[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 35 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2182-H2210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). 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 further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 450.

                              {time}  0929


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] had been disposed of and the bill was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Three hours and thirty minutes remain for consideration of amendments 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
                              {time}  0930


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. My inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, concerning the amount of 
time that is still left, the total time still left on the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Three hours and thirty minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Three hours and thirty minutes from this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] for 
purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] for this opportunity to have a colloquy with him, and 
this concerns an amendment that I would 
[[Page H2183]] 
like to offer, but I would ask the gentleman to perhaps give me an 
explanation I think that already exists in the Norton rule that passed. 
My amendment was basically to not apply to regulatory rulemaking action 
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under section 919 of 
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 which clarifies 
regulations governing housing for older Americans and significant 
  facilities and services.My concern is that the deputy of HUD has come 
up with a self-certifying way for seniors to allow their housing 
facilities to be self-certified. It is very simple, two out of twelve 
criteria, and now they can self-certify, and no one will have to worry 
about suits by the Federal Government, by HUD.
  This agreement has been worked out over a long period of time, and I 
think it is important that this agreement remain in place, and it is 
going to go forward in the next 60 days, so obviously I was concerned 
about that.
  Mr. CLINGER. May I respond to the gentleman from Florida----
  Mr. STEARNS. Yes.
  Mr. CLINGER. By saying, ``Yes, I think you're absolutely right. The 
amendment that was offered last evening by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia, which picked up on language which is included in 
our unfunded mandates bill, clearly says that section 4a, 4a, should be 
the ones that would limit the ability or apply the moratorium, says 
those sections shall not apply to regulatory rulemaking, actually to 
enforce any statutory rights against discrimination on the basis of 
age, race, religion, gender, national origin or handicap or disability. 
I think the clear, my reading of that would be clearly that the 
regulations the gentleman is speaking of would be included in that. 
Beyond that, there is a further exemption that applies to regulations 
which are streamlining or actually reducing the burden of regulations 
on whatever segment of the population is affected by the regulations.''
  It seems to me that the regulations the gentleman is alluding to have 
that effect as well. They are actually easing the process, streamlining 
the process, for the elderly, so under either one of those exemptions I 
think that the gentleman would be, could be, assured that those 
regulations would be allowed to go forward.
  Mr. STEARNS. Well, I would like to make part of the Record my 
amendment.
  The amendment referred to is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida:
       At the end of section 5, add the following new subsection:
       (c) Rules Regarding Housing for Older Persons.--Section 
     3(a) or 4(a), or both, shall not apply to any regulatory 
     rulemaking action by the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development under section 919 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 clarifying regulations governing 
     housing for older persons and significant facilities and 
     services.

  Mr. Chairman, I will not offer the amendment, and I thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for his indulgence.
  I would like to say in concluding comment that this new regulation is 
going to make it very simple for seniors to self-certify their housing 
facilities so they do not have to worry about suits, and frankly it 
will probably be easier for them in the long term, and I think that the 
gentleman is kind to make this clarification.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff] for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. Chairman, it had been my intent to submit an amendment to this 
bill. I did submit one for publication in the Congressional Record for 
this morning, but after further discussion with my fellow committee 
members, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not necessary to do so, and I, 
therefore, seek this colloquy with the chairman of the committee.
  The situation I want to address is the Clean Air Act. More 
particularly, in my home town of Albuquerque, NM, several years ago, as 
a result of that act, the Environmental Protection Agency determined 
that we were a noncompliance area with respect to carbon monoxide 
emissions, and that began to turn a clock in terms of sanctions that 
would be imposed against the city of Albuquerque. However, after a 
period of time, while the EPA's own regulations were being developed in 
this regard, the city of Albuquerque, through strong efforts by the 
local government and by the community, resulted in our being in 
compliance with the carbon monoxide standards for the last 3 years in a 
row. I and other individuals brought this to the attention of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency, 
to its credit, gave a new approach to this situation where areas that 
were once nonattainment areas had, by their own voluntary efforts, 
attained carbon monoxide levels that are acceptable under the Clean Air 
Act, and through a regulation that I believe was published during the 
time period we are now talking about they put in motion a system for 
nonattainment cities like Albuquerque to apply to be attainment cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to stop for a second and commend the 
Environmental Protection Agency for taking a new look at a situation 
that is based upon new facts. I say with respect to all agencies, if 
there were more examples of commonsense approaches to situations, I do 
not think we would be here on the floor with this bill.
  Now the point I want to get to, Mr. Chairman, and to the chairman of 
the committee, is in order to move from nonattainment to attainment the 
EPA will still have certain requirements upon the city of Albuquerque, 
and further, even designating the city of Albuquerque, or any other 
newly attained city, may also be done by regulation. I was concerned 
that this bill might prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
moving nonattainment----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. The point is I was concerned that this bill, if it 
becomes law, might prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
moving in a very good direction, which is lowering regulation by 
allowing cities that were nonattainment areas to become attainment 
areas. My view, however, is that although there are still regulations 
involved in moving to an attainment area, these regulations are less 
burdensome than being a nonattainment area and what a city has to go 
through under those circumstances, and I believe, therefore, this would 
be an exception under that portion of the bill which has an exclusion 
for any agency action that the head of the agency certifies is limited 
to repealing, narrowing or streamlining a rule, regulation, or 
administrative process, or otherwise reducing regulatory burdens, and 
it is my belief that under the bill this process would be excluded 
because the regulatory burdens on cities would be reduced as they move 
from nonattainment to attainment areas.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] if 
he is in agreement with that position.
  Mr. CLINGER. May I assure the gentleman from New Mexico that it would 
be my clear reading of this that the situation, as certain as you 
describe in regard to New Mexico, would be covered by this, the 
exclusion in 6b(3) or 3(b)(1) which I think exactly addresses the 
situation the gentleman is talking about. This is a case where we are 
actually removing sort of some of the regulatory red tape that has been 
imposed on the area. We are making it--we are streamlining the process, 
which is precisely what this exemption was designed to do, so I can 
assure the gentleman that I would agree with him that this provision 
would be exempt under the provision.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment, and I appreciate the 
time for this colloquy.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tate

  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  [[Page H2184]] The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tate: At the end of the bill add 
     the following new section:

     SEC.  . DELAYING EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULES WITH RESPECT TO 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) Delay Effectiveness.--For any rule resulting from a 
     regulatory rulemaking action that is suspended or prohibited 
     by this Act, the effective date of the rule with respect to 
     small business may not occur before six months after the end 
     of the moratorium period.
       (b) Small Business Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``small business'' means any business with 100 or fewer 
     employees.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate].
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide 6 months of 
breathing room for small businesses, and those are the businesses that 
are the most sensitive to new regulations, those mom and pop grocery 
stores, those gas stations, those little stores that are in all our 
districts. For too long small businesses have had to navigate through 
the waters of Federal regulations and a sea of red tape.
  The National Federation of Independent Business recently did a study, 
and they asked their members what were their biggest concerns, and one 
of their concerns was taxes. They are all concerned about taxes. One of 
their concerns was about increasing health care costs, but their 
biggest concern, the one that is the biggest struggle, is Federal 
regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, regulations put a strangehold on the necks of small 
business, and one more squeeze and many of these businesses will be 
choked out of business, and that is exactly what has been happening 
over the last several years. Since 1990, according to a recent study, 
over 2,000,000 jobs have been lost because of new regulations.
  Bottom line:
  The bureaucrats in DC do not need to tell the Americans how to run 
business. Small business already knows how to run business. They 
provide the vast majority of the new jobs out there, but the regulatory 
police seem to be more interested in paperwork, more interested in 
regulations, then new jobs. It is time to get government not only out 
of the cookie jar, but out of the kitchen. They need to quit tampering 
with the heart of Americans and our economy, that of small business.
  So, please join with me and remove the big hand of government.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate].
  Mr. Chairman, Members, I support small business. In fact, for 23 
years I worked and helped manage a small business of 13 to 20 
employees, so I understand the frustration the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate] is experiencing with his amendment or expressing 
with his amendment. The concern I have though is that we could make it 
counterproductive.
  Typically the regulations that we have from the Federal Government do 
not distinguish, and that may be the problem, but, for example, if we 
have a TV station in New York compared to a TV station in a small or 
medium market in Texas, may have less than 100 employees. Now that TV 
station may say, ``We would like to have more than 6 months compared to 
that larger one.'' I think there is some concern that maybe our goal, 
and I had hoped to support the moratorium, because typically I like 
moratoriums, I like sunset provisions, because I think every Federal 
agency and regulation, just like every State regulation and agency, 
needs to be looked at over a period of time to make sure they are still 
responding to the need, but I think what we are seeing in this bill 
with the exceptions that we are adding and just a general confusion to 
private business, that we are going to actually increase the Federal 
paperwork for those small businesses.
  For example, to my small business I was at, we had no more than 20 
employees during the 20 years, and until the Federal Government let the 
economy go in the tank in the State of Texas in 1980, we went down to 
13 employees. But we are going to see what about OSHA regulations when 
we come in? It is a printing company, for example, and we compete also 
with larger printing companies, so we are going to have different 
standards for a company that has over 100 employees as compared to 
their competitor who may be bidding on the same products that is less 
than 100. I think we are going to add confusion by adopting this 
amendment.
  I know this amendment was considered in committee. In fact, I think I 
may have voiced it earlier or something. I say to the gentleman,

       I know where you're coming from. I just wish there was a 
     different way we could get to it because I do think small 
     business needs to be treated differently, but I think by 
     developing two different standards and ultimately setting two 
     different effective dates we might be causing those small 
     businesses more confusion than we're trying to help them, and 
     again that comes from, one, having to live with some of those 
     regulations, whether it be OSHA, or whether it be new EPA 
     regulations, and our biggest concern in small business is so 
     often we would get something from one of the national groups 
     we were a member of, whether it be the U.S. Chamber or 
     someone else, and we would get all panicky about it, and then 
     all of a sudden we would find out, well, that may not be 
     affecting us in our particular printing company.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman's intentions are great, and I 
am just concerned that we may be causing more problems, not just with 
his amendment, but some of the amendments that we have considered, and 
some have been accepted by the majority, some have been voted on, and 
that is why I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. TATE. Point of clarification.
  We are not creating two sets of regulations. We are putting off the 
effective date for regulations for small businesses so that rulemaking 
agencies would not have to go through and do two different regulations 
for a business that is less than a hundred employees, and there are 
several examples, as the gentleman knows, in Federal law; for example, 
the family leave law exempts businesses under a certain level, and the 
Americans With Disabilities Act exempts businesses with 25 or less 
employees.
  So, my concern is those businesses that are small, the printshop or 
whatever business have that opportunity to actually become a larger 
business if they can have this breathing room, this halt to Federal 
regulations, for at least 6 more months.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the small 
business I worked in was established in 1878, and it was never going to 
be a large business. So I do not know if even 6 months more would have 
helped us, but the gentleman is right. There are differences that we 
apply Federal law to and to safeguard small business, and the gentleman 
used a great example, the ADA and the Family Leave Act, and I have an 
amendment in a few minutes on family leave that will impact that and 
help us with that.
                              {time}  0945

  But again, what you are doing is just putting off 6 months for small 
business. You are not alleviating the regulations as much. You are 
maybe giving small businesses more time to comply. But I would hope 
that we would still see some differentiation through the agencies, and 
maybe we ought to look when we pass statutes, whether it be the EPA or 
anyone else, and again as an example is printing companies, or small 
dry cleaners, if you have experiences like I have in my district where 
because of the EPA regulations in our cities and States, those small 
dry cleaning operations have so few employees, yet they have to go 
through some of the things my chemical plants have to.
  I sympathize and empathize with you, but I do not know whether the 
next 6 months would do anything but cause confusion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the fine gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me 2 minutes to rise in support of his 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in unequivocal support for the amendment 
proposed 
[[Page H2185]] 
by my classmate, Mr. Tate. This amendment provides additional breathing 
room--regulatory relief to those businesses which need it the most, the 
little guys, namely those with 100 or fewer employees. Think of who 
this will help the most, the shoe repair shop down the street and the 
  auto mechanic around the block.America's smallest businesses are the 
ones hardest hit by the hefty regulations churned out by the Clinton 
administration's bureaucratic agencies in Washington. Businesses with 
100 or fewer employees are those which are just beginning to grow. In 
an economy that is still struggling to recover we cannot afford to 
hamper those enterprises which provide the greatest opportunity for 
growth. It is these companies that create the largest number of jobs 
that are so badly needed in the district of each and every Member of 
this august body.
  The Tate amendment merely gives these small enterprises an additional 
6 months of relief from the red tape created in this town. This will 
allow your neighborhood grocer, farmer, and restauranteur, the little 
guys, to flourish. We can only succeed as a nation if we allow our 
community enterprises to bloom. I can think of no better present to 
give the little guys--the small businesses of our districts as we 
approach the season of spring.
  I ask all my colleagues to pass this very important proposal, Mr. 
Tate's amendment to provide an additional 6-month hold on the burden of 
red tape hurting small businesses, the backbone of our economy. It is 
time that the people take back control of President Clinton's Big 
Government and look out for the little guys--small business.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from the State 
of Washington is right on. Small businesses are going out of business 
because of excess regulation. I want to talk about a couple from my 
district, Ron and Judy Wright. They wanted to go into business for 
themselves so they started a small business in Ethel, WA. You do not 
know where Ethel is, but they needed a grocery store.
  One day the Wrights got a visit, and in came the regulators. A 
$13,700 fine later they went out of business. What happened is they let 
a kid clean the store at night. All the kid did was clean the store, 
and this kid was older than I was I think when I got married.
  This kid was not cleaning the knives, but there were knives stored 
there. So they fined them this much money. They went out of business, 
and they are still paying off the fine.
  These kinds of people need more time. They are not bad people. They 
were working to feed their families, and they were penalized by a 
gutless government that really hurt this family. I encourage the 
passage of this amendment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
reclaim my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respond to some of the speakers. Again, I am 
very sympathetic to small business, because that is where for many 
years I earned my living. But a couple of the speakers just recently 
talked about President Clinton and big government.
  The examples that I was using during the 1980's, it was not President 
Clinton's big government, it was the EPA under the Reagan and Bush 
administrations that was the one. I do not think President Clinton has 
any claim on big government. Big government did not start in 1992 and 
did not end November 8, 1994. It has been a problem for a number of 
years. To foist this off on President Clinton I think is wrong and even 
mean spirited.
  Let me talk about the gentlewoman who talked about the young man that 
cleaned the store. In Houston, TX, a person cleaned the store of a 
small business. He was also locked in that store overnight because they 
did not trust him with a key. So obviously that was in violation of the 
Occupational Safety Act and also hopefully human decency. That person 
also died in a fire because they could not get out.
  So there are reasons why we are concerned about this amendment, one, 
causing more confusion to small businesses, but also recognizing that 
those Federal regulations are sometimes there for a purpose. Even 
though it is a small businessman, I want them to be explained to me and 
I want them to be reasonable. But, again, putting a 6-month extension 
on it may help on a momentary basis, but hopefully we are not promising 
the moon and the stars when all we are giving them is 6 months' 
reprieve.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
by the gentleman from Washington, and I thank him for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not know the gentleman was going to offer this 
amendment, and I had not originally intended to speak. But I can tell 
you that we have been driving small business out of existence in this 
country at a very alarming rate, and it has been primarily due to all 
the rules and regulations and redtape from the Federal Government. This 
bill does not remove any regulations, it simply puts a moratorium on 
for a few months, and this amendment is designed to help the smallest 
of our businesses, the ones who need help the most.
  I was a lawyer and a judge before I came to Congress, and yet I can 
tell you that there are so many millions of laws, rules, and 
regulations on the books in this country, that they have not designed a 
computer to keep up with all of them, much less a human being.
  Many people in business are violating laws every day that they did 
not know were in existence. Phillip Howard has written a recent book 
called ``The Death of Common Sense'' about this ocean of regulations 
that we have.
  What we really need, Mr. Chairman, is fewer laws and more common 
sense in this country, and this amendment helps that process.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the Chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman I take this time to indicate we have had an 
opportunity to review the amendment. We think it is a good amendment. 
It does give additional protection to small business and clearly that 
is overdue and much needed. So we are pleased to support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
fine gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are here not just as one 
party or another party, but as Republicans, Democrats, working together 
to help small business. What is great about that is through this Tate 
amendment we are going to be able to extend the moratorium for the 
further period so that small businesses that have the toughest time in 
making sure that they comply with regulations, that may not have the 
staff, will be able to do so. Onerous regulations that have come from 
the Federal Government plague our small businesses. They become job 
killers because they prey on small businesses, which are the backbone 
of our business community here in the United States.
  That is why the amendment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] 
is important. It will extend the moratorium protection. That is why it 
is endorsed by National Federation of Independent Businesses, a well-
esteemed organization that represents small businesses in our United 
States. I know from experience back home with Downey Hoster, who has 
Hoster Bindery, the regulations have really driven him to the point 
where he may not be able to be in business next year. Let us make sure 
we have him in business next year because he is able through the Tate 
amendment to keep his family working and to make sure that this in fact 
becomes a business- 
[[Page H2186]] 
      friendly America. Thank you, Mr. Tate.parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas, as the minority manager, has 
the right to close.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close 
with what time I have left.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of debate here the last several 
minutes about why it is important we do something to help out small 
business. Once again I wanted to reiterate my remarks, that small 
business is the engine that drives America. They are the ones that 
create the new jobs. They are the ones that need the most relief. They 
are the ones that are the most sensitive to new Federal regulations, 
and we need to do the most that we can for them.
  We have heard the horror stories of people being put out of business 
by new Federal regulations. It is time that we begin to help these 
people out. We need to provide help so they can create jobs. So that is 
what this amendment is all about, one 6-month period to allow them to 
have the opportunity to get out of underneath this huge Federal burden 
of new regulations.
  That is why this amendment is important, and this is the kind of 
amendment that has bipartisan support from folks on both sides of the 
aisle, and this is the kind of amendment that you can go home and talk 
to the people at home and actually point to something that they can 
look at and say that they are better off because of this. They are 
better off because they do not have to live under these new Federal 
regulations. It is something you can point to and talk about, and 
something that every small businessman or woman will understand.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge your support of this amendment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to close. Let me say that 
what the amendment would do is put off for small business 6 months of 
regulation, so a business may be able to be in business another 6 
months. But that is what we would be allowing them.
  Let me say again I came out of small business, 23 years both working 
and helping manage it. Our job here in Washington is not only to try to 
remove the impediments of small business, but also to come up with 
regulations that small business can understand that it is important to. 
And let me give you some examples.
  For example, the FCC does not issue one set of regulations for the TV 
station in New York City and another set for a smaller business in 
Texas with less than 100 employees. Food safety regulations, do we 
differentiate between a meat and poultry processor with 99 employees 
compared to one with 101?
  I think we are adding more confusion to small business. The small 
business that exists would sometimes be denied opportunities under this 
amendment. For example, the FCC spectrum allocation rules to be issued 
would deny employers with less than 100 employees the opportunity to 
bid on some of these FCC licenses.
  Again, I understand the concern of the gentleman, and I 
philosophically support him, but with his amendment I think he may be 
causing more problems. Like a lot of things we see in the first 100 
days, we are causing more problems for small business and people trying 
to create jobs than people trying to help him.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I 
will not take much of his closing time, but I do want to make this 
point. The Congress is 200 years old and has never written a 
regulation. Regulations are written by the executive branch of 
government, most of them in the past 20 years. I have been here 17 of 
those years. Four of those years we had a Democrat President writing 
regulations. The rest has been by Republican Presidents.
  I do not want to get into the blame game, but I heard one gentleman 
talking about the Clinton administration turning out regulations. The 
Clinton administration is cutting regulations. There are fewer 
regulations than there were under past Republican Presidents. So while 
we do not need to get into the blame game, it does seem to me a lot of 
these new freshmen who are in fact writing these new laws, ought to at 
least take a look at the history of this place before they condemn the 
current administration incorrectly.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say 
I think the gentleman has pointed out the correct concern. Again, we 
are not in the business of making blame; we are in the business of 
trying to make sure America works. I think by adopting this amendment 
we may end up very well having two sets of regulations, and that stack 
of regulations over there could actually get doubled because we would 
have some for 6 months and some for after 6 months. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I mean 
this in the good spirit. This morning we had some people get up and 
hold up paper dolls saying these poor kids need food and so on.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will be glad to debate the nutrition 
program.
  Mr. ROTH. I am leading into a relevant point. I had six town hall 
meetings on Saturday, just like you and others. I find out OSHA has now 
promulgated a new rule that if you build a home and you are higher than 
about 5-11, you have to encase the home in a net. And if you are 
putting on shingles, you have to wear like mountain climbing equipment.

                              {time}  1000

  And if they do not, they fine them $1,000, the small builders.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 370, 
noes 45, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 167]

                               AYES--370

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     [[Page H2187]] Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     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
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--45

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Durbin
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Green
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     McHale
     McKinney
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Sabo
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Souder
       

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Brewster
     Chapman
     Ehlers
     Farr
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hilleary
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Smith (NJ)
     Towns
     Tucker
     Vucanovich

                              {time}  1018

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Becerra against.

  Messrs. GEJDENSON, COYNE, and OLVER, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. MFUME 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment 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 yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to allow the 
administration to exempt matters relating to the GATT negotiations from 
the moratorium, as addressed in the bill, and as amended by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  As a member of the GATT task force and as a member of the 
Congressional Steel Caucus, I was an active participant in negotiating 
the Uruguay round agreements. I am concerned that the language could 
possibly result in extensive litigation, and given the overall 
Republican goal to reduce the amount of litigation that goes on in this 
Nation, I would hope we could address this.
  We should reduce litigation, encourage streamlining of regulations, 
and promote the sound administration of our trade laws. Accordingly, I 
would hope that the gentleman agrees that the intent of the bill 
language and the amendments would exempt all mat- ters 
relating to section 301, the antidumping and the countervailing duty 
laws.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman. I 
appreciate the gentleman for raising this very important issue. I want 
to assure him that I think the language would clearly allow this.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for clarifying the intent of the 
language, Mr. Chairman.
                     amendment offered by mr. wise

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

       Amendment offerd by Mr. Wise: At the end of section 5 
     (page--, after line--), add the following new subsection:
       (c) Aircraft, Mine, and Nuclear 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) Aircraft safety.--Any regulatory rulemaking action to 
     improve aircraft safety, including such an action to improve 
     the airworthiness of aircraft engines.
       (2) Mine safety.--Any regulatory rulemaking action by the 
     Mine Safety and Health Administration that relates to 
     reducing death, injury, or illnesses in mines, including such 
     an action--
       (A) to require better ventilation to avoid buildup of 
     explosive methane gas, taken under section 101 of the Federal 
     Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 811) and with 
     respect to which notice of proposed rulemaking was published 
     at 59 Federal Register 26356; or
       (B) to restrict the use of diesel equipment to avoid coal 
     mine fires, taken under that section and section 508 of that 
     Act (30 U.S.C. 957) and with respect to which a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking was published at 54 Federal Register 
     40960.
       (2) Nuclear Waste Disposal.--Any regulatory rulemaking 
     action to ensure that before beginning the disposal of 
     radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New 
     Mexico complies with appropriate disposal standards, taken 
     under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act and 
     with respect to which a proposed rule was published on 
     January 30, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 5766).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 23, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and a Member opposed will each 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the safety amendment. The amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara] and myself deals with 
aircraft safety, deals with coal mine safety, and deals with nuclear 
waste disposal. There will be others speaking on other aspects. I'm 
going to talk about coal mine safety.
  Many Members are going to fly home this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Most 
of us have not been coal miners. Most of us are not involved in nuclear 
waste disposal. However, when we get on that commuter flight this 
afternoon, we should think about how we would feel getting on in a 
couple of months knowing that all safety regulations have been delayed, 
or could be delayed for at least 10 months on that commuter flight, so 
we should just put ourselves in that situation.
  In order to appreciate the statistics, I want Members to think about 
what it is to be a coal miner. The first thing to do is mentally crawl 
under this desk. Crawl under this desk. That is about the size of the 
seam of coal Members may be working in.
  When you crawl under this desk, put a blindfold on, because you don't 
have any light. When you crawl under this desk, make sure you stay 
pretty much on your back, because that is how you are going to be 
working.
  When you crawl under this desk, remember that you are probably in a 
piece of moving equipment, in addition to that, so now you have an idea 
of the confines that you are working in. By the way, when you crawl 
under this desk, remember, you are a mile underground, and you can hear 
the shifting 
[[Page H2188]] 
  and popping of the coal and the roof above you as you work.By the 
way, put on a coal mine helmet, put on the belts around you, put on the 
emergency breathing apparatus, and know that you may be cutting into a 
bed of methane, a pool of methane gas which can immediately kill you. 
That is what coal mining is about, one of the most hazardous 
occupations in the country.
  In West Virginia last year 8 miners lost their lives. That is a 
significant improvement from the 20-some the year before, and the 20 
before that, and the 78 who were killed in the Farmington disaster in 
the late 1960s. We are talking about one of the most hazardous 
occupations in this country, Mr. Chairman.
  What our amendment would do is in three areas. First of all, it would 
permit the process to go forward in underground ventilation dealing 
with poisonous methane gas that causes coal mine explosions. It would 
say you cannot hold the process back, you cannot have a moratorium on 
promulgating these regulations and rules. Incidentally, both industry 
and labor have been working together to develop these.
  It would also say that regulations can move forward with the usage of 
diesel equipment that can cause fire in coal mines. Finally, it would 
permit regulations to move forward dealing with the creation of a 
sampling standard for coal mine dust in which there were 100 
indictments, convictions, and pleading guilty recently as a result of 
finding operators who were altering dust sampling standards.
  I urge this body to move forward with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I 
know some are going to say there is already a process there for 
imminent danger to health, but remember, you have to apply to the 
Office of Management and Budget, you have to seek a waiver, and then 
that can be contested in court.
  Do you really want to fly, do you really want to work in a coal mine, 
do you want to do nuclear waste disposal, and know you have to wait 10 
more months for safety?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Members that these three 
amendments, which actually were considered separately in the committee, 
and all were considered at great length and were defeated, primarily 
because it is very clear, I think that all of these amendments would be 
allowed to be covered under one or the other of the exemptions that are 
provided in the bill as it exists, so this is a grouping of those three 
amendments which were considered and rejected in committee.
  Clearly, on the aircraft safety and mine safety issues, Mr. Chairman, 
these would fall under the health and safety exemption, and this, of 
course, would require the head of OIRA to make a determination that 
indeed these were so much related to imminent threat to the health or 
safety of the individual that they should be allowed to go forward.
  As we discussed last evening with the gentleman from Mississippi with 
regard to the aircraft safety issues, it was very clear that that would 
be, I think, a very prime candidate for exclusion under that provision, 
as would the mine safety provision.
  This may be exempt under health and safety, and it would depend again 
on an interpretation from OMB, but the bottom line is that these are 
all very worthy programs, but they think they would be covered under 
the existing exemptions.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. If the gentleman, our fine chairman, would yield for a 
question. Given that, I am wondering would the gentleman be amenable to 
an amendment reflecting what you have just indicated, under the 
aviation safety portion?
  Mr. CLINGER. I simply would tell the gentleman from California, it is 
our view that it would be redundant; that in fact our view that it 
would be redundant; that in fact this is now covered by the exemption 
for health and safety.
  Mr. MINETA. If the gentleman would further yield, if it is redundant, 
why would we not just go ahead and clarify it to that extent?
  Mr. CLINGER. The primary reason for that, I would tell the gentleman, 
is once we begin to list, name and exempt various programs and 
segments, that establishes a higher category and it would make it more 
difficult for the director or OIRA to then allow others to go forward 
because they would not rise to the same level as the safety ones.
  Mr. MINETA. If the gentleman would yield, is that not the fear that 
some of us have, that the basic underlying is so vague, that this is 
the reason that the Wise amendment really does clarify it?
  Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, we believe that the exemption is 
clear enough and gives the director of OIRA the necessary flexibility 
to deal with these things on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] for yielding me the time.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, particularly as it applies to 
aviation. I know that this amendment is well-intentioned, but as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has just so ably pointed out, 
it is simply not needed. The FAA has not requested this exemption. The 
National Transportation Safety Board has not requested it. I have the 
privilege of serving as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. Not one 
person has come to our subcommittee nor has anyone written to us urging 
this exemption. No hearings have been held on this.
  The bill already has exclusions, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] has just pointed out, which provide for changes in our 
knowledge about safety needs and requirements if that becomes 
necessary. If some startling shortcoming on the part of an airline is 
discovered that causes a threat to passenger safety, a regulation can 
be promulgated that is excluded from this bill. If some new 
technological advancement is made that would improve air safety, a 
regulation requiring it can be written under this bill. All this bill 
does is try to put a halt to regulatory overkill.
  Safety is the number one concern of all of us who have anything to do 
with the aviation industry. But too much of a good thing can be 
harmful. If we overregulate the airlines, prices go up and more people 
are forced onto our already overcrowded highways. Our streets are much 
more dangerous than our highways. Thus, if we overregulate even in 
regard to safety, we can end up killing people.
  We have the best of aviation safety in the world. Can it get better? 
Sure. But the key is not more regulation and red tape. It is knowledge, 
skill and training and incentive and pressure to work harder and do a 
better job.
  Like so many things here in Washington, this amendment sounds good on 
the surface but when you look further, it is simply not necessary and 
it could cause more harm than good. I urge defect of this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In a 
way, I understand what you are saying. But we are indeed dealing with 
human lives. There was a crash in the Midwest of a commuter airline 
this winter. It came to the public's attention very graphically that 
the guidelines for safety for commuter lines are much, much lower than 
they are for the major carriers. Maybe that crash could have been 
prevented, and maybe those people would still be alive if the 
regulations that Secretary Pena is looking at right now implementing 
were put in place a little bit sooner. But they need to be put in 
place.
  Maybe that crash could have been prevented. But it was a great eye-
opener for the American people to find out that there are two different 
levels of safety, one that basically has not changed since the 1960's 
and one that is updated every day.
  If I owned a regional airline and a new set of regulations came down 
or was proposed, I would say, ``This is not 
[[Page H2189]] safety, this is financial. Your are causing me to spend 
more money. That has nothing to do with safety.''
  We know they are going to argue that, because they are a business. 
They want to maximize their profits and I do not blame them for that. 
Since we have a problem, that people just die, I really do not think it 
is much to ask that that in particular be addressed in this bill.
  The chairman just yesterday said he was willing to do it on a 
technical basis. What is wrong with doing it formally so that this does 
not get held up in court, so that we can hopefully save some lives and 
that everybody is held to the same high level of safety that ought to 
be required? Because we are dealing with people's lives.
  I will not get on a regional airline, because I know there is a 
difference. Do you not think the rest of the people in America ought to 
know that?
  Mr. DUNCAN. Let me say this. The gentleman from Mississippi is a good 
friend of mine. I yield to no one or take second place to no one in 
concern for aviation safety and concern for human life. All of us are 
extremely concerned about human life, and I can assure the gentleman 
that the Aviation Subcommittee is going to do everything possible to 
ensure that commuter airlines and regional airlines are brought up to 
the same standards that apply to all other airlines. I understand that 
this very matter was discussed last night and there is nothing in this 
bill that would prohibit that from taking place.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me respond to the exception that people talk about. Yes, there is 
an exception that in cases of health or safety, you can go to the 
Office of Management and Budget, you go through a process if the 
director of OIRA approves, then supposedly you can have a waiver and go 
ahead.
  There is a problem, though, and they have not talked about the 
problem. The problem is that those opposing you can go to court and tie 
this thing up for the length of the moratorium and beyond that. That is 
where this fatal flaw is. That is why you are fooling with safety, 
whether it is air safety, whether it is OSHA, whether it is MSHA, 
whether it is nuclear waste disposal.
  MR. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. If the gentleman would agree that anybody would have a 
right to take this matter to court, whether or not there was a 
moratorium. Am I correct in that? So we are not adding any additional 
responsibility?
  Mr. WISE. Reclaiming my time, anyone, of course, can go to court but 
the problem here is that where you have already stopped the process, 
now you have gotten an exception, now you have tied it up even further. 
So I believe what we have got is an exception or we do not have much of 
a remedy there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Mascara], the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. MASCARA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
offered by myself and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]. It 
is not an exaggeration to say that this amendment is a matter of life 
and death. The amendment we offer would exempt aircraft, mine, and 
nuclear safety regulations from the regulatory moratorium that would be 
imposed under H.R. 450.
  We do so because we know firsthand about one of the world's most 
dangerous occupations, working in the mines.
  While in good times our communities have benefited economically from 
the mining industry, they have also experienced the tragedy of mining 
accidents and poor health that can result from years of breathing coal 
dust. Both of us have experienced the hours of waiting to find out if a 
neighbor or a friend survived a collapsed mine roof. In fact, earlier 
this week I supported the gentlewoman from Illinois who offered an 
amendment regarding the posting of hazardous conditions in the steel 
mills.

                              {time}  1040

  I said then that I had a father who died as a result of an accident 
in the steel mills. I also lost a grandfather, one who I never got to 
know, because he died in a mining accident in Belle Vernon, PA, so I do 
have an interest here. And it is rather ironic that I am here today, 
because my wife, Dolores, and I put a new headstone on my grandfather's 
grave in Belle Vernon, and it says, ``Coal Miner.'' So I do have an 
interest in this particular piece of legislation.
  It is no secret that the mining industry is very hazardous. Since the 
days of John L. Lewis, the Federal Government has worked with the 
United Mine Workers of America and the mining industry to make mines a 
safer place to work. As a part of this ongoing effort, Congress in the 
late 1970's established Mine Safety and Health Administration and 
charged it with administering a broad regulatory program to reduce 
injuries and illness in mines and pits. The regulatory efforts has paid 
off.
  While annual coal mining deaths numbered more than 1,000 a year in 
the early part of this century, they decreased to 451 annually in the 
1950's, to 141 in the 1970's, and to 76 per year during a 10-year 
period from 1982 to 1992.
  But those of us who live in mining communities know that these 
records will not be maintained if regulations and laws are rescinded 
and diminished. Mine safety regulations need to be constantly 
monitored, updated, and improved.
  Currently the Mine Safety and Health Administration has two very 
important safety regulations in progress. One would require better 
ventilation in the mines to avoid a buildup of deadly methane gas. The 
other would restrict the use of diesel fuel equipment to avoid fatal 
mine fires. Both of these would be adversely affected if H.R. 450 is 
passed in its present form.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Mascara-Wise amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], coauthor of the legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise to address this 
amendment.
  As we discussed about this issue in committee, it is very clear to me 
that these problems are addressed, once again, by our exception for 
health and safety, and once again, I would like to make clear to 
everybody the wording of this amendment which makes it clear if there 
is any regulation that is necessary to prevent a loss of life or severe 
injury to humans or loss of property, those regulations can go forward.
  The administration has a very clear procedure under the bill for 
allowing those regulations to go forward.
  When I was working with Vice President Quayle and very closely with 
OMB, we could have gotten this type of regulation exempted in a matter 
of 2 hours once it became clear that it met the criteria of saving a 
life or eliminating a threat to severe injury.
  I think ultimately these regulations have the effect of weakening 
this general language, because once again we start listing particular 
programs; there may be an emergency or a health and safety threat that 
we do not think of in this body. If it is not listed, I am very worried 
that the bureaucracies will say, ``Gosh, it is not on the list. I 
cannot issue my regulation,'' and then we will have inadvertently had 
the effect of making more safety threats not covered rather than fewer.
  I think it is important to vote against this. Ultimately I think this 
amendment is a serious question about the competency of these agencies 
and OMB to do their job. If you think they cannot do their job, they 
cannot read this language, then this amendment might be necessary.
  But if the Clinton administration can do its job, can read this 
legislation, then we do not need this amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. The problem is the definition which says ``imminent 
threat to health and safety.'' The Department of Energy cannot say 
there is going to be a substantial danger to human health causing 
severe illness or death 
[[Page H2190]] due to transuranic waste stored in Colorado, Idaho, 
Washington State, South Carolina, and Tennessee. They are not going to 
raise a red flag like that. They cannot say that. It is a danger, a 
chronic danger. It could endanger the water supply in these areas, for 
example. But it is not something likely to happen during this 
moratorium. Nevertheless, these regulations need to go into effect so 
that the disposal of this waste can finally be accomplished.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me make sure I am understanding the gentleman. The 
agency is unwilling to say those things?
  Mr. SPRATT. The Department of Energy could not say that the waste, 
nuclear waste, transuranic waste, stored at INFL in Idaho, for example, 
constitutes an imminent threat to health or safety that is likely to 
cause serious illness or death during the moratorium, the very words of 
section 7 you have there on the chart. They are not going to say that. 
They cannot say it.
  No. 2, they would not want to raise that kind of an alarm about the 
status of that waste disposal at these particular sites, some dozen or 
more across the country. Nevertheless, this is an urgent problem that 
needs to be dealt with.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say if it is, in fact, the case that the 
regulation is necessary, the Department should step up to the plate and 
admit that. If it is not, then the question is: Why do we need these 
regulations if there is no imminent threat that is being addressed?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  You know, I am concerned about airline safety, and I have here 
airworthiness directives that have been issued by the OMB, and what 
they say is that the moratorium could prevent these types of directives 
from being issued, because they may not be sufficiently imminent to 
qualify under H.R. 450, and here they talk about revision of manual to 
prohibit takeoff in certain icing conditions; they talk about tail cone 
release in McDonnell planes; they talk about inspection and repair of 
landing gear; talk about certain nuts and bolts that hold together 
parts of the wing flap and so forth and so on.
  I think this is critically important. Let me tell you something else, 
these regulations have a real meaning.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say categorically those regulations clearly fit 
this definition. If the Clinton administration does not understand 
that, we cannot trust them with the health and safety of this country. 
That is what is very clear to me.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say we have seen a concerted action here by the 
administration to say they will not let any of these regulations go 
through. They would say that none of them would rise to the threat. I 
think there has been a sort of a concerted effort there to make that 
point that they would not let any of these things go through, which is 
certainly the reverse of what their attitude has been in the past.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. It is not the agency. It is this bill, what 
you have in this bill, that does not work. That is what the agency has 
said, that they are not qualified under that definition that is 
standing up on that easel right now, and you wrote the definition.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say it is very clear to me in all of this that 
the problem is with the Clinton administration. They do not know how to 
protect health and safety. If they did, there would be no problem 
whatsoever.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentleman yield, obviously, you do 
not know how to write a law.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
introduced by my good friends and colleagues, Congressmen Wise and 
Mascara. Any regulatory moratorium must take into consideration that 
certain Government regulatory actions and directives are essential to 
the public safety and must not be blocked or delayed by any attempt at 
across-the-board treatment of all regulatory actions. To treat all 
types of Federal regulations the same would be a tragic mistake that 
would have a significantly negative impact on safety.
  The exception that currently exists to the regulatory moratorium 
proposed in the bill would require that an agency would have to 
establish that a regulation could not go into effect unless it would 
reasonably be expected to prevent death, serious illness, severe injury 
to humans, or substantial endangerment to private property during the 
period of the moratorium. I strongly believe that this exception is not 
adequate to protect airline passengers. Passengers need the protection 
of the Wise/Mascara amendment which would totally exempt rulemaking 
action to improve aircraft safety, including such actions that would 
require the improvement of aircraft engines.
  The Federal Aviation Administration must have the flexibility to act 
when necessary to enhance and promote aviation safety. It must often 
issue Airworthiness Directives that respond to specific safety problems 
and sometimes must do so with great urgency. Some of the airworthiness 
directives that would be blocked or delayed by H.R. 450 are:
  Revision to the Airplane Flight Manual used by all pilots, to provide 
pilots of certain Beech Models with special operating procedures during 
icing conditions;
  Modification of the brake steering control unit on Airbus A320's; and
  Inspection and repair of landing gear brakes prior to the brakes 
reaching an ``unsafe level.'' This rule is prompted by an accident in 
which one of the affected aircraft was unable to stop on a wet runway.
  These are just some of the directives the FAA has issued or expects 
to issue, which could be blocked or delayed under this bill, and that 
would have a negative impact on safety. Whether these directives could 
receive an exception to the moratorium is doubtful, since the standard 
articulated for obtaining an exception to the moratorium is vague at 
best. It would require speculation by the FAA that an accident would be 
``reasonably'' likely to occur during the moratorium period if action 
were not taken. The FAA would also have to establish that the 
regulation or airworthiness directive in question would have prevented 
the potential accident. If the FAA were able to accurately predict when 
an accident will occur, the cause of the accident, and the adequate 
remedy that would have prevented the accident, then there would never 
be another accident. Certainly a laudable goal, but not one we have 
reached at this time.
  Of particular significance today is the Administration's effort, with 
some Congressional prodding, to create a single standard of safety for 
airline operations, regardless of aircraft size. Many people do not 
realize that when they change planes from a major airline to a commuter 
airline, not just the aircraft changes, but sometimes the standard of 
safety applicable to the operation of the aircraft as well. This is 
completely unacceptable when so many people who do not live near a 
major or hub airport rely on small, commuter aircraft for travel. This 
distinction only seems to get attention when there has been an 
accident. But for years Congress has pushed past administrations to 
eliminate this arbitrary distinction. Now that this effort is underway, 
it would be completely unacceptable for it to be delayed. Must the FAA 
be forced to establish that another commuter accident will occur during 
the period of the moratorium when there have already been a number of 
commuter accidents that speak to the need for change? I would hope not.
  Another important aviation initiative that, if it were included in 
the moratorium, would have a detrimental effect on the airline industry 
is the 
[[Page H2191]] current effort to standardize regulations between the 
United States and European Joint Aviation Authorities regarding flight 
operations and aircraft safety certification. The airline industry 
would be the direct beneficiary of this rule. It is estimated that both 
U.S. airlines and manufacturers would save between $100 million and $1 
billion as a result of this standardization of important safety 
regulations. Any delay in the implementation of the standardization 
would require airlines to meet two differing sets of standards, wasting 
resources that may be better spent on improving the safety and 
competitiveness of the airline industry.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize the innate differences in 
different agency rulemakings and directives and not to impose a 
moratorium on all rulemakings that can only be excepted by meeting a 
vague and speculative standard. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Wise-Mascara amendment to H.R. 450. Don't, in the name of frustration 
with nonsafety regulations, put the lives of Americans at risk.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise more in sorrow than in anger, 
because it pains me to oppose my good friend, not to oppose him, but to 
oppose this language.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I worked side by side for many, 
many years on aviation safety. I have genuine concerns about this 
language. I honestly think it is poorly drafted.
  I do not think that this is a matter of can an agency interpret it or 
not. This legislation will open the way for lawsuits to hamstring the 
FAA, which issues two airworthiness directives a day on average, over 
400 last year, as many headed for rulemaking this year. Dozens of 
safety rules, flight and duty time for pilots in the works right now, 
something that we have worked on for many years, crew pairing, to avoid 
the problem of having inexperienced crew up front in aircraft.

                              {time}  1050

  The 16(g) seat retrofit rule to require strengthening of seats. All 
of us will recall the terrible crash at Sioux City of a DC-10. Some 110 
lives were saved because those seats were strengthened. That rule is 
now being extended.
  The aging-aircraft rule on which the gentleman and I worked for quite 
some time, we passed legislation to implement that legislation. FAA has 
a number of rulemakings concerning the aging aircraft.
  The ATR rulemaking process is not complete. Now, I just want to ask 
my friend if at the conclusion of this he will entertain specific 
language to exclude aviation safety?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman for that purpose.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is our feeling on this side that would be 
unnecessary because it is redundant and it is indeed covered by this 
amendment. I would certainly support that.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, to legislate a regulatory moratorium upon 
the Federal Aviation Administration, which has vital safety 
responsibilities that affect the lives of everyone in this room and in 
this country, is not only dangerous, it is irresponsible.
  My many years of experience in the safety arena caution me not to 
accept the argument that aviation safety would not be jeopardized 
because of the exception to the moratorium for regulations directed at 
an ``imminent threat to health or safety.'' That language is much too 
vague to stand the test of lawsuits that will inevitably be filed by 
airlines, who will, as they have in the past, contest such regulations 
on economic grounds. To qualify for the exception in this bill, the FAA 
would have to establish that, absent the regulation or directive, it 
would be reasonable to expect death, or a serious illness, or severe 
injury to humans, or substantial endangerment to private property 
during the moratorium period. Aviation safety is not that precise, and 
let me explain.
  Look at the past year in aviation. There were several major 
accidents, after 3 years relatively free of major fatal accidents. One 
of those accidents caused the FAA to temporarily place restrictions on 
the use of ATR aircraft, due to the preliminary results of an accident 
investigation which indicated that the de-icing equipment on the 
aircraft was inadequate to permit operation in known or predicted icing 
conditions. Following further investigation, the FAA ordered 
operational restrictions and testing, on ATR flights under certain 
weather conditions to permit greater use of the aircraft
 until such time as the aircraft could be retrofitted with altered de-
icing equipment, also to be required by an FAA airworthiness directive.

  The FAA acted promptly to address a known safety deficiency that had 
most likely caused one accident and killed many people. They also acted 
very quickly to relax the restrictions as soon as information became 
available to indicate that the aircraft could be flown safely in icing 
conditions when certain precautions were taken.
  It is unclear to me how the FAA could have established, in the case 
of the ATR, that its actions were necessary to prevent severe injury, 
death, or the substantial destruction of property during a specified 
period, namely the period of the moratorium. The FAA would be derelict 
in its duty if it failed to act with all due speed to address a known 
safety deficiency. The FAA is not in the business of foreseeing into 
the future to anticipate whether a safety deficiency will result in a 
crash tomorrow, next week, or 10 years from now. Such a standard is 
completely inappropriate in the area of aviation safety.
  For several years, I have been advocating a single standard of safety 
for commercial air carriers, regardless of the size of the aircraft. 
Currently, an arbitrary distinction with regard to the number of seats 
in an aircraft determines which safety standards are applicable to that 
flight. The importance of this issue has been underscored by the recent 
rash of commuter accidents. I have been working with Secretary Pena and 
FAA Administrator Hinson to achieve a single standard of safety, and 
they have assured me that final regulations to achieve this goal will 
be published by the end of March. The flying public deserves no less. 
In fact, the public is usually shocked to learn that there is not a 
single standard of safety for commercial operations. The proposed 
moratorium would further delay, if not prevent, implementing the 
regulations necessary to achieve a single safety standard.
  In order for this important safety initiative to be finalized, the 
FAA would have to take time away from its safety mission and somehow 
convincingly predict, not only when the next commuter accident would 
occur, but what the cause of that accident would be, and whether the 
accident could have been prevented by the regulation in question. The 
proposed requirement for an exception from the moratorium would 
seemingly necessitate the agency to make arbitrary speculations or 
resort to predicting the future. I do not think it is in the best 
interest of the public to have either option result in postponing 
important safety initiatives that have already gone through extensive 
public comment and cost benefit analysis.
  I urge my colleagues to approve the Wise amendment and not tie the 
hands of an agency whose responsibility is regulating and controlling 
an anticipated 40 million flights this year alone. Vote ``yes'' on the 
Wise amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, there is transuranic nuclear waste stored 
in temporary storage, stacked up at a dozen or more sites from 
Washington State at Hanford to INEL in Idaho to Rocky Flats in 
Colorado, down to the Savannah River site and over to Oak Ridge, 
probably a dozen sites altogether. There is also a permanent resting 
place for the permanent storage of this waste, built and completed. It 
is called the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, at Carlsbad, NM.
  Here, 2,250 feet below ground, in a salt dome, is the Nation's first 
nuclear waste permanent depository. It took more than 5 years to pass 
the bill that authorized WIPP to begin receiving nuclear waste for 
testing purposes, to prove in a series of rigorous steps that this 
facility will be adequate for thousands of years to come, to seal off 
and safely contain this transuranic waste. But these tests at WIPP can 
go forward only if EPA regulations concerned with the disposal of 
nuclear wastes are finally implemented.
  EPA, in the early 1980's issued regulations for this purpose. They 
were enjoined by the Federal circuit court. And when we passed WIPP 
several years ago, we directed EPA to issue a new set of regulations so 
that the tests could be completed. EPA finally complied.
  But this regulatory moratorium, if passed, will suspend the 
effectiveness of these regulations, and that means that this testing at 
WIPP cannot go forward and that waste will remain in Washington State, 
in South Carolina and Oak Ridge, TN, INEL and Rocky 
[[Page H2192]]  Flats, uselessly, with the facility hiring 1,500 people 
in Carlsbad, NM, unable to finally begin to accomplish the purpose for 
which it was designed.
  This bill does not clearly exempt those regulations. That is because 
DOE, as I said, simply cannot say that this waste constitutes an 
imminent threat to health or safety that is likely to cause people to 
die during the period of the moratorium.
  If we want to see this waste disposed of properly, we should vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of our committee.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about 
airline safety. It seems to me that what we have done here in this day 
and a half so far is that we have made exclusions for certain things.
  For example, we have made exclusions for textile industry, for duck 
hunting. It seems to me we ought to also make exclusions for anything 
that helps human life.
  Now, you know, when we leave here today and go home to our districts, 
we get on airplanes, and those airplanes now have fire-retardant 
fabrics on our seats and on the floors because of work that has been 
done when there was a need for it. There are regulations to cover that. 
There are lights along the aisles in case the top lights go out, so the 
people can see how to exit if they have to if there is smoke in the 
plane or something.
  There are seatbelts on those planes because of rules and regulations 
put in place for the public safety. There also are maintenance 
requirements on the airplane that have to be checked before we can even 
board those airplanes.
  It seems to me it makes good sense for us to include anything that 
helps public safety. Miners need to be safe in their work, we need to 
be safe, all of us need to be safe when we fly. We need safety from 
nuclear waste.
  Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the next speaker, I would 
just add that the reason the Justice Department opposes this bill, and 
particularly the language about judicial review, is because it believes 
that in a letter written to at least one Member, ``It will result in 
litigation each time a new rule is promulgated during the moratorium 
and thus continued delay.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district in Colorado, thousands of cubic yards of 
plutonium-laden wastes are in storage at the Rocky Flats nuclear 
weapons site, within a metropolitan area of 2 million people.
  We have a solution to that problem, as the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] mentioned 1 minute ago, and that is the waste 
isolation pilot project in New Mexico.
  The procedures for getting waste into the ground there were laid out 
in a bill that we passed 3 years ago. It requires EPA to issue 
regulations covering several different areas. One of those deals with 
the compliance criteria for waste disposal for nuclear materials.
  EPA issued its proposed rule last month, and the 90-day comment 
period is running presently. But if this bill becomes law without the 
kind of exception the gentleman from West Virginia proposes, there is 
no way we can move to get WIPP open to start to solve this very 
daunting problem of the proper, safe disposal of these transuranic, 
plutonium-laden wastes in my district and in several other districts 
across the country.
  That makes absolutely no sense, no sense whatsoever. If we do not 
adopt this amendment for this purpose and others, shame on us.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time, 1\1/2\ 
minutes, to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened to this debate, and it is kind of deja vu 
all over again, as the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said, going 
back to the unfunded mandates legislation; we are trying to exempt this 
bill to death.
  There are two major exemptions in this bill that apply to the issues 
that have been raised. On the airworthiness rules issued, if you take a 
look on page 3 of the committee report, it makes it very, very clear 
that within the Office of Management and Budget, all they need do is 
look at the routine administrative functions of the agencies which 
apply to these airworthiness rules, those apply, are exempted from 
this. Those are not in any way taken away by this action; those would 
continue. Those are not the kind of major rules that this act 
contemplates putting in the moratorium.
  In terms of the other issues, the language stated by the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], very eloquently, on the chart in front 
makes it clear that during the period of this moratorium there is 
imminent threat to health or safety, and that has been defined as the 
existence of a condition or circumstance or practice reasonably 
expected to cause death, serious illness, or severe injury to humans or 
substantial endangerment to private property during the moratorium.
  If this administration finds that that applies at that point, the 
administrative items would move forward, the regulations would move 
forward. If you have no confidence in this administration to make those 
kinds of calls, then perhaps you should vote for this amendment. But I 
think there is ample leeway in this legislation to allow for that.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  The question was taken, and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
                              {time}  1100


              amendment offered by mr. gene green of texas

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. 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. Gene Green of Texas: At the end of 
     section 5 (page 4, after line 5), add the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Family and Medical Leave Regulations.--Section 3(a) or 
     4(a), or both, shall not apply to any regulatory rulemaking 
     action (or any such action relating thereto) to clarify 
     requirements under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 
     with respect to which a final rule was published on January 
     6, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 2180).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 23, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 450, as written, 
currently the regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act 
of 1993, were caught under the net cast by this bill. As my colleagues 
have noted earlier in the debate, this bill makes no attempt to 
distinguish between good and bad regulations. My amendment would exempt 
these regulations currently under consideration for clarification of 
the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  For those who may have forgotten, the Family and Medical Leave Act 
entitles employees of up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave in a 
12-month period for specified family medical reasons. The Family and 
Medical Leave Act was passed in the 103d Congress, actually passed and 
effective on August of 1993, so about 18 months ago.
  I cosponsored the bill and supported it on its final passage, and it 
passed overwhelmingly, 265 to 163 with 40 Members of the now-majority 
supporting it. Thirty-four of those still continue to serve in this 
body. The aim of 
[[Page H2193]]  the regulations was to clarify for employers the intent 
of the act so that both employers and employees would understand both 
their rights and their responsibilities. Many businesses are affected 
by this regulation and would be unable to plan appropriately because 
the uncertainty surrounding the moratorium. Again it has been 18 months 
since the act was passed, and by adding another 6 months causes even 
more confusion, not only to employees, but also to businesses, and it 
is a step process that we go through, the department is going through, 
and when the final process--and again it would benefit those 
businesses.
  Accordingly, the Labor Department in the final rules were based on 
suggestions for more that 900 public comments received by the 
department during their 6-month public comment period, so part of that 
time delay in these regulations, because of the 6-month public comment 
that none of us want to see shortened. We want adequate time for the 
public, whether they are in business or individuals, to comment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important that these commonsense and 
clarifying rules go through. Businesses have been attempting to comply 
with the requirements of the act, and the Department of Labor has been 
trying to work with them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Chicago 
Land Chamber of Commerce, and
 Nation's Bank are among those businesses and associations who provided 
input during this comment period. The regulations under consideration 
would be employee benefit plans, health insurance, maternal and child 
health, among other things.

  Among the commonsense clarifications, the definition of serious 
health condition has been changed to clarify the circumstances under 
which a leave may be taken, and again this is something for the benefit 
of a manager of a business who needs that. As a result, the employees 
with chronic conditions or are pregnant are not required to see a 
health care provider during every absence every time a mother may be 
ill. She should not have to bring a doctor's excuse when it is obvious 
that she may be just experiencing short-term sickness. Unlike the 
regulations that are alleged to be full of red-tape, this regulation 
will reduce the confusion for those who need to comply with it.
  I hope we have no interest in reopening the act just as we are 
beginning to see some real regulation to interpret it for its final 
implementation, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to get a couple of 
clarifications.
  As I understand it, if these final rules are not applicable, the 
current rules would remain in effect during the moratorium period; 
correct?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. That is what I understand in the final rules 
of the clarifications that were requested by--for definitions, for 
example, for serious health condition.
  Mr. DAVIS. OK.
  My understanding during the committee debate is the Department of 
Labor would--the final rules are basically identical to what the 
interim rules are. There is a little bit of additional guidance, but 
that the rules are essentially the same.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Essentially the same, but again they are 
trying to define some of the terms so businesses and employees would 
have that as definitive instead of depending on the original rule.
  Mr. DAVIS. It looks then as just that it would be guidance, and the 
rule would essentially stay the same; I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, when the Family and 
Medical Leave Act passed this House, it started in my subcommittee, and 
I was the author of the amendment which exempted American small 
business from having to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. 
So I can associate myself with what the gentleman on that side, as well 
as the Members and the gentlemen on this side, are trying to accomplish 
here in removing from business regulatory burdens.
  ``But you're about to,'' I say to my colleagues, ``make a mistake. 
Business has requested the new regulation be promulgated. The 
Department of Labor delayed for 6 months this new regulation at the 
request of business. Business needs a number of clarifications so that 
they can avoid increased costs of the Family and Medical Leave Act. You 
are denying them; that is, denying business, what business had 
requested.''
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is a probusiness 
amendment. He is asking us to allow the Department of Labor to do what 
business has asked be done. If this amendment is not accepted, the 
result is that business is going to pay more, not less, to comply with 
the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Now in your rush to do this, and to do it 
in a whole-cloth way with no exemptions, you are about to make a 
mistake here. The good news is the Senate will correct it and do it the 
way business wants.''
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say that the 
gentleman's comments prove what I have been saying all along. The 
purpose of this moratorium is not to help business, but to help the 
American people who ultimately pay for all of these regulations, and 
that is why we need it enacted into law.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking 
member of our committee.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Family and Medical Leave Act is important to working families, 
and the clarifications made in the rule recently published in the 
Federal Register are important so that employers know what leave-rights 
workers have.
  Many of us have had loved ones who have died or who have been 
stricken with serious illness. The Family and Medical Leave Act 
guarantees that working men and women may take time needed to care for 
a family member or perhaps the birth and care of a newborn child, 
without running the risk of losing their job.
  Yet, the implementation of this commitment has not been easy. 
Confusion over what constitutes a chronic health condition, who can be 
considered a health care provider, and many other issues has meant that 
workers have not received benefits they deserve.
  Business asked for clarifications in the regulation recently issued 
by the Department of Labor. They have now been issued, and we should 
not block their implementation under the moratorium in H.R. 450.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to support 
it as well.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is imperative to leave the legislation as it 
is. It is imperative, because you have a very divided community out 
there right now, so you have interim regulations that will continue. 
And I think during this interim period, there will be an opportunity to 
bring the community together. So I would encourage Members to keep the 
legislation just exactly as it is, allow these interim regulations to 
continue until you bring that community together, and we will have time 
to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in response to both the gentleman from 
Indiana 
[[Page H2194]]  [Mr. McIntosh], and my chairman of the Committee on 
Education and Economic Opportunities, again my concern is the delay 
because of the need for clarification on the rules, that if this is not 
exempted from the bill, we would see additional delay for businesses 
who need these definitions.
  The definitions include health care provider, to include them so they 
would know what type of health care provider would actually be 
responsible for that. The other definition here is health condition, to 
clarify the circumstances for employees.
  The bill that we are talking about has been amended already with 
certain exceptions. Again, we have a law that was passed in 1993 that 
businesses have already waited 18 months. Again, to be able to have 
some clarification, they should not have to wait again another 6 
months.
  Mr. Chairman, again, what we have is an effort to try and make sure 
government works, and that is what I think we are all here for. Again, 
a law that was passed in 1993 that we have a delay in the regulations, 
because of the 6-month time frame for the input from our constituents 
and our businesses, and yet because they may get caught up in this, and 
as my colleague from Montana said, the Senate will very well correct 
this.
  I have some concern about the effective date of this act. In fact, I 
was hoping as a member of this committee I could support this. I went 
to the markup with the hope to be able to support it if we could have 
picked another date other than November 20. We should pick a date for a 
moratorium that is much later so people can plan and have some kind of 
idea on both their business decisions and everything else they do. This 
amendment would just address one small facet of it.
  Obviously if we were able to make the deadline or the effective date 
of the act, instead of November 20, with whatever date we pass this, or 
some date even this year, businesses could make that decision. But 
without doing that and going back to November 20, it is necessitating 
the number of amendments we see to say okay, there are regulations that 
are so close to being in place that unless we exempt it, you are going 
to cause more confusion out there in the marketplace, and that is not 
what we need to do, and this Congress has caused more confusion for 
business.
  That is why this amendment is needed, so we will continue with the 
efforts, so people will know how to enforce the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, because it did pass overwhelmingly here in 1993, and I hope 
that we could clarify it, and if not today, then maybe the other body 
will be able to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we feel that this amendment is 
unnecessary and might actually be counterproductive, because clearly 
there is existing dispute within the business community with regard to 
these regulations. So the fact we might be expediting at this point the 
promulgation of those regulations would perhaps not serve the business 
community well.
  Just very briefly, the interim final rules will remain in effect 
throughout the moratorium, and those interim final rules are just about 
identical to the final rules that are being proposed. The Department of 
Labor believed that the interim rules were satisfactory. So I think 
that this is a solution without a problem. We think it is unnecessary, 
and it would not cause any great disruption so long as the interim 
rules remain in effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to H.R. 450?
                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. 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. Waxman: Amend section 6(3)(A) 
     (page   , beginning at line    ) to read as follows:
       (A) In general.--The term ``regulatory rulemaking action'' 
     means the issuance of any substantive rule, interpretative 
     rule, statement of agency policy, or notice of proposed 
     rulemaking.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 23, 
1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and a Member opposed, 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, H.R. 450, has an 
incredibly broad scope. I think most Members think that this 
legislation just freezes the issuance of final regulations. It does 
not. It also covers notices of inquiry, advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and, ``any other action taken in the course of the process 
of rulemaking.''
  The purpose of my amendment is to narrow the scope, to cover just the 
issuance of final and proposed rules. The amendment is necessary to 
save Federal resources.
  The Federal Government has thousands of employees working on 
regulations. The effect of H.R. 450 would be to idle those employees. 
Without the amendment the taxpayers would be paying them to sit there 
and do nothing. The broad scope of H.R. 450 is not only wasteful; it is 
counterproductive.
  The administration is trying to improve its regulations by meeting 
with affected industries, responding to comments, and developing 
innovative market-based approaches. These activities, which I would 
think everyone would support, would simply be halted in their tracks.
  We are being very schizophrenic in our approach to regulations in 
this Congress. H.R. 9, which the House will consider next week, imposes 
so many new review requirements on agencies that the Environmental 
Protection Agency, for example, says it would be forced to hire an 
additional 1,000 employees in order to comply. But in today's 
legislation, we are doing just the opposite. We are telling EPA and all 
the other regulatory agencies to idle the people they have now on their 
employment rolls, stopping them from doing any work in preparation or 
consideration of regulations.
  My amendment would limit the scope of H.R. 450 to put a moratorium on 
the issuance of the regulations, but allow during this moratorium 
period the agency people to meet with the interest groups so they can 
evaluate whether the regulations are needed or necessary to accomplish 
the goals set out in the statutes, or to solicit public comments. They 
ought to get the public input so that the regulations that they may 
well propose will be the most thoughtful; to hold public meetings so 
people, industry people and ordinary citizens, will have a chance to 
give their views.
  The bill as it is now drafted would stop all of those activities from 
going forward. It makes no sense. We ought to just put a moratorium, if 
we are going to have one at all, on the final issuance of regulations, 
so that all the bad effects that we are hearing warnings about will not 
take place.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh], the author of the legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I would rise in opposition to this 
amendment and simply say there are a couple different problems that 
would be created by this. The first was an experience that we learned 
from the moratorium on regulations that President Bush put into effect 
in 1992, that many 
[[Page H2195]]  of the regulations were held up from being published in 
the Federal Register, but the agencies continued to work on them to 
continue to draft the regulations, continue to have meetings, continue 
to do all of the processes other than print them.

                              {time}  1120

  And as a result, we saw a flood of new regulations at the end of the 
moratorium period. I do not think that is what the American people sent 
us here to do. Rather, what they want us to do is put a stop on 
burdensome regulations. And what we need to do is catch them at all 
stages and catch a lot of the activities and say, these are unnecessary 
and counterproductive.
  Let me give one example from my time in working with Vice President 
Quayle's Competitiveness Council that caused us endless hours, numerous 
meetings and debates in order to fix a problem that should have been 
caught but that never appeared in the Federal Register as a notice of 
preliminary rulemaking, a proposed rule, or a final rule. That is the 
1987 Wetlands Manual that suddenly dramatically expanded the scope of 
that program, took billions of dollars worth of private property by 
requiring people who did not have anything near a wetland to suddenly 
seek a permit from the Federal Government before they could use their 
property.
  Everyone, environmentalists, farmers, developers, conservatives, 
agreed that that manual went too far. It was an example of regulatory 
overreach that had devastating consequences to the property owners in 
this country.
  The problem was, no one in America knew about this change in the 
Federal regulations because it was never published. What we need to do 
is have a moratorium on sneak attacks like the 1987 Wetlands Manual to 
protect the American public from unnecessary, burdensome and 
counterproductive regulations.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me give examples of what we are talking about in the breadth, the 
scope of this legislation. There are Federal agencies appropriately 
working on important regulations. They are evaluating them. They would 
be stopped from even evaluating these proposals.
  The Department of Transportation is looking at a regulation to 
protect drivers from head injuries. The Food and Drug Administration is 
looking at a regulation to protect children from iron poisoning from 
accidental ingestion of iron supplements, which is the leading cause of 
poisoning death in young children.
  The Department of Justice is looking at a regulation to make parole 
more difficult for sex offenders. They are also looking at a regulation 
requiring drug testing of parolees, and regulation to require wealthy 
criminals to pay incarceration fees.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is looking at approval of state 
implementation plans under the Clean Air Act. They would not be able to 
evaluate these plans, to get comments on these plans. The EPA and HUD 
are looking at regulation to protect children from lead poisoning. The 
Department of Energy is looking at regulations to promote energy 
efficiencies. These are regulations that people should want. Every 
Member should want these regulations. They are important for the health 
and well-being and security of the American people.
  We want those regulations to be done wisely. To be done wisely, they 
ought to be able to get public comment. They ought to be able to 
evaluate the views of different organizations. They ought to be able to 
think through what they are doing so regulations will be sensible.
  This proposal that we have, this moratorium, is just not sensible 
when it stops these kinds of activities from taking place.
  I do not know what sneak attacks the gentleman from Indiana is 
talking about, but I do know that the Competitiveness Council, under 
Vice President Dan Qualye, acted in a superlegal way, extralegal way, 
when they tried to meet in secret with industry officials to try to 
then impose their will on their own Republican appointees in these 
agencies that were entrusted to develop the regulations pursuant to the 
laws passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United 
States, who at that time was President Bush and prior to him President 
Reagan.
  This bill is a ham-handed, heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach 
on regulations. Whether they are good or bad, stop them, and not only 
stop the regulations from going forward but stop honest employed public 
employees from even thinking through what makes sense.
  Have them sit there and do nothing. That to me is a big waste of 
taxpayers' funds. So I would urge support of this amendment to narrow 
the scope.
  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 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Even during a regulatory moratorium, the Federal Government's 
regulatory responsibilities do not stop.
  H.R. 450's prohibition against Federal employees doing anything other 
than cost benefit analysis or risk assessment during the moratorium 
period is, therefore, highly irresponsible.
  We are not suspending the application of laws to individuals and 
firms in this country. And we should not prevent Federal employees from 
carrying out responsibility we have given them under those laws.
  Do we really want to prohibit Federal employees from giving guidance 
to those who remain subject to Federal regulation?
  If we let risk assessment become our goal, rather than a tool to 
achieve our goal, the risk assessment itself can be harmful and an 
obstacle to serving the public interest. What happened in the early 
years of the AIDS outbreak is a good example. In the early 1980's, a 
few scientists proposed that AIDS could be transmitted to others 
through transfusions of blood from a person with the AIDS virus.
  The Food and Drug Administration and the blood products industry 
thought there would be alarm and panic, if the public were warned of 
this possibility. Instead, they insisted they had to be absolutely sure 
before they could say anything publicly.
  As a result, all kinds of risk assessments were done--comparison 
risks, substitution risks, as well as cost benefit analysis. For more 
than 2 years, the proposal that AIDS could be transmitted through 
transfusions was analyzed before evidence was so overwhelmingly 
conclusive, that the FDA and the blood products industry finally issued 
their warnings to the public.
  During that 2-year period, tens of thousands of people were exposed 
to AIDS contaminated blood. Had the blood banks initiated their 
policies earlier to screen for AIDS-contaminated blood, countless lives 
could have been saved.
  The lesson to be learned from the FDA's experience is that agencies 
need flexibility. A one-size-fits-all approach to risk assessment and 
cost benefit analysis can be harmful and contrary to the public 
interest. We need to be encouraging agencies to evaluate possibilities, 
but we do not want to insist that they only conduct risk assessment and 
cost benefit analysis when what they are looking for might be right in 
front of their eyes.
  I think the gentleman's amendment ensures that Federal employees will 
have the flexibility to respond appropriately to the responsibilities 
they have.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, for a response I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that if our worry here is 
that we have some number of the 130,000 Federal employees who spend 
their days writing regulations, who will not have anything to do 
because of this moratorium, that perhaps the American public would 
celebrate this fact. But we do owe a duty to the American public to 
spend our money wisely.
  I would be willing to look, with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, at the 
possibility of a rescission that would allow a furlough of those 
employees so that the American people would not be paying them to cause 
further harm by regulating and would not be paying them to do nothing 
because the moratorium would prevent them from damaging the economy, 
adding more to the hidden tax on the American taxpayer and possibly 
even creating a regulatory rescission.
  [[Page H2196]] Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we act now 
in order to prevent that.
  I ask to include in my remarks a copy of an article by Murray 
Weidenbaum that discusses the nature of the regulatory recession and 
the danger that that poses for the economy.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Next week we are going to consider H.R. 9. That bill 
would require the agencies to go through a tremendous number of steps 
before any regulation would come into a proposed form. They would have 
to do analysis of cost-benefit. They would have to do analysis of risk 
assessment.
  Under the unfunded mandates bill we are going to ask them to evaluate 
not only the cost impact on State and local governments, but to look at 
what the impact will be on America's standing in international trade. 
These are analyses which are appropriate because we ought to get all 
the information that is valid before we have regulations that may have 
unintended consequences.
  But one of the results of H.R. 9 is going to be that we are going to 
have to hire more Government employees to do all of those analyses. The 
gentleman wants to fire them now and then rehire them next year. That 
seems to me nonsensical.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say, I 
think perhaps what we need to do is hire people who would actually be 
honest about implementing those new criteria, to use good science, to 
use cost-benefit analysis, and, as the gentleman knows, the moratorium 
period goes until those new processes are put into place. So why should 
the American taxpayers pay for people to do nothing during the 
moratorium? Maybe we should give them a furlough, save the money, hire 
people back who will do risk assessment, will do cost-benefit analysis 
and, once again, restore the American people's confidence that we are 
not putting more burdens on them but, in fact, working for their 
benefit.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would be happy to engage in a further colloquy with the gentleman 
from Indiana, because I do not think what he is saying makes sense. Is 
the problem the employees that work for the Government or the laws 
under which they operate?
  I would assume that the gentleman thinks it is the laws under which 
they operate because he is proposing under H.R. 9 to require that they 
do more cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, et cetera.
  If they are not capable of doing it, are we going to fire all those 
employees and then hire new ones? That I think is probably going to be 
very costly. Do we know it is the public employees in this country who 
are not sensible, or is it the laws that are not sensible?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] to 
respond to these questions.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I believe that the fundamental problem in most of these cases is that 
the laws require the agencies to issue regulations that are costly, 
burdensome, and unnecessary; that in a certain number of cases, the 
agencies go beyond the laws and think up additional regulations, like 
the wetlands manual, that cost us more money than what the laws 
require, and add to an even greater burden under our regulatory 
process.
  I think it is important that we go in and fix those laws. At this 
point, I am willing to explore with the chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the possibility of saving the taxpayers 
some money if there are unnecessary Federal employees as a result of 
going back and fixing those problems.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I am going to reclaim my time on that point. Mr. 
Chairman, that means fire all the people that are there that should be 
working on regulations, like a regulation to make parole more difficult 
for sex offenders, a regulation requiring drug testing for parolees, a 
regulation to require wealthy criminals to pay incarceration fees.
  There are things that people who are career people at the Department 
of Justice are trying to implement because of the laws that we have 
adopted. To fire those people and then hire them back, when we tell 
them ``Not only should you listen to these different groups, but you 
ought to go through extensive analyses even beyond that.'' I cannot see 
how that makes any sense.
  If the gentleman really wants to fire people because he does not 
think there is enough work, why are we going to pass a bill that will 
require them to double the amount of people working on regulations?
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to respond to that.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that any of the regulations 
necessary to enforce the criminal laws are exempt, and therefore could 
be worked on, and in fact should be worked on by people in the Justice 
Department and other agencies.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that under H.R. 
450, they would not be permitted to do the job for which we hired them, 
which is to look at the possibility of regulation to accomplish those 
purposes, because this moratorium would prevent during the moratorium 
period not just the issuance of the regulations, but even consideration 
of regulations.
  Then when the bills are adopted to go into effect after the 
moratorium, H.R. 9, which would set up so many new analyses, we would 
need more employees. I cannot understand this. It seems to be a 
schizophrenic approach.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
first of all, criminal laws and health and safety regulations are 
exempt. The employees would be able to work on the regulations which 
are exempt from the moratorium.
  I would hope, certainly, that they would do so, rather than do 
something else that does not serve the interests of the American 
people.
  However, there are a lot of regulatory activities. We have discovered 
one the other day in our committee where an agency was thinking about a 
guideline requiring that there be a hole in the bottom of a bucket. 
Those kinds of activities we do not need employees for.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If I can reclaim my time, the hole in the bucket is 
something we have heard a lot about, but I have heard from the 
Department of Justice that they would have to stop their employees from 
working on these regulations to protect us from sex offenders. They 
would stop the Department of Transportation from working on regulations 
to protect drivers from head injuries. It seems to me that it does not 
make sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Waxman] has expired.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have had this interesting dialog 
about how many employees would be needed and if they should be laid 
off, and so on. I think that obscures the principal point here, which 
are some of the points made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] earlier.
  In the experience we have had with the moratorium under the Bush 
years, there was a tremendous bunching effect that took place, because 
the bureaucracy was allowed to function, and when the moratorium came 
off there was a spate of amendments, an enormous spate of amendments 
that came out, very hard to digest.
  I think the other key point to make here is that clearly, those 
regulations that qualify for one of the many exemptions, for health and 
safety, for routine activities, for criminal activities, and so forth, 
those are going to go forward. The machinery will work to allow those 
to go forward.
  The purpose of the moratorium is to prevent the crafting of addition 
regulations before we have had an opportunity to review the whole 
regulatory process. This is the whole point of what we are trying to 
accomplish here.
  To allow those preparatory activities to go forward leading up to the 
promulgation of a rule really obviates the whole purpose of what we are 
trying to accomplish, which is to review the entire process of 
formulating these regulations.
  [[Page H2197]] Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this fundamentally is a debate, as I said in committee, 
between those who believe that the regulatory glass is half empty, and 
those who believe, on our side, that the glass is already filled to 
overflowing.
  We have heard examples on both sides. We have heard these anecdotes 
about the holes in the bucket and so forth. The real question I think 
the American people are asking is do we really need 130,000 bureaucrats 
creating more rules. I think most Americans would agree that we do not.
  We had someone from OSHA in to speak to the committee earlier in the 
session. I asked what they thought their role was, and what Americans 
wanted from the regulatory process.
  Her answer was very simple. She said she thought what America wanted 
was more efficient and effective regulation. I said ``I'm sorry, but I 
think, speaking on behalf of middle America, what America really wants 
is more reasonable regulation.''
  I really do not think this amendment is necessary. I think what 
America wants is more reasonable regulation. We do not need 460,000 
pages of new rules. We do not need 100 million words.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  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.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 23, 
1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman] will be postponed.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this morning there was a colloquy concerning 
regulations that were of great concern to people in my district. I want 
to clarify where we stand on these regulations.
  My congressional district in Florida has the largest number of senior 
citizens of any district in the country. In Sarasota, Sun City, Port 
Charlotte, Bradenton, FL, we have thousands and thousands of retirees 
that have moved down from Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and such, and moved 
into retirement communities that are designed for people over age 55.
  They move there because of a way of life, a lifestyle they want. Now 
the Federal Government is developing regulations to threaten this 
lifestyle that is so, so important to these retirees.
  It has been the policy that if there were 80 percent of the people 
over age 55, that satisfied the requirement; a nice, simple quota that 
took care of it. These people could live the life they moved to Florida 
for.
  However, in an 1988 fair housing law they decided to change it in 
Congress. Now we have the regulations that are threatening my seniors 
in my district.
  What the regulation did was say ``We want to have significant 
facilities and services that are specifically designed for people over 
age 55.'' They use the words ``significant'' and ``specific,'' and have 
great room for the bureaucrats to have a great time.
  They came up with regulations last summer, the proposed regulations. 
The proposed regulations were a disaster. They were going to require 
nursing homes in mobile home parks, congregate meals or something. 
Luckily, the people from HUD went out and had field hearings and 
actually saw what senior communities are all about.
  They said ``Yes, now we realize we made a mistake.'' They came out 
and they are in the process now of introducing new regulations. The new 
regulations have gone from 60 pages to 29 pages. that is great, it is a 
big improvement. My concern is going to be on why we even had the 
regulations in the law in the first place.
  These are the latest regulations that are getting ready to be imposed 
on my seniors in their communities. These are things, these are 100-
unit mobile home parks. You have to have at least 10 of the following 
in facilities and services, 5 out of this category, and things.
  We can do it ourselves, you can check them off. If there is bingo, 
you check a check. If you have fashion shows, that is a check. A 
monthly calendar of events, that is a check. A Ping-Pong table gives 
you a check. You can check it off and meet the requirements.
  Great. But how do you enforce it? Do you have the HUD police come 
down, and if your Ping-Pong table has been broken, what is the 
enforcement mechanism? Why do you have to get in their lives and bug 
these people? They do not like it.
  Luckily, luckily, we have introduced legislation last year, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] introduced it, and it is in our 
Contract With America, so by April 7, hopefully, we will remove this 
offending section, which is significant facilities, specifically 
designed.
  The problem is it would be nice to stop the regulations. Since it has 
a quota, my understanding is that under the Norton amendment, that this 
would be allowed to be covered. If these regulations are not put into 
effect, we can hold until we can get legislation to correct that area.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. Chairman, this is a case of regulatory overkill, threatening a 
way of life that we do not need to do that.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some general comments.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thought that there was an order to the 
proceedings that would have had me recognized next.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will please state it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was on his feet 
before the Chair called for the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Michigan 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. A further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Please state it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Is it not parliamentary procedure that if a 
gentleman is on his feet before anybody else is on his feet, that he is 
indeed called upon to be recognized by the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. The Chair did not answer my question. I 
have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois will state her inquiry.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an 
answer to my question, please. Is it not the parliamentary procedure 
that if a gentleman is on his feet seeking recognition before anybody 
else stands, he is to be recognized?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is within the discretion of the Chair to recognize 
the Members.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Has it not been the custom of the House or the history 
of the House that if a Member from the Republican Party, or any party, 
has spoken, a Member next to be recognized would be a Member from the 
other party in comity, and not two Members from the same party, 
especially when one Member is standing?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is ultimately the discretion of the Chair to 
recognize Members.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I know that, but I asked about the custom of the House, 
and the history of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the discretion of the Chair to recognize Members.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I recognize that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief.
  I wanted to share some of my experience of being one of the nine 
OSHA 
[[Page H2198]]  commissioners in Michigan. On that commission, there 
were four members on the commission representing labor, there were four 
members representing business. The four representing business were all 
safety engineers. I was a commissioner representing the public at-
large.
  The directions before that commission were to examine all of the 
procedures for health in the Department of Labor for worksite safety 
and think of all of the things you can think of to improve safety for 
workers. The safety engineers and the representatives from labor 
continually, every meeting, thought of more and more regulations.
  I suggest to the Members that think that regulations are not a 
serious impairment to business and ultimately to jobs and wages in this 
country should take some time not only reading the regulations, but 
examining the way those regulations are implemented. Depending on how 
good a night sleep certain inspectors have, depending on whether their 
wife or husband bawled them out before they left for work because they 
are underpaid most of the time depends on their interpretation of the 
rules, and they can become very demanding in the preciseness of the way 
those regulations are written, all the way from the quality of wood in 
a ladder to the exact height to the half inch of where light switches 
are placed.
  Let me conclude by saying that I would have enjoyed bringing down the 
regulations that were passed this last year, but I had knee surgery a 
couple of months ago and those 65,000 pages were a little heavy.
  I would just again ask all of the Members that are not aware of the 
real implementation of all of the regulations that we pass in every 
State and at the national level to take some time reviewing those 
individuals, those persons, those businesses that are forced to be 
inspected and live under those regulations. We are taking away jobs. 
The estimated cost by the Vice President is over $400 billion every 
year that is passed on to all of the consumers in this country. It is a 
dangerous situation. It is important that we move on to reexamine all 
of the regulations that we impose on the people of this country, and a 
good start is the moratorium.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the economic 
danger our Nation faces if we don't stop the tidal wave of regulations 
that Congress and the President have imposed. I would have carried down 
to the floor a copy of just last year's regulations as an example of 
our exploding Government, but I couldn't carry all 65,000 pages.
  Every day, we endanger more jobs in this country through 
overregulation. According to a 1993 study cited by the Vice President's 
report on Reinventing Government, the private sector has to spend at 
least $430 billion annually to comply with Federal requirements--that's 
9 percent of GDP. The price of products we buy, from health care to 
shoelaces, are increased by that $430 billion.
  As we look for ways to help Americans, let's make sure we don't help 
them right out of their jobs. Job loss is the result of the suffocating 
burden of these regulations which have been piled on businesses. This 
overregulation hits businesses like a wrecking ball, demolishing the 
hopes of American workers and entrepreneurs. Economic growth is key in 
ensuring a bright future for America, so I encourage my colleagues to 
defeat this amendment and support this bill to reduce regulations.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first start by asking a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Is it not true as a member of the committee that I would have 
recognition on the floor in priority order to other Members of the 
House that are not members of the committee?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Chair would ordinarily 
accord priority.
  Mr. FATTAH. Could the Chair then enlighten this Member and the House 
as to the ruling previously on the motion to strike the last word?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was advised that there was an understanding 
among Members that two pro forma amendments would be recognized prior 
to recognizing the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. The Chair was misinformed. There was an understanding 
that there would be one pro forma amendment, and that is the nature of 
the confusion. But I am trying to clarify since this has been a 
tradition of the House that in the future that with this tradition of 
honoring some civility on both sides, this would not be in the normal 
conduct of business that this matter would happen in that way. That is 
why I am entertaining this parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair regrets the misunderstanding.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the Chair.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous-consent agreement, I 
offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah: At the end of section 5 
     add the following new subsection:
       (c) Specific Rulemaking Relating to the Telemarketing and 
     Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act.--Section 3(a) or 
     4(a), or both, shall not apply to any regulatory rulemaking 
     action to implement the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 
     Abuse Prevention Act, Public Law 103-297.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 23, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this should not be a controversial amendment. It 
exempts from the moratorium the proposed regulations of the Federal 
Trade Commission to implement the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 
Abuse Act of 1994.
  Republicans strongly supported this bill when it passed last summer. 
For example, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] said that the 
telemarketing fraud hurts both consumers and what he called legitimate 
honest telemarketers. He went on to say,

       I know that many of our State attorneys general are 
     strongly supportive of this legislation precisely of the 
     enhanced enforcement tools it will make available to them.

  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] said last summer:

       It is doubly important that we crack down on deception and 
     fraud--not only to prevent injury to consumers but also to 
     avoid further harm to legitimate businesses.

  He argued that the bill will vastly reduce the ability of fly-by-
night telemarketing scam operators to use State lines as a basis for 
potential legal sanctuary.
  With this strong bipartisan support, the bill passed the House in the 
last Congress by a vote of 411 to 3 and passed the Senate by a voice 
vote. Numerous congressional hearings over a 7-year period have shown 
that telemarketing fraud was costing Americans $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 ripoff. The law directs the FTC to issue its final regulations by 
August 16, 1995. 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 seemingly bring a screeching halt to last year's 
bipartisan effort to stop telemarketing fraud.
                              {time}  1150

  H.R. 450 prohibits the FTC from issuing a final rule by the statutory 
deadline of August 16 and even prohibits the FTC from going ahead with 
analyzing public comments and holding a public hearing on its proposed 
rule. Section 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 is supported by the Consumer Federation of America, 
which notes that ``Consumers, particularly senior citizens, often have 
been the targets for these fraudulent schemes.''
  Mr. Chairman, the last Congress spoke clearly and decisively on how 
to stop telemarketing fraud. There is no 
[[Page H2199]]  reason for us to put their work on hold, and I urge 
support for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would indicate in terms of the fraud provisions 
involved in this particular regulation, it is clearly exempt under the 
bill because any regulation that is necessary for the enforcement of 
criminal laws is specifically exempted from the provisions of this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, does the author have a question?
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have a quick 
question on the issue of them being exempted. These are not criminal 
issues, these are civil issues, so it would seem to me they do not fall 
under the exemption. But I would ask the gentleman from Indiana, who is 
an expert on H.R. 450, if he could enlighten me.
  Mr. McINTOSH. It is my understanding that the portions that would go 
to criminal activity which fraud is, would be exempt.
  In looking at the regulations a little bit further, since the 
gentleman brought this issue to our attention and I appreciate his 
working in this area, there are some significant problems with the 
proposed rule that the agency has put forward in this area of 
provisions that go beyond the statute, that authorize the rulemaking, 
expanding the definition of telemarketing to pick up what some people 
are concerned are legitimate buys activities. That type of expansive 
rulemaking provision would not fit under the exemption for criminal 
law.
  If it is a civil provision, then the gentleman is correct, it would 
not be.
  Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman will yield, this is a civil matter, and 
the statute did not make this part of the U.S. Criminal Code at all, so 
this is entirely civil issues that do not fall under the exemption as 
it is presently written.
  Mr. McINTOSH. The gentleman is correct if it is a civil matter and 
not a criminal matter, then it would not fit under that exemption.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Nonetheless, I would recommend that the body vote 
against this amendment because of the nature of these proposed rules 
which have come out on February 14 that are very expansive and could be 
very burdensome for legitimate business activity. I think it would be 
wise for us to continue the moratorium on those rules and allow the 
agencies and relevant bodies in Congress to take a look at the issue 
and determine that we are not imposing an unnecessary burden.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Let me yield back my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Fifteen seconds please, only to say that I appreciate the 
gentleman's candor in indicating that it does not fall under the 
exemption. I do understand the gentleman's sincere belief, however, 
that nonetheless it should be opposed. I would hope those who voted in 
favor, neither you nor I was a Member of the 103d Congress where it 
passed 411 to 3, which I indicated, would support the action to deal 
with this issue, and I thank the gentleman from yielding.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Certainly.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 2 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume 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.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the Fattah amendment 
that would exclude telemarketing and consumer fraud regulations from 
the moratorium.
  Annually, Americans lose approximately $40 billion as a result of 
telemarketing scams. In response, last year we passed the Telemarketing 
and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994. This bill enjoyed 
broad bipartisan support, passing the House by a vote of 411 to 3.
  Pursuant to this act, the Federal Trade Commission has already issued 
proposed regulations to curtail telemarketing fraud, and is currently 
seeking public comment.
  However, H.R. 450 would prevent the FTC from moving forward to 
implement these important regulations.
  I cannot understand why the Members who supported this legislation 
last year would now wish to effectively nullify it during this 
moratorium period. Far too many individuals are defrauded each year 
through telemarketing scams. In failing to exclude these regulations, 
we create a windfall for the crooks preying on unwary citizens. Once 
again it will be open season for anyone who concocts a scheme to cheat 
our citizens.
  What are we supposed to tell our constituents who have been 
victimized by these schemes? Should we tell them that last year we 
thought that telemarketing fraud was a problem warranting legislation, 
but that this year we decided that it was not really a big problem, or 
that at least it was not problem enough to exclude it from the 
moratorium?
  If we do not adopt this amendment then these are questions that we 
all should be prepared to answer. I urge my colleagues to express 
support for the law that we overwhelmingly adopted in the last 
Congress, and therefore ask that they support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. How much time is remaining on each side, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah], 
the sponsor of the amendment, has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. I have the right to close, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the committee has the right to close.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I do not intend to take up the House's time much further with this. 
I would like to indicate that telemarketing fraud affects all of our 
constituents across this country and both small businesses and senior 
citizens have been the victims of up to the tune of some $40 billion. 
This has been a matter considered in congressional hearings over a 7-
year period. The Congress in both its Houses and by action of the 
President's signature acted last year.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of this committee, 
indicated in his initial remarks that he felt that this fell within the 
exemption. It has now been clarified by the sponsor of H.R. 450 that 
these regulations do not fall within that exemption and therefore it is 
up to us as to whether or not we want to make it clear that we want 
fraud, as it is being so prevalently displayed in the telemarketing 
field, ended in this country as soon as possible by voting in favor of 
my amendment and I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to give favorable consideration to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with this as with so many 
other things is that the Federal Trade Commission appears to be using a 
blunderbuss or even a cannon in cases where what they actually need is 
a fly swatter.
  The legislation which originally prompted the FTC to come with 
regulations was supported by the Direct Marketing Association which 
represents over a million, in fact about 1.6 million telemarketers in 
this country.
  The FTC, rather than going after the bad apples among them has said 
that they want to put regulations that restrict the entire industry. 
For example, one of the things in there they say is, well, if you have 
anything that you have not fulfilled under a prior agreement, then you 
cannot make any new contact with your client.
  Mr. Chairman, for example, I know of a company that employs a great 
number of people in Oklahoma, that has been operating for decades, that 
uses 
[[Page H2200]]  telemarketing to sell magazine subscriptions. They 
could not call to say do you want to renew your subscription until 
after it has already expired under what the FTC is trying to do.
  I see no reason to exempt the FTC from the application of the 
moratorium that is necessary to get a handle on regulations in this 
country, because they have shown they have the mindset that is all too 
typical, the mindset that it is going to take some time to get 
straightened out, to get squared away, so they focus on the people who 
are involved in fraud instead of saying our answer is to make everybody 
change their behavior instead of punishing the people who are out to 
defraud, to deceive, to commit a scam. That is the difficulty.
  That is why I rise in opposition to the amendment that is proposed by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] will be postponed.
                    amendment offered by mr. volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. 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. Volkmer: At the end of Section 5, 
     add the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Special Rulemaking.--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, 
     shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the Sheep Promotion, 
     Research and Information Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-407).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 23, 
1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] and a Member opposed, 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we have 
approximately 1 hour left and this is the last amendment that has been 
noticed at this time I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment be extended 5 minutes more on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Chairman, I would hate to object to the gentleman's amendment, but we 
have to because even though this amendment is under the unanimous-
consent agreement, there are other Members who have amendments that 
they want to offer, and although I respect the gentleman greatly I 
would have to object in order to protect their amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this is a very simple amendment. 
It would exempt from the moratorium the present rulemaking process that 
is ongoing in the Department of Agriculture pursuant to the Sheep 
Promotion Research and Information Act that we passed last year.
  This act was necessary because several years ago this Congress, at 
the behest of the gentleman from Texas, who is now the majority leader, 
leading the fight, did away with the wool and mohair program that we 
had that helped our sheep producers throughout this country. As a 
result, that act, that promotion, that law will expire January 1, 1994.
  Knowing that, some of us who have sheep producers in our districts, 
working with the sheep industry came up with an idea of them to have 
their own program financed by themselves as a Sheep Promotion, 
Research, and Information Act. That act passed this Congress without 
difficulty.
  The USDA is now in the process of implementing that by regulation. If 
not exempted, if it is not specifically exempted, and I say that 
because I just this morning talked to the gentleman from Kansas, who is 
the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and he now agrees with 
me, even though he did not think so last night; he now agrees with me 
that this provision will not be able to be implemented by USDA. The 
regulation will have to come to a halt, and these sheep producers who 
want to do something for themselves without any cost to the Government 
will not be able to do so and, as a result, come January 1, you are 
going to have nothing there for them.
  What has happened to the sheep industry since we have pretty well 
abandoned them out there by the Government taking the action repealing 
their existing program in the past? We have seen a demise of 
approximately 18 percent. We are continuing to see a downflow.
  All they are asking is that they be given an opportunity to help 
themselves, not for government to help them, but to help themselves.
  I have a letter from the American Sheep Industry Association.

       We sincerely appreciate your effort to show that inclusion 
     of the sheep promotion program in the regulatory moratorium 
     would only hurt the producers of lamb and wool who ask for 
     the implementation. There is absolutely no cost to the 
     Federal Government. The cost of the referendum and all 
     oversight costs are paid by the sheep industry.

  Now, I realize, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, that this 
little thing is not much different as far as exemption than the 
amendment early on yesterday morning by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] which was accepted by the other side, and was passed without 
any vote in this body, but because Harold Volkmer is offering this 
amendment, because the gentleman from Missouri is offering the 
amendment, there is no question that they are not going to accept it.
  We have been trying to work with them to see the light, to see that 
this is not going to undo their whole bill. It is just going to help a 
bunch of sheep producers, hard-working American people, paying taxes. 
Of course, they cannot pay as much under this bill. They are going to 
pay less, because we are going to lose a whole bunch more, and I do not 
understand why. They are not going to hurt me by defeating this 
amendment. They are only going to hurt a bunch of hard-working American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me say I appreciate the effort to 
make clear that we can allow those regulations to go forward.
  It is the opinion of the committee and the authors of this 
legislation that a specific amendment is not necessary to allow those 
regulations to go forward. Yesterday the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] entered into a 
colloquy that made it clear that we could allow marketing orders and 
other routine administrative regulations the Department of Agriculture 
has to go forward.
  This particular program, I realize, presents a unique issue, because 
the law was changed last year to allow a voluntary checkoff program for 
sheep and replaced an earlier act of Congress that was a Government-run 
program.
  It is our understanding that this type of regulation would be exempt 
under section 6(3)(b)(i) that provides for regulations that are 
streamlining. Since this program would be administered by the 
Department as a checkoff from the private sector, it would be 
streamlining and reduce the burden and, therefore, be eligible to go 
forward under the exemptions under the law.
  For that reason, I would recommend that we vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. What law school is the gentleman a graduate of?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Fine. That is what I thought.
   [[Page H2201]] Mr. McINTOSH. I am quite proud of that. I studied 
under Justice Scalia, who was a professor at the time, and I am very 
pleased with the legal education of that institution.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would like to point out to the House that even though the gentleman 
from Indiana says that it is exempt under the present law, I can find 
no other person in this body, including the chairman of the House 
Committee on Agriculture, that agrees with him. All the general staff 
of the USDA, the attorneys there, and even though I am only a graduate 
of the University of Missouri Law School and not the Chicago Law 
School, I do not know what kind of law they teach up there, but reading 
the law and reading what proposed regulations there are leads me to 
believe the gentleman from Indiana just does not know how to read the 
law.
  And I appreciate he just does not want any amendment that is offered 
by the gentleman from Missouri to pass, but that is kind of mean-
spirited. That is not hurting the gentleman from Missouri. You are only 
hurting sheep producers out there who are hard-working American people 
who want to do something for themselves, by themselves, but they have 
to have a regulation that is passed pursuant to an act by the 
Government.
  The gentleman is trying to fool the House. The gentleman from Indiana 
is trying to fool the House. He says that it is exempt under that 
provision for streamlining. This does not have anything to do with 
streamlining, the gentleman from Indiana, one solitary thing. You 
better go back to law school. It has nothing to do with streamlining. 
It has to do with exempting a new law.
  There has been no law on the books that has to do with a sheep 
promotion and research project whatsoever. Therefore, folks, do not be 
fooled. If you do not accept this amendment, then you are telling those 
sheep producers out there not only in my district but throughout the 
West and other parts of this country that you do not want them. The 
gentleman from Indiana is telling them that you do not want them to 
have this sheep promotion program, that they will benefit themselves 
with their own money, not with Government money, not with Government 
doing anything about it.
  It is mean-spirited. It is John Bircher type of legislation.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is not about mean-spiritedness. It is 
obviously about a difference of opinion as to the exemptions and what 
they allow and do not allow.
  The gentleman from Missouri feels that his program, the mohair 
program, would not be permitted to be exempt. I think there is an 
honest difference of opinion about that.
  I think you are right, that the colloquy that was held yesterday 
between myself and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], we 
thought at the time, would have covered that, because it did cover a 
number of things on a routine basis. That was clearly perhaps not 
included within the parameters of that colloquy, which is why we have 
worked with the gentleman, worked with the gentleman's staff over the 
morning to try to address that and have come to the conclusion that the 
exemption that would apply in this instance, the gentleman does not 
agree, but the exemption that would apply here is that this is a 
streamlining, this is in fact making things easier for the sheepherders 
and the people who are involved in this program. It is taking away a 
burden that they have on them.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Did not the gentleman from Kansas, the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, say or tell you words to the effect that he 
agreed that this amendment was necessary this morning?
  Mr. CLINGER. I would tell the gentleman he did not tell me he thought 
it was necessary. He suggested that perhaps that it might be something 
that could be accepted. We are just saying we do not think it is 
necessary, because, in fact, it would be exempt under the streamlining 
provision.

                              {time}  1210

  So I would urge a vote against the amendment, unfortunately against 
the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by Mr. 
Volkmer. Last October, the 103d Congress passed the Sheep Research and 
Promotion Act. This program could establish a national check-off 
program to provide funds for promotion, research, and information 
programs that will benefit sheep and wool growers.
  This bill has been promulgated into rules that will enable the 
Department of Agriculture to implement the check-off program. This 
proposed self-help program was designed to allow promotion activities 
to begin when current authority expires January 1, 1996.
  A delay in the rulemaking process will leave the U.S. sheep industry 
without a much needed national promotion program for sheep and sheep 
product promotion, research and information.
  I want to emphasize that the check-off imposes no cost to the 
Government; the sheep industry check-off reimburses the cost of 
referendum, administration and compliance. This new program is needed 
to promote equity and fairness for American ranchers and help them 
compete in the global market.
  Again, this rulemaking has absolutely no cost to the Federal 
Government. The cost of the referendum and all oversight costs are paid 
by the sheep industry.
  This check-off is similar to the 18 other commodity check-offs. The 
sheep industry should have an opportunity to vote on a self-help 
promotion similar to other agriculture industries like cotton, beef, 
and pork.
  During the last Congress we passed a bill that phases out the Wool 
Act this December. The new check-off program would kick in on January 
1, 1996. The moratorium places this program in jeopardy.
  The death of the act means ranchers have to find a new way to do 
business so they can still provide for their families. This self-help 
program will allow then to help themselves promote their products.
  More than 350,000 Americans in small communities depend on income 
generated by the sheep industry. Wool sales contributed approximately 
$70 million to rural communities in 1992, and the sheep industry 
contributes about $2 billion to the GNP.
  The sheep industry is a vital cog in my district's economic engine. 
The 23d District of Texas has 86 percent of the sheep which produced 86 
percent of the wool over the past 2 years in Texas. I am proud of this 
industry and proud of what they do to help the rural and Texas economy. 
This program is another tool to assist in building up and maintaining a 
strong domestic industry.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Volkmer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] will be postponed.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on 
which further proceedings were postponed in the following order: The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Wise, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     amendment offered by mr. wise

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
                      [[Page H2202]] recorded vote

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chaiman, I renew my demand, for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 228, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               AYES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     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
     Laughlin
     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
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     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
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--228

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     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
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     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
     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
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     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
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Smith (NJ)
     Towns

                              {time}  1229

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. OLVER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 23, 1995, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed 
further consideration.


              amendment offered by mr. gene green of texas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 241, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               AYES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     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
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--241

     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
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     [[Page H2203]] Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     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
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     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
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     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
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Allard
     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Costello
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Smith (NJ)
     Towns

                              {time}  1237

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1240


                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 271, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--145

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

                               NOES--271

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     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
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     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
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     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
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     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--18

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Boehner
     Chenoweth
     Costello
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Miller (FL)
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Torricelli
     Towns

                              {time}  1245

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. fattah

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  [[Page H2204]] The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 254, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--168

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     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
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     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--254

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     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
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     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)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     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
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     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)
     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--12

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Costello
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1253

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. volkmer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. A recorded vote has been demanded on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 253, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               AYES--168

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--253

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     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
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     [[Page H2205]] Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Barr
     Barton
     Becerra
     Costello
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Luther
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Rush

                              {time}  1300

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 450, the 
Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. While this bill in its current form 
is not without its flaws, I am supporting the bill in response to the 
frustration my constituents are feeling about regulatory burdens.
  H.R. 450 imposes a moratorium on the implementation of new Federal 
regulations issued between November 20, 1994, and December 31, 1995, 
except those which address an imminent threat to health or safety. But 
rather than being a blind, across-the-board slashing of regulations, 
this legislation also exempts regulations that are subject to court-
mandated deadlines or are essential for enforcement of criminal laws.
  The bill's provisions will not apply to rulemaking actions in the 
case of certain emergencies. An emergency exemption would be granted 
when seen as necessary because of ``the existence of any condition, 
circumstances, or practice reasonably expected to cause death, serious 
illness, or severe injury to humans, or substantial endangerment to 
private property, during the moratorium period,'' or necessary for 
``the enforcement of criminal laws.''
  The bill's regulatory rulemaking section excludes rulemaking actions 
that are limited to repealing, narrowing, or streamlining a rule, 
regulation, or administrative process or otherwise reducing regulatory 
burdens. It also makes exception for rulemakings related to military or 
foreign affairs functions, to any statutes implementing an 
international trade agreement, and to agency management, personal, 
public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. As a safeguard, 
a senior official within the executive branch must certify that the 
regulation meets the standards for exception and exclusion before a 
regulation qualifies.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not one given to casting votes for their symbolic 
value. My constituents have placed their trust in me to be their voice 
on these issues. My vote here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives is a great honor and tremendous responsibility--one 
that I take very seriously. I am voting for final passage of H.R. 450 
in support of the community leaders, small businessowners, and 
individual citizens in my district who have expressed their frustration 
with regulatory burdens.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I believe we do need to reform many of our 
regulations. Some are arbitrary, unnecessary, and even 
counterproductive, but any blanket approach that stops all regulations 
is a serious error that will turn back the clock. The American people 
do not want to overturn regulations that protect their health, safety, 
and our environment.
  For example, this moratorium bill will suspend vital regulations that 
protect our Great Lakes--the world's largest fresh water system and a 
critical economic and environmental resource. The bill suspends 
regulations that control ballast water discharges from foreign ships 
who sail up the Hudson River into the Great Lakes.
  In the Great Lakes, we know a thing or two about ballast water. In 
1988, we discovered a new species native to the Caspian Sea known as 
the zebra mussel. The zebra mussel was introduced into our Great Lakes 
by a foreign ship's irresponsible ballast water discharge. The zebra 
mussel has clogged water intake pipes, polluted our beaches, and is 
causing irrevocable harm to an environment that existed for tens of 
thousands of years.
  In 1990, we passed legislation to prevent further infestations from 
ballast water. On December 30, 1994 these regulations were applied to 
the Hudson River which connects to the Great Lakes, because we realized 
that the program was useless unless it was inclusive. This moratorium 
suspends those regulations and many others that affect the health and 
safety of the American public.
  This legislation says to the people in the 10th district of Michigan, 
and to everyone along the Great Lakes: We don't care about the water 
you drink, we don't care about the pollution of your beaches, and we 
don't care about the most important recreational and economic resource 
you have.
  To the families in Harrison Township who had to smell nothing but 
dead fish and seaweed last summer these regulations mean a lot. The 
presence of the zebra mussel is a threat to the Great Lakes and the 
quality of life for all of us who live near them. The people of 
Michigan want to help find solutions to specific problems--they do not 
support an irresponsible blanket moratorium from Washington. For these 
reasons and others, I oppose this indiscriminate approach.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, I offered an amendment to 
grant an extra 6 months of regulatory relief for small business. The 
amendment received overwhelming suport, showing that the Members of 
this body are dedicated to helping America's small businessowners 
provide jobs and economic opportunity in their communities.
  I would like to submit for the Record, letters of support for my 
amendment from the National Federation of Independent Business and the 
National Association of Homebuilders. These organizations represent key 
members of the small business community, and I thank them for their 
support.
                                                February 17, 1995.
     Hon. Randy Tate,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Tate: On behalf of the over 600,000 
     members of the National Federation of Independent Business 
     (NFIB), I am writing to express our strong support for your 
     proposed amendment to H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition 
     Act, to extend the moratorium on regulations for small 
     business.
       Federal regulations is an overwhelming burden on America's 
     small businesses and costs millions of dollars in lost 
     productivity and thousands of jobs each year. Your amendment 
     calls for six more months of regulatory relief for businesses 
     with 100 employees or less. If your amendment passes, federal 
     regulations promulgated between November 20 and the effective 
     date of the Act would not apply to businesses with 100 
     employees or less, until June 30, 1996. In addition, it would 
     also prohibit the promulgation of new federal regulations 
     from the effective date of the Act and June 30, 1996. If your 
     amendment passes, small business owners throughout this 
     country will be able to continue to do what they can do 
     best--create good paying jobs and generate economic growth.
       Over the years, NFIB surveys have indicated that the burden 
     of federal regulations is the fastest growing problem for 
     small business. Most recently, in a 1994 Small Business 
     Economic Trends survey, federal regulations were identified 
     as one of the top two problems jeopardizing the survival of 
     many small businesses. Regulatory relief is a top priority 
     for NFIB's members, and clearly, your amendment goes a long 
     way to protect small businesses from burdensome and 
     unnecessary government regulation.
       I want to commend you and thank you again for your efforts 
     on behalf of all small business owners in this country.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                           Vice President, Federal
     Governmental Relations.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Home Builders,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1995.
       Dear Representative: It is my current understanding that on 
     Friday, February 24, Congressman Randy Tate is expected to 
     offer a House floor amendment to H.R. 450, the Regulatory 
     Transition Act (``the Act''), that would provide an 
     additional six months of Federal regulatory relief under the 
     bill for small businesses of 100 employees or less. On 
     [[Page H2206]]  behalf of the 180,000 member firms of the 
     National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I strongly urge 
     you to support this important amendment.
       Too often, the common notion of a home builder tends to be 
     that of a ``high-volume'' constructor, someone with the 
     perceived ability to spread production and regulatory costs 
     across many projects. In contrast, the majority of NAHB 
     member firms are truly small businesses, primarily engaged in 
     home-remodeling and the construction of single family homes. 
     Indeed, over half of our builder members produce fewer than 
     10 homes per year and close to 75 percent build 25 or fewer 
     homes.
       Unfortunately, the housing industry is one of the--if not 
     the most--heavily regulated sectors of the American economy. 
     The compliance costs generated by so many unnecessary and 
     duplicative Federal rules are inevitably passed along as an 
     indirect tax on the housing consumer--depriving many 
     potential first-time home buyers of the American Dream of 
     home ownership.
       The Tate amendment provides that Federal regulations 
     promulgated between November 20 and the effective date of the 
     Act will not apply to businesses with 100 employees or less 
     until June 30, 1996. Additionally, it would also prohibit the 
     promulgation of new Federal rules from the effective date of 
     the Act through June 30, 1996.
       Passage of the Tate amendment will relieve small builders 
     from any added regulatory burden until such time as the 
     Congress and Administration thoroughly review the current 
     regulatory process. In short, a ``Yes'' vote on the Tate 
     amendment is a vote for the delivery of quality, affordable 
     housing by the small firms that produce such a large 
     percentage of our nation's private housing stock. Your 
     consideration of the views expressed in this letter is 
     greatly appreciated.
           Best regards,
                                                  James R. Irvine.

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a bipartisan amendment 
which I have cosponsored, along with Congressmen Condit, Combest, Lamar 
Smith, Chet Edwards, and Bonilla. This amendment would provide the 
necessary assurance that proposed designations of any species or 
critical habitat will indeed coincide with the reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  In my home State of Louisiana, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
proposed, under section 3 of the Endangered Species Act, to designate a 
critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear. This critical habitat 
would cover over 10 percent of our land mass, much of which is not the 
natural habitat of the bear, thus potentially impacting private 
landowners, along with hunters and fishermen who utilize these private 
lands, with little benefit toward the preservation of the bear. Both 
the property owners and the users have worked voluntarily toward the 
conservation of the bear.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that most activities on 
private lands will not be affected by the designation, unless such 
actions are subject to Federal permitting requirements. The Service has 
made particular reference to section 404 permits of the Clean Water Act 
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--corps. While the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife has indicated that no permit requirements would be 
added because of the designation, they fail to recognize that the 
topography of Louisiana is such that much of our property is subject to 
the section 404 permitting process.
  The bill before us, H.R. 450, would delay the proposed critical 
habitat until after the end of 1995. With the institution of a 
regulatory moratorium, all critical habitat designations will be 
scrutinized carefully before the final rules are issued.
  The bipartisan amendment simply would extend the moratorium on such 
designations until Congress addresses the problems with the current 
program. In this way, we can ensure that the rights and best interests 
of not only landowners but also the bear and all endangered species are 
appropriately protected.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the Norton amendment, as 
amended by the McIntosh amendment, contained both unnecessary and 
inflammatory language. While the amendment excluded civil rights 
regulations from the moratorium, it also stated that any preferences 
based on age, race, gender, national origin, handicap, or disability 
status, would be subject to the moratorium.
  While I commend my colleagues for voting to protect the civil rights 
of Americans, I believe that the language added to the amendment that 
would subject preferences to the moratorium, will later be used for 
divisive and political purposes. My fear is that many Republicans will 
try to assert that all who voted in favor of the Norton amendment, also 
voted to do away with preferences. I do not believe this to be the 
case. However, to guard against that likely claim, I voted ``present.''
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 450, the 
Regulatory Moratorium Act. I had hoped to offer an amendment earlier 
today to exempt the SEC from this moratorium. But the Republican 
leadership and the House Rules Committee did not provide sufficient 
time for me and other Members to offer our amendments on this important 
piece of legislation.
  Yesterday, the House voted to provide an exemption for those laws 
prohibiting discrimination. The House even provided an exemption to 
ensure bird hunters can hunt this season. Yet we will not consider an 
exemption for the individual investors who have placed their savings 
and their future in mutual funds. Unfortunately, these middle-class 
investors are not guaranteed the same protections as bird hunters. This 
is wrong.
  With many more Americans investing in securities, the need for the 
SEC to protect these assets is crucial. In fact, Chairman Levitt of the 
SEC has sent me a letter strongly requesting this exemption. I consider 
it hypocritical that other banking regulators were exempted from this 
moratorium, while the SEC was not.
  This moratorium is another example of reckless legislating by the 
Republican majority. We must make Government more accountable and more 
efficient, but that does not mean passing a moratorium that threatens 
the protection of small investors. If this moratorium is a runaway 
train, I want to make sure middle-class savers aren't tied to the 
tracks. My amendment would have guaranteed that money market accounts 
and other SEC regulations that Americans depend upon would have been 
protected.
  For these reasons, I will oppose the Regulatory Moratorium Act.
                               Securities and Exchange Commission,
                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1995.
     Hon. William F. Clinger,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Securities and Exchange Commission 
     supports an amendment that will be offered in connection with 
     consideration of H.R. 450, the ``Regulatory Transition Act of 
     1995'' that would exempt SEC rules from the provisions of 
     H.R. 450.
       A number of important SEC rules could be delayed or 
     suspended by H.R. 450. The bill could suspend the SEC's rule 
     providing for three-day settlement of securities trades, 
     requiring a transition back to five-day settlement; the bill 
     could also affect rules to simplify the process of obtaining 
     unlisted trading privileges (UTP) for a security listed on 
     another exchange. In addition, the bill could suspend the 
     SEC's new municipal disclosure rules that are designed to 
     fill serious gaps in the information available regarding 
     these securities. The moratorium could also suspend work on 
     rules to improve disclosure by corporate issuers and mutual 
     funds regarding derivatives and other risks.
       These and other SEC rules are necessary to protect 
     investors and the securities markets. The amendment to H.R. 
     450 to exempt SEC rules is thus necessary and appropriate, 
     and I respectfully request your support.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Arthur Levitt.

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, because of the restrictive rule I was 
unable to offer an important amendment to H.R. 450 that would have 
benefited native American tribes across the Nation. I hope to work with 
my colleagues in conference and in the Senate to include these 
important provisions. My amendment to section 6(3)(B) of H.R. 450, as 
reported, would exempt negotiated rulemaking relating to Indian 
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, compacts, and annual funding 
agreements authorized under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act from the moratorium on rulemaking.
  Last year, Congress passed Public Law 103-413 which directed the 
Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services to enter into 
negotiated rulemaking with Indian tribes in order to promulgate 
regulations governing Indian Self-Determination Act, ``638'', contracts 
and self-governance compacts.
  The reason Congress took action is because for 6 years the 
Departments ignored the congressional directives contained in 1988 
amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act. The 1988 amendments 
were intended to permit greater tribal self-determination by 
simplifying the contracting process and by reducing needless layers of 
Federal bureaucracy. The Departments, however, never promulgated any 
regulations to implement those policies.
  Public Law 103-413 streamlines the 638 contracting and self-
governance compacting processes and repeals unnecessary Federal 
regulations, thus reaffirming the policies embodied in the 1988 
amendments.
  A moratorium on all rulemaking as provided in H.R. 450 would negate 
the purpose and effect of the mandates of Congress in Public Law 103-
413. Tribes worked tirelessly for 7 years to ensure that the 
bureaucracy would not impede their efforts to achieve self-
determination. But, H.R. 450 would inadvertently undercut all of their 
achievements as well as 
[[Page H2207]]  the congressional policy of fostering tribal self-
determination.
  The amendment offered is consistent with the policy driving H.R. 
450--to reduce excessive and unnecessary regulatory burdens--and will 
help tribes in their struggle to reduce the Federal bureaucracy by 
taking over functions that they, not Washington, can better handle.
 Amendment to H.R. 450, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Richardson of New 
         Mexico, Submitted for Printing Under Clause 6, Rule 23

       In Section 6(3)(B), strike ``or'' at the end of clause 
     (iv), strike the period at the end of clause (v) and insert 
     ``; or'', and insert after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) any agency action that is taken by an agency to meet 
     the negotiated rulemaking requirements of Pub. L. No. 103-
     413, the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994.''

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my 
support, for now, for this deeply flawed legislation, with the 
understanding that I will not be able to support the conference report 
which will return from the Senate unless this legislation is 
significantly improved by the Senate or by the conference committee. I 
am concerned that the legislation as it stands could cause confusion 
and an enormous amount of litigation. It is also possible that the 
current language, if contained in the final version of this bill, could 
interfere with a wide range of needed agricultural rulemaking involving 
beef, sheep, hogs, and soybeans in particular. I also have a real 
concern that the existing language would interfere with rulemaking 
needed on behalf of the ethanol fuels industry.
  In short, I want to send a message that I believe that Federal 
rulemaking has too often been heavy-handed, rigid, and cost-
inefficient. I am hopeful that this legislation can be modified as it 
progresses through the legislative process so that its shortcomings are 
corrected. Nonetheless, I want to make it very clear that I will not be 
able to vote for this bill when and if it returns to us from the Senate 
unless the existing language problems are corrected.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, because of the restrictive rules under 
the Republican majority, I was prohibited from offering the amendment 
described below. I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate and in 
conference to include these important provisions.
  As my colleagues know from my earlier comments on this bill, this 
regulatory moratorium legislation is a bad idea multiplied by a power 
of 10.
  By simply freezing all regulations--the good with the bad--it does 
more than throw the baby out with the bathwater: it throws out the 
whole nursery.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Lands, I am very concerned about the effect of this 
misguided legislation on the ability of Federal land management 
agencies to carry out their significant historical statutory 
responsibilities.
  My amendment would exempt the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest 
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service 
from the provisions of this act that would severely limit their ability 
to implement national standards for the rational use of protected 
Federal land.
  Without my amendment, this bill is a glaring example of using a meat 
cleaver when a scalpel would have been more appropriate.
  In its rush to judgment on this legislation, Congress is rushing to 
battle on regulations that in many cases are useful and necessary.
  As an example, Mr. Chairman, allow me to cite some of the many useful 
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Indian 
Affairs regulations currently under consideration which would be held 
hostage by this legislation: Regulations to reclassify the bald eagle 
as no longer endangered; regulations affecting the establishment of 
manatee protection areas in two national wildlife refuges in Florida; 
regulations affecting establishment of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act; regulations affecting a wide range of activities in Alaska, 
including: Cabin management regulations on national wildlife refuges; 
vessel management in Glacier Bay; Alaska fishing regulations for 
Glacier Bay National Park; regulations affecting solid waste disposal 
sites in the National Park System; Regulations setting minimum academic 
standards for the basic education of Indian children and national 
criteria for dormitory situations under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs.
  Precious national landmarks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand 
Canyon deserve preservation for future generations. It would be folly 
to do otherwise.
  Without my amendment, the National Park Service and the other Federal 
land management agencies will have their hands tied: they will be 
barred from promulgating regulations that benefit the public and 
promote responsible Federal land management activities.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people spoke loudly and clearly in 
November that they wanted Government to be more responsive to their 
concerns.
  They did not say they wanted government to be bottled up by 
artificial delays to implement necessary and reasonable regulations.
  In fact, a recent Time magazine poll found that 88 percent of 
Americans consider environmental protection either ``one of the most 
important'' or ``very important'' issues facing the Nation at this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a reasonable amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to support this responsible attempt to moderate 
what is otherwise a radical assault on the ability of the Federal 
Government to protect the public from harm and preserve the environment 
and natural resources from further damage.
  The preservation of the Nation's heritage should not be shunted aside 
by attempts to scale back even the reasonable regulations of the 
Federal Government.
 Amendment to H.R. 450, as Reported, Offered By Mr. Richardson of New 
                                 Mexico

       At the end of the bill add the following new section:

     SEC.   . RULES OF FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES NOT 
                   AFFECTED.

       Nothing in this Act shall affect the ability of the Federal 
     land management agencies (including the Bureau of Land 
     Management, the United States Forest Service, the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park 
     Service) to promulgate and implement rules affecting use of 
     or action on Federal lands within the boundaries of 
     authorized units of the national conservation system.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 93, all time for the 
consideration of amendments has expired. No further amendments are in 
order.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Walker) 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, 
pursuant to House Resolution 93, he reported the bill back to the House 
with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Clinger) 
there were--ayes 132, noes 91.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         motion to recommit offered by mrs. collins of illinois

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Yes, I am, in its present form, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     450 to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of section 5, add the following new subsection:
       (c) Drinking Water Safety.--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, 
     shall not apply to 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.

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the motion I am making is to 
recommit the bill to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
with instructions to report it back to the House.
  [[Page H2208]] Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit 
probably could not be more simple. It deals with the most simple 
element known to mankind, water. More specifically, it deals with the 
basic safety of our Nation's drinking water.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from Milwaukee where 3 years ago over 400,000 
people fell sick as a result of the parasite Cryptosporidium. Over 100 
deaths were attributed directly or indirectly to this and 400,000 
people in my community fell ill as a result of this parasite.
  The people in my community have dealt with this tragedy, we have 
moved forward, we have cleaned up our water supply, and now the issue 
is whether the Federal Government has a responsibility or a role to 
play in helping other communities avoid the tragedy that befell 
Milwaukee.
  The EPA has responded and is moving forward orderly to promulgate 
rules to deal with the drinking water supply in our Nation.
  I was talking to a friend of mine last night, and he said, ``Isn't it 
hypocritical for Congress to care more about duck hunting season than 
our drinking supply?'' And I said, ``No, no, no, you don't understand 
the new Congress. I'll tell you what the new Congress is all about. If 
you're a duck in this country, you better be on guard. If you're a 
goose, you better be on guard. But if you're a young person who died 
from E. coli like the young person we heard about yesterday, or if you 
suffer from cryptosporidium, you also should be on guard. Because this 
Congress has decided that we don't care about our drinking water supply 
in this Nation.''
  And he said, ``But why can't Congress create an exception for 
drinking water?''
  I said, ``It's not one of the priorities. Duck hunting's a priority. 
But safe drinking water is not a priority in this country.''

                              {time}  1310

  I think that that is the message that the American people should get 
from this debate.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 
Unfortunately, the new House does not believe in protecting small 
investors because they refuse to consider an amendment which would have 
exempted the Securities and Exchange Commission which they asked to be 
exempted from this, so small investors, when more Americans today are 
investing in mutual funds than putting their money in banks we are 
going to shut down the SEC with this legislation. So I think the 
gentleman can add that to his list.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Again, the basic point here is quite 
simple. I think we did the right thing yesterday in passing an 
exemption for duck hunting season. I think the duck hunting season 
should go forward in this country, but I also believe very strongly 
that the Federal Government has a role, and it is a good role, to make 
sure that our Nation's drinking water is safe.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple and 
straightforward. H.R. 450 should make clear that regulations governing 
the basic safety of our Nation's drinking water are exempted from the 
moratorium.
  Last night we voted to exempt duck hunting. At the very least we 
should vote to exempt water quality and testing for the safety of our 
citizens from this moratorium.
  The parasite Cryptosporidium is in our water. As my colleague, Mr. 
Barrett, noted, however, 40 people died in Milwaukee recently and over 
400,000 became ill.
  Recently Cryptosporidium has been detected in New York City's water 
supply and no one yet knows how widespread the danger is in New York 
City and in other cities across this country. This bill would halt 
efforts to find out.
  Cryptosporidium is not taking a moratorium. Parasites do not take a 
moratorium and public safety should not take a moratorium. Vote for the 
motion.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my 
time to the other gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], the only 
bacteriologist in the House of Representatives.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I know that no Member of the House of 
Representatives wants to be responsible for the fact that we have 
stopped the new regulations on food inspection on meat and poultry. I 
know the fact that 4,000 or 5,000 people will die each year because of 
that is not anything that Members want. But this morning we have to 
talk about Cryptosporidium. We cannot avoid the water. Maybe you are a 
vegetarian and you are not going to eat the meat, but remember when we 
came back to Washington last year, those of us who served here, and 
found that the entire water supply in the City of Washington and 
Northern Virginia had been shutdown and there was no bottled water to 
be had and people were worried about the hospitals and babies and we 
did not know how long this was going to last.
  We simply cannot avoid it. It makes no sense from any standpoint, 
legislatively or from the standpoint of public health that we would 
stop the regulations being put forth when we find Cryptosporidium in 
the water supply of the United States. A Third World country would do 
it; can't we?
  I urge Members to vote for this motion to recommit so we can right 
this wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to say I think 
the ducks have been getting a bum rap here frankly because we did 
indeed provide an exemption because there was no exemption in this bill 
to cover the migratory bird situation.
  There is an exemption, however in this bill to provide for the sorts 
of things that are covered by this motion to recommit. The elements 
that have been mentioned here are threats to health and safety. When we 
talk about microbiology and disinfection of products, this would come 
under health and safety, and therefore, there was no need too provide a 
specific exemption for these things because they can be covered under 
that.
  Beyond that, however, the environmental regulations, some of them 
have been the most onerous and need to be carefully reviewed and looked 
at in this process in the moratorium.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we need this bill in not 
because of some Trojan Horse for health and safety. We have fully 
protected health and safety. As the Members of this body have seen time 
and time again, this exemption right here will allow the administration 
to take any rulemaking necessary to protect health and safety. Perhaps 
they are not competent enough to do so.
  But the real issue in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is are we on the side 
of the American people and against the army of bureaucrats who produced 
this avalanche of new regulations in just 1 year under the Clinton 
administration?
  I say to Members this Republican Congress is going to stand up and 
put an end to the hidden tax and regulations and stand up for the 
American people.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Is there a moratorium on snakes in this resolution?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important that we proceed 
with this moratorium on regulations so that a year from now we do not 
see another pile of new burdensome Federal regulations that impose a 
hidden tax on the American middle class, costing every family in this 
country $6,000 each year, higher car prices, higher food prices, jobs 
being sent overseas.
  There is an article in the Wall Street Journal that points out that 
if we do not act now to stop this avalanche of new regulations we could 
have a regulatory recession in this country. It is time to vote yes for 
a moratorium, put an end to burdensome unnecessary regulations and 
stand up for the American people and not on the side of the army of 
bureaucrats here in Washington.
   [[Page H2209]] Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, a proposed EPA regulation would allow 
companies to continue to produce carbon tetrachlorides for export for 
feed stock use. Without this regulation these companies would be 
severely limited and could lose foreign customers.
  It is my opinion and belief that this proposed regulation is covered 
under the exemption from the moratorium for rules that repeal, narrow, 
streamline or otherwise reduce a regulatory burden, and I wanted the 
chairman's opinion.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. CLINGER. I would agree with the belief and opinion of the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think the 
chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], is in agreement 
with this opinion?
  Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield, yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the motion to recommit 
the bill, I have a question for the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh].
  Has the gentleman had a chance to read the Federal implementation 
plan for California that EPA has promulgated under the Clean Air Act 
which I have in front of me?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. No. I have not been able to read through the 1,700 
pages of this regulation, but I understand that it would virtually shut 
down the economy of southern California, close down a third of the 
flights at LAX, put an end to barbecues in the backyard.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Barbecues in the backyard?
  Mr. McINTOSH. All in the name of supposed benefits.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I understand this regulation which would be stopped 
by our moratorium would do great damage to the economy of California.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Subcommittee Chairman, it seems to me this FIP is a 
good example of why the regulatory moratorium is needed, so that we can 
assess just exactly what agencies are doing and whether they are going 
beyond what Congress originally intended.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to 
recommit, and a vote in favor of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Without objection the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 250, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     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
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     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--250

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     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
     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)
     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)
     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
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     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
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     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--12

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Costello
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Kaptur
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Rush

                              {time}  1337

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 146, not voting 13, as follows:
                     [[Page H2210]] [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--276

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     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
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     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)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     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
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--146

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Costello
     Deutsch
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Moorhead
     Ortiz
     Rush

                              {time}  1358

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Barton for, with Mr. Costello against.
       Mr. Moorhead for, with Mr. Deutsch against.
       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Becerra against.

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts and Mr. MEEHAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, on a number of votes I was unavoidably 
detained and not available on the floor, I ask that the Record reflect 
how I would have voted on those.
  On vote No. 160, I would have voted ``yes.'' Vote No. 161, the 
Slaughter amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' Vote 162, the Spratt 
amendment, ``yes.'' The Waxman amendment, vote No. 163, ``yes.'' And 
the Collins amendment, 164, ``yes.'' And on the Norton amendment, 165, 
I would have voted ``present.''
  I ask that the Record reflect these votes.

                          ____________________