 1991 and 
more than 150,000 last year. The backlog of unprocessed asylum cases 
has grown to more than 425,000 cases by the end of last year and is 
rising at the rate of 100,000 each year.
  This increase in political asylum cases is not driven by a rise in 
legitimate refugees seeking protection from the United States, but 
rather by an increased awareness of the loophole overseas. What is 
happening is that aliens and immigrants are coming to this country, 
flushing their papers down the toilet on their flight over and claiming 
political asylum once they land at JFK or Dulles International Airport. 
They are learning how to do this through conmen and immigration 
consultants overseas.
  The reason aliens are claiming political asylum, in such large 
numbers, is that they know they can use the process to get into the 
United States with little or no problem or governmental control. INS 
officials cannot summarily dismiss these complaints and send the aliens 
back home. Instead the aliens are given work permits and temporary 
visas while the INS reviews their claim. With a backlog of 425,000 
claims, this initial review can be up
 to 24 months away. Even after the INS reviews the claim and rejects 
it, the alien simply appeals the decision and continues to live and 
work in the United States. More often than not we are finding that 
aliens are using this delay to simply disappear into the vast 
underground of immigrants in New York, Los Angeles, or even Arlington, 
VA.

  This system is being seriously abused. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 
his gang, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center, had political 
asylum cases pending. Mir Amal Kansi, the Pakistani who 2 years ago 
murdered two people outside the CIA headquarters building in northern 
Virginia, came to the United States on a visa and then applied for 
asylum.
  Last year, the Clinton administration and the INS began the process 
of reforming our asylum laws and closing this loophole. The December 5 
regulations will help the INS fully process applications within 180 
days. The INS will focus on the new asylum claims and prevent aliens 
from melting into our society. In addition, asylum applicants will not 
be given work permits until after 180 days. The regulations will 
significantly improve our asylum process.
  But now, we are willing to throw out those regulations simply because 
they were implemented after the November elections. We are reopening a 
huge loophole in our immigration policies and telling potential 
immigrants to come on in.
  This is simply inexcusable. We must not overturn legitimate and 
necessary government policies simply to score political gains.
  The Collins-Moran amendment corrects this flaw by excluding the INS 
regulations from the scope of the legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 242, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               AYES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--242

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     [[Page H2142]] Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Torres

                              {time}  1853

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Barton of Texas against.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE and Mr. DOOLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by ms. norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Norton: At the end of section 5 
     (page   , after line   ); add the following new subsection:
       (c) Civil Rights Exception.--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, 
     shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action to 
     establish or enforce any statutory rights against 
     discrimination on the basis of age, race, religion, gender, 
     national origin, or handicapped or disability status.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I say consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the only difficulty this amendment presents for me, and 
I believe for most of the Members, is that it is not already in the 
bill. Had I not had a conflict that prevented me from being at the 
committee for part of the time, I have every reason to believe that the 
bill would have come to the floor with this amendment in it.
  The proof is that the language I now propose has already been adopted 
by this House in the unfunded mandate bill. I would simply exempt, to 
use the language of that bill, ``regulatory rulemaking action to 
establish or enforce any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination 
on the basis of age, race, religion, gender, national origin, or 
handicapped or disability status.''
  If this language was appropriate for the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
of 1995, it is more so for the Regulatory Transition Act now before us. 
Unfunded mandates seldom sound in equal rights terms. Regulations do 
far more often.
  For example, as we speak, administrative action is under way to 
conform the time limits for filing civil actions under the Age 
Discrimination Act to those of the Civil Rights Act we passed in 1991. 
This is an action of particular importance. Several years ago, hundreds 
of middle-aged and elderly workers lost their rights under the age 
discrimination statute because of differences in time limits for 
filing. This body had to pass a special bill to reinstate those 
actions. Now administrative action is pending that would safeguard 
these rights and promote efficiency by eliminating inconsistencies in 
time limits allowed for people to go to court. There should not be one 
time limit for filing based on gender or race, for example, and another 
time limit for those who claim discrimination because of age.
  Another pending example would conform the Rehabilitation Act to the 
Americans With Disabilities Act. The Rehabilitation Act is the 
Disabilities Act as applied to Federal employees.
  The regulatory moratorium bill was not drawn with regulatory actions 
of this kind in mind, Mr. Chairman. This body's action that exempted 
civil rights matters from similar and prior legislation this very month 
shows a bipartisan intent to leave matters of equality untouched by 
legislation designed to attack other problems.
  The last thing the country needs is a notion that the House regards 
the right to be free of discrimination not as a right at all, but as an 
unfunded mandate or a paperwork problem.

                              {time}  1900

  In fact, that is not the view of this body, to its credit. We have 
said so once and we should say so now.
  These have not been the best of times for equal rights. There is 
polarization where there should be reconciliation. We need a more 
problem-solving, sober leadership on equal rights on this delicate yet 
volatile issue than it sometimes attracts.
  My aim is designed to bring us together where we ought to be on equal 
rights. We will not be able to be there all of the time. It should not 
be difficult to be together on this amendment at this time.
  I ask for and urge Members' support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  amendment offered by mr. mc intosh to the amendment offered by ms. 
                                 norton

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in technical opposition to the 
amendment and I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McIntosh to the amendment offered 
     by Ms. Norton: Before the period at the end of the amendment 
     insert ``, except such rulemaking actions that establish, 
     lead to, or otherwise rely on the use of a quota or 
     preference based on age, race, religion, gender, national 
     origin, or handicapped or disability status''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to clarify that any 
regulation that would go forward to protect civil rights would not 
create a quota or a preference. We have seen time and time again 
instances where people implementing the Civil Rights Act were 
overzealous in the application of the civil rights laws, which has led 
to the unintended or perhaps intended consequence that regulations have 
created a preference where individuals would be hired, fired, otherwise 
subject to employment decisions that were in fact based on suspect 
criteria, such as race, gender or national origin.
  Our goal here is to make it very clear that those regulations could 
not go forward during the moratorium period, and I think it will send a 
strong message to the country that we want to have racial equality and 
do so in a way that is truly without regard to race, gender, national 
origin, handicap, or disability status.
  I urge a yes vote on the amendment, and then would be delighted to 
support the amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and the work he 
has put into it. I certainly do not mean to create the impression that 
anything in my amendment does anything but conform to existing law. So 
I take the use of the words ``quota'' and ``preference'' to be 
interchangeable because otherwise the one word is so wide open and does 
not have a fixed meaning in law, and on that basis I would accept the 
gentleman's secondary amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason for the choice of the word ``preference'' 
was that some people attempted to create quotas and call them 
preferences, so I am delighted the gentlewoman is accepting the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, let me just indicate that the Civil Rights Act 
most recently passed by this body in 1991 bars quotas, and I certainly 
mean to conform to that act, and I believe the gentleman is entirely in 
good faith in his use of the language to conform to that act, and 
certainly I do not mean any quotas, and the use of preference in this 
context interchangeable with quotas is satisfactory to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the full committee.
  [[Page H2143]] (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given 
permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment that 
would exclude civil rights regulations from the moratorium.
  Mr. Chairman, I express my support for the Norton amendment that 
would exclude civil rights regulations from the moratorium.
  The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act represent significant triumphs in an 
ongoing struggle to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly. These 
laws, among many other civil rights protections, ensure equality of 
opportunity, and equality of access for all.
  Although this bill does not purport to impact these laws, its 
practical effect is to seriously undermine their potency. For example, 
agencies would be prevented from promulgating regulations to ensure 
safety for the handicapped or disabled, and to ensure that these 
individuals have the same physical access to facilities as the rest of 
the population. In addition, agencies would be prohibited from 
undertaking investigations pursuant to allegations of discrimination.
  I truly wish that many of these regulations were not necessary to 
protect the rights of our citizens. However, all we need to do is take 
a page from the history books to illustrate the unfortunate disregard 
that we have shown for our fellow citizens' rights in the past.
  I believe that if we do not exclude these regulations, then we 
seriously compromise one of the most fundamental premises of our 
democracy * * * the equality of all citizens.
  I also believe that we would be sending the wrong signal to the 
American people, that the protection of their civil rights is not 
important. I do not believe that this is the signal that any of us 
would want to send. I would therefore ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] seek 
time?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] reclaims the time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh].
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am delighted that the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia and the gentleman from Indiana have been 
able to come together in a cooperative fashion to come up with an 
amendment which I think accomplishes what he wants to accomplish. As 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia said, this was language 
that was included in the unfunded mandates provision. It makes it very 
clear that these were to be not on the table in terms this kind of 
thing.
  So I think it is an important addition to the bill and I am happy to 
support her amendment as amended by the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support. The fact is that 
the word quotas has become quite a dirty word in the language and I did 
not want to add any dirty words to this bill, and I think what we do by 
adopting this amendment is to take that word off the table, to indicate 
that we certainly do not mean quotas, and thereby make this bill that 
every Member can support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 14, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     [[Page H2144]] White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--14

     Becerra
     Brown (FL)
     Collins (IL)
     Dellums
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lofgren
     McKinney
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Souder
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Andrews
     Barton
     Boehlert
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Furse
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hoke
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaptur
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Torres

                              {time}  1927

  Messrs. DELLUMS, RANGEL, PAYNE of New Jersey, and HILLIARD, Ms. EDDIE 
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to announce that in a moment I will move that 
the Committee do rise for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request, 
which would provide for the House to sit tomorrow morning starting at 9 
o'clock.
  Thereafter, I would advise the membership we would go back into the 
Committee, we will dispose of one additional amendment this evening, 
and there will be one additional vote anticipated, but we should be 
completed with all business in Committee by 8 clock.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gunderson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 450), to 
ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government operations by 
establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________