[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2374-H2376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 926, REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF 
                                  ACT

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 100

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 926) to promote regulatory flexibility and 
     enhance public participation in Federal agency rulemaking, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed ninety minutes, with sixty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and thirty 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by 
     section. Each title shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). The gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to insert extraneous 
material into the Record.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 100 is a very simple 
resolution. It is an open rule providing for 90 minutes of general 
debate. Sixty minutes shall be equally divided between the chairman and 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
Additionally, 30 minutes is to be equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
Business. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule. Finally, this resolution provides 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This open rule 
was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote.
  This open rule demonstrates that the new majority intends to honor 
its commitment to have a more fair and open legislative process. The 
resolution provides the House with an opportunity to review the bill, 
debate it, and yes, if necessary, to amend the legislation. To date, 83 
percent of the rules reported out of the Committee on Rules have been 
open, or modified open, rules. This is a dramatic contrast between the 
44 percent of open, or modified open, rules reported out of the 
committee during the 103d Congress.
  The legislation is designed to improve the Federal regulatory system 
by: First, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 
second, amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require the 
preparation of regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule is 
promulgated by a Federal agency, and third, directing the President to 
prescribe regulations for the executive branch aimed at protecting 
citizens from abuse and retaliation in their dealing with the 
regulatory system.
  One particular provision of this legislation is very important. By 
deleting the prohibition against judicial review contained in section 
611 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we will prevent Federal agencies 
from merely including boilerplate provisions certifying that a proposed 
regulation will not have a significant impact upon a substantial number 
of small entities. Even the National Performance Review, which was 
chaired by Vice President Gore, made the deletion of the ban against 
judicial review its primary recommendation with respect to the Small 
Business Administration. I am pleased to see this provision included in 
the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the following:

     THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES    
              COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS             
                          [As of Feb. 27, 1995]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            103d Congress            104th Congress     
                     ---------------------------------------------------
      Rule type        Number of    Percent of   Number of    Percent of
                         rules        total        rules        total   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/modified-                                                          
 open\2\............           46           44           15           83
Modified closed\3\..           49           47            3           17
Closed\4\...........            9            9            0            0
                     ---------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2375]]
                                                                        
      Totals........          104          100           18          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original      
  consideration of bills, joint resolutions or budget resolutions and   
  which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special  
  rules which only waive points of order against appropriations bills   
  which are already privileged and are considered under an open         
  amendment process under House rules.                                  
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane       
  amendment under the five-minute rule. A modified open rule is one     
  under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-  
  minute rule subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment    
  process and/or a requirement that the amendment be preprinted in the  
  Congressional Record.                                                 
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits 
  the amendments that may be offered only to those amendments designated
  in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or 
  which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even     
  though the rest of the bill may be completely open to amendment.      
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other 
  than amendments recommended by the committee in reporting the bill).  


      SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS     
                          [As of Feb. 27, 1995]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   H. Res. No.      Rule                                 Disposition of 
  (Date rept.)      type    Bill No.       Subject            rule      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/ O         H.R. 5    Unfunded mandate  A: 350-71 (1/19/
 95).                                  reform.           95)            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/ MC        H. Con    Social Security.  A: 255-172 (1/25/
 95).                        Res. 17  Balanced budget    95)            
                            H.J.       amendment.                       
                             Res. 1                                     
H. Res. 51 (1/31/ O         H.R. 101  Land transfer,    A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  Taos Pueblo       1/95)          
                                       Indians.                         
H. Res. 52 (1/31/ O         H.R. 400  Land exchange,    A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  Arctic National   1/95)          
                                       Park and                         
                                       Preserve.                        
H. Res. 53 (1/31/ O         H.R. 440  Land conveyance,  A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  Butte County,     1/95)          
                                       CA.                              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/  O         H.R. 2    Line item veto..  A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                                    2/95)          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/  O         H.R. 665  Victim            A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  restitution.      7/95)          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/  O         H.R. 666  Exclusionary      A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  rule reform.      7/95)          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/  MO        H.R. 667  Violent criminal  A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  incarceration.    9/95)          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/  O         H.R. 668  Criminal alien    A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  deportation.      10/95)         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/ MO        H.R. 728  Law enforcement   A: voice vote (2/
 95).                                  block grants.     10/95)         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/ MO        H.R. 7    National          PQ: 229-100; A: 
 95).                                  security          227-127 (2/15/ 
                                       revitalization.   95)            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/ MC        H.R. 831  Health insurance  PQ: 230-191 A:  
 95).                                  deductibility.    229-188 (2/21/ 
                                                         95)            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/ 0         H.R. 830  Paperwork         A: v.v. (2/2/95)
 95).                                  Reduction Act.                   
H. Res. 92 (2/21/ MC        H.R. 889  Defense           A: 282-144 (2/22/
 95).                                  supplemental.     95)            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/ MO        H.R. 450  Regulatory        A: 252-175 (2/23/
 95).                                  Transition Act.   95)            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/ MO        H.R.      Risk assessment.  A: 253-165 (2/27/
 95).                        1022                        95)            
H. Res. 100 (2/   O         H.R. 926  Regulatory        ................
 27/95).                               Reform and                       
                                       Relief Act.                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-  
  closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous question vote. Source:      
  Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress, as of    
  Feb. 27, 1995.                                                        

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Colorado, Mr. 
McInnis, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
bringing this resolution to the Floor. H. Res. 100 is an open rule 
which will allow full and fair debate on the Regulatory Reform and 
Relief Act. As my colleague from Colorado has ably described, this rule 
provides 90 minutes of general debate, 60 minutes for the Committee on 
the Judiciary and 30 minutes for the Committee on Small Business.
  Under this rule, germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-
minute rule, the normal amending process in the House of 
Representatives. Most importantly, there is no overall time cap 
required by the rule which will ensure that all Members, on both sides 
of the aisle, will have the opportunity to offer their amendments. I am 
pleased that the Rule Committee was able to report this rule without 
opposition in a voice vote and I plan to support it.
  Although I do support the rule, I am concerned about the broad nature 
of this legislation, and I want to explore its actual impact on the 
regulatory process before casting my vote on the bill itself. I am well 
aware of the need to make the regulatory process more sensitive to the 
reality of running a small business. I was a small businessman myself 
and can sympathize with the overwhelmingly difficult task of conforming 
to government requirements. Certainly reform needs to be taken and the 
regulatory process simplified.
  However, I am troubled by the fact that this bill makes no attempt to 
identify specific problem areas and correct them. Rather, it utilizes a 
blanket approach by requiring complicated, costly and time-consuming 
studies on any major rule with an annual effect on the economy of $50 
million. For the past 20 years, every Administration, Republican and 
Democratic alike, has defined a major rule with a $100 million 
benchmark. Lowering the threshold in this way will only create more 
work and paper for the bureaucracy at a time in which we are reducing 
government.
  Another problem with this legislation is that it is very costly. EPA 
alone estimates it will cost taxpayers up to $1.6 million for each 
Regulatory Impact Analysis and risk assessment. In addition, 
regulations could be delayed for up to 2 years. While a delay of this 
length may not be harmful in some areas, it is not acceptable for rules 
that pertain to true health and safety--drinking water, airplane 
safety, disaster assistance, food protection, and many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the amending process will enable improvements to 
be made to this legislation. We need regulatory reform. But we need to 
slow down and do this in a deliberative way so that our reform is 
sensible and responds to real problems, not rhetoric.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, we have an open rule on 
this bill which I will support. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting for it.
  Mr. McGINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as may consume to my 
friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this 
time. The gentleman is a very valuable new member of the Committee on 
Rules, and we appreciate his being there.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of another completely open rule 
from the Committee on Rules. I rise further to enthusiastically support 
this bill. H.R. 926 is the fourth of five bills that make up what was 
H.R. 9, the Job Creation Wage and Enhancement Act in the Contract With 
America. This bill improves that bill, which was signed into law by 
President Jimmy Carter on September 19, 1980.
  Later this week the House will take up H.R. 925, the Private Property 
Protection Act, which is the last of the regulatory reform bills and 
which is the one that really excites me. I cannot wait to get this bill 
onto this floor and get it passed after all these years.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said this often in the past 2 weeks, but I will 
say it again: Legislation like the measure before this House today is 
exactly why I came to Congress 16 years ago. The Federal regulatory 
process is just as out of control today as it was in 1978 and, as a 
matter of fact, perhaps it may be even worse. [[Page H2376]] 
  Mr. Speaker, we in this Congress must change the philosophy of the 
Federal Government to regulate every facet of our lives. Throughout our 
deliberations we must be conscious of the small businessman. I will say 
to my friend, Tony Hall, I was a small businessman too when I came 
here, so-called little guy, who just happens to create 75 percent of 
all the new jobs in America every single year, 75 percent of the new 
jobs.
  H.R. 926 will help free the small businessman from these kind of 
burdensome, job-killing regulations and direct the President to enact a 
citizens regulatory bill of rights, something he does not appear to 
want to do.
                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 926 amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act which 
sought to ensure that agencies fit regulations and informational 
requirements to the scale of the business or organization or 
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.
  This is based on the idea that the size of an entity significantly 
affects the cost of regulatory compliance. In other words, what that 
means is, regulations have a greater cost on smaller business than they 
do on larger business.
  This bill also will require Federal agencies to produce a regulatory 
impact analysis for regulations with an economic impact of more than 
$50 million, which means that the Federal Government will be more aware 
of the effect proposed rules will have on business.
  For example, the EPA is threatening thousands of jobs in upstate New 
York in the district which regulates, that sets emission standards for 
the pulp and paper industry. The EPA regulations were created without a 
cost-benefit analysis. Now, the costs of the same regulations are now 
threatening to close paper mills in my hometown of Glens Falls, NY, 
killing jobs and placing many hard-working people on the unemployment 
roles.
  Let me tell my colleagues, in upstate northern New York, where it is 
so cold there are few jobs up there, we cannot afford to lose one more 
much less thousands.
  I would like to finish my statement by pointing out that there 
appears to be a great deal of consensus on this bill. I understand that 
both Republican and Democrat amendments were adopted in the committee, 
that the bill was favorably reported out of committee by a voice vote 
and that the rule was unanimously voted out of the Committee on Rules. 
That does not always happen. But when we have an open rule like this, 
it is a pleasure to bring it to the floor.
  With that, I urge strong support of the rule on this much-needed 
bill.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary who chairs the subcommittee that reported this 
legislation.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  The gentleman from Colorado, aided and abetted by the gentleman from 
Ohio and later by the gentleman from New York have very amply outlined 
the parameters of the legislation in the debate that is forthcoming as 
we begin the process again tomorrow.
  What I wanted to add to their preview is what has been generally 
understood, that this is from the very beginning a bipartisan effort, 
at least to bring the issue to the floor.
  In the committee, where hearings, extensive hearings were held, the 
testimony was such that it actually created the basis for the final 
language that appears in this legislation.
  Members will recall that the original bill, which we changed as bit, 
had reference to an executive order issued by then-President Reagan. It 
formed the level of provisions that were found in the bill that was 
referred to our committee. But we, working together, were able to 
provide a new bill reflecting the best of the executive orders, adding 
some zest of our own into the process and listening very carefully to 
the witnesses on the whole host of issues that found themselves 
resolved in the final language.
  This does not mean that all of the issues were resolved. The 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] and I have agreed that there is 
going to be disagreement. We also have agreed that jointly we are going 
to offer an en bloc amendment that will satisfy some of the other 
problems which we encountered and which we jointly decided to resolve.
  After that, who knows what is going to happen, but in the final 
analysis, when we have completed this bill, we will have gone a long 
way in bringing to fruition another part of the Contract With America 
which just happens to coincide with the will of many of the Members on 
the Democratic side who never even knew about the Contract With America 
and who are not, of course, signatories of the Contract With America, 
but who have the joint feel for the necessity to do something about 
regulatory reform.
  We will begin tomorrow. I will end by thanking now in advance, 
because I might be angered by the time debate is over tomorrow, but I 
will now thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his cooperation and 
all those who will be participating.
  I will save my anger for those who oppose me tomorrow.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank the gentleman for his 
cooperation today, and I look forward to tomorrow and for a vigorous 
debate.
  Mr. GEKAS. Vigorous and vitriolic, maybe.
  Mr. REED. And educational.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________